Is Brahman same as Buddhist void(sunyata)

[Ekanta]

And the Hamster wheel continues... gg, Im out.

 

[crossfire]

Instead of just parroting, why don't you tell us what you think those words actually mean, practically speaking?

Are you trying to prove that Nibbana is really Brahman? What is your agenda here?

It looks like he's trying to identify atman with nibbana.

 

[atanu]

Disagree. I don't identify self with any one state of mind or experience, or lack thereof. (Your mileage may vary)

I do not understand you here.

I said that with a vijnana that is created, formed, and born, it is not possible to discern that which is unborn, uncreated, and unformed.

 

[Willamena]

Is Brahman same as Buddhist void(sunyata)

No.

 

[atanu]

Instead of just parroting, why don't you tell us what you think those words actually mean, practically speaking?

Kindly use proper language. I have asked you a question in an earlier post. You did not answer, so I reminded that nibbana is unborn and unformed whereas our experieces are born and formed.

I am trying to make a point that it is not possible to discern nibbana that is unborn and unformed with a vijnana apparatus that is born and created of aggregates.

Are you trying to prove that Nibbana is really Brahman? What is your agenda here?

Agenda? Is that a proper word to use? Are we in a warfare or in politics?

I do not know your agenda. I have only one -- to attain to the knowledge of Brahman. All my contemplations and queries are directed to that.

I repeat that I am asking whether it is possible to discern with a born consciousness (born of aggregates) that which is nitya and independent of the aggregates. Can a character of a novel discern about its author?

In fact that is what is said of nibbana. It is said that it is because of the unborn and uncreated nibbana that one discerns the release from prison of samsara. And not the other way around.

Once we realise that the root of discernment is not in the aggregates that are born of various contacts but is rooted in the unborn all doubts will come to rest.

The root of discernment is not different for a Hindu or for a Muslim or for a Christian or for a Buddhist.

If you wish to label this understanding an 'agenda' then go ahead.

 

[crossfire]

I do not understand you here.

I said that with a vijnana that is created, formed, and born, it is not possible to discern that which is unborn, uncreated, and unformed.

[satire] Fortune cookie wisdom--"Man who says it cannot be done should not interrupt woman doing it." [/satire]
It is discerned via negation of the form and formless ayatanas, not via affirmation. (discerned via neti-neti)

 

[Aupmanyav]

I said that with a vijnana that is created, formed, and born, it is not possible to discern that which is unborn, uncreated, and unformed.

'Vijnana', not necessarily science. 'Jnana' (knowledge). 'Vi' is only an addition. Yes, it can be discerned by broadening one's view. The problem is that we look at its small parts separately. With negation, it cannot be discerned. We tried 'Neti, neti'. Did not get us anywhere.

 

[crossfire]

I do not understand you here.

I said that with a vijnana that is created, formed, and born, it is not possible to discern that which is unborn, uncreated, and unformed.

[satire] Fortune cookie wisdom--"Man who says it cannot be done should not interrupt woman doing it." [/satire]
It is discerned via negation of the form and formless ayatanas, not via affirmation. (discerned via neti-neti)

Question: would you say that jhana might be equated with "I AM THAT" in the context of consciousness landing on a particular ayatana and being "reborn?"
This nibbana state has no jhana associated with it.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I am trying to make a point that it is not possible to discern nibbana that is unborn and unformed with a vijnana apparatus that is born and created of aggregates.

Why not? I think you are still trying to view this through a Hindu lens.

In any case it's about wisdom or discernment, which is the antidote to avidya ( ignorance ).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prajñā_(Buddhism)

 

[Rick O'Shez]

This nibbana state has no jhana associated with it.

Thinking of the Bahiya Sutta and MN1 and the fetters, it seems that the cessation of self-view is integral to the experience of Nibbana.

 

[crossfire]

Thinking of the Bahiya Sutta and MN1, it seems that non-duality is an aspect of Nibbana.

What exactly do you mean by non-duality in this respect? (Coming from a Zen background, I understand non-dual as being free from preference-aversion bias. {Dispassion})

 

[Rick O'Shez]

What exactly do you mean by non-duality in this respect? (Coming from a Zen background, I understand non-dual as being free from preference-aversion bias.)

I edited the previous post - cessation of self-view seems more accurate in relation to the suttas.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

It looks like he's trying to identify atman with nibbana.

Or there has to be an atman to experience Nibbana? I don't know enough about Hinduism to understand the way that the questions are being framed.

 

[crossfire]

Thinking of the Bahiya Sutta and MN1 and the fetters, it seems that the cessation of self-view is integral to the experience of Nibbana.

Agreed.

Edit to add sutta reference:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.002.than.html

 

[atanu]

Why not? I still think you are trying to view this through a Hindu lens.

In any case it's about wisdom or discernment. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prajñā_(Buddhism)

When I cited the essential characteristics of nibbana as unformed, uncreated, unborn, I meant to draw your attention to its unfragmented nature. But we are fragmented and our views are also so.

So, cognising what is unfragmented by us can only superpose a veil of fragments on nibbana.

So, IMO, nibbana can only be experienced with a non dual consciousness in identity. Else all that we engage in are mental exercises -- beneficial but not suited for the experience of nibbana.

(BTW, same holds for non dual Brahman).

YMMV.

 

[atanu]

[satire] Fortune cookie wisdom--"Man who says it cannot be done should not interrupt woman doing it." [/satire]
It is discerned via negation of the form and formless ayatanas, not via affirmation. (discerned via neti-neti)

At this stage I will say 'Yeah' twice.

 

[Kirran]

Or there has to be an atman to experience Nibbana? I don't know enough about Hinduism to understand the way that the questions are being framed.

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.

So it isn't that 'an' atman is needed to experience nibbana/moksha, but that the atman is sukriya and realising that is what we might call nibbana. So realising that the atman as an individual entity doesn't exist, that the atman is simply that beyond existence (or whatever you want to call it), which some have approached as saying there is no atman and that all we are is that beyond existence. I don't see these as being in conflict, personally.

'Vijnana', not necessarily science. 'Jnana' (knowledge). 'Vi' is only an addition.

In my reading, I have been told that the 'vi' is an intensifier. So vijnana is deeper than jnana.

Yes, it can be discerned by broadening one's view. The problem is that we look at its small parts separately. With negation, it cannot be discerned. We tried 'Neti, neti'. Did not get us anywhere.

Speak for yourself

 

[atanu]

Question: would you say that jhana might be equated with "I AM THAT" in the context of consciousness landing on a particular ayatana and being "reborn?"
This nibbana state has no jhana associated with it.

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.

 

[YmirGF]

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.

 

[atanu]

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.

So it isn't that 'an' atman is needed to experience nibbana/moksha, but that the atman is sukriya and realising that is what we might call nibbana. So realising that the atman as an individual entity doesn't exist, that the atman is simply that beyond existence (or whatever you want to call it), which some have approached as saying there is no atman and that all we are is that beyond existence. I don't see these as being in conflict, personally.

Very well expressed.

In my reading, I have been told that the 'vi' is an intensifier. So vijnana is deeper than jnana.

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.