Nibbana vs Moksha

[Marco19]

Dear friends,

In "the Buddha and His Dhamma by Ambedkar", the author mentioned that Buddha has rejected the Hindu concept of Moksha and He brought the concept of Nibbana.

So, i wonder how do you differentiate between Nibbana and Moksha?

Thanks in advance,
Namaste

 

[AnEternalNow]

Hindu Moksha is being freed or released from the notion of egoity, it is like breaking the vase so that the space inside and the space outside are no longer differentiated, there is only all-pervasive Presence like air. There is just the oceanic Brahman which is pure-consciousness-existence-bliss, which is the true Self, no longer veiled by the limitations of egoity.

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.

More info:

http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2009/02/madhyamika-buddhism-vis-vis-hindu.html

http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2011/10/zen-exploration-of-bahiya-sutta.html

 

[Marco19]

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.

in this case let me reform my question and ask the difference between Nibbana and Nihlist view, because He rejected Nihlism too, but i see the description above as Nihlism. :help:

 

[EndlessArising]

in this case let me reform my question and ask the difference between Nibbana and Nihlist view, because He rejected Nihlism too, but i see the description above as Nihlism. :help:

How is it nihilism? What is your view of nihilism?

Here is a great writeup of the two extreme views of eternalism and nihilism, which the Buddha rejected as false and not leading to supreme liberation

What Buddhists Believe - Eternalism and Nihilism

To develop Right View or Perfect View, we must first be aware of two views which are considered imperfect or wrong.

The first view is eternalism. This doctrine or belief is concerned with eternal life or with eternal things. Before the Buddha's time, it was taught that there is an abiding entity which could exist forever, and that man can live the eternal life by preserving the eternal soul in order to be in union with Supreme Being. In Buddhism, this teaching is called sassata ditthi ----the view of eternalists. Such views still exist even in the modern world owing to man's craving for eternity.

Why did the Buddha deny the teaching of eternalism? Because when we understand the things of this world as they truly are, we cannot find anything which is permanent or which exists forever. Things change and continue to do so according to the changing conditions on which they depend. When we analyse things into their elements or into reality, we cannot find any abiding entity, any everlasting thing. This is why the eternalist view is considered wrong or false.

The second false view is nihilism or the view held by the nihilists who claim that there is no life after death. This view belongs to a materialistic philosophy which refuses to accept knowledge of mental conditionality. To subscribe to a philosophy of materialism is to understand life only partially. Nihilism ignores the side of life which is concerned with mental conditionality. If one claims that after the passing away or ceasing of a life, it does not come to be again, the continuity of mental conditions is denied. To understand life, we must consider all conditions, both mental and material. When we understand mental and material conditions, we cannot say that there is no life after death and that there is no further becoming after passing away. This nihilist view of existence is considered false because it is based on incomplete understanding of reality. That is why nihilism was also rejected by the Buddha. The teaching of kamma is enough to prove that the Buddha did not teach annihilation after death; Buddhism accepts 'survival' not in the sense of an eternal soul, but in the sense of a renewed becoming.

 

[EndlessArising]

Dear friends,

In "the Buddha and His Dhamma by Ambedkar", the author mentioned that Buddha has rejected the Hindu concept of Moksha and He brought the concept of Nibbana.

So, i wonder how do you differentiate between Nibbana and Moksha?

Thanks in advance,
Namaste

This is an excellent question.

I wrote a paper about this a while back. https://www.dropbox.com/s/0f8eu3pvasgyt4a/HinduBudds.doc

 

[Marco19]

Nice article, i think i'm stuck in between these two concepts,
the first one eternalism is understandable, so let's leave it aside.

the concept of Nihlism, as i understand it, is the same as the article explains, but what i'm confused is the following:
in Nihlism when the person dies means it's the end, everything ceased.
in Nibbana the concept of rebirth occurs till complete purification occurs, so death is not the end ... BUT after purification (no need for more rebirth) we enter Nibbana (the end).

My confusing point is that i can't see any difference between the Nibbana (may be after million times of rebirth) and Nihlist concept of the end.

hope i clarifyed my confused thoughts

 

[EndlessArising]

I do not think Nirvana is the END. It's the end of suffering and ignorance, but the mindstream continues. This isn't talked about much in the early teachings, but in later Mahayana they do talk about how Buddhas emanate bodies to help beings.. so clearly there is a continuation.

