Is Buddhism's 'Void' the same as Vedanta's 'Brahman'?

There is often a debate amongst many people on whether the 'Void' or 'Brahman' is considered real. There are some who believe the Buddhist's 'emptiness' or 'void' is different from Vedanta’s 'Brahman' [and they could be right]. There are also many people who believe both terms are the same [and they can ALSO be right]. The experience should be described more clearly in order to avoid any confusion. This is why the debate still exists, because words like 'emptiness' and 'void' only contain singular words. And so the confusion will always persist due to minimal clarity and will especially exist for those who have not experienced either of them consciously (if they are in fact considered different experiences). For those who have, it really doesn’t matter, because only the one who have experienced Brahman or the "void" will know what they have truly experienced and will use their own word as a way to approximate that truth.

 

Advaita however stands as a better framework than Buddhism because it gives the answers in more crisp and vivid manner. In Advaita, there is a difference between experiencing deep sleep, nirvikalpa samadhi and sahaj jnani samadhi. These differences is why we even have these different names.

 

So you see, if you experienced any of these three consciously, it is known that they are all empty. The question now becomes, what exactly is this emptiness? Well if I experienced deep sleep consciously, then the 'void' would be a better terminology for this particular state. This is the only word I can think of that explains why there’s nothing going on —just the awareness of a potentiality. However, if I experienced nirvikalpa samadhi, then there isn’t any potentiality, but just pure awareness without any obstructions, and no objective knowledge to hold on to.  In this case, both experiences are different, so how am I going to explain nirvikalpa samadhi since it’s different from deep sleep? I'd rather not use 'void', because there is actually something rather than nothing. But this 'something' isn't really a 'thing'. So what other word can I use to describe what this non-thing is?

 

It is simply up to the person who experienced it!  They do have the option to go back to ancient texts and see if there is any word available to describe the experience. And so we see that the Sages and ancient Rishis came up with different words to explain different experiences.  

 

So what about sahaj nirvikalpa samadhi?  This is where the body and mind appear to be moving, yet you only identify with 'something' that is completely STILL/UNMOVING and ETERNAL.  What should we call this? Well in Vedanta, this is also referred to as Turiya. And there are many more concepts available that are used interchangeably. 

 

So now the question becomes: Have I experienced all of these? And if so, what words are available to describe them all? And does this mean that the same 'Void' of Buddhism is the same 'Brahman' of Vedanta? Well, we can never truly know. Because we weren’t in the mind of Buddha or those who have transcribed these experiences during ancient times.  All we can do is rely on our own experience and see for ourselves what these experiences are. Everything else is pure speculation and not worth our time entertaining because it only makes one’s mind even more agitated which continues to drive experiences in samsara. Rather, evolve and work on turning inward so you can realize this truth yourself, instead of trying to debate on one being right over the other.

 

In essence, the Buddhist's 'Void' or Vedanta's 'Brahman' could mean the same exact thing if the experience was in fact the same. OR, they could mean something totally different if one hasn’t experienced it enough times to know what it is that they actually experienced. Only through practice in revealing perpetual experiences can one decipher what each is and truly know how best to describe them all. Experiencing it once or twice is not enough.  You must continue practicing so that these experiences become more permanent without effort. Of course, when one is spiritually mature to do this, entertaining speculation is no longer something desirable. Because desires become transcended, it no longer becomes something worthy to talk about. It is only worthy for those who haven’t experienced it and want to continue using the ego to entertain the illusion of debates! 

 

​