(nibbana) = (Nirguna Brahman) ?

[Jaldhar H. Vyas]

On Fri, 26 Sep 1997, egodust wrote:

> 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):
>

In Vedanta (following Purva mimamsa) the theory is words have intrinsic
meaning and aren't merely descriptions of objects.  (Interestingly this is
another difference with Buddhists like Dignaga who go the opposite extreme
and hold all words are conceptual and have no relation to the objects
they represent.)  So Atma cannot be shunya in the linguistic sense.

> 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?
>

I would think so.  The Buddhists apparently don't see that need.

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