 

[Marco19]

I do not think Nirvana is the END. It's the end of suffering and ignorance, but the mindstream continues. This isn't talked about much in the early teachings, but in later Mahayana they do talk about how Buddhas emanate bodies to help beings.. so clearly there is a continuation.

Thanks for reply,

may i ask for some sources to read more about the "continuation", which type of "continuation" is it?

Do you think only Mahayana talks about it? then what about Therevada?

 

[AnEternalNow]

in this case let me reform my question and ask the difference between Nibbana and Nihlist view, because He rejected Nihlism too, but i see the description above as Nihlism. :help:

The Eternalist view is this:

A self exists but is not tied up to the body. It is immortal, and depending on the person it may be seen as an individual soul, or as an infinite pervasive Presence. This Presence exists eternally unperturbed by the death of the physical body. Such a person may also accept the existence of reincarnation and karma.


The Annihilationist view is this:

A self exists but is tied up to the body, so when the body dies, the self annihilates or ceases to be. There is no karma, no rebirth, no nothing after death. Compared to the eternalist view, this view has the more potential for harm and potential to cause a birth in the lower realms. The eternalist view, accepting the existence of karma and reincarnation, may still lead the person to a higher rebirth - yet not quite enough for the attainment of Nirvana. Ultimately, both the eternalist and annihilationist view are hindrances to liberation.


The Buddha's view is this:

Eternalist and annihilationist views are to be rejected.

No self can be pinned down as a reality inside or apart from the five self-less aggregates of form, feeling, perception, volition and consciousness. Since there is no self that can be pinned down as a truth or reality, there is no soul to 'reincarnate'. Nonetheless there is rebirth - and rebirth happens due to a causal process via karma. In other words, the present body-mind performs a karma, and this karma ripens to manifest as a new body-mind. The next body-mind is neither same, nor different from, this current body-mind. There is no transmigration of anything, of any soul. Yet there is rebirth. This is likened to a candle light up another candle - the fire of one is neither the same nor different from the other. There is no passing on of any eternal entity.

So what is Nirvana? Nirvana with remainder is when an arahant has destroyed the afflictions of craving, aggression and delusion. Yet the sense faculty and experiences continue to manifest vividly as his body is functioning still.

Nirvana without remainder is when the arahant has entered the post-mortem level. At this stage, all aggregates cease without remainder. Is this the annihilation of the nihilist? No. Because no 'self' has been posited to begin with, there is no 'annihilation of self'. This is what the Buddha taught. There is only the arising of dharmas due to causes and conditions, and the cessation of dharmas due to departure of causes and conditions. At any point there is no 'I' that exists and then later falls into non-existence, no 'I' to begin with. He furthermore said, the only teaching I taught is this: Suffering, and the cessation of suffering. He does not teach the annihilation of a self.

Also he taught, "It is just the dharmas[aggregates, appearances] that combine to form this body. When it arises, it is simply the dharmas arising; when it ceases, it is simply the dharmas ceasing. When these dharmas arise, [the bodhisattva aka enlightened one] does not state, 'I arise'; when these dharmas cease, he does not state, 'I cease'."

 

[EndlessArising]

Thanks for reply,

may i ask for some sources to read more about the "continuation", which type of "continuation" is it?

Do you think only Mahayana talks about it? then what about Therevada?

No I am not sure if the early scriptures talk much about it. EternalNow gave you the Theravada position pretty well. Mahayana does talk about it abit, especially Tibetans. See the Trikaya doctrine Trikaya - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia also Rainbow body - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[ratikala]

dear eternal now ,

Hindu Moksha is being freed or released from the notion of egoity, it is like breaking the vase so that the space inside and the space outside are no longer differentiated, there is only all-pervasive Presence like air. There is just the oceanic Brahman which is pure-consciousness-existence-bliss, which is the true Self, no longer veiled by the limitations of egoity.

Moksha ; release from the cycle of birth amd death ......which leads on to Nirvana ; which is the blissfull state satcitananda .

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.

