Brahman, Tao, Sunyata, Thales, Einstein

[Darcy88]

Are Brahman, Tao and Sunyata (Buddhist word for emptiness) all different interpretations of what is essentially the same thing? They seem to indicate some kind of uniform essence within all existing phenomena, whether that essence is something or nothingness, and the goals of the three respective religions appear to be the bringing about of a state of cohesion between the individual and this all-pervasive absolute principle or reality or thing.

Here are some short definitions courtesy of wikipedia:

"The sages of the Upanishads teach that Brahman is the ultimate essence of material phenomena (including the original identity of the human self) that cannot be seen or heard but whose nature can be known through the development of self-knowledge (atma jnana).[7] According to Advaita, a liberated human being (jivanmukta) has realised Brahman as his or her own true self."

"Dao can be roughly thought of as the flow of the universe, or as some essence or pattern behind the natural world that keeps the universe balanced and ordered.[7] It is related to the idea of qi, the essential energy of action and existence. Dao is a non-dual concept – it is the greater whole from which all the individual elements of the universe derive. Keller considers it similar to the negative theology of Western scholars,[8] but Dao is rarely an object of direct worship, being treated more like the Hindu concepts of karma or dharma than as a divine object.[9] Dao is more commonly expressed in the relationship between wu (void or emptiness, in the sense of wuji) and yinyang (the natural dynamic balance between opposites), leading to its central principle of wu wei (non-action, or action without force)."

"Śūnyatā, (Sanskrit, also shunyata; Pali: suññatā), in Buddhism, translated into English as emptiness, voidness[1], openness[2], spaciousness, thusness, is a Buddhist concept which has multiple meanings depending on its doctrinal context. In Mahayana Buddhism, it often refers to the absence of inherent essence in all phenomena."

What do you think? I know Western religions are more popular than Eastern ones in this sub-forum, but I'd appreciate any thoughts you might have. It might be that I'm entirely wrong in my assessment and that these ideas are in opposition rather than essential agreement.

I also sometimes wonder whether these Eastern concepts have any relationship to the pre-socratic philosopher Thales' famous and what I take to be metaphorical assertion that "everything is water," as well as Einstein's equation E = MC^2, from which I've been told we can infer the fact that everything in the universe is in fact a form of energy. Plato's forms may also have a link to all of this, but I'm pretty sure it is of a far more tenuous and disparate nature than that of the others.

Thanks for reading and for any replies!

[cafolini]

This is a comical one. Energy is the ability to do work. There is no matter that cannot do work. So all matter has potential energy, i.e., the ability to do work. However, work is properly defined as force x displacement. You can push a wall all day long but, if you don't displace it, you have done no work.

[Delta40]

I disagree Cafolini. Work is defined as the application of mental or physical effort to a purpose; the use of energy. Whether or not the wall gets displaced is irrelevant since the application of force/energy has been expended therefore work has been done.

[cafolini]

I disagree Cafolini. Work is defined as the application of mental or physical effort to a purpose; the use of energy. Whether or not the wall gets displaced is irrelevant since the application of force/energy has been expended therefore work has been done.

Ok. You have the right to insanity. It's not news. Roflmao

[Delta40]

Ok. You have the right to insanity. It's not news. Roflmao

Lol I bet I took my meds before you did. Of course, not appreciating the boundaries of your logic gives me an advantage!

[Darcy88]

This is a comical one. Energy is the ability to do work. There is no matter that cannot do work. So all matter has potential energy, i.e., the ability to do work. However, work is properly defined as force x displacement. You can push a wall all day long but, if you don't displace it, you have done no work.

I shouldn't have put Einstein's name in the title as his equation was more of a lesser considered afterthought to what I intended to be the primary focus of the thread, which is the possible correspondence between those three concepts central to a number of Asian religions. I am glad I could give you a chuckle though.

[ladderandbucket]

I believe you are talking about the concept of monism. I would name Schopenhauer and Spinoza as important western thinkers on this topic.

