Is Brahman same as Buddhist void(sunyata)

[Akshara]

Your answer is self defeating. Unborn means eternal. The unborn existed before the phenomena came and passed. The unborn existed before the temporary "state of mind" you refer to as liberation (lol).
Your whole world of ideas are just within the realm of fantasies.

Actually, Spiney Norman is right here, and that unconditioned state of mind is Rigpa.

 

[crossfire]

Ud 8.3

PTS:Ud 80

Nibbāna Sutta: Parinibbana (3)

There is, bhikkhus, a not-born, a not-brought-to-being, a not-made, a not-conditioned. If, bhikkhus, there were no not-born, not-brought-to-being, not-made, not-conditioned, no escape would be discerned from what is born, brought-to-being, made, conditioned. But since there is a not-born, a not-brought-to-being, a not-made, a not-conditioned, therefore an escape is discerned from what is born, brought-to-being, made, conditioned.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/ud/ud.8.03.irel.html


Ud 8.1

PTS:Ud 80

Nibbāna Sutta: Parinibbana (1)

There is, bhikkhus, that base where there is no earth, no water, no fire, no air; no base consisting of the infinity of space, no base consisting of the infinity of consciousness, no base consisting of nothingness, no base consisting of neither-perception-nor-non-perception; neither this world nor another world nor both; neither sun nor moon. Here, bhikkhus, I say there is no coming, no going, no staying, no deceasing, no uprising. Not fixed, not movable, it has no support. Just this is the end of suffering.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/ud/ud.8.01.irel.html

Pali-English Dictionary definition

Āyatana



Āyatana (nt.) [Sk. āyatana, not found in the Vedas; but freq. in BSk. From ā + yam, cp. āyata. The pl. is āyatanā at S iv.70. -- For full definition of term as seen by the Pāli Commentators see Bdhgh's expln at DA i. 124, 125, with which cp. the popular etym. at KhA 82: "āyassa vā tananato āyatassa vā saŋsāradukkhassa nayanato āyatanāni" and at Vism 527 "āye tanoti āyatañ ca nayatī ti ā."] -- 1. stretch, extent, reach, compass, region; sphere, locus, place, spot; position, occasion (corresponding to Bdhgh's definition at DA i.124 as "samosaraṇa") D iii.241, 279 (vimutti˚); S ii.41, 269; iv.217; v.119 sq., 318. sq.; A iii.141 (ariya˚); v.61 (abhibh˚, q. v.) Sn 406 (rajass˚ "haunt of passion" = rāgādi -- rajassa uppatti -- deso SnA 381); J i.80 (raj˚). Freq. in phrase araññ˚ a lonely spot, a spot in the forest J i.173; VvA 301; PvA 42, 54. -- 2. exertion, doing, working, practice, performance (comprising Bdhgh's definition at DA i.124 as paññatti), usually -- ˚, viz. kamm˚ Nd1 505; Vbh 324, 353; kasiṇ˚ A v.46 sq., 60; Ps i.28; titth˚ A i.173, 175; Vbh 145, 367; sipp˚ (art, craft) D i.51; Nd2 505; Vbh 324, 353; cp. an˚ non -- exertion, indolence, sluggishness J v.121. -- 3. sphere of perception or sense in general, object of thought, sense -- organ & object; relation, order. -- Cpd. p. 183 says rightly: "āyatana cannot be rendered by a single English word to cover both sense -- organs (the mind being regarded as 6th sense) and sense objects". -- These āyatanāni (relations, functions, reciprocalities) are thus divided into two groups, inner (ajjhattikāni) and outer (bāhirāni), and comprise the foll.: (a) ajjhatt˚: 1. cakkhu eye, 2. sota ear, 3. ghāna nose, 4. jivhā tongue, 5. kāya body, 6. mano mind; (b) bāh˚: 1. rūpa visible object, 2. sadda sound, 3. gandha odour, 4. rasa taste, 5. phoṭṭhabba tangible object, 6. dhamma cognizable object. -- For details as regards connotation & application see Dhs trsl. introduction li sq. Cpd. 90 n. 2; 254 sq. -- Approximately covering this meaning (3) is Bdhgh's definition of āyatana at DA i.124 as sañjāti and as kāraṇa (origin & cause, i. e. mutually occasioning & conditioning relations or adaptations). See also Nd2 under rūpa for further classifications. -- For the above mentioned 12 āyatanāni see the foll. passages: D ii.302 sq.; iii.102, 243; A iii.400; v.52; Sn 373 (cp. SnA 366); Ps i.7, 22, 101, 137; ii. 181, 225, 230; Dhs 1335; Vbh 401 sq.; Nett 57, 82; Vism 481; ThA 49, 285. Of these 6 are mentioned at S i.113, ii.3; iv.100, 174 sq.; It 114; Vbh 135 sq., 294; Nett 13, 28, 30; Vism 565 sq. Other sets of 10 at Nett 69; of 4 at D ii.112, 156; of 2 at D ii.69. -- Here also belongs ākāsɔ ānañcɔ āyatana, ākiñcaññ˚ etc. (see under ākāsa etc. and s. v.), e. g. at D i.34 sq., 183; A iv.451 sq.; Vbh 172, 189, 262 sq.; Vism 324 sq. -- Unclassified passages: M i.61; ii.233; iii.32, 216, 273; S i.196; ii.6, 8, 24, 72 sq.; iii.228; iv.98; v.426; A i.113, 163, 225; iii.17, 27, 82, 426; iv.146, 426; v.30, 321, 351, 359; Nd1 109, 133, 171, 340; J i.381 (paripuṇṇa˚); Vbh 412 sq. (id.).
-- uppāda birth of the āyatanas (see above 3) Vin i.185. -- kusala skilled in the ā. M iii.63. -- kusalatā skill in the spheres (of sense) D iii.212; Dhs 1335. -- ṭṭha founded in the sense -- organs Ps i.132; ii.121.​