Nirvana ;fredom from craving , the state of being free from samsaric suffering ,
equaly a state of bliss .satcitananda;dharmakaya

 

[EndlessArising]

Nirvana is not sat chit ananda. If it were, there would've been no reason for the Buddha to teach the Dharma. He would've just taught the Upanisads and used Hindu terminologies. But he rejected the Vedas and their moksha and taught a different path.

Buddhists understand sat chit ananda. They call it Arupaloka http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_cosmology#Formless_Realm_.28.C4.80r.C5.ABpyadh.C4.81tu.29

 

[AnEternalNow]

No I am not sure if the early scriptures talk much about it. EternalNow gave you the Theravada position pretty well. Mahayana does talk about it abit, especially Tibetans. See the Trikaya doctrine Trikaya - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia also Rainbow body - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Mahayana and Vajrayana account does not contradict the Theravada teachings on anatta (no-self). In other words they do not teach an eternal soul (eternalism) nor a self that annihilates (nihilism).

It does however provide a more detailed explanation of the post-mortem state, the state of bardo, how a person who dies undergoes visions and transits to the next life. At no time do they posit some substantial soul.

As for the awakened Buddha, it is taught that a Buddha's stream of wisdom does not cease and can continue to manifest/emanate and guide other sentient beings.

 

[AnEternalNow]

dear eternal now ,



Moksha ; release from the cycle of birth amd death ......which leads on to Nirvana ; which is the blissfull state satcitananda .

Nirvana ;fredom from craving , the state of being free from samsaric suffering ,
equaly a state of bliss .satcitananda;dharmakaya

The Nirvana (Cessation) of Buddhism is not satchitananda. The Nirvana of Buddhism is not the same as the Moksha of Hinduism/Advaita.

Nirvana is either the cessation of elimination of craving, aggression and delusion with the remainder of sense awareness and faculties, or even the cessation of that into the final nirvana which is like nirodha samapatti.

The only ananda (bliss) Buddha spoke of in reference to Nirvana is the 'absence of suffering'. It is spoken in negative (bliss is the absence of suffering), it is not a state of pure consciousness however.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an09/an09.034.than.html
I have heard that on one occasion Ven. Sariputta was staying near Rajagaha in the Bamboo Grove, the Squirrels' Feeding Sanctuary. There he said to the monks, "This Unbinding is pleasant, friends. This Unbinding is pleasant."


When this was said, Ven. Udayin said to Ven. Sariputta, "But what is the pleasure here, my friend, where there is nothing felt?"
"Just that is the pleasure here, my friend: where there is nothing felt. There are these five strings of sensuality. Which five? Forms cognizable via the eye — agreeable, pleasing, charming, endearing, fostering desire, enticing; sounds cognizable via the ear... smells cognizable via the nose... tastes cognizable via the tongue... tactile sensations cognizable via the body — agreeable, pleasing, charming, endearing, fostering desire, enticing. Whatever pleasure or joy arises in dependence on these five strings of sensuality, that is sensual pleasure.
.... etc etc
..."Furthermore, there is the case where a monk, with the complete transcending of the dimension of nothingness, enters & remains in the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception. If, as he remains there, he is beset with attention to perceptions dealing with the dimension of nothingness, that is an affliction for him. Now, the Blessed One has said that whatever is an affliction is stress. So by this line of reasoning it may be known how pleasant Unbinding is.
"Furthermore, there is the case where a monk, with the complete transcending of the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception, enters & remains in the cessation of perception & feeling. And, having seen [that] with discernment, his mental fermentations are completely ended. So by this line of reasoning it may be known how Unbinding is pleasant."


This however is talking about the state of Nirodha Samapatti. An arhat after death 'enters' into Nirodha Samapatti, but a Mahayana and Vajrayana practitioner does not seek long term abidance in it. Nirodha samapatti can be experienced in meditation by a highly awakened practitioner who has mastery of the formless realms, and transcending even that formless realms reaches the state of cessation of perception and feelings. At that point not even the slightest trace of awareness is left. Daniel M. Ingram speaks about this experience here: http://web.mac.com/danielmingram/iW...ook/2CECD5EA-6058-4428-8DDD-002856C2E28A.html

That being said, when you awaken to anatta (be it as an arhat, stream enterer, bodhisattva, etc), in daily living every transient sensation is experienced as non-dual pure consciousness and bliss (but not some ultimate ontological essence) - rather, there is just pure consciousness of sound, pure consciousness of sight and so on. All dependently originates and are insubstantial. There is no seer, hearer, etc. Nonetheless we do not hold an eternalist view of 'pure consciousness'. Even the 'I AM' is seen to be more manifestation - a subtle mind-manifestation as pure consciousness. There is no substantial Self.

