?? Is wisdom (prajnana) then empty?
Sunyata is an experience of the Skandhas being anatta. Sunyata is an experience that Skandhas are not the Self.
OTOH, Prajna is dense jnana (knowledge) just as space is dense sound.
The word is pra-jnana.
pra is PRE
jnana is Knowledge.
Prajnana is variously described as Wisdom or as the Precursor of Jnana.
Prajnana is also described as Sarvesvara -- the All Lord -- that we enter into in deep sleep. It holds in its bosom the seeds of manifestation that occur in dream and in waking. It controls our dream and waking worlds and thus it is called All Lord.
It appears empty to our sensual apparatus because it is non dual .. devoid of any contrast whatsoever. Due to lack of contrast the mind is not aware of it. The Seer Consciousness -- the slumber-less Self, however Sees its own nature as the Prajnana.
- Prajnana is dense jnana (knowledge) just as space is dense sound.
- Prajnana is dense ananda (bliss) which mind remembers faintly on awakening from deep sleep.
- Yogis are united with Prajnana (one's own nature) without a break. And in this state of yoga, the skandhas are known as empty.
Skandhas are known as empty does not mean that the Yogi is empty too, since the Yogi is not the skandhas. Yogi is That.
No, because the skandhas are empty does not mean the yogi is also empty, but the yogi is empty nonetheless.
The Knower of Brahman becomes Brahman.
There is no such becoming. To think becoming has occurred is to be deluded. All is already Brahman*. There is no such 'knower' of Brahman, because Brahman is the Absolute, and as such, there cannot be any such relative 'other' to which it can be compared.
....from the innermost secret nondual view of Shankara’s Advaita Vedanta there is no contradiction in the Atman-Self doctrine and the Buddhist doctrine of anatman or no-self, for when the
neti, neti (not this, not this) vichara consideration (p.209) is carried to its ultimate conclusion, the ostensibly permanent and eternal incarnating Atman-Self that is Brahman of the Upanishads, is
ontologically identical to the “emptiness of self” (anatman) of the Madhyamaka Prasangika (Rangtong), the great centrist view of Mahayana Buddhism. That is, the Atman-Self is not, at its nondual root, an absolute, eternal, permanently existent substrate or self-entity at all, for it is
identical to Nirguna Brahman which is “empty of all qualities and attributes,” including the attribute of self-existence.
...Again, the Atman-Self that is Brahman is empty of all predicates, including inherent existence. The Truth—emptiness, Dharmakaya, etc. —is said to be empty in essence,
luminous clarity in its nature, and compassionate in its energy expression. This could be said of Nirguna Brahman as well. Therefore, the Buddhist criticism targets only
the outer exoteric, theistic, dualistic Hindu view of Brahman, and not the more subtle nondual view of Advaita Vedanta...
... Vedantists speak of nondual Brahman as
“empty of all qualities and attributes.” Thus Shunyata and Nirguna Brahman share the same nondual ontological status. “Truth is One, many are its names” (Rig Veda)....
...For Shankara’s Advaita Vedanta the supreme truth of the three Hindu canons (the Upanishads, Vedanta Sutra and Bhagvad Gita) is the nondual nature of Brahman, Absolute Spirit that is Reality Itself. For the Advaita Vedanta of Shankara, Brahman is the nondual primordial awareness that is Absolute or Ultimate Consciousness Being Itself, “One, without a second,” without limit,
empty of all predicates, attributes and qualities, beyond concept and belief, or any subject-object dualism whatsoever...
http://davidpaulboaz.org/_documents/stromata/shankaras_advaita_vedanta.pdf
Footnote:
Some may charge that this reduction and identification of the “many names” of the
great nondual Truth of Absolute Spirit, primordial awareness itself, especially the
ontological identity of Advaita Vedanta’s nondual Brahman and Madhyamaka’s
shunyata/emptiness constitutes the theoretical placement of “a yak’s head upon a
sheep’s body” (or vice-versa). As seen above, the Buddhist criticism seems to reduce to a
“straw man” argument. In any case, clearly, there are important relative conventional
differences between the great traditions. However, the rime (lit. unbiased) ecumenical
movement of twenty first century Buddhism and the emerging non-sectarian
rapprochement of religion, science and culture of the unfolding New Reformation require
that the relative truths of the exoteric- conventional biases of the old paradigm be
surrendered to this re-emergence of the primordial nondual view, the view of the
absolute or ultimate truth of the great Primordial Wisdom Tradition of humankind.
These relative truths have been debated and fought over by exoteric and esoteric
religion since we evolved a cortex and a sword. Indeed, that there is any greater truth
than the metaphysical presumptions of scientific materialism – the cult of scientism - is
still denied by the fundamentalist values of the mind states of the first three life stages
(Chap I and Appendix A). Now, at the dawn of this New Reformation of Synthesis, we
are called to surrender our identity in these dualistic conceptual and belief systems of
the past, while yet participating fully in our individual and thereby collective liberation
through the very specific sadhana—view and practice—of a particular tradition within
this Great Wisdom Tradition.
http://davidpaulboaz.org/_documents/stromata/shankaras_advaita_vedanta.pdf
*Brahman is the Changeless; The Absolute. A corollary from Buddhism is to say that: 'If you see the Buddha on the road, kill him!'.
That is to say, if you see something becoming the Buddha, it is not the true Buddha. You do not become the Buddha; you ARE the Buddha.
