(nibbana) = (Nirguna Brahman) ?

[egodust]

Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote:
> 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.
>

Note that I alluded to this also.  Atma = Brahman, yet if it weren't for the
jiva, the *idea* of atman would be meaningless.  In this *linguistic* sense,
it could be equated to being shunya.  This is the thrust of why Buddha was
silent.  Refer to the post by Prashant Sharma and my reply, below (which is
the gist of the entire point I was trying to make):

Prashant Sharma wrote:
> When you say that "it isn't true that its nature is eternal" are
> you saying this because you also said that "it is only necessary due to
> the existence of the jiva", and since the jiva is ephemeral it follows
> ...
>

Yes, exactly.

**********************************

> >
> > 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.
>

Yes, it certainly appears to be the case in all that you're saying.  Buddha
wasn't willing to assert any positive conceptual postulate for a strategic
reason: he was trying to provoke experience as opposed to mentation.
He was called Sakyamuni for this reason.  He did however, reluctantly,
assert that the awakened state was "Bliss, yes Bliss, my friends, is
nirvana."  Hearing such a statement, how can it be concluded that he was
affirming an absolute shunya?  His shunya only applied to the sohamidam.
Moreover, if he refers to nirvana as bliss, doesn't there have to be some
entity in existence to have this bliss?  By inference, mustn't there be a
self present?

Namaste.


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

Congratulations!

_______________________

"There are no answers
       because
there are no questions."
_______________________

http://digital.net/~egodust