[Prev][Next][Index]
Re: Post to alt.hindu
In article <31ml02$s52@ucunix.san.uc.edu> vgr@vuse.vanderbilt.edu
(G. R. Vishwanath) wrote:
: Hullo!
: I tried to post the following to alt.hindu, but could not.
: Maybe you can post it for me.....
: **********************************************************
As the editor has no doubt already explained, this is a moderated group
so you have to mail your articles to editor@rbhatnagar.ececs.uc.edu
: Jaldhar wrote:
: >But the two are not the same. Nirvana according to the Buddhists is
: >completely without qualities. According to the Vedas, Brahman has the
: >qualities of Sat, Chit, and Ananda.
: Qualities is not the right word.
You are probably right there.
: Sat-Chit-Ananda is a pointer,
: the nearest possible verbal expression of what is essentially
: "beyond mind and speech".
It may be beyond speech, but Brahman is knowable. Which is why the parts
of the Vedas refering to it are called the Jnana (knowledge) kand.
Brahman IS Sat. It IS Chit. And it IS Ananda. Nirvana on the other
hand, is shunya (void) nothing can be said about it. You cannot
really even say if it is a good thing or not. This is the difference
between the two.
: The "real" definition of Brahm is
: "not this, not this" (Brihad. Up.).
The Rshi is merely saying it is not this. (Stunning observation I know.
<G>) You are supposed to examine all the elements of your world one by
one saying "not this, not this" eventually you will end up with
something. This is Brahman. A Buddhist would say you will eventually
end up with Nothing.
: To me it seems that if the above definition is used, then
: there is no difference between Hinduism and Budhism.
Even if for arguments sake you accept this, the Vaidik religion and
Buddhism differ on many other points minor and major, such as the
authority of the Vedas, the need for rituals etc. It is pointless to
consider them to be the same.
-- Jaldhar
