Is Brahman and Nirvana the same?? Is the goal the same??

[DanielR]

Is realizing Brahman and reaching Nirvana really the same? On another forum Taobums if I might say that, there was a heated discussion on whether realising Brahman in Hinduism and reaching Nirvana in Buddhism is really the same.

A guy there posted a link : Awakening to Reality: Thusness/PasserBy's Seven Stages of Enlightenment

that explains seven stages to Nirvana I guess, according to that link, Brahman is a step on the way but not the Endgoal? Is that actually true, or is there really no difference??

Sorry, for posting that many threads, I hope that's okay, I'm trying to identify with something lol

 

[Jainarayan]

According to this it is similar Nirvana - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nirvāṇa (Sanskrit: निर्वाण; Pali: निब्बान nibbāna ; Prakrit: णिव्वा&#2339 is an ancient Sanskrit term used in Indian religions to describe the profound peace of mind that is acquired with moksha (liberation). In shramanic thought, it is the state of being free from suffering. In Hindu philosophy, it is union with the Brahman (Supreme Being).

Nirvana - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (in Hinduism).

However, in my limited understandings, I don't agree with this:

In the words of Mahatma Gandhi: "The nirvana of the Buddhists is shunyata, emptiness, but the nirvana of the Gita means peace and that is why it is described as brahma-nirvana [oneness with Brahman]."[71]

The bold underline is mine. Shunyata is not emptiness in the sense of nothingness, but rather that nothing has inherent existence; nothing exists in and of itself.

 

[DanielR]

So would you say Sunyata is 'superior' to Brahman??

 

[Shuddhasattva]

Shunyata is emptiness in the sense of nothingness; the most convenient and full descriptor for the indescribable nirguna brahman / prajnaparamita.

But no, the two are not exactly synonymous - though moreso if Mahayana's definition(s) of Nirvana are used.

 

[DanielR]

I'm having difficulties understanding what Emptiness means! Is it same as Dependent Origination, that things don't possess a self (essence)??

 

[Breathe]

The bold underline is mine. Shunyata is not emptiness in the sense of nothingness, but rather that nothing has inherent existence; nothing exists in and of itself.

It may interest you to know (if you didn't already) that Sikhism uses "sunn" (ਸੁੰ&#2600 to describe God in its writings, so I think your view works.

[Spoiler="Religious Quotes]
ਅੰਤਰਿ ਸੁੰਨੰ ਬਾਹਰਿ ਸੁੰਨੰ ਤ੍ਰਿਭਵਣ ਸੁੰਨ ਮਸੁੰਨੰ ॥ The absolute Lord is deep within; the absolute Lord is outside us as well. The absolute Lord totally fills the three worlds. - Page 943

ਘਟਿ ਘਟਿ ਸੁੰਨ ਕਾ ਜਾਣੈ ਭੇਉ ॥ One who knows the mystery of God the Absolute, who pervades each and every heart, - Page 943

ਸੁੰਨਹਿ ਸੁੰਨੁ ਮਿਲਿਆ ਸਮਦਰਸੀ ਪਵਨ ਰੂਪ ਹੋਇ ਜਾਵਹਿਗੇ ॥੧॥ Merging my being into the Absolute Being of God, I have become impartial and transparent, like the air. ||1|| - Page 1103

[/Spoiler]

 

[Jainarayan]

I understand śūnyatā to be what arises out of māyā. A tree does not exist in and of itself.

 

[Shuddhasattva]

I understand śūnyatā to be what arises out of māyā. A tree does not exist in and of itself.

This would not be the Buddhist understanding.

 

[Shuddhasattva]

I'm having difficulties understanding what Emptiness means! Is it same as Dependent Origination, that things don't possess a self (essence)??

Sunyata is that which both is, and leads to (margaphala,) viewlessness.

In the clear light of viewlessness, I suggest that rather than accepting, or even merely entertaining, any particular viewpoint given to you by way of an answer in this thread, you instead turn your attention to the primary sources:

8,000 Line Prajnaparamita Sutra (Lex Hixon, large parts available on Google Books - this is a/the foundational mahayana/'shunyavada' text)

Nagarjuna - Mulamadhyamakakarika (Foundational text of madhyamaka, the most exacting interpretation of emptiness)

 

[Jainarayan]

This would not be the Buddhist understanding.

