Is Brahman same as Buddhist void(sunyata)

[Kirran]

It is a bit more than that. 'jna' is the root and when 'vi' is added it signifies 'division'. But vijnana has two aspects one a knowledge at mundane level and another at supermundane level, where it approaches prajna a and eventually remains as plain jnana -- knowledge without division.

I see, thankyou.

I was getting this from my translation of the Bhagavad Gita, which is translated by Eknath Easwaran and has commentary by him and by Diana Morrison.

 

[atanu]

There is no That apart from I. "I am That" is an instrument, albeit, an instrument that is considered to be a precursor to "neti neti", which gurus say leads to 'seer-seen-seeing' merging in non dual experience.

Still sounds like much adieu about nothing to me.

Adieu? You probably meant ado, in which case I conditionally agree, assuming that you are disappointed with a drab non dual experience.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

In the view of myself and atanu (right, atanu?) the atman and sukriya are one, they're the same thing. At the core of our being, the only thing which we actually are is that infinite indescribable, which we can call sukriya or Brahman or whatever you prefer.

It sounds like you are describing an experience of non-duality? So what happens when you die?

 

[Kirran]

It sounds like you are describing an experience of non-duality? So what happens when you die?

No plans on finding out any time soon!

I don't know. Whatever happens, it only occurs in maya anyway, has no impact upon atman/Brahman/Sukriya.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Whatever happens, it only occurs in maya anyway, has no impact upon atman/Brahman/Sukriya.

So with your system whatever experiences you have no impact on atman/Brahman/Sukriya? Does that include the experience of non-duality or moksha?
As I understand it moksha connotes freedom, self-realization and self-knowledge, but how does that experience depend on the presence of atman/Brahman/Sukriya?

Is atman/Brahman/Sukriya essentially a belief that you have, like other people believe in "God"?

 

[Ekanta]

Spiny... you pretend to know buddhim, and yet you know nothing about hindusim, the context in which buddhism come form? LOL?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Spiny... you pretend to know buddhim, and yet you know nothing about hindusim, the context in which buddhism come form? LOL?

Cut the childish sectarian comments and answer my questions.

1. You've claimed that Nibbana is "eternal" but what does actually mean? Explain the practicalities to me. What happens to what your so-called "eternal aspect" of a Buddha when he dies? Does a Buddha's Nibbana element merge with the great Nibbana in the sky? Does it go to Heaven or another dimension? What exactly?

2. How can sunyata, an expression of conditionality, be equated to Brahman, an absolute?

 

[crossfire]

Spiny... you pretend to know buddhim, and yet you know nothing about hindusim, the context in which buddhism come form? LOL?

Careful. Buddha specifically rejected much of what Hinduism of the time was all about. (Hence, the Nastika status of Buddhism.)

 

[Ekanta]

I have answered your questions spiny, but since you cant read and much less process the information, it doesnt help.

 

[YmirGF]

Adieu? You probably meant ado, in which case I conditionally agree, assuming that you are disappointed with a drab non dual experience.

You are quite correct about the Freudian slip, as it was very late when I wrote it. What is hilarious is that I had to correct the spelling of it! It is a curious alteration of the original line though.

Care to expand on the idea of "a drab non dual experience". You could shoot me a PM if you think that explanation would derail this thread.

 

[Aupmanyav]

So what happens when you die?

It is so simple that even a 15th Century weaver in India (Kabir) knew it.

'Jal mein kumbha kumbha mein jal hai, bahar bheetar paani,
phuta kumbha jal jal hi samana, ihi tath bole jnani'

The pitcher is in water and the pitcher contains water, there is water inside and outside,
when the pticher breaks, water mixes with water, the 'jnanis' only told this truth.

Care to expand on the idea of "a drab non dual experience".

Non-dual could be drab or most exciting depending on the person.

Careful. Buddha specifically rejected much of what Hinduism of the time was all about. (Hence, the Nastika status of Buddhism.)

Personally I do not think Buddha rejected anything from Hinduism, only added to it - practicality. Nastikas were always a part of Hinduism.

 

[Aupmanyav]

What happens to what your so-called "eternal aspect" of a Buddha when he dies? Does a Buddha's Nibbana element merge with the great Nibbana in the sky?

I think Buddha replied to it. He said Indra, Prajapati, Brahma and the other Gods in their entourage could not find Tathagata. And Brahman is just 'Neti, neti'. For the masses, he said do not indulge in such questions, as they don't help in cessation of sorrow.

How can sunyata, an expression of conditionality, be equated to Brahman, an absolute?

What if there is no difference between existence and non-existence? And 'Sunyata' is absence of 'Atta'.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Careful. Buddha specifically rejected much of what Hinduism of the time was all about.

It seems that some people can't cope with that.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

What if there is no difference between existence and non-existence? And 'Sunyata' is absence of 'Atta'.

Sunyata is conditionality and relativity, and therefore not compatible with absolutes.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Personally I do not think Buddha rejected anything from Hinduism, only added to it - practicality.

The Buddha rejected atman.

 

[psychoslice]

Brahman is nothing more than a label, it means all there IS, call it whatever, the Source, Consciousness, it doesn't matter, for the label isn't what is. whatever all that is means to you is all you need to know, and that's it. its all simple because we are all that which IS.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Brahman is nothing more than a label, it means all there IS, call it whatever, the Source, Consciousness, it doesn't matter, for the label isn't what is. whatever all that is means to you is all you need to know, and that's it. its all simple because we are all that which IS.

So couldn't we just say "the universe" instead. Wouldn't that be more accurate?

 

[psychoslice]

So couldn't we just say "the universe" instead. Wouldn't that be more accurate?

It doesn't matter what you call it, that isn't what it is, that is nothing more than a mere concept, you cannot escape concepts when using language of any kind.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Suttas like this confirm that Nibbana is all about insight. That is why mindfulness is the path to the Deathless ( Nibbana ).

Dhammapda verses 373-374 are revealing here:

"A monk with his mind at peace, going into an empty dwelling, clearly seeing the Dhamma aright: his delight is more than human.
However it is, however it is he touches the arising-&-passing of aggregates: he gains rapture & joy: that, for those who know it, is deathless, the Deathless."

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Then you go on to talk about "While the Arahant is still alive, he still experiences the five aggregates"... that is another topic, then he has come out of cessation of perception & feeling! Your "temporary Cessation of perception & feeling" is not the temporariness of the state, its the going in and out of the state (thats temporary).

Cessation of perception and feeling is not Nibbana.

Can you now answer my questions?