This sphere cannot be detected by the senses, only by negation of what can be sensed. In that regard, it has no sense-base associated with it.

 

[Akshara]

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.

Wait... So the Buddha realized Brahman, didnt know it, tryed to refute Brahman to others, and yet emptiness is Brahman?

I guess just like Brahman can fall into Avidya according to Advaita, the Buddha can also have no clue about what he is talking about according to advaita?

 

[crossfire]

Ud 8.3

PTS:Ud 80

Nibbāna Sutta: Parinibbana (3)

There is, bhikkhus, a not-born, a not-brought-to-being, a not-made, a not-conditioned. If, bhikkhus, there were no not-born, not-brought-to-being, not-made, not-conditioned, no escape would be discerned from what is born, brought-to-being, made, conditioned. But since there is a not-born, a not-brought-to-being, a not-made, a not-conditioned, therefore an escape is discerned from what is born, brought-to-being, made, conditioned.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/ud/ud.8.03.irel.html


Ud 8.1

I already posted the definition for ajāta as not-jāta in post #86 above. (not born)

PTS:Ud 80

Nibbāna Sutta: Parinibbana (1)

There is, bhikkhus, that base where there is no earth, no water, no fire, no air; no base consisting of the infinity of space, no base consisting of the infinity of consciousness, no base consisting of nothingness, no base consisting of neither-perception-nor-non-perception; neither this world nor another world nor both; neither sun nor moon. Here, bhikkhus, I say there is no coming, no going, no staying, no deceasing, no uprising. Not fixed, not movable, it has no support. Just this is the end of suffering.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/ud/ud.8.01.irel.html

I posted the definition for Āyatana in post #102. (sphere or realm associated with a sense object. This realm, however, has no sense object associated with it, hence the reference to the unborn (in regards to sense and sense objects.) This can be discerned from the dispersion of all sense objects.

