(nibbana) = (Nirguna Brahman) ?

[un824 at FREENET.VICTORIA.BC.CA]

Namaste,

Jaldhar writes:

>Caveat: I don't know anymore about Buddhism than is explained and argued
>against in the astika shastras.  I have no reason to suspect they
>misrepresent Buddhist views but it could be the case.
>
>I believe what the Buddhists mean by Nirvana is the cessation of
>everything.  That's not the same as one ultimate reality.  For the
>Buddhists the main feature of consciousness is that it only exists from
>moment to moment and constantly changes.  So when that consciousness stops
>there is nothing.
>

IMO, the astika shastras would be arguably wrong if they really were
equating buddhist nirvana with nothingness. This leads me to wonder...

What is the epistemological status of the astika shastras?
Is it a tenet of the orthodox faith to believe they are unerring
in their totality? How much can an orthodox follower of vedanta
disagree with explanations and arguments in the astika shastras
without being in trouble? What other parts of the vedic system
are considered to be unerring, which debatable, etc.?

namaste,

Allan Curry