(nibbana) = (Nirguna Brahman) ?

[Jaldhar H. Vyas]

On Sat, 20 Sep 1997, egodust wrote:

> Even from the vedantic perpective the atman can be equally regarded
> as sunya, in the special sense that it can be thought of as merely
> a temporal reference point with respect to the jiva (viz. it is
> none other than brahman, and its name ['atman'] is only necessary
> due to the existence of the jiva.  That is, it has the connotation
> that its nature [the word 'atman,' as a separative individualized
> consciousness] is eternal, which isn't true).

The atma is not Shunya because atma is the same entity as Brahman.  The
two words are synonyms.

>
> Granted this is a hair-splitting observation; nevertheless, if we're
> capable of recognizing the end result verity of realization the Buddha
> achieved, by virtue of his absolute and nonprovisional doctrine of
> 'neti, neti,' (which is what it really is) we should see the forest
> through the trees.
>

While the Advaitin is not prepared to say much about the nature of Brahman
as in "neti, neti", he can say with confidence Brahman exists.  The
Buddhists are unable or unwilling to even say this much about an ultimate
reality.  This is a big difference.

> We must also bear in mind how both schools' *founders* had an aversion
> to the human mind's habitual reliance on mentation/conceptualization,
> yet set about on different courses in order to affect the extinguishing
> of the flame (nirvana via, ultimately, nirvada).  And, the *result* is
> the important thing! ...the means also are neither true nor false, but
> suitable to the varying temperaments.
>

I don't know if this is true.  If we look at Tibetan Buddhism which is the
nearest in shape and form to what Indian Buddhism was before it became
extinct, it is just as scholastic and rational as any school of  Hinduism.
I don't see how it can be said to appeal to any different temperament.

> For example, for some people steeped in vedanta, the idea of the Self
> can prove to be their last and most formidable obstacle--because they're
> dwelling on a concept [which constructs their final limit] that they'll
> swear is the truth *itself*!  Where infact it's only a philosophical
> reference point.  If we don't lose sight of the fact that brahman defies
> not only names but conceptions, we'll recognize in fact that the last
> step we'll take toward our 'blowout' will be to effortlessly forget all
> we know, including the *idea* of Self.
>

The bottom line is that Vedanta asserts the existence of one ultimate
reality and Buddhism asserts the existence of none.  It doesn't take any
special knowledge to realize that 1 does not equal 0.

--
Jaldhar H. Vyas <jaldhar at braincells.com>
I got engaged! See the pictures ==> http://www.braincells.com/jaldhar/sagpan