 

[Akshara]

Oh, and if it makes any Advaita Hindus happy, Chogyam Trunga (a celebrarated and highly attained Buddhist teacher who evidently attained the Rainbow body), said that Rigpa and Brahman are different, said Buddhisn and Hinduism are different, and HEAVILY criticized the Hindu concept of Prakriti and Purusha.

But hey, maybe some Acharyas are right, Advaita is an undercover form of Buddhism, though you can find from Adi Shankaras Bhashyas that it wasnt intended to degrade into that.

Id love to someday see more Hindus with a backbone who stand up for their own religion instead of degrading it into a people pleasing, radical universalist religion in which their followers dont follow Hindu Philosophy.

 

[Ekanta]

Where else can Nibbana be experienced but in the mind? In this passage "base" refers to states of mind, which here includes the meditative states of the four formless jhanas. What else could a "base" be?
Note that in the suttas the standard definition of Nibbana is the cessation of craving, aversion and ignorance, ie the cessation of unskillfull mental states.

So according to you, Nirvana ends with death then, when the mind dies? Since you write: "base refers to states of mind".
And yet Buddha said clearly, ITS NOT A MENTAL STATE.
"There is, bhikkhus, that base where there is no... no base consisting of the infinity of consciousness"
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/ud/ud.8.01.irel.html

But you still haven't answered my questions:
What exactly is the "eternal aspect" you referred to?
What happens to this "eternal aspect" when a Buddha dies? Does it go somewhere?

Its called buddha-nature and doesnt go or come. (plz dont ask same question over and over)

Well, so you all know... I dont really have any hope for the people I talked with here, I just posted for other readers to see it. Its for their sake.

 

[crossfire]

So according to you, Nirvana ends with death then, when the mind dies? Since you write: "base refers to states of mind".
And yet Buddha said clearly, ITS NOT A MENTAL STATE.
"There is, bhikkhus, that base where there is no... no base consisting of the infinity of consciousness"
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/ud/ud.8.01.irel.html


Its called buddha-nature and doesnt go or come. (plz dont ask same question over and over)

Well, so you all know... I dont really have any hope for the people I talked with here, I just posted for other readers to see it. Its for their sake.

Ekanta, see post #102 please.

 

[Ekanta]

This sphere cannot be detected by the senses, only by negation of what can be sensed. In that regard, it has no sense-base associated with it.

I posted the definition for Āyatana in post #102. (sphere or realm associated with a sense object. This realm, however, has no sense object associated with it, hence the reference to the unborn (in regards to sense and sense objects.) This can be discerned from the dispersion of all sense objects.

Ekanta, see post #102 please.

Ok, I see:
Āyatana…
1. stretch, extent, reach, compass, region; sphere, locus, place, spot; position, occasion
2. exertion, doing, working, practice, performance
3.sphere of perception or sense in general, object of thought, sense -- organ & object; relation, order.

So, as we can see, the word can mean several things. Clearly base is not that wrong, since its similar to sphere, locus, place, spot; position.
But lets say you are right. Lets say its a mental state with "no sense object associated with it"
You still run into the problem that:

Buddha said clearly, ITS NOT A MENTAL STATE.
"There is, bhikkhus, that base where there is no... no base consisting of the infinity of consciousness"
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/ud/ud.8.01.irel.html

Edited: Unless you propose that a mind empty of objects is nirvana.

 

[crossfire]

Ok, I see:
Āyatana…
1. stretch, extent, reach, compass, region; sphere, locus, place, spot; position, occasion
2. exertion, doing, working, practice, performance
3.sphere of perception or sense in general, object of thought, sense -- organ & object; relation, order.

So, as we can see, the word can mean several things. Clearly base is not that wrong, since its similar to sphere, locus, place, spot; position.
But lets say you are right. Lets say its a mental state with "no sense object associated with it"
You still run into the problem that:

Buddha said clearly, ITS NOT A MENTAL STATE.
"There is, bhikkhus, that base where there is no... no base consisting of the infinity of consciousness"
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/ud/ud.8.01.irel.html

It is discerned through negation. (Don't you recognize this sutta employing neti-neti?) You ferret out everything that can be ferreted out. Once everything has been ferreted out, that is how it is discerned--nothing left to ferret out.

