He did not mislead people; he redirected them.son of dhamma wrote:I don't find them Brahmanically. I don't think the Buddha would have spoken in a way to mislead people.
He was far more sophisticated than than that. The literalism comes from his followers. Literalism does not require a very deep,, do you say that the Buddha decided to speak non-literally to convince all theistic-thinkers that they're correct in a sense, but they're missing the true Dhamma of it all? The Buddha was a literal teacher.
mature faith grounded in insight. Literalism is for those who want certainly in the face of insecurity, failing to recognize the wisdom of insecurity taught by the Buddha.