Why brahman and SUnya are different ?

[Guest guest]

Namaste all,

 

The discussion on brahman and SUnya was quite long and I did not

follow it from the beginning. However, I intend to share my

understanding of brahman and SUnya and my opinion as to why they are

completely differennt concepts. As brahman is quite well known in

this group, let me talk about SUnya here. (Any understanding is my

understanding and need not represent the truth.)

 

SUnya-vAda was mainly developed by the buddhist philosopher nAgArjuna

out of the buddha's teaching of dependant origination or pratItya-

samutpAda. SUnya indicates lack of a sva-bhAva. The attack on an

eternal sva-bhAva is an essential and integral part of the bauddha

school, because the concept of sva-bhAva is indirectly linked to the

concept of the eternal brahman/Atman itself. Therefore, the

fundamental reason for the bauddha for developing this concept of

SUnya is the rejection of the concept of Atman. Thus, anyone who sees

similarity in brahman and SUnya is deceiving himself. nAgarjuna makes

brilliant arguments to show that sva-bhAva is an untenable concept.

His approach completely destroys the sat-kArya-vAda and the asat-

kArya-vAda of the sAmkhya and nyAya school respectively. (Both ajAti-

vAda and vivarta-vAda are immune to nAgarjuna's dialectics.)

 

The approach of nAgArjuna is this. pratItya-samutpAda is dependant

origination. According to the bauddha, everything is dependantly

originated. What is dependantly originated cannot have an eternal sva-

bhAva for it is originated. (What is completely dependant on

something else too cannot have an eternal sva-bhAva for otherwise the

very word "complete dependance" would be meaningless. I tried to show

in the group "vAdAvaLi" why this must be true, thereby jeapordizing

dvaita's position, but the dvaitins did not agree and anyway I lost

interest to continue the discussion. Anyone can read that discussion

in that list and see for themselves why this must be true.) Since

there is nothing that is not dependantly originated in pratyaksha

(according to the bauddha), there is no such thing as a sva-bhAva.

 

However, modern science itself must put an end to the bauddha's

arguments. Mass+energy is not dependantly originated from anything

else, though that does not mean it should have a sva-bhAva. Here, I

bring the bhagavad gIta verse which says that - The real cannot

become unreal and the unreal cannot become real. Ofcourse, people

have interpreted it as sat-kArya-vAda (of sAmkhya), but I take it to

mean this - It is the law of conservation of matter and, I fancy,

even consciousness. Though a pot can be destroyed, its substantial

existence as a real entity cannot be destroyed. Thus, its substantial

existence is not dependantly originated, thereby putting an end to

the bauddha's concept of SUnya-vAda. Thus, in my view, SUnya-vAda

dies. It would have been OK if SUnya-vAda just said that the pot is

SUnya, but SUnya-vAda goes on to say that all entities are SUnya,

which cannot be accepted by me, not because I or someone else has

demonstrated the existence of sva-bhAva, but because in the absence

of dependant origination, as in the case of the substantial existence

of the pot, SUnya-vAda is a mere castle built in the sky.

 

The bauddha cannot also assert that things are inter-dependant and

therefore SUnya for there are so many things in pratyaksha which are

not dependant on anything, like mass+energy etc. Again, using the

bhagavad gIta verse, substantial existence is not dependant on

anything else nor is dependantly originated from anything, just as a

castle in the air never originated from anything. Substantial

existence is never destroyed for the entity cannot pass into non-

entity, a fact asserted by the BG and completely supported by common

sense. The bauddha might here say that an object like this computer

infront of me, its attributes like colour etc. have no meaning in the

absence of an observer to assert it. The position is untenable for

there must be *something* in the place of this computer that is not

dependant on me for it to produce some sensations of colour etc, for

otherwise, why am I not seeing a snake or nothing in the place of

this computer?

 

It must be noted here that nArArjuna asserts that SUnya is itself

SUnya, lest anyone might claim it as the sva-bhAva. However, an

examination of this clearly shows why nAgArjuna is deceiving himself.

If SUnya is also SUnya, then it must have originated depedandantly.

The emptiness of emptiness (SUnya is also SUnya) is an equivalent way

of stating that dependant origination itself is dependantly

originated. That is impossible because it leads into a catch-22 type

situation. Dependant origination of dependant origination needs prior

existence of the principle of dependant origination. Prior existence

is not possible without origination of dependant origination in the

first place.

 

Thus, the bauddha's position of SUnya is clearly untenable on a

universal basis, though it has good appeal at a certain level. It is

also obvious from the above that SUnya has *absolutely nothing* to do

with brahman/Atman and is developed as part of rejecting the concept

of Atman. Moreover, SUnya, by denying substantial existence is

clearly irrational and completely out of tune with the conclusions of

modern science.

 

SUnya-vAda is a mis-guided attack on Atma-vAda, because, while the

former derives its conclusions from pratyakSa and anumAna, the latter

clearly asserts that the Atman cannot be attained, known or

understood by mere intellectual gymnastics. Anyway, in the case of

SUnya-vAda, even the intellectual development is incorrect as seen

above (my understanding only.) Here, I am reminded of someone (I

dont know who) who says that - "People who used their intellect

excessively seldom had good spiritual insights."

 

I leave it to the members to decide how many features brahman and

SUnya share in common. For one cannot be convinced by anyone else.

One must convince oneself.

 

 

PS: Using similar words to describe some concepts does not mean that

those concepts are similar/same. Both "barren woman's son" and

brahman cannot be seen, thought of, or described. Both are not the

doers of actions. Does this mean they are the same? Buddhism and

advaita may have good ideals and concepts. But that does not mean

that I should make it my aim to forcibly draw a consistency between

them. Moreover, it is better not to attempt that, for *Too many cooks

spoil the broth*. What will be left with could be a pseudo-

intellectual superstructure without the spirit of either. All this

may seem like intolerance to some, but obviously it is not!

 

 

Regards

Raghavendra