Is Brahman same as Buddhist void(sunyata)

[George-ananda]

Is Brahman same as Buddhist void(sunyata)

I'll go with a 'No' vote. Brahman is pure consciousness sat-chit-ananda (being-awareness-bliss). That sounds different than a 'void'.

 

[psychoslice]

Because, with all due respect, some people study philosophical concepts and understand them according to their religious context.

All that we know is from handed down knowledge which is from the past, the only way we ourselves can know is by our own experience, and even then we don't truly know, for that which is experience is secondary to that which IS, that which is experienced is always tainted by the mind that the experience was experienced through. Yes if our mind is purified by self inquiry the experience will be more refined, more pure, and more reliable, but still it is secondary to that which is beyond the mind.

 

[psychoslice]

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?

Yes and non of us really have a clue what were talking about, be that the Buddha or whoever, this is why I always say, find out for yourself and what you find keep it to yourself, because once we try to conceptualize what we believe we know, we then destroy what we know, it is reduced to a pointer, not that which was pointed to.

 

[Akshara]

Yes and non of us really have a clue what were talking about, be that the Buddha or whoever, this is why I always say, find out for yourself and what you find keep it to yourself, because once we try to conceptualize what we believe we know, we then destroy what we know, it is reduced to a pointer, not that which was pointed to.

If we really cant know anything, then how do you know the Buddha realized Brahman and he didnt know it and called it something else? Your view towards knowledge is bordering on a form of nihilism.

 

[psychoslice]

If we really cant know anything, then how do you know the Buddha realized Brahman and he didnt know it and called it something else? Your view towards knowledge is bordering on a form of nihilism.

Well I was just using that as an example, the Buddha had an experience of Enlightenment, and that experience changed his whole life, whatever he says about his experience isn't what truly is. We as the mind body organism cannot know what is beyond the mind, because the mind is the very thing that blocks what is beyond the mind, so everything the Buddha sais is only secondary to what he experienced. We have to stop putting so called god-men up on a pedestal, such as the Buddha, Christ, Krishna or whoever, for this will only get in our way of our own experience of Consciousness.
Knowledge is very useful in its place, but when it comes to knowing what is beyond the mind and trying to describe that, then knowledge is useless, we can only try to point to that which was experience, just what the Buddha tried to do, but sadly got caught up in ritualism, another trap made by the mind, the ego.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

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.
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

Your logic stinks. You acknowledge that "base" can mean state of mind then you claim it's not a state of mind because it's a base.

So what is Nibbana if not a state of mind? You made a vague reference to "eternal element" but you haven't explained what that is. You still haven't explained what happens to this "eternal element" when a Buddha dies. It's no good just bleating on about what Nibbana isn't, you need to explain what it is.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Yes if our mind is purified by self inquiry the experience will be more refined, more pure, and more reliable, but still it is secondary to that which is beyond the mind.

And what exactly is "beyond the mind"? In post #125 you said: "We as the mind body organism cannot know what is beyond the mind". I'm confused.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

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

Buddhist teaching negates both atman and Brahman, but some people just can't cope and want to smuggle them back in.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

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 if nibbana is an eternal "thing" or element what happens to it when a Buddha dies? Does it go to heaven or something?

You really do need to explain this because otherwise your argument is nonsense.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

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

In most Mahayana schools buddha-nature is the potential for enlightenment. Clearly you think it's something more but you won't explain what it is. So what is it? Some thing up in the sky? Some mysterious force hiding in the dark matter? Do tell.

 

[psychoslice]

And what exactly is "beyond the mind"? In post #125 you said: "We as the mind body organism cannot know what is beyond the mind". I'm confused.

What is beyond the mind is the Source, Consciousness, or whatever name you want, its the total of all there is, but it cannot be reduced to a concept or a mere label, it can be tasted, experienced, and even that isn't what IS.
The mind body organism cannot know what is beyond the mind, its just an organism doing what it is conditioned to do, it is only a puppet controlled by the Source, so we all may as well give into the Source and simply live, enjoying the ride, yea baby.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

What is beyond the mind is the Source, Consciousness, or whatever name you want,

I still don't get "beyond the mind". Isn't everything experienced in the mind? And if not, where is it experienced?

