Sunyata/Sunnata and Asat.

[Tyaga]

Namaste all,i was wondering,isn't the Buddhist concept of Sunyata/Sunnata or 'emptiness' comparable to the Vedic concept of Asat 'non-existence' or 'non-being'?What are your thoughts on these comparative concepts?

Regards,
A.

 

[Jaskaran Singh]

Namaste all,i was wondering,isn't the Buddhist concept of Sunyata/Sunnata or 'emptiness' comparable to the Vedic concept of Asat 'non-existence' or 'non-being'?What are your thoughts on these comparative concepts?

Regards,
A.

Well, I'd like to clarify that only later (during post-vedic times) did "asat" seem to connote a sense of impermanence. At first, it only referred to something which was false.

 

[Jainarayan]

Namaste all,i was wondering,isn't the Buddhist concept of Sunyata/Sunnata or 'emptiness' comparable to the Vedic concept of Asat 'non-existence' or 'non-being'?What are your thoughts on these comparative concepts?

Regards,
A.

Śūnyatā properly means empty of inherent existence, that is, something does not exist in and of itself. It's usually mistaken for nihilsm.

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram Tyaga ji :namaste

Namaste all,i was wondering,isn't the Buddhist concept of Sunyata/Sunnata or 'emptiness' comparable to the Vedic concept of Asat 'non-existence' or 'non-being'?What are your thoughts on these comparative concepts?

Regards,
A.

firstly I have to point out that different Buddhist schools hold different veiws on the nature of Sunyata , but personaly I would say no! as Asat apart from being non existance it is also un real , untrue , having the idea of falsehood , .....where as sunyata regardless of how it is seen is the ultimate reality it is this that is temporary and falsely perceived .

 

[Tyaga]

Namate everyone,thank you for the input!

Yes,Asat can mean something unreal,but i think it was also used to denote non-existence right from from the Rg Veda(Nsadiya Suktam).

 

[Aupmanyav]

Namaste everyone, thank you for the input!

Yes, 'asat' can mean something unreal,but i think it was also used to denote non-existence right from from the RgVeda (Nsadiya Suktam).

Yes, Nasadiya Sukta wonders about existence and non-existence, says sages saw a relationship, but I do not think it gave any definite answers.

 

[Tyaga]

Yes, Nasadiya Sukta wonders about existence and non-existence, says sages saw a relationship, but I do not think it gave any definite answers.

Kavis concluded that Sat came from Asat,and the supreme one controls everything from the third heaven.But in the final stanzas,they are skeptic about it.

 

[Ekanta]

I contribute with two quotes:

Bhagavad Gita (hinduism):
2.16 Of the unreal there is no being; the real has no non-existence. But the nature of both these, indeed, has been realized by the seers of Truth.

Nirvana sutra: (buddhism)
“The buddha-nature of the Tathagata has two aspects: one is existence, and the second is non-existence.”
“The Middle Way is Ultimate Emptiness. This sees the non-eternal as non-eternal and the Eternal as the Eternal.”

Edited:
Actually emptiness seems to be used in various ways in buddhism. These are some variations I've found and to make it understandable I use the analogy of the pictures on the movie screen:
1. The usual anatman doctrine says that phenomena is empty of self-being. [the pictures themselves have no self-being]
2. The unborn can be described as empty of phenomena, or full of self-being. [The screen itself]
3. Phenomena can be describe as having self-being (Nirvana sutra states: "in truth there is the self in all phenomena") [the real self of the pictures is the screen]
4. "Ultimate emptiness" is described as knowing the difference between the Eternal and non-eternal. [knowing the difference between pictures and screen]

 

[Tyaga]

I contribute with two quotes:

Bhagavad Gita (hinduism):
2.16 Of the unreal there is no being; the real has no non-existence. But the nature of both these, indeed, has been realized by the seers of Truth.

Nirvana sutra: (buddhism)
“The buddha-nature of the Tathagata has two aspects: one is existence, and the second is non-existence.”
“The Middle Way is Ultimate Emptiness. This sees the non-eternal as non-eternal and the Eternal as the Eternal.”

Edited:
Actually emptiness seems to be used in various ways in buddhism. These are some variations I've found and to make it understandable I use the analogy of the pictures on the movie screen:
1. The usual anatman doctrine says that phenomena is empty of self-being. [the pictures themselves have no self-being]
2. The unborn can be described as empty of phenomena, or full of self-being. [The screen itself]
3. Phenomena can be describe as having self-being (Nirvana sutra states: "in truth there is the self in all phenomena") [the real self of the pictures is the screen]
4. "Ultimate emptiness" is described as knowing the difference between the Eternal and non-eternal. [knowing the difference between pictures and screen]

Pranam,

Thank you for the information Sri Ekanta

 

[Agnimitra]

If Nirvana is not nothingness but rather a positive category, a fullness .....then there is no essential difference between Advaitha and Baudha philosophy.

A few Buddhist scholars I know suggested so........

 

[Aupmanyav]

Kavis concluded that Sat came from Asat,and the supreme one controls everything from the third heaven.But in the final stanzas,they are skeptic about it.

If Sat came from Asat, we have no evidence for it. Science is working on it, and perhaps at some future date (a few centuries hence), the answers will be available.

 

[Aupmanyav]

“The Middle Way is Ultimate Emptiness. This sees the non-eternal as non-eternal and the Eternal as the Eternal.”

4. "Ultimate emptiness" is described as knowing the difference between the Eternal and non-eternal. [knowing the difference between pictures and screen]

What is eternal in Buddhism?