So not to mistaken that Buddhists aren't aware of what Buddha calls "the mind is luminous". The mind, all experiences which is mind, is self-luminous, but empty (of self).

 

[ratikala]

dear eternal now

The Nirvana (Cessation) of Buddhism is not satchitananda. The Nirvana of Buddhism is not the same as the Moksha of Hinduism/Advaita.

nirvana as with all things is existing on two levels , on the conventional or mundane level as mental absorbtion where by one reaches a state of freedom from craving ....as your quote says

"Furthermore, there is the case where a monk, with the complete transcending of the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception, enters & remains in the cessation of perception & feeling. And, having seen [that] with discernment, his mental fermentations are completely ended. So by this line of reasoning it may be known how Unbinding is pleasant."

then there is nirvana on the level of ultimate reality where upon the trancendance is not of mind alone but trancendance of the cycle of birth and death .. no more becoming !



past that I do not wish to enter into wordy wrangling ,

I am not here to argue ... the original post asks

So, I wonder how do you differentiate between Nibbana and Moksha?

and I might point out that you are not the only you that that question was adressed to and that others may allso have something to add .

prehaps you might like to ask how I see it instead of telling me ...is not !!!

Originally Posted by AnEternalNow
The Nirvana (Cessation) of Buddhism is not satchitananda. The Nirvana of Buddhism is not the same as the Moksha of Hinduism/Advaita.

sat cit ananda does not belong entirely to hinduism/advaita prehaps you might like to listen and learn ?

 

[ratikala]

dear sir ,

Nirvana is not sat chit ananda. If it were, there would've been no reason for the Buddha to teach the Dharma. He would've just taught the Upanisads and used Hindu terminologies. But he rejected the Vedas and their moksha and taught a different path.

Buddhists understand sat chit ananda. They call it Arupaloka Buddhist cosmology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

oh dear , oh dear , you allso seem to be of equal closed mind , "is not"!!!!

there are many reasons that the buddha of this age taught the dharma but I will not enter in to that here .Ive posted on that before you may look it up if you wish .

I hate to tell you that as a buddhist I understand sat cit ananda and find no need to cal it arupa loka as arupaloka is but one aspect of sat cit ananda .

can you not accept that there are buddhists who use sanskrit terms as equaly some but all use pali ??? using sanskrit dosent only denote hindu understanding , sanskrit is the root of much tibetan terminology allso .

 

[Twilight Hue]

dear eternal now ,



Moksha ; release from the cycle of birth amd death ......which leads on to Nirvana ; which is the blissfull state satcitananda .

Nirvana ;fredom from craving , the state of being free from samsaric suffering ,
equaly a state of bliss .satcitananda;dharmakaya

My view as well but I dont take nirvana (*) as being a state of bliss or state of anything. Yet I supppse when dukkha ceases your "there".

 

[atanu]

My view as well but I dont take nirvana (*) as being a state of bliss or state of anything. Yet I supppse when dukkha ceases your "there".

Else how will be the cessation of dukkha known/discerned?

 

[Twilight Hue]

Else how will be the cessation of dukkha known/discerned?

Easy. Whenever you forget to notice one way or another. ;0)

 

[atanu]

----- He would've just taught the Upanisads and used Hindu terminologies. But he rejected the Vedas and their moksha and taught a different path.

It is same way some muslims (and others) say about their religion.

Buddhists understand sat chit ananda. They call it Arupaloka Buddhist cosmology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sat-chit-ananda is not a loka. It is the naure of being. All that we do or say depends on this primeval nature. Without existence, without cognition, and without the bliss the dream will not continue for a moment. Loka is the dream.

You may wish to first understand the terminologies from within Hinduism.