I know Buddhism doesn't consider the concept of māyā. I think different traditions have different takes on sunyata. This is the one I take it to mean: "Śūnyatā refers to the absence of inherent existence in all phenomena".

 

[DanielR]

thanks, I will @ Shuddha

 

[Shuddhasattva]

I know Buddhism doesn't consider the concept of māyā.

Each tradition has many takes on shunyata, with many types of shunyata being defined.

In any case, maya is definitely a well represented concept in Buddhism (including the symbolism of Gautama's mother) and its analog, nirmita.

 

[Jainarayan]

In any case, maya is definitely a well represented concept in Buddhism

Really!? Must look into. Thanks.

 

[Shuddhasattva]

Shunya is mahamaya; mahamaya is illusory illusoriness is brahman.

Maya = not this. Compare neti and nirguna, and also the practice of self-inquiry with the essential identity of Pusan-Hiranyagarbha (Yogeshvara) in the Ved; 'Ka.'

Eternal ignorance is not.

 

[Jainarayan]

I just found Maya (illusion) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia and the reference to Gautama's mother. All interesting stuff to delve into more. Not to go off on a tangent, I think there are more similarities between Hinduism and Buddhism than a lot of people are willing to admit.

 

[crossfire]

I'm having difficulties understanding what Emptiness means! Is it same as Dependent Origination, that things don't possess a self (essence)??

It's that, and more. Since everything is interconnected, complexity develops quickly, and more possibilities develop. With such complex interaction and with everything constantly changing, cause and effect can become fuzzy and very difficult to trace down in a linear fashion. See this post for more. Emptiness, liberation, and nibbana are more about untraceability than one would suspect, imo.

From The Water-Snake Simile:

"And when the devas, together with Indra, the Brahmas, & Pajapati, search for the monk whose mind is thus released, they cannot find that 'The consciousness of the one truly gone (tathagata) [11] is dependent on this.' Why is that? The one truly gone is untraceable even in the here & now.​

 

[DanielR]

Okay let me ask one last question, Emptiness is not static, right, it's flux?

 

[DanielR]

It's that, and more. Since everything is interconnected, complexity develops quickly, and more possibilities develop. With such complex interaction and with everything constantly changing, cause and effect can become fuzzy and very difficult to trace down in a linear fashion. See this post for more. Emptiness, liberation, and nibbana are more about untraceability than one would suspect, imo.

From The Water-Snake Simile:

"And when the devas, together with Indra, the Brahmas, & Pajapati, search for the monk whose mind is thus released, they cannot find that 'The consciousness of the one truly gone (tathagata) [11] is dependent on this.' Why is that? The one truly gone is untraceable even in the here & now.​

thank you!!

 

[Twilight Hue]

I'm having difficulties understanding what Emptiness means! Is it same as Dependent Origination, that things don't possess a self (essence)??

This was givin to me when I confused emptiness with an experience I had during Zazen. . Hope it helps you as well. :0)

Emptiness denotes the absence of any self-identity of objects. Like this cup has a function of holding tea. If not for tea, it would not be. It is made up of clay (fire and earth), and without clay it would not exist. It is supported by the table. It is constantly changing even though we don't see much of it. It will be broken one day! So it "exists" in relation to all the things that made it up, that support its existence as well as its purpose. It is not a thing in itself - even its image is a product of interaction of its surface, light, its surroundings, your retina, your brain and its attitude to cups! If it did exist in and of itself, we wouldn't know about it because it wouldn't interact with anything else.

 

[Shuddhasattva]

Emptiness denotes the absence of any self-identity of objects. Like this cup has a function of holding tea. If not for tea, it would not be. It is made up of clay (fire and earth), and without clay it would not exist. It is supported by the table. It is constantly changing even though we don't see much of it. It will be broken one day! So it "exists" in relation to all the things that made it up, that support its existence as well as its purpose. It is not a thing in itself - even its image is a product of interaction of its surface, light, its surroundings, your retina, your brain and its attitude to cups! If it did exist in and of itself, we wouldn't know about it because it wouldn't interact with anything else.

I'm not sure this is descriptive of shunya so much as anatman, and specifically, a particular type of Indian/Buddhist logic called "apoha."