Buddhists do not believe in God, they believe in emptiness

Buddhists do not believe in God, they believe in emptiness. First tell them that Buddhists don't believe in God, and secondly you tell them they believe in emptiness. That's worse! That they believe in "nothingness!" That's worse!

That's why you need to explain. Because when Buddhist say they do not believe in God, it does not mean that Buddhists don't believe in the nature of God! Because the nature of God is the nature of truth, is the sunyata, or emptiness. The same! But Buddhists do not believe in the concept of God. Because in many ways you, you see, however good the concepts are, it does not do justice for the Absolute. All the concepts of God will not describe, really, what God is.

Do you know what I'm saying? There is a wonderful saying by a great Buddhist master called Shantideva, who is a very great compassion master. He said, "Absolute is beyond mind." That which is within the realm of mind is called relative. "Absolute is beyond mind." Since God is beyond mind, it is beyond concept. Therefore empty, empty means free, open, like the sky. It doesn't mean emptiness in a nihilistic sense, like my cup is empty of tea or something.—OSHO

Self-awareness does not mean one is transforming something into something else. In self –awareness there is no second thing exist other than consciousness in the midst of diversity.  The body and the world have become on in essence. There is no duality in the midst of duality.   There is not even the concept of real and unreal. Of course it does not mean that when one is involved in practical life within the practical world disappears. But in self-awareness one is consciously aware of ‘what truth’ is and ‘what is not truth’ in the midst of duality, because one sees his ego, his body and his experience the world as consciousness.  Thus for a Gnani there is no second thing exists other than consciousness even though he is in the midst of diversity.    

Nothingness is erroneous conclusion because every thought has its opposite every word is tied to its coordinate for all thought and speech can only operate under such dualism. Hence, taking the most fundamental word, existence its implied opposite non-existence is also there, and vice versa. So the nothingness or “non-entity" is meaningless without "entity". Both are there.

When one says "Nothing is" what is the meaning of "is"? "Nothingness” is something which exists: one cannot prove that consciousness does not exist.

Has the Void a meaning? If so then it is only one’s  imagination.  Buddha gave up yoga after practicing it for six years. He saw it could not yield truth. 

The 'Void' of emptiness of Buddhism is only a stage. It cannot be ultimate. It says there is really nothing. The mistake of Hinayana Buddhism is to jump to assumptions where Buddha kept silent.

Buddha also holds that this world which changes from moment to moment is no real, it is only a reflection and a thing of which it is the reflection alone is real. Buddha was not an atheist. He never denied reality. 

There is nothing in his words or teaching to show that he considered truth to be non-existent like horns of a hare. He could not have held the foolish view that something came out of nothing. It is true; some of his disciples misunderstood and misinterpreted him. his idea was that the truth which cannot be designated by a name , or described is words and of which one cannot even say whether it is existent or none extent , is like non-existent.  The idea is quiet in agreement with the view of Upanishads. An object which cannot even be talked about, is, for all practical purposes, as good as non-extent. But it is not non-existent in the sense that the son of barren woman is non-existent.  This subtle idea, Buddha's contemporaries and even his disciple fail to catch. In one passage Buddha says clearly: Srmana Guutama was an atheist. It is annihilation of non-existent of truth that he teaches. So will people attribute to me atheism, which is not mine? So will they ascribe me to the theory of non-existent, which again is not mine. 

From these similar statements of Buddha it is clear that he was not an atheist. All philosophers old and new arrive at the same point. Orthodox Advaita (monism) that is inevitable; the people of thoughtful temperament cannot find peace and quietude until they do so. Moksha (liberation) is in the realization of oneness with God. They speak of God Goddesses, devotion and devotee, only in an in accurate way only from the standpoint of dvaithi.  After realization oneness with God, there is no distinction between god and devote and the word "devotion" has no meaning.   

 

Gaudapada’s rational exposition of Advaita: - that whatever is seen, whether external or internal, whether by the ordinary persons or yogis, is unreal.

Buddhism says: all things are illusory and noting exists.  However, Advaita avers that it is not so.  It says that the Universe of course is illusory, but there is Brahman, that exists forming the very substratum of all things.