Is Brahman same as Buddhist void(sunyata)

[Rick O'Shez]

I do not think you are getting 'my sunyata' (or are avoiding it). Empty of what? That does not necessarily mean 'nihilism' - that nothing exists in the world. Buddha was against that.

I think you misunderstood what I said. Sunyata means empty of inherent or independent existence, it means that all phenomena arise dependently. Sunyata is about conditionality, not nothingness.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lewis...misunderstood-word-in-buddhism_b_2769189.html

 

[Aupmanyav]

I think you misunderstood what I said. Sunyata means empty of inherent or independent existence, it means that all phenomena arise dependently. Sunyata is about conditionality, not nothingness.

OK, that is correct. As per Hinduism, the dependence is on Brahman. The only difference is that Buddha was non-committal on this as well as some other things, which he rightly thought did not help in cessation of 'duhkhas'. My homage to Lord Buddha.

 

[Stormcry]

In fact, so called void of Buddhism is the Brahman of Hinduism.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

In fact, so called void of Buddhism is the Brahman of Hinduism.

No it isn't. Sunyata is emptiness of inherent existence and therefore incompatible with absolutes like Brahman.

 

[crossfire]

Perhaps we should move this thread to debates?

 

[Ekanta]

In fact, so called void of Buddhism is the Brahman of Hinduism.

No it isn't. Sunyata is emptiness of inherent existence and therefore incompatible with absolutes like Brahman.

We can see what the Nirvana sutra says:

From Nirvana sutra:
"[The perfected Bodhisattva] is endowed with perfect Knowing [jnana]. Knowing is perceiving Eternity, Bliss, the Self, and Purity in the Tathagata and that all beings are endowed with the Buddha-dhatu. He sees the two attributes / aspects of dharmas [phenomena]: emptiness and non-emptiness; eternity and impermanence; bliss and non-bliss; the Self and the non-Self; purity and impurity...".
http://www.nirvanasutra.net/selectedextracts1j.htm

"Emptiness [shunyata] means that one can find nothing even after having sought it. Although the Nirgranthas [Jains] also have a 'nothing', Liberation is not like that. Emptiness is like this: concerning a honey jar, a butter jar, an oil jar, a water jar, or a yoghurt jar, no matter whether there is any yoghurt in the jar or not, it is still called a 'yoghurt jar', and similarly no matter whether there is any honey or water there or not, one still calls them a honey jar or a water jar. How can one then say that the jar is empty or that the jar is intrinsically empty in the absence of that [yoghurt and so forth]? If it has both form and colour, how is it empty? Liberation is not that sort of [utter] emptiness, for Liberation also has a perfection of shape and colour and thus, just as one says that a yoghurt pot is empty because there is no yoghurt in it, even though one perceives that it is not empty, one says that Liberation is empty, while it is not [actually] empty. How can one say that it is empty while it has form [rupa]? The term, 'empty', is applied to Liberation because it is devoid of the various aspects of the kleshas [mental afflictions], the 25 conventional modes of existence, suffering, mundane teachings, observances and arising perceptual domains, just as the yoghurt jar is devoid of yoghurt. Just as the form of the jar itself remains immutably, there is regarding [Liberation] utter Bliss, Joy, Permanence [nitya], Stability / Unshakeability [dhruva], Eternity [sasvata], supramundane Dharma, observances and perceptual domains. Like the form of the jar, Liberation is Permanent, Stable and Eternal; but the jar will [eventually] get broken, becaue it is merely established through causal circumstances. Because Liberation [moksha] is not created [akrta], it will not perish. That which is Liberation is an unfabricated Dhatu [Element], and that is the Tathagata (emphasis added)."

So according to Nirvana sutra, emptiness means empty of change. Its not empty as in "nothing". Empty of change or "the jar without water" is the same as nirguna brahman.

Edited: "emptiness of inherent existence" can be understood as... lets take the analogy of the movie pictures and movie screen on a cinema. The pictures on their own can be said to be "empty of inherent existence"... That is one aspect, the impermanence. The other aspect is the movie screen, the permanent, unborn, which can be said to be the true essence of the phenomena.
Both hinayana and mahayana clearly says there is a permanent unborn. Nirvana sutra (mahayana) is extremely clear on the subject.
Now remember, "The perfected Bodhisattva... sees the two attributes".

 

[Akshara]

Hello,

With all do respect i am quite suprised that some Advaita Hindus on this forum would believe that the buddhist Shunyata is anything like or comparable to Brahman.

Basically the buddhist philosophical concept of Shunyata is their very complex refutation of Brahman by saying nothing inherently exists, or in other words, nothing is self-dependant, which is probably the main characteristic of Brahman in Advaita, that it is self-luminous and is not dependant on anything else.

Emptiness isnt a state and it isnt where form literally comes from. Emtiness is the objective correlate of egolessness, not a literal void. It is the world and how it appears without being filtered through the ego and conceptualization. Even the shentong madhyamakas agree that emptiness isnt the source of creation the way Advaitins believe Brahman is.

Trust me, if the Buddha himself saw that Shunyata was different from Brahman, Adi Shankara saw that Brahman was different from Shunyata, well im betting they are different.

Those who read traditional Advaita and Traditional Vajrayana, Mahayana, and Theravada Buddhism, will clearly see that the Buddha and Advaitins are experiancing two seperate meditative realities.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

It is quite rude that some Hindus wish to misinterpret and force their misconceptions of Buddhism onto Buddhists in an effort to assimilate them under Hinduism, whereas Buddhists have long maintained their own separate identity, beliefs and practices.. I've noticed that it's Hindutva types (i.e. Hindu fascists) who tend to do this the most. Stop it.

 

[psychoslice]

Yes the Brahman is the same as the Buddha, as also the Christ, and the Krishna, its all the same.

 

[Akshara]

It is quite rude that some Hindus wish to misinterpret and force their misconceptions of Buddhism onto Buddhists in an effort to assimilate them under Hinduism, whereas Buddhists have long maintained their own separate identity, beliefs and practices.. I've noticed that it's Hindutva types (i.e. Hindu fascists) who tend to do this the most. Stop it.

Thank you for this, I think its odd how many hindus try to warp the philosophy of buddhism to try and make it hindu, when buddhisn itself is a refutation of many foundational philosophical concepts of hinduism. In my opinion hindus who do this are destroying the efforts made by adi shankara to revitalize the vedic tradition by refuting buddhist philosophy.

 

[psychoslice]

Thank you for this, I think its odd how many hindus try to warp the philosophy of buddhism to try and make it hindu, when buddhisn itself is a refutation of many foundational philosophical concepts of hinduism. In my opinion hindus who do this are destroying the efforts made by adi shankara to revitalize the vedic tradition by refuting buddhist philosophy.

Its good that you are questioning Hinduism, because no ideology is ever completely true, no matter who.

 

[YmirGF]

Hello,

With all do respect i am quite suprised that some Advaita Hindus on this forum would believe that the buddhist Shunyata is anything like or comparable to Brahman.

Basically the buddhist philosophical concept of Shunyata is their very complex refutation of Brahman by saying nothing inherently exists, or in other words, nothing is self-dependant, which is probably the main characteristic of Brahman in Advaita, that it is self-luminous and is not dependant on anything else.

Emptiness isnt a state and it isnt where form literally comes from. Emtiness is the objective correlate of egolessness, not a literal void. It is the world and how it appears without being filtered through the ego and conceptualization. Even the shentong madhyamakas agree that emptiness isnt the source of creation the way Advaitins believe Brahman is.

Trust me, if the Buddha himself saw that Shunyata was different from Brahman, Adi Shankara saw that Brahman was different from Shunyata, well im betting they are different.

Those who read traditional Advaita and Traditional Vajrayana, Mahayana, and Theravada Buddhism, will clearly see that the Buddha and Advaitins are experiancing two seperate meditative realities.

Further to this, Buddha would have been well aware of the concept of Brahman and if he had thought they were the same he would have flat out said so.

 

[psychoslice]

Further to this, Buddha would have been well aware of the concept of Brahman and if he had thought they were the same he would have flat out said so.

But the Buddha saw everything as One, no matter what label was given to it, even the word Buddha is a concept, that means nothing.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Further to this, Buddha would have been well aware of the concept of Brahman and if he had thought they were the same he would have flat out said so.

Yes of course, and the Buddha mentions Brahman regularly in the suttas.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Yes the Brahman is the same as the Buddha, as also the Christ, and the Krishna, its all the same.

Wrong. Brahman is God, Buddha was a man and Christ was something in between.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Basically the buddhist philosophical concept of Shunyata is their very complex refutation of Brahman by saying nothing inherently exists, or in other words, nothing is self-dependant, which is probably the main characteristic of Brahman in Advaita, that it is self-luminous and is not dependant on anything else.

Exactly so. It puzzles me that there are people who don't understand this basic incompatibility. Or perhaps don't want to understand it?

 

[psychoslice]

Yes of course, and the Buddha mentions Brahman regularly in the suttas.

Yes but this is nothing more than a concept, the Buddha had no idea of what Brahman was, he realized it, he lived it, but he didn't know what it was, so lets not build a belief system over something that we have no idea about.

 

[psychoslice]

Wrong. Brahman is God, Buddha was a man and Christ was something in between.

How do you know that ?.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

But the Buddha saw everything as One, no matter what label was given to it, even the word Buddha is a concept, that means nothing.

Woolly sycretism.

 

[psychoslice]

Wrong. Brahman is God, Buddha was a man and Christ was something in between.

No your wrong, they were all the same, its only your mind that is separating them from each other.