Krodha = Kyle Dixon


https://www.reddit.com/r/Buddhism/comments/vn3hma/brahman_capital_b_in_buddhism_is_nirvana_a_state/

Subreddit Icon

r/Buddhism

•Posted by

u/LavaBoy5890

4 days ago


Brahman (Capital B) in Buddhism? Is Nirvana a state of mind or an unconditioned reality?

Question

Did Buddha comment on the idea of Brahman specifically? Or did the idea of Brahman in the more modern sense come after Buddha? Can Brahman be compared to Nirvana? For instance Nirvana is called the Unconditioned, Unborn, Uncreated in the suttas. Does Buddha mean this in the sense of the universe or the sense of the mind? If the former, is Nirvana similar to or the same thing as Brahman? This is coming from someone who likes the idea of Brahman but is more drawn to Buddhism overall.


8

1

18

Comments


Award


Share


Save


Comment as xabir


Comment














Markdown Mode


Sort By: Top


level 1

xabir

·

just now

Do read this:


What buddha meant by death-free (amata): http://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2018/01/the-deathless-in-buddhadharma.html


In short, no, it is not the same as Brahman. You can compare Buddhist and Hindu insights from an experiential perspective here: http://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2007/03/thusnesss-six-stages-of-experience.html



1



Reply

Share

Save

Edit

Follow



User avatar

level 1

Cave-Bunny

·

4 days ago

·

edited 3 days ago

theravada

Whenever I ask a monk a question that is about Buddhist metaphysics, like your question, they always advice me to focus more on 4 noble truths and 8 fold for path.


Be diligent in the basics of the Buddhist practice and let the more metaphysical parts fall into place as you slowly deepen your understanding over time.


Edit: typo



26



Reply

Give Award

Share

Report

Save

Follow


User avatar

level 2

krodha

·

4 days ago

·

edited 4 days ago

Whenever I ask a monk a question that is about Buddhist metaphysics, like your question, they always advice me to focus more on 4 noble truths and 8 food for path.


Not every bhikṣu may be fully aware of the depths of Buddhist metaphysics (meaning a Theravāda bhikṣu will most likely not be classically trained in something like Śāntarakṣita‘s refutation of Advaita Vedanta in his Tattvasaṃgraha), it is important to bear in mind what system or tradition they belong to. Clearly metaphysics are discussed in depth in the abhidhamma, and these specific issues regarding differences between buddhadharma and sanatanadharma are elaborated upon heavily in Mahāyāna and Vajrayāna expositions.


I can see the logic behind a bhikṣu advising that you focus on fundamentals, but Buddhist scriptures are also very dense with metaphysical topics and comparisons, because it is important to understand such things, especially if it helps the practitioner to remove doubts... which is the sole purpose of such writings.



12



Reply

Give Award

Share

Report

Save

Follow


User avatar

level 2

StarBlissLover

·

4 days ago

Yes. There is no interest in Brahman. There is interest in Ariya-Magga (Noble-Path).


Do you want to be proficient with the best weapon we have available to us in this experience? Practice/Study how to use the weapon, it is Ariya-Magga (Noble-Path).



6



Reply

Give Award

Share

Report

Save

Follow


User avatar

level 3

krodha

·

4 days ago

·

edited 3 days ago

There is no interest in Brahman. There is interest in Ariya-Magga (Noble-Path).


Yet it is important to understand precisely what the ārya-marga (path of the āryas) is. If the aspirant does not comprehend the difference between (i) the sthāna-marga-phala or basis, path and result of the buddhadharma and (ii) the basis, path and result of relevant tīrthika systems, then this can cause issues. As Āryadeva said, realization is based on view. If the view is unclear, then this can potentially disrupt progress on the ārya marga, or even compromise entry to the ārya marga itself.


In any case, not trying to dominate the thread. Just trying to advocate for a healthy relationship with Buddhist metaphysics, because often there can be a trend to suppress such things, in an anti-intellectual way, which is a western invention. Traditional Buddhism has never shied away from study and even debate in post-equipoise activities, which is what reddit discussions qualify as.



6



Reply

Give Award

Share

Report

Save

Follow


User avatar

level 4

StarBlissLover

·

3 days ago

"If view is unclear, then this can potentially disrupt progress on the Ariya-Magga, or even compromise entry to the Ariya-Magga itself"


Ariya-Magga (Noble-Path) includes Right View (Samma-Ditti) which is equal to the Four Noble Truths (Cattari Ariya Saccani)



2



Reply

Give Award

Share

Report

Save

Follow


User avatar

level 2

B3and1

·

4 days ago

Personally, I love the 8 food path, especially the pizza path!



5



Reply

Give Award

Share

Report

Save

Follow


User avatar

level 1

krodha

·

4 days ago

·

edited 4 days ago

In comparing Buddhist principles such as nirvāna, or dharmakāya with something like the Brahman of Vedanta, there are distinct differences. Brahman on the one hand is a transpersonal, ontological, truly established ultimate. Whereas dharmakāya is a buddha’s realization of śūnyatā, emptiness, brought to its full measure at the time of buddhahood, which results from the cultivation of jñāna, or a direct non-conceptual, yogic perception of emptiness. Dharmakāya is the nature of a personal continuum of mind, is epistemic in nature, and is not a truly established ultimate nature.


The great Buddhist adept Bhāviveka, who lived during a time in India where there were many polemical debates and interactions between different traditions, addresses the distinctions in many of his expositions. This excerpt from his Tarkajvālā is especially pertinent:


If it is asked what is difference between this dharmakāya and the paramātma [bdag pa dam pa] (synonymous with Brahman) asserted in such ways as nonconceptual, permanent and unchanging, that [paramātma] they explain as subtle because it possesses the quality of subtlety, is explained as gross because it possesses the quality of grossness, as unique because it possess the quality of uniqueness and as pervading near and far because it goes everywhere. The dharmakāya on the other hand is neither subtle nor gross, is not unique, is not near and is not far because it is not a possessor of said qualities and because it does not exist in a place.


Thus we see that that dharmakāya is not an entity-like "possessor" of qualities. Conversely, brahman which is an ontological entity, does possess characteristics and qualities.


Dharmakāya is not an entity at all, but rather a generic characteristic [samanyalakṣana]. As the Buddha says in the Samdhinirmocana, the ultimate in Buddhism is the general characteristic of the relative. The dharmakāya, as emptiness, is the conventional, generic characteristic of the mind, as it is the mind’s dharmatā of emptiness, it’s actual nature that is to be recognized. Liberation results from the release of the fetters that result from an ignorance of the nature of phenomena, and this is how dharmakāya is a non-reductive and insubstantial nature.


The differentiation of brahman as an entity versus dharmakāya as a generic characteristic is enough to demonstrate the salient contrasting aspects of these principles. Dharmakāya is an epistemological discovery about the nature of phenomena, that phenomena lack an essential nature or svabhāva. Alternatively, brahman is an ultimate ontological nature unto itself. Dharmakāya means we realize that entities such as brahman are impossibilities, as Sthiramati explains, entities in general are untenable:


The Buddha is the dharmakāya. Since the dharmakāya is emptiness, because there are not only no imputable personal entities in emptiness, there are also no imputable phenomenal entities, there are therefore no entities at all.


Lastly, another succinct and pertinent excerpt from the Tarkajvālā, regarding the difference between the view of the buddhadharma and tīrthika (non-Buddhist) systems:


Since [the tīrthika position of] self, permanence, all pervasivness and oneness contradict their opposite, [the Buddhist position of] no-self, impermanence, non-pervasiveness and multiplicity, they are completely different.



17



Reply

Give Award

Share

Report

Save

Follow

Labels: | edit post
0 Responses