 

[Ekanta]

It is discerned through negation. (Don't you recognize this sutta employing neti-neti?) You ferret out everything that can be ferreted out. Once everything has been ferreted out, that is how it is discerned--nothing left to ferret out.

I understand what you are saying. But we still have the problem that:

Buddha said clearly, ITS NOT A MENTAL STATE, whether there are objects or not.
"There is, bhikkhus, that base where there is no earth, no water, no fire, no air; no base consisting of the infinity of space, no base consisting of the infinity of consciousness (na viññānañcāyatanaṃ), no base consisting of nothingness, no base consisting of neither-perception-nor-non-perception; neither this world nor another world nor both; neither sun nor moon. Here, bhikkhus, I say there is no coming, no going, no staying, no deceasing, no uprising. Not fixed, not movable, it has no support. Just this is the end of suffering."
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/ud/ud.8.01.irel.html

And we still have the problem that even if it was a mental state (and no sense object associated with it)... it would be totally useless, since when the mind ends, it would end with it.

 

[crossfire]

I understand what you are saying. But we still have the problem that:

Buddha said clearly, ITS NOT A MENTAL STATE, whether there are objects or not.
"There is, bhikkhus, that base where there is no earth, no water, no fire, no air; no base consisting of the infinity of space, no base consisting of the infinity of consciousness (na viññānañcāyatanaṃ), no base consisting of nothingness, no base consisting of neither-perception-nor-non-perception; neither this world nor another world nor both; neither sun nor moon. Here, bhikkhus, I say there is no coming, no going, no staying, no deceasing, no uprising. Not fixed, not movable, it has no support. Just this is the end of suffering."
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/ud/ud.8.01.irel.html

And we still have the problem that even if it was a mental state (and no sense object associated with it)... it would be totally useless, since when the mind ends, it would end with it.

So why are you insisting it is eternal then?

 

[Ekanta]

Also remember:
"it has no support"
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/ud/ud.8.01.irel.html
So it cant depend on anyting else, like the mind or whatever mental state you want.

 

[crossfire]

Also remember:
"it has no support"
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/ud/ud.8.01.irel.html
So it cant depend on anyting else, like the mind or whatever mental state you want.

The word in the sutta is anārammaṇamevetaṃ.
http://dsalsrv02.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.0:1:2897.pali
Ārammaṇa (The an-prefix would indicate negative)

Ārammaṇa (nt.) [cp. Sk. ālambana, lamb, but in meaning confounded with rambh (see rabhati)] primary meaning "foundation", from this applied in the foll. senses: (1) support, help, footing, expedient, anything to be depended upon as a means of achieving what is desired, i. e. basis of operation, chance Sn 1069 (= ālambana, nissaya, upanissaya Nd2 132); Pv i.41 (yaŋ kiñcɔ ārammaṇaŋ katvā); ārammaṇaŋ labhati (+ otāraŋ labhati) to get the chance S ii.268; iv.185. -- (2) condition, ground, cause, means, esp. a cause of desire or clinging to life, pl. ˚ā causes of rebirth (interpreted by taṇhā at Nd1 429), lust Sn 474 (= paccayā SnA 410), 945 (= Nd1 429); KhA 23; DhA i.288 (sappāy˚); PvA 279. -- (3) a basis for the working of the mind & intellect; i. e. sense -- object, object of thought or consciousness, the outward constituent in the relation of subject & object, object in general. In this meaning of "relation" it is closely connected with āyatana (see āyatana3), so that it sometimes takes its place, it is also similar to visaya. Cpd. 3 distinguishes a 5 fold object, viz. citta, cetasika, pasāda -- & sukhuma -- rūpa, paññatti, nibbāna. See on term especially Cpd. 3, 14; Dhs trsl. xli. & 209. -- A 1. sq.; iv.385; Sn 506; Ps i.57 sq., 84 (four ā.); ii.97, 118, 143; Dhs 1 (dhamm˚ object of ideation), 180, 584, 1186 et passim; Vbh 12, 79, 92, 319, 332 (four); Nett 191 (six); Vism 87 sq., 375 (˚sankantika), 430 sq. (in var. sets with ref. to var. objects), 533; DhsA 48, 127; VvA 11, 38. -- rūpārammaṇa lit. dependence on form, i. e. object of sight, visible form, especially striking appearance, visibility, sight D iii.228; S iii.53; A i.82; J i.304; ii.439, 442; PvA 265. <-> ārammaṇaŋ karoti to make it an object (of intellection or intention), to make it one's concern (cp. Pv i.41, above 1). -- ārammaṇa -- kusala clever in the objects (of meditation) S iii.266; ā˚ -- paccayatā relation of presentation (i. e. of subj. & obj.) Nett 80. -- (4) ( -- ˚) (adj.) being supported by, depending on, centred in, concentrated upon PvA 8 (nissay˚), 98 (ek˚)​

