Is Brahman same as Buddhist void(sunyata)

[Rick O'Shez]

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.

It it doesn't matter then why don't you just say "universe". Why do you make up ill-defined jargon like "Source"?

Talking of definition, what exactly do you mean by the "Source"? What do you think it is exactly?

The meaning of words does matter, unless you are claiming that apples are the same as oranges?

 

[crossfire]

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

For the Buddha rejecting Hindu practices/philosophy: I could dig up a bunch of references prohibiting monks from certain practices characteristic of the Brahmins of the time. Some of the practices (like ritual bathing in the Ganges) were considered to be grounds for dismissal from the sangha.

Regarding the Buddha adding to Hinduism part: In your estimation, how much difference is there between present day, modern Hinduism, and the Hinduism practiced during the time of Buddha, approximately 2600 years ago? How much of that change has been set in motion by Buddhism?

 

[Aupmanyav]

There already were people in Hinduism who were against rituals. Buddha was not the first. For example, Ajita Kesakamblin or Niggantha Gnatiputta* (one without a book as against the Vedas of Aryans). Samkhya and Vaisesika had no use for Gods or rituals. The brahmins and rituals were of, so to say, foreigners, the Aryans, who had percolated from West (Saraswati river valley) around that time. This was a conflict with the indigenous which is reflected even in Hinduism by Shiva beheading Daksha, Krishna saving the people of Vraja from the wrath of Indra, and the accusation of Indra as a rapist.

The Buddha rejected atman.

Atman does not have much meaning if it is said 'Sarvam Khalvidam Brahma' (All things here are Brahman), 'Tat twam asi' (That is what you are), 'Aham Brahmasmi' (I am Brahman), etc.

* Something that might interest you. Mahavira of the Jains belonged to the clan 'Jnata' or 'Jnatrikas', that is why 'Gnatiputta' (Son of 'Jnatrikas').

 

[Aupmanyav]

Cessation of perception and feeling is not Nibbana.

Bodha, realization, understanding is 'nirvana'. That is why Buddha, one who has come to know.

It it doesn't matter then why don't you just say "universe". Why do you make up ill-defined jargon like "Source"?

Universe is varied. What constitutes it is Brahman, the substrate. That is why Brahma (Universe), constituted by Brahman, the non-dual principal.

 

[Ekanta]

Cessation of perception and feeling is not Nibbana.

Nirvana is cessation of the relative, i.e. exactly that. We have to separate between nirvana itself which is annihilation of mental activities and the insight that it exists amongst the phenomena.
When alive its there and also phenomena. When pari-nirvana (death of a buddha), phenomena ceases and nirvana alone exists.

 

[psychoslice]

It it doesn't matter then why don't you just say "universe". Why do you make up ill-defined jargon like "Source"?

Talking of definition, what exactly do you mean by the "Source"? What do you think it is exactly?

The meaning of words does matter, unless you are claiming that apples are the same as oranges?

I don't know what it is, the same as you don't, I use my own definition as you like to use yours, as far as my experience allows me, the Source is all there is, everything arises from it and everything emerges back, but all is Source. Just like the waves on the ocean, the waves seem separate, but the wave is the ocean, and we are and everything else is like the waves, arising and emerging, all is ONE.

 

[Kirran]

At the end of the day, there are just different views, which aren't about to change. Different approaches. But thank you for the discussion.

 

[atanu]

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

What does it exactly mean?

 

[atanu]

The Buddha rejected atman.

I will be glad if you could show us such an emphatic position.

 

[atanu]

It it doesn't matter then why don't you just say "universe". Why do you make up ill-defined jargon like "Source"?

No. Brahman and Universe do not signify same meaning.