Questions on Buddhism (was Re: [Advaita-l] Re: gauDapAda and Sankara)

[Ramesh Krishnamurthy]

>
> Being a buddhist, nAgArjuna cannot accept an eternal
> Atman or brahman. shUnyata is not a metaphysical or
> transcendental entity (or non-entity). It is not a
> metaphysical counterpart of brahman with just brahman
> just replaced by void. According to mAdhyamika,
> shUnyata is a property of everything. It indicates
> that everything is devoid of an eternal
> self-nature/sva-bhAva. This is more or less the
> definition of shUnyata.
>

In what sense in Atman/brahman an *eternal* entity? I suppose by
"eternal" is meant that which is beyond space, time & causation. But
in what sense is Atman/brahman an *entity*?

The concept of the substratum is something I have never quite
understood. That shUnyatA is not a metaphysical/transcendental entity
is fine. But what is brahman?