[YesNo]

Are Brahman, Tao and Sunyata (Buddhist word for emptiness) all different interpretations of what is essentially the same thing? They seem to indicate some kind of uniform essence within all existing phenomena, whether that essence is something or nothingness, and the goals of the three respective religions appear to be the bringing about of a state of cohesion between the individual and this all-pervasive absolute principle or reality or thing.

I don't know much about these writers, but I think what they describe is a kind of "field" rather than a "particle", such as an electromagnetic field. These fields are empty or nothing because they are not a particle, but they are not unreal because they contain energy. I assume each of these positions imply that there exists some field of consciousness.

They are all the same to me, because I don't understand them well enough to see the differences. Were I looking for differences, I would further ask how each position viewed the universe or human life. As far as accepting them, my metaphysics assumes that the universe has to be "good", "adequately free", and "conscious" or I would reject the philosophy as inadequate.

[Darcy88]

I don't know much about these writers, but I think what they describe is a kind of "field" rather than a "particle", such as an electromagnetic field. These fields are empty or nothing because they are not a particle, but they are not unreal because they contain energy. I assume each of these positions imply that there exists some field of consciousness.

They are all the same to me, because I don't understand them well enough to see the differences. Were I looking for differences, I would further ask how each position viewed the universe or human life. As far as accepting them, my metaphysics assumes that the universe has to be "good", "adequately free", and "conscious" or I would reject the philosophy as inadequate.

I think of the main three I mentioned Brahmanism is closest to your view of the universe. It seems to imply the existence of a universal consciousness pervading all things. My grasp on it isn't solid but that's what I get from it.

[Paulclem]

There are important differences in Buddhism and Hinduism, one of the basic being Atman - self in Hinduism, and non-self in Buddhism. Non-self is related to emptiness in the absence of inherent existence of the self, whereas in Hinduism you have the universal mind as you pointed out.

I don't know much about Taoism, but in conversation with a Chinese friend, he described the Ying Yang symbol as a stage before a circle which was empty - indicating emptiness. I think he was pointing out relationship between Taoism and Buddhism, but more than that I couldn't claim.

I think study of the three would throw up the differences more clearly, and it's a bit like when people claim things like - all religions are the same/ aim for the same/ are part of the same thing. A theistic religion like Hinduism has elements that are similar to Buddhism, but the fundamental premise is different. When scholars - such as Christmas Humphreys - started to first look at Buddhism and Hinduism, they too noted the similarities and confused the concepts. Reincarnation, for example, in Hinduism is very different from the Buddhist idea of reincarnation.

A discussion about the ultimate nature of reality between Hinduism, Buddhism and Tao is limited by our academic appreciation of it, though of course you have to start somewhere.

[Darcy88]

There are important differences in Buddhism and Hinduism, one of the basic being Atman - self in Hinduism, and non-self in Buddhism. Non-self is related to emptiness in the absence of inherent existence of the self, whereas in Hinduism you have the universal mind as you pointed out.

I don't know much about Taoism, but in conversation with a Chinese friend, he described the Ying Yang symbol as a stage before a circle which was empty - indicating emptiness. I think he was pointing out relationship between Taoism and Buddhism, but more than that I couldn't claim.

I think study of the three would throw up the differences more clearly, and it's a bit like when people claim things like - all religions are the same/ aim for the same/ are part of the same thing. A theistic religion like Hinduism has elements that are similar to Buddhism, but the fundamental premise is different. When scholars - such as Christmas Humphreys - started to first look at Buddhism and Hinduism, they too noted the similarities and confused the concepts. Reincarnation, for example, in Hinduism is very different from the Buddhist idea of reincarnation.

A discussion about the ultimate nature of reality between Hinduism, Buddhism and Tao is limited by our academic appreciation of it, though of course you have to start somewhere.

As a Zen Buddhist I see a tremendous overlap between Taoism and the form of Buddhism to which I ascribe. In fact I often have difficulty discerning any meaningful difference whatsoever between the ways in which the universe is understood by both systems of thought. This makes perfect sense, since Taosim and Zen (Or Chan) both originated in China and the difference between Zen Buddhism and other forms is the likely result of its mixing with Taosim. I even heard somewhere that it was a Buddhist monk who first taught the Taoists to meditate.

