RajputMaster24
Member
Dear Friends, is it true that Shunya or Void is the Absolute Truth in Buddhism?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Absolute truth in Buddhism
- Thread starter RajputMaster24
- Start date
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
Yes. The Buddha taught that in all the Sutras and Suttas I came across. I don't look much into it because the language makes me tongued. It's a simple truth when explained well. I don't think many Buddhist would use Absolute given the Abrahamic affiliation of "it must be true if it's absolute." In my head, if it isn't absolute truth, then what are we really following, something that is false? If other people hold truth, than why do we displace others (say Christian) as false and take up our own? Wouldn't we be eclectic rather than Buddhists?
So, yes, I think that is very important. It helps with non-attachment and more of a philosophical thought on how we approach life and the Dharma. Buddhism focuses on practice, though. Can't have Shunya (which you mean Shunyata, right?) without practice.
I think so, but I can't grasp what that is exactly. I prefer Hindu explanations to Buddhist ones as Hinduism is more into explaining metaphysics than Buddhism.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
True. Best left with Hinduism.
Even attachment dosent last forever. ;0)
It's quite a mind game to just let go, likely realising the answer in the process.
I see it as questions enquiring minds must ask and come to an understanding with to be at peace (even if that understanding still leaves room for mystery).
No. Signlessness follows emptiness, followed by, um, I forget. (Undirectedness. Sorry, but I couldn't resist the pun of directedness leading to undirectedness. )
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
It's like asking what's one's original emptiness.No. Signlessness follows emptiness, followed by, um, I forget. (Undirectedness. Sorry, but I couldn't resist the pun of directedness leading to undirectedness. )
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
It is, but not absolution in a sense of perminancy in a context of "changeless change".
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
I think one needs to understand the meaning of 'Shunyata'. It is not 'void'. I do not think that is what Buddhists mean. After Anitta (non-substantialness) and Anicca (Impermanence) what remains is 'Shunyata'. Perhaps a word that just now occurred to me describes it better - 'hollowness', 'essential hollowness'. Views from Buddhists are welcome (of whether my understanding is OK).
First Baseman
Retired athlete
I like your use of the word "hollow". While we may percieve some phenomena would call a human, the ultimate truth is that the phemonena is empty of inherentcharteristics we may use to categorize it. We have an appearance, a facade if you will. Hollow.
That term isn't used in Mahayana. Just the same I think it a very good, descriptive useage.
@Osal , translating concepts of Indic religions (Hinduism, Jainism and Buddhism) in English are not always easy. I struggle with these words - how best to put them in English. 'Hollowness' appeared to me on that Monday. Thanks for appreciation.
Quite right. Translators do the best they can but while they may get the right word in English, even the English word can be misinterpreted. For instance, Shunyata is usually translated as emptiness, which is, as I understand it, fine. However, emptiness is often mistaken for nothingness, which is not fine. Hollow gives the impresson there is a phenomena that appears, but there are no inherent charateristics within, so to speak.
Another example is Dhukha. Often translated as suffering or occaisionally, stress, if you look to the origin of the word, terms like annoying come to mind. So I think that the first noble truth could read "Life is annoying.". Why not?
buddhist
Well-Known Member
I like the translations "dissatisfying" or "discontent".
Sunyata is not the absolute truth in Buddhism but a statement about the condition of something.
Satya is more accurate a word meaning truth. Sunya can mean void.
Regarding truth, while I am a Hindu, I do have some Buddhist understanding (and my mother was strongly influenced by Hinayana Buddhism, and my father use to take us the family to Mahayana Buddhist temples when I was a kid in San Francisco), I am not saying I know for a fact and also one Buddhist does not always agree with another Buddhist, I would say that my recollection on truth in Buddhism is like this:
There is relative truth and absolute truth. In the condition of the flesh, many things happen, but they pass. Like a dream. You may be conditioned by such conditions. Pain can condition you but it is also conditional and will pass. It is relative truth. Many things are like a dream. If you dream a tiger is eating you and you awake, you say it wasn't true. Because it has passed, it was temporary. But if your dream never ends, is not temporary, you would say it is real.
So there is relative truth. If it is temporary, it is not true. Not absolute truth.
If it is forever, it is truth. Absolute truth. It is not temporary.
The condition is conditional when it changes. When it is temporary. The Great Wheel turns. In this condition, because it is temporary, it is empty. Sunya. Even the full cup of wine is empty. It will soon go empty, it is temporary. So it is destined to be empty.
Everything in this condition goes empty. It is a void. That is sunya.
But that which is beyond conditions is not temporary.
That is satya.
But I could be wrong.
Satya is more accurate a word meaning truth. Sunya can mean void.
Regarding truth, while I am a Hindu, I do have some Buddhist understanding (and my mother was strongly influenced by Hinayana Buddhism, and my father use to take us the family to Mahayana Buddhist temples when I was a kid in San Francisco), I am not saying I know for a fact and also one Buddhist does not always agree with another Buddhist, I would say that my recollection on truth in Buddhism is like this:
There is relative truth and absolute truth. In the condition of the flesh, many things happen, but they pass. Like a dream. You may be conditioned by such conditions. Pain can condition you but it is also conditional and will pass. It is relative truth. Many things are like a dream. If you dream a tiger is eating you and you awake, you say it wasn't true. Because it has passed, it was temporary. But if your dream never ends, is not temporary, you would say it is real.
So there is relative truth. If it is temporary, it is not true. Not absolute truth.
If it is forever, it is truth. Absolute truth. It is not temporary.
The condition is conditional when it changes. When it is temporary. The Great Wheel turns. In this condition, because it is temporary, it is empty. Sunya. Even the full cup of wine is empty. It will soon go empty, it is temporary. So it is destined to be empty.
Everything in this condition goes empty. It is a void. That is sunya.
But that which is beyond conditions is not temporary.
That is satya.
But I could be wrong.
Jeff Strehlow
Member
I believe it is a truth. However, it is not a truth arrived at through reasoning. It's a truth arrived at through direct insight into the nature of all things. One should be cautious making such a statement, I think, because sunyata is very often misunderstood. It's meaning is difficult to understand--even for Buddhists.
Last edited: