Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Nirvana and Moksha?
Hey everyone. I was just curious as to what the differences are between the Hindu concept of Moksha and the Buddhist concept of Nirvana? Is there a major difference or is just a name?
0
Comments
Nirvana is when the candle is blown out. Where does the flame go?
I would think that understanding other belief systems would help to cultivate compassion which I think is pretty important to our practice. But you posted anyway because...? :skeptic:
Nirvana taught by Buddha is the elimination of craving, aggression and delusion. He rejects any notion of a Self, or an Atman that is Brahman, he rejects notion of an eternal substance as being salvation. He teaches 'in the seen just the seen, in the heard just the heard, ... no you in terms of that'. He teaches that the insight of anicca, dukkha and anatta leads to the deconstruction of proliferation, leads to dispassion and relinquishment of craving, attachments, and the arising of wisdom ends delusion.
Also, check these out:
http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2007/03/thusnesss-six-stages-of-experience.html
http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2011/10/zen-exploration-of-bahiya-sutta.html
He would technically be a Hindu I suppose. But I think he’s not into labeling or intellectual hairsplitting himself. I’ll just add a quote from Wikipedia.
My take on the OP’s question: the differences we can see are the result of intellectual hairsplitting, not of genuine realization.
But I think the person who wrote this doesn't know the first thing about either "union" or about "liberation".
If he knew; how could he even begin to talk about them being "the same" or "different"?
IMHO
It's dogmatic intellectual rubbish.
That seemed a bit harsh.
Why is it dogmatic intellectual rubbish. On what grounds do you say such things zenff?
Why wouldn't someone who knew about union or liberation not be able to point out the differences?
Surely you know that Buddhism is about liberation -- right here right now. That is the transcendence of, whilst within.
I was surprised by your harsh reaction and judgement to what seemed like a fair assessment actually.
WW,
Abu
So one teacher says “union” and the other says “liberation”. They both just point at something they can not put in words.
God, Brahman and emptiness are concepts. As such they can be different. But their diference is beside the point.
Neither God nor Brahman nor emptiness can really be grasped with our intellectual mind.
“Beside the point” is not as harshly put as “dogmatic intellectual rubbish”.
It’s the same idea though.
Glad you have it all figured out @zenff.
For anyone else who is still open, the text seems to read:
Now you’re being sarcastic.
Fine. I’m not going to waste my time on it.
I’ll have an orapple for lunch.
Enjoy the fruits.
For those who encounter emptiness teachings after they've become familiar with awareness teachings, it's very tempting to misread the emptiness teachings by substituting terms. That is, it's very easy to misread the emptiness teachings by seeing "emptiness" on the page and thinking to yourself, "awareness, consciousness, I know what they're talking about."
Early in my own study I began with this substitution in mind. With this misreading, I found a lot in the emptiness teachings to be quite INcomprehensible! So I started again, laying aside the notion that "emptiness" and "awareness" were equivalent. I tried to let the emptiness teachings speak for themselves. I came to find that they have a subtle beauty and power, a flavor quite different from the awareness teachings. Emptiness teachings do not speak of emptiness as a true nature that underlies or supports things. Rather, it speaks of selves and things as essenceless and free.
............
• Emptiness is not a substance
• Emptiness is not a substratum or background
• Emptiness is not light
• Emptiness is not consciousness or awareness
• Emptiness is not the Absolute
• Emptiness does not exist on its own
• Objects do not consist of emptiness
• Objects do not arise from emptiness
• Emptiness of the "I" does not negate the "I"
• Emptiness is not the feeling that results when no objects are appearing to the mind
• Meditating on emptiness does not consist of quieting the mind
Source: Non-Dual Emptiness Teaching ( http://www.heartofnow.com/files/emptiness.html )
For some people, the best medicine is a car crash and near death experience. For others it's various experiences.
The bottom line, that you are unlikely to accept right now, so I don't know why I bother but why not... is that you don't have anything special in Buddhism, and you are not special at all. You're completely ordinary. And the trouble is, most people think deep down, that being ordinary, without any special wisdom or power, is the worst thing they could be. But ordinary doesn't mean what you think it means, just as Hinduism doesn't mean what you think it means.
This isn't a competitive sport, where everyone's looking for that perfect technique to beat the high jump record, where gravity is your enemy and who will crush any but the most orthodox attempt. There are no shortcuts like being right. Being right isn't a shortcut. Doing your best is.
Even for those who accept Buddhism and reject Hinduism, there are those who say 'ah, but you follow an inferior path of Buddhism, and even if you succeed, there will be something missing. You may have realised the emptiness of apples but not that of oranges.' At this point, it's just politics, and politics means neglecting the harvest.
What are you talking about? I seem to have lost your point, friend.
On the apples and oranges, some words mean the same thing in practice, and others don't. That was the point.
I do not think Buddhism has anything special, but it certainly shows the way to true liberation and heart - as the Buddha said i.e. what it says on the tin.
Hinduism, which I am not interested in exploring myself, is possibly an actual different religion. Similar words and concepts do not make the same religion thus. That should also be understood about 'words' IMO. Union is concentration, liberation is transcendence within the worldly.
As to the rest of your points, I don't know where you are even coming from, but please continue to give your opinions as I am interested in hearing them.
Metta,
Abu
As to the rest of this post quoted, smiles, I like it.
But different paths can also lead to different results, just ask the jhana groupies.
Best wishes,
Abu
we're all nutty
I'm much more comfortable with the idea that certain people receive help to refine their practice, than with defining a religion by the religion it supposedly supercedes.
Tailored clothes fit better than off the peg ones.
If you're halfway to enlightenment, trying hard and making sure you follow the correct teachings, you're still deluded. As I said, enlightenment isn't special or a high position, it's very simply the least that is expected of us. Any less is madness. And all the teachings are skillful means only, dried dung, the words of old fools. If we cling to them, or the idea that there even is a teaching, or clinging, or that we can be taught.
The usual response to what I've just said is 'so why do you speak at all?'. So I asked the birds why they sing, but they could only tell me by singing some more. And in the end I had to listen.
I for one say "Go for it - do whatever you want, believe what you want, act as you see fit"
And I am also saying though that to imagine a devout modern day Christian Bible thumper is following the same path as Buddhism because the word God might be shared is wrong.
i.e. Everyone shares in this whole life and they (we) are all free to do as we like, but if we want certain results, we might follow certain paths, that is all.
For Buddhists, this is a context and approach if they are interested in the seeds of liberation as is taught.
And in Buddhist terms, this life is cause and effect, we reap what we sow, and that is life.
Ta,
Abu
Who said not everyone's path is equally important?
What are you reading, Prairie?
I think you are presupposing a lot of things.
And just briefly, of course there is a teaching, the teaching is used until it is relinquished i.e until it is known, embodied and lived within oneself, when one has penetrated the levels of teaching.
I don't have a question with you speaking, but I will respond to your points as I read them.
Namaste,
Abu
You claim certain things but you cannot back them up because you are misreading a lot, and probably assuming a lot more.
Well wishes,
Abu
Please respond to posts as they are written in future.
Best wishes,
Abu
Anyway, now I'm off to the mountains. Namaste, and all that jazz.
You do seem to have a lot of excuses and self belief in yourself, it's a real pity though that you cannot seem to comprehend discussions, make up points that are not there, and then self-congratulate yourself for your imagined understandings.
I particularly like the one about 'The teaching is merely the final drop of poison before the antidote is discovered.' That was quite amusing - waxing wise whilst showing little comprehension.
Best wishes,
Abu
Moksha is like 1+1 = 1. Basically its putting everything together as consciousness or Brahman. And instead of calling it separate it is one whole entity.
Nirvana is more of an absence of the "thing" be it one or many. Its the release of the body and mind from its clench of attraction and repulsion through prajna wisdom.
So one can experience and even realize moksha. That would be significant but from there two things can happen. An individual can be stuck there forever and believe themselves to be "enlightened" or whatever. Or the individual can continue dropping even consciousness, presence, everything.
I'd say its good to know the difference only so that one doesn't have spiritual bypassing. Thats why its always good to be in a good lineage with a good teacher. They have the maps and experience to help you.
The differences are subtle, yet very profound.
Anyways just my casual sharing. Hope this helps.
Thanks (I don't know enough to comment on those points but thankyou for that post)
Just general chat: Have you joined a new school recently?
Abu
No problemo.
Joined Chogyal Namkhai Norbu's Dzogchen community.
Going on a two week meditation retreat in Colorado then off to a one week retreat in Western Massachusetts with Namkhai Norbu. 14 more days till retreat. Can't wait.
Hope it all goes well.
Thankyou for the response, taiyaki. :wave:
Namaste.
Recently noticed many great practitioners from this tradition who have this direct realization.
what does the mind focus on? Or is it each instant as the whole?
where can i find more information on maha realization?
i am thankful as always.
I understand why you see me in this way, which is probably a really infuriating thing for me to say, so sorry about that.
The ad-homs are best left unsaid, however. You may disagree with me but you cannot know that I am not sincere, so even if you think I am not, (and I can see how you may think that, because a lot of people appear to use cryptic language to inflate perceptions of their understanding) it is still better to consider what I'm saying and respond to it, or ignore it, than attack me personally.
Let's put aside that last post of yours and continue the conversation if there is anything left to say.
However, while I respect them, logic and rhetoric are not my first priority, since the dhamma comes before them, and does not serve these frameworks. It is impossible to have even the slightest realisation, I mean at the very faintest level, if one is not open to logic i.e. one's mind and intelligence, relaxing its sense of primacy.
So sometimes I'll say things that make you mad, and it's not because I want you to think I'm clever. I don't have much need for that these days; it never did me any good when people did think that, and it never did me any harm when they thought I was an idiot either, nor did it always correlate with the worth of what I was saying. I expect it's been the same for you.
The holy scriptures of Hinduism point to it, those of Buddhism point to it too. But if you can't see that the way cloud rolls from the mountain points to it, if you can't see that watching the correct way to cook pasta or boil an egg points to it, then you haven't yet made the progress you think you have made.
And just to clear up the other post, which you said was a copout, my point was that one can realise understanding in a smile, one can teach the entire path from start to finish in one smile, and you don't even have to see the smile in person to understand how this can be so. But it's your choice.
If I were to identify such a relative point, I might say that learned Buddhism ten years ago, very depressed, when a monk smiled at me in a pureland centre. Everything I've since learned, I now see, guilelessness, openness, comradeship and endless beloved mystery, was encapsulated in that smile.
Everything I've studied and every meditation session has mattered only in as much as these things have gradually bridged the gap between my world and the world the smile came from, because I now see it was all there in that moment, and if I'd only let go then, let go of all my pretense to understanding, to tradition and self, I'd have those ten years back. So think on, because the path can be as easy or as difficult as you make it.
So please ask yourself for a moment whether you can conceive of that kind of smile, that Eureka! moment which never ends, when you realise a dimension beyond and inclusive of phenomenal knowledge. You've seen that smile before, you've even smiled it yourself, maybe many times a day, when you greet an old friend perhaps, when you offer a coin to a beggar, when you complement a musician, but you never realised it was possible to dwell there, and that in doing so life can only deepen.
I was just reading this article by Dr Greg Goode today, who explored emptiness teachings after having realized the One Mind/Brahman.
http://www.emptiness.co/adv_to_empt
Try reading Ted Biringer's book and Dogen's materials though they may not always be easy reading.
Thanks I'll have a look.
@PrairieGhost
I do agree that realization is important.
Buddhism's nirvana and whole path set it apart from all religious realizations. Yes they are all non conceptual and brings confidence without doubt.
There are distinctions to be made though. Ignorance is deep. And wisdom is used as a means to cut ignorance.
Ignorance is the minds doing. But fundementally its not recognizing the nature of this condition as it is.
So many will deconstruct this what is with their filters of interpretations.
They call it god, suchness, emptiness, etc.
Names are irrelevant. But people still cling hard. And its not conceptual clinging that is the root problem. Its clinging onto a center. A reference point of this or that.
No religion except buddhism questions the assertions we give onto this nameless, infinite expanse.
But whats special about buddhism is that there are infinite different paths towards the same truth. And most importantly it is taught as the cessation of suffering.
Imho the buddha's realization goes beyond the hindus moksha. But thats just an opinion based on following hindu thought for a couple years.
Just more thoughts