I suppose the similarity I see between Hinduism and Buddhism is that both seem to encompass all existent phenomena under a single unifying principle, which in Hinduism is Brahman or Atman and in Buddhism is emptiness. The Atman seems impervious to particulars, to attempts to limit and/or define it. From wikipedia again:" Ātman is the first principle,[1] the true self of an individual beyond identification with phenomena, the essence of an individual." The use of the word "self" is certainly non-Buddhistic, but the way that self is described as being "beyond identification with phenomena," does seem somewhat Buddhistic. I see much commonality between the yogi striving to attain union with God or Atman and the Zen meditator trying to awaken in him or herself what is referred to as the "Buddha-nature."

You make great points though. Thanks for contributing.

[Paulclem]

both originated in China and the difference between Zen Buddhism and other forms is the likely result of its mixing with Taosim

Whilst Toaism originated in China, Ch'an/ Zen Buddhism didn't originate there, but developed there. It was an import and adapted to the cultural conditions - for example there's no alms round in China or Japan due to different attitudes to work ethics. Zen/Ch'an displays this superficial difference, but is scripturally and in practice, it is consistent with other forms of Buddhism. I would dispute that it mixed with Taoism, but there is some kind of relationship, and perhaps conclusions reached by practitioners has similar results. A more modern example of this interchange can be seen with certain Christian Carmelite Monasteries where they have adopted Buddhisy meditation techniques. You couldn't claim from this that the traditions mixed though. As I indicated earlier, my friend suggested that there was a relationship, and probably quite a powerful one.

the true self of an individual beyond identification with phenomena, the essence of an individual." The use of the word "self" is certainly non-Buddhistic, but the way that self is described as being "beyond identification with phenomena

They are not the same - you could probably equate the essence of Hinduism with ideas of a soul, though in Christian traditions this doesn't seem to be a very well developed idea in that there's no attempt to explain what this soul my be or consist of - certainly in the common conception. I think you have to be careful of making assumptions based upon attempts to describe the ideas. Hinduism has this definitive, though difficult to realise, underlying reality whereas the ultimate nature of reality in Buddhism is emptiness, which is not an essence or realm, but a realisation that can be achieved.

I see much commonality between the yogi striving to attain union with God or Atman and the Zen meditator trying to awaken in him or herself what is referred to as the "Buddha-nature."

The difference between Atman and Buddha-Nature is that the Atman is some kind of underlying nature present in the being, whilst Buddha-Nature is a potential and not a thing. All beings have Buddha-Nature, which refers to the possibility that in time they could become Buddhas. This is one of the features of Mahayana Buddhism - of which Zen is a part - and forms the basis of the vows to help all being achieve enlightenment.

http://buddhism.about.com/od/mahayan...dha-Nature.htm

This section in the link has a good description of what I'm getting at.

Is Buddha Nature a Self?

it's a fascinating subject. There are various interpretations, as you can see from the link - the closest to your idea being a subtle mind.

[Darcy88]

both originated in China and the difference between Zen Buddhism and other forms is the likely result of its mixing with Taosim

Whilst Toaism originated in China, Ch'an/ Zen Buddhism didn't originate there, but developed there. It was an import and adapted to the cultural conditions - for example there's no alms round in China or Japan due to different attitudes to work ethics. Zen/Ch'an displays this superficial difference, but is scripturally and in practice, it is consistent with other forms of Buddhism. I would dispute that it mixed with Taoism, but there is some kind of relationship, and perhaps conclusions reached by practitioners has similar results. A more modern example of this interchange can be seen with certain Christian Carmelite Monasteries where they have adopted Buddhisy meditation techniques. You couldn't claim from this that the traditions mixed though. As I indicated earlier, my friend suggested that there was a relationship, and probably quite a powerful one.

the true self of an individual beyond identification with phenomena, the essence of an individual." The use of the word "self" is certainly non-Buddhistic, but the way that self is described as being "beyond identification with phenomena

They are not the same - you could probably equate the essence of Hinduism with ideas of a soul, though in Christian traditions this doesn't seem to be a very well developed idea in that there's no attempt to explain what this soul my be or consist of - certainly in the common conception. I think you have to be careful of making assumptions based upon attempts to describe the ideas. Hinduism has this definitive, though difficult to realise, underlying reality whereas the ultimate nature of reality in Buddhism is emptiness, which is not an essence or realm, but a realisation that can be achieved.

I see much commonality between the yogi striving to attain union with God or Atman and the Zen meditator trying to awaken in him or herself what is referred to as the "Buddha-nature."

The difference between Atman and Buddha-Nature is that the Atman is some kind of underlying nature present in the being, whilst Buddha-Nature is a potential and not a thing. All beings have Buddha-Nature, which refers to the possibility that in time they could become Buddhas. This is one of the features of Mahayana Buddhism - of which Zen is a part - and forms the basis of the vows to help all being achieve enlightenment.

http://buddhism.about.com/od/mahayan...dha-Nature.htm

This section in the link has a good description of what I'm getting at.

Is Buddha Nature a Self?

it's a fascinating subject. There are various interpretations, as you can see from the link - the closest to your idea being a subtle mind.

Both Atman and Buddha-nature are unconditioned, transcending the cycle of birth and death, cause and effect, the limitations of verbal definition, just as with the Dao. The Atman is conscious, while the Buddhists in a sense consider consciousness an illusion, one of the five aggregates, something to get beyond. I think Brahman is in some aspects relatable to Buddhism, while in others it is quite contrary to Buddhist principles. Saying Brahman and Emptiness are entirely different misses some unmistakable similarities they share.

It is arguable in my opinion that Buddhism is to Hinduism in terms of genesis and relation what Christianity is to Judaism. They are radical departures from their religious/philosophical predecessors but they also grew out of the same soil and bear some indelible distinguishing markers of what came before them.

You're right about Daosm and Zen being separate things. Daoism does not emphasize compassion the way Zen does. But it seems to me that when contemplating the nature of the universe through the lens of either one you apprehend things quite similarly. Essential unconditionality is common between those two and even all three in my opinion.

Zen appeals to me because after years of being mired in the manifold theories of Western philosophy I happened upon this system which emphasizes practice over philosophy, intuition over intellect. That said I do believe I may have neglected Buddhist theory in favour of simply meditating in the manner called "shikantaza" in Zen Buddhism. So my grasp of these principles may be shaky and perhaps after further study my thoughts on them will change.

[Paulclem]

Both Atman and Buddha-nature are unconditioned

There are different views on this expressed by different schools, but the difference is perhaps expressed finding atman through practice and becoming our Buddha nature through practice. We could argue about Buddha nature needing to be realised - and therefore conditional upon a being's spiritual state - their path. I'm not sure we would get anywhere without our own personal realisations. My disagreement that they are similar comes down to the wider implications and philosophy inherent in Hinduism and Buddhism.

It is arguable in my opinion that Buddhism is to Hinduism in terms of genesis and relation what Christianity is to Judaism.

There's no doubt that The Buddha's first teachings came from Hindu teachers. It is also clear that he found their teaching did not lead to the Enlightenment he sought, and he reverted back to a simpler meditation he had practiced as a child. I think the message here is a break with Hindu tradition, and Buddhists have always denied the Hindu claim that they are a subset of Hinduism. I think the main markers you mention are things like Karma, reincarnation, meditation. They are also the concepts that mark them as very different from each other in the specifics.

The largest, though, is the theism of Hinduism and the non-theism of Buddhism, (though there is the God realm within samsara). The ultimate nature of reality in Hinduism rests upon the aspects of God as the originator, sustainer and destroyer of the world universe etc. It has also given rise to ideas of the cosmic mind. I don't see, despite the difficulty we might have in differentiating between Ataman and Emptiness, how the outcomes could thus be related. Buddhism postulates a distant origin, but no creation by a creator God. instead the ultimate nature of reality rests upon the delusions of the individual and the inculcation of Karma which sustains this. It is an interesting question though.


