Jikan wrote:I still don't think Brahman and thusness are the same thing.
Yes. They are not the same.
Suchness is emptiness. Yet, I think we would agree that the Buddhist emptiness is not an inert emptiness—it is a knowing, or aware, emptiness. In addition, this empty awareness is expressive or radiant—it has a projecting aspect. Even though we speak of three aspects, they are, in fact, inseparable.
Hindu systems of thought focus on the inseparability of the knowing and projecting aspects: Shiva/Shaki in Shaivism, Purusha/Prakriti in Sankhya, or Brahman/Maya in Vedanta. Within the Upanishadic system of thought, the knowing aspect (pure consciousness) is called Brahman. The expressive aspect is called Maya (illusory power). The knowing aspect when discussed separately, is known as Nirguna Brahman. The knowing aspect when discussed in connection with Maya, it is called Saguna Brahman.
Going back to the trikaya nature in Buddhism. Perhaps a rough Buddhist analogy would go something like this. Focusing on the aware aspect alone would be Nirguna Buddha. Focusing on the aware aspect inseparable for its expression would be Saguna Buddha. There is only one “Buddha”, but it can be discussed from different perspectives (Emptiness, Awareness, Expression, Empty-Awareness, Aware-Expression, Empty-Expression, Empty-Aware-Expression).
Hindus tend to discuss Awareness, Expression and Awareness-Expression. The "Empty-" combinations are not covered, with the possible exception of Empty-Expression as the illusory nature of appearances. That's my opinion anyway.