 

[Ekanta]

What is eternal in Buddhism?

There are different opinions and teachings on this, but if we consult the nirvana sutra which in mahayana is the final teaching of Buddha, it clearly states that:

"The Buddha-dhatu [Buddha-nature] of beings inheres / abides within the five skandhas."
"The Buddha-dhatu is the True Self and, like a diamond, for example, it cannot be destroyed".
"As the Buddha-dhatu is eternal [nitya], it is not encompassed by/not subsumed within the Three Times ... all the Buddha-dharmas [Buddha-qualities] that the Buddha-dhatu has are eternal [nitya] and unchanging [aviparinama]."
Nirvana Sutra :: Appreciation of the "Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra"

 

[Aupmanyav]

"Luminous mind: The idea of the tathagatagarbha is grounded on sayings by the Buddha that there is an innately pure luminous mind (prabhasvara citta), "which is only adventitiously covered over by defilements (agantukaklesa)" This luminous mind is being mentioned in the Anguttara Nikaya:

"Luminous, monks, is the mind. And it is defiled by incoming defilements"."
Buddha-nature - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If 'Buddha-dhatu' idea is based on this sentence of Buddha, then there is nothing eternal about it. He is simply saying that if the mind is not defiled by incoming defilements (agantuka klesas), then it is luminous, pure, and happy (because mostly it is in a defiled state).

Mahasanghika and other explanations only came later.

Klesha: grief, pain from disease, pain, hardship, distress, worldly occupation, affliction, troublesomeness, wrath, anguish, anger, burdensomeness, suffering, care, arduousness, trouble.
http://spokensanskrit.de/index.php?script=HK&beginning=0+&tinput=+klesa&trans=Translate&direction=AU

Aup adds: All situations which lead to mental and bodily unpleasantness, differences in opinions as in a family.

 

[Ekanta]

If 'Buddha-dhatu' idea is based on this sentence of Buddha.

Well is it?

He is simply saying that if the mind is not defiled by incoming defilements (agantuka klesas), then it is luminous, pure, and happy (because mostly it is in a defiled state).

Its a debated quote. Its common in zen for example to say "Your very mind is Buddha" i.e. Buddha-nature. Its more practical to say "your mind is Buddha", than "your toe is Buddha" or else people will look in the wrong place.

Mahasanghika and other explanations only came later.

Yes, they came later (whether you believe it was by Buddha or not) as a deepening of the teaching.

....

But I agree, the luminous mind (prabhasvara citta) in the Pabhassara Sutta is interesting and a further discussion would be interesting
link to sutra: Pabhassara Sutta: Luminous

 

[Aupmanyav]

Well is it?

I do not know. Perhaps someone who knows better would tell me.

Its a debated quote. Its common in zen for example to say "Your very mind is Buddha" i.e. Buddha-nature. Its more practical to say "your mind is Buddha", than "your toe is Buddha" or else people will look in the wrong place.

Rather than Zen, I put my faith in Buddha.

Yes, they came later (whether you believe it was by Buddha or not) as a deepening of the teaching.

Buddha or his principle desciples. But again, with due respect to his disciples, I will vote for Buddha.My guru is Buddha and not Sariputta or Ananda.

But I agree, the luminous mind (prabhasvara citta) in the Pabhassara Sutta is interesting and a further discussion would be interesting link to sutra: Pabhassara Sutta: Luminous

I would certainly go through that right now. Did that. Did not help much. I am still there where I was earlier.

 

[zenzero]

Friend Tyaga,

Sunyata/Sunnata and Asat.

Speaking of Sunyata feel it is about the same space one reaches after negation or 'neti, neti in Hinduism or 'Via Negativa' in Christianity.

It is that space which is labelled 'Brahman'.

Love & rgds

 

[Aupmanyav]

Nothing negative about Brahman. Only that exists and is the cause of mass/space/time - jagati (what is perceived when awake, if I am not wrong).

 

[zenzero]

Friends,

Guess need to further clarify what is meant by neti, neti:

The significance of neti neti[edit]
Neti Neti, meaning, "Not this, Not this", is the method of Vedic analysis of negation. It is a keynote of Vedic inquiry. With its aid the Jnani negates identification with all things of this world which is not the Atman, in this way he negates the Anatman. Through this gradual process he negates the mind and transcends all worldly experiences that are negated till nothing remains but the Self. He attains union with the Absolute by denying the body, name, form, intellect, senses and all limiting adjuncts and discovers what remains, the true “I” alone.[1] L.C.Beckett in his book, Neti Neti, explains that this expression is an expression of something inexpressible, it expresses the ‘suchness’ (the essence) of that which it refers to when ‘no other definition applies to it’.[2] Neti neti negates all descriptions about the Ultimate Reality but not the Reality itself. Inuitive interpretation of uncertainty principle can be expressed by "Neti neti"[3] that annihilates ego and the world as non-self (Anatman), it annihilates our sense of self altogether.[4]

Via Negative

via negativa or via negationis[1] (Latin for "negative way" or "by way of denial")—is a theology that attempts to describe God, the Divine Good, by negation, to speak only in terms of what may not be said about the perfect goodness that is God.[2]

Hope it clears the matter!

Love & rgds

 

[Aupmanyav]

Nice of Mr. Beckett to say so. Now let us see what science has found. Energy of the physical type giving rise to mass/space and probably time also. Dark energy 68.3%, dark matter 26.8%, ordinary matter 4.9% (Dark energy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). Is that Brahman?