Zen appeals to me because after years of being mired in the manifold theories of Western philosophy I happened upon this system which emphasizes practice over philosophy, intuition over intellect. That said I do believe I may have neglected Buddhist theory in favour of simply meditating in the manner called "shikantaza" in Zen Buddhism. So my grasp of these principles may be shaky and perhaps after further study my thoughts on them will change.

I think it goes in cycles - periods of meditation and periods of study. Sometimes our lives are not conducive to one or the other. The meditation is important though. For me it demonstrated that what I was reading was true - those bits within my small experience!

I've got a mate who is studying with a Kagyu teacher in Birmingham. We discus it sometimes when I see him, and he is impressed by how long the path is. It's a long game over quite a few lives he reckons. We both find it fascinating and increasingly "awesome" in how far we have to go. Good luck with it! There's lots to go at.

I was never involved in any religion as a child - my parents were very sceptical of any religion, and religious people in particular. Although it denied me an early appreciation of what Christianity was, I didn't feel constrained by it either. I feel pretty lucky.

PS - it's nice to have a chat about Buddhism. I haven't discussed it for a while.

[cafolini]

Both Atman and Buddha-nature are unconditioned

There are different views on this expressed by different schools, but the difference is perhaps expressed finding atman through practice and becoming our Buddha nature through practice. We could argue about Buddha nature needing to be realised - and therefore conditional upon a being's spiritual state - their path. I'm not sure we would get anywhere without our own personal realisations. My disagreement that they are similar comes down to the wider implications and philosophy inherent in Hinduism and Buddhism.

It is arguable in my opinion that Buddhism is to Hinduism in terms of genesis and relation what Christianity is to Judaism.

There's no doubt that The Buddha's first teachings came from Hindu teachers. It is also clear that he found their teaching did not lead to the Enlightenment he sought, and he reverted back to a simpler meditation he had practiced as a child. I think the message here is a break with Hindu tradition, and Buddhists have always denied the Hindu claim that they are a subset of Hinduism. I think the main markers you mention are things like Karma, reincarnation, meditation. They are also the concepts that mark them as very different from each other in the specifics.

The largest, though, is the theism of Hinduism and the non-theism of Buddhism, (though there is the God realm within samsara). The ultimate nature of reality in Hinduism rests upon the aspects of God as the originator, sustainer and destroyer of the world universe etc. It has also given rise to ideas of the cosmic mind. I don't see, despite the difficulty we might have in differentiating between Ataman and Emptiness, how the outcomes could thus be related. Buddhism postulates a distant origin, but no creation by a creator God. instead the ultimate nature of reality rests upon the delusions of the individual and the inculcation of Karma which sustains this. It is an interesting question though.


Zen appeals to me because after years of being mired in the manifold theories of Western philosophy I happened upon this system which emphasizes practice over philosophy, intuition over intellect. That said I do believe I may have neglected Buddhist theory in favour of simply meditating in the manner called "shikantaza" in Zen Buddhism. So my grasp of these principles may be shaky and perhaps after further study my thoughts on them will change.

I think it goes in cycles - periods of meditation and periods of study. Sometimes our lives are not conducive to one or the other. The meditation is important though. For me it demonstrated that what I was reading was true - those bits within my small experience!

I've got a mate who is studying with a Kagyu teacher in Birmingham. We discus it sometimes when I see him, and he is impressed by how long the path is. It's a long game over quite a few lives he reckons. We both find it fascinating and increasingly "awesome" in how far we have to go. Good luck with it! There's lots to go at.

I was never involved in any religion as a child - my parents were very sceptical of any religion, and religious people in particular. Although it denied me an early appreciation of what Christianity was, I didn't feel constrained by it either. I feel pretty lucky.

PS - it's nice to have a chat about Buddhism. I haven't discussed it for a while.

No, on many counts. There two general, philo-sophist positions of Atman. If you associate yoga, you have many more. It has nothing to do with the Buddha. The Buddha achieved Nirvana. Left all karma and philo-sophist position. He did not teach anymore and passed away like that. The venerable Buddhist monks are something different, but even them do no babble philo-sophically as the Atman people. There is no comparison in that regard.