Nibbana vs Moksha

[EndlessArising]

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.

I understand the terminologies quite well. According to Buddhism, sat chit ananda leads to rebirth in a formless realm because of the fixation on infinite space.

There are no permanent realms in Buddhism. This, for instance, is the desire realm.

Buddhist cosmology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Liberation for the Brahminic yogin was thought to be the permanent realization at death of a nondual meditative state anticipated in life. . . The Buddha taught that these meditative states alone do not offer a decisive and permanent end to suffering either during life or after death.[104]

He stated that achieving a formless attainment with no further practice would only lead to temporary rebirth in a formless realm after death.[105] Moreover, he gave a pragmatic refutation of early Brahminical theories according to which the meditator, the meditative state, and the proposed uncaused, unborn, unanalyzable Self, are identical.[106] These theories are undergirded by the Upanishadic correspondence between macrocosm and microcosm, from which perspective it is not surprising that meditative states of consciousness were thought to be identical to the subtle strata of the cosmos.[107] The Buddha, in contrast, argued that states of consciousness come about caused and conditioned by the yogi's training and techniques, and therefore no state of consciousness could be this eternal Self

Buddhism and Hinduism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[atanu]

I understand the terminologies quite well. According to Buddhism, sat chit ananda leads to rebirth in a formless realm because of the fixation on infinite space.

I am sorry man. How can nature lead you to re-birth? You yourself say that some fixation is the cause.

The point: sat-chit-ananda is not a loka (which is a realm). sat-chit-ananda is the nature underlying the phenomenon. Again, you should not mistake the revealed nature with the revealer.

 

[EndlessArising]

Like I said in another post, nature in Buddhist terms is not an underlying formless essence, like an actually existent ground. True nature of something is it's actual condition, or what that thing truly is when you remove labels. This is not denying the experience of the thing, or saying that it's truly another thing, or another experience entirely. It's like a mirage. Yet it's experience is not/cannot be denied. Does not mean there is a true reality BEHIND the phenomena. That phenomena IS it.

And by fixation I meant concentration on the concept of formless, all pervading, etc. which are the definitions of Brahman in the Upanisads. The state/experience of sat chit ananda depends on concentrating on these concepts. I am not saying the experience isn't real.

 

[atanu]

Like I said in another post, nature in Buddhist terms is not an underlying formless essence,

But we were talking of sat-chit-ananda -- the Hindu understanding.

 

[apophenia]

And by fixation I meant concentration on the concept of formless, all pervading, etc. which are the definitions of Brahman in the Upanisads. The state/experience of sat chit ananda depends on concentrating on these concepts. I am not saying the experience isn't real.

The bolded phrases are relevant here. I think that you are choosing to focus on words and concepts, and their place in your models. Then you are assuming that anyone else who uses those words is making the error defined in your model.

Have you considered the possibility that others don't refer to a conceptual model when they use a term such as sat-cit-ananda ? Perhaps the term is used to refer to the recognition of natural mind, maybe they mean 'naturally liberated in displays of spontaneous presence'. For example.

This is an easy mistake to make. There is confusing the map with the territory, and I feel that you are quite aware of that, but there is also presuming that your cognitive map is being used by others. That would be a wrong cognition.

You are effectively saying that no hindu yogi could have realised what Buddha realised, because the terms of reference don't suit the language of your philosophical model.

Your statement - 'The state/experience of sat chit ananda depends on concentrating on these concepts' - asserts that the hindus are concentrating on concepts.

Yet sat-cit-ananda is considered by hindus to be beyond concepts, fully present.