 

[crossfire]

Also remember:
"it has no support"
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/ud/ud.8.01.irel.html
So it cant depend on anyting else, like the mind or whatever mental state you want.

That doesn't necessarily make it eternal. (You wouldn't be able to perceive it via negation without mind, so how can you claim eternal?)

 

[crossfire]

Also remember:
"it has no support"
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/ud/ud.8.01.irel.html
So it cant depend on anyting else, like the mind or whatever mental state you want.

It's also not Sunyata, (reference to thread title) otherwise Buddha would have called it such.

 

[Ekanta]

So why are you insisting it is eternal then?

Because its called unborn
"There is, bhikkhus, a not-born, a not-brought-to-being, a not-made, a not-conditioned. "
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/ud/ud.8.03.irel.html

Because its called deathless
Verse 114: Better than a hundred years in the life of a person who does not perceive the Deathless (Nibbana), is a day in the life of one who perceives the Deathless (Nibbana).
http://www.tipitaka.net/tipitaka/dhp/verseload.php?verse=114

 

[Ekanta]

Because it has no support, it doesnt depent on causality, hence its unborn and deathless.
Buddha also didnt call it the chilling place, but we can do so today

 

[Ekanta]

It's also not Sunyata, (reference to thread title) otherwise Buddha would have called it such.

There is, bhikkhus, that base where there is no earth, no water, no fire, no air; no base consisting of the infinity of space, no base consisting of the infinity of consciousness, no base consisting of nothingness, no base consisting of neither-perception-nor-non-perception; neither this world nor another world nor both; neither sun nor moon. Here, bhikkhus, I say there is no coming, no going, no staying, no deceasing, no uprising. Not fixed, not movable, it has no support.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/ud/ud.8.01.irel.html

There is, bhikkhus, a not-born, a not-brought-to-being, a not-made, a not-conditioned.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/ud/ud.8.03.irel.html

Seems to me that the unborn, the nirvana, the buddha-nature is EMPTY of all the samsaric characteristics.

 

[psychoslice]

Actually it's a pointer, or a hypothesis. One has to investigate experience closely to see if it's valid. Can you find anything permanent and independent in your experience, or is it all transient and conditional?

Yes it is only a pointer, and only the one who experiences that which is pointed to or the pointer is useless. The only thing that is permanent is the Source, everything else is as you said, transient and conditional, but who we truly are is permanent, we were never born and we will never die.

 

[psychoslice]

It's fine to question, but if you don't have a proper understanding of what you're questioning then it's rather pointless.

Sunyata is misunderstood by many people, they simply don't get it. Other people begin to understand it and then back away because it scares the hell out of them.

Yes while we are investigating with the mind we will always back away, for the mind doesn't want to hear anything that may bring it to a close, this is because of conditioning and programming.