Is your "Source" equivalent to "God", or something else?

 

[psychoslice]

I still don't get "beyond the mind". Isn't everything experienced in the mind? And if not, where is it experienced?

Is your "Source" equivalent to "God", or something else?

Yes you could use the word God, or Nirvana or whatever tickles your fancy, this beyond the mind is what Gautama experienced, and try to point others to, but I believe it all got out of hand and was taken over by the ego, and made into a belief system, a beautiful belief system, but still a belief system.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Yes you could use the word God, or Nirvana or whatever tickles your fancy, this beyond the mind is what Gautama experienced, and try to point others to, but I believe it all got out of hand and was taken over by the ego, and made into a belief system, a beautiful belief system, but still a belief system.

I still don't get "beyond the mind". Isn't everything experienced in the mind? And if not, where is it experienced?

 

[Ekanta]

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

Your logic stinks. You acknowledge that "base" can mean state of mind then you claim it's not a state of mind because it's a base.

If buddha says its not a mental state, as quoted above (duh), then its not a mental state (duh). Its very clear, but you have problem with the obvious.

So what is Nibbana if not a state of mind? You made a vague reference to "eternal element" but you haven't explained what that is. You still haven't explained what happens to this "eternal element" when a Buddha dies. It's no good just bleating on about what Nibbana isn't, you need to explain what it is.

Its eternal (duh), nothing happens (duh), I have said it many times (duh). The unborn buddha-nature is the eternal. I will not repeat it anymore. I have given several verses both from pali canon and mahayana about this. I can not say anymore.

But YOU on the other hand hasnt answered my question, probably because you have no clue what to answer.
The question is:
If nirvana is a mental state, does it end when buddha dies, since the mind ceases to exist? Explain it!

 

[Rick O'Shez]

If nirvana is a mental state, does it end when buddha dies, since the mind ceases to exist? Explain it!

Since nibbana is a living experience then yes, I assume that experience ceases at death. I can't recall anything from the suttas which talks about about nirvana continuing beyond death. And surely everything is experienced in the mind - where else would nibbana be experienced?

You're claiming that nirvana continues beyond death. But what does that even mean? How is that possible? Are you saying that a Buddha goes to heaven when he dies, or some portion of his consciousness floats off into another dimension or something? What exactly are you saying? You need to give some detail, it's no good must making a bland assertion on a point like this.

As for Buddha-nature, most schools understand it as the potential for enlightenment, but again you are making it into some weird mystical thing. If Buddha-nature is eternal where was it before there were sentient beings? Where did it come from? What is it?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

If buddha says its not a mental state, as quoted above (duh), then its not a mental state (duh). Its very clear, but you have problem with the obvious.

No, I think you are the one having the problem. The sutta describes it as a base, and you acknowledged that "base" can mean a state of mind.
"There is, bhikkhus, that base where there is no..."

All the sutta is saying that is a particular kind of base, and lists the types of base which is it not. Note that the list of bases includes the formless jhanas which are meditative states, ie states of mind.
See here for a description of base: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayatana

 

[Ekanta]

Since nibbana is a living experience then yes, I assume that experience ceases at death. I can't recall anything from the suttas which talks about about nirvana continuing beyond death.
But if you're claiming that nirvana does continue beyond death, then you need to explain what this means and how it is possible. Are you saying effectively that a Buddha goes to heaven when he dies? What exactly are you saying? You need to give some detail, it's no good must making a bland assertion on a point like this.

Deathless(amata-dhamma; a synonym for Nibbana)
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/index-subject.html

…the City of Nibbana that is stainless, dustless, pure, fair, birthless, ageless, deathless, blissful, cooled, and without fear (Nagasena speaking)
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/horner/bl130.html

Comprehending the property of form, not taking a stance in the formless, those released in cessation are people who've left death behind. Having touched with his body the deathless property free from acquisitions, having realized the relinquishing of acquisitions, fermentation-free, the Rightly Self-awakened One teaches the state with no sorrow, no dust.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/iti/iti.3.050-099.than.html#iti-050

The unfashioned, the end, the effluent-less, the true, the beyond, the subtle, the very-hard-to-see, the ageless, permanence, the undecaying, the featureless, non-elaboration, peace, the deathless, the exquisite, bliss, solace, the exhaustion of craving, the wonderful, the marvelous, the secure, security, unbinding, the unafflicted, the passionless, the pure, release, non-attachment, the island, shelter, harbor, refuge, the ultimate.
— SN 43.1-44
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/khandha.html

Heedfulness: the path to the Deathless; Heedlessness: the path to death. The heedful do not die; the heedless are as if already dead. Knowing this as a true distinction, those wise in heedfulness rejoice in heedfulness, enjoying the range of the noble ones.
—Dhp 21-22
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/dhp/dhp.02.than.html#dhp-21

Superhuman is the bliss of a monk who, with mind at peace, Having entered a secluded place, Wins insight into Dhamma. When he fully comprehends the five groups' rise and fall, He wins to rapture and to joy — The Deathless this, for those who understand.
—Dhammapadavv. 373-374
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/mahasi/progress.html


Seems quite deathless to me!

And where is that place? Why should I answer when the sutta says it over and over:

Nibbāna Sutta: Parinibbana (Ud 8.1 )
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

Nibbāna Sutta: Parinibbana (Ud 8.3)
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

Nirvana (which is permanent) is beyond the 5 aggregates (which are impermanent). It has no location in space or any dimension since it has no support. Call it a fantasy if you want, but that is what the Buddha says.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Deathless(amata-dhamma; a synonym for Nibbana)

Deathless is another word for Nibbana, and Nibbana is a living experience.

But you still haven't answered my questions:
You're claiming that nirvana continues beyond death. But what does that even mean? How is that possible? Are you saying that a Buddha goes to heaven when he dies, or some portion of his consciousness floats off into another dimension or something? What exactly are you saying?

Stop just dumping in sutta quotes, answer the questions I have put to you.

 

[crossfire]

Here is a sutta describing what is meant by without support.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.053.than.html

Spoiler: Sutta text

At Savatthi. There the Blessed One said, "One attached is unreleased; one unattached is released. Should consciousness, when standing, stand attached to (a physical) form, supported by form (as its object),[1] landing on form, watered with delight, it would exhibit growth, increase, & proliferation.

"Should consciousness, when standing, stand attached to feeling, supported by feeling (as its object), landing on feeling, watered with delight, it would exhibit growth, increase, & proliferation.

"Should consciousness, when standing, stand attached to perception, supported by perception (as its object), landing on perception, watered with delight, it would exhibit growth, increase, & proliferation.

"Should consciousness, when standing, stand attached to fabrications, supported by fabrications (as its object), landing on fabrications, watered with delight, it would exhibit growth, increase, & proliferation.

"Were someone to say, 'I will describe a coming, a going, a passing away, an arising, a growth, an increase, or a proliferation of consciousness apart from form, from feeling, from perception, from fabrications,' that would be impossible.

"If a monk abandons passion for the property of form...

"If a monk abandons passion for the property of feeling...

"If a monk abandons passion for the property of perception...

"If a monk abandons passion for the property of fabrications...

"If a monk abandons passion for the property of consciousness, then owing to the abandonment of passion, the support is cut off, and there is no landing of consciousness. Consciousness, thus not having landed, not increasing, not concocting, is released. Owing to its release, it is steady. Owing to its steadiness, it is contented. Owing to its contentment, it is not agitated. Not agitated, he (the monk) is totally unbound right within. He discerns that 'Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.'"