Question regarding Moksha

[Mindmaster]

I'm not sure this is a question about moksha rather than how Buddhists and Hindus feel about the possibility of one choosing to ignore the reality of moksha...

There are many angles to this conversation, so I see your point. I guess we will simply get there by expanding it...

It's strange, but I really don't have a belief in karma / gunas / etc... Rather, I am aware of them in my own existence. If one takes a moment to inquire about the action in their own life you can see patterns form - you can see the "attractiveness" properties of the gunas easily, for example. So, at this juncture (being rather new to Advaita) I've simply learned to trust the words of the gurus in the various books I've read due to them being extremely right about things under my nose that I've been ignoring. As time goes on, I keep finding that they're more right.

Perhaps that is what draws me to it, that they don't expect me to believe anything just examine the reality intensively and see for myself.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

For humans not so much because people are too hung up on worldly things...greed...lust...desire...

They are presumably simply following their impulses though, correct?

 

[Buddha Dharma]

I've simply learned to trust the words of the gurus in the various books I've read due to them being extremely right about things under my nose that I've been ignoring. As time goes on, I keep finding that they're more right.

I started out that way in Buddhism. I took a leap to trust the Buddha and I kept gaining insight and making breakthroughs that confirmed it to me. My life has improved so much just from the smallest benefits of the path. I used to be very impulsive with my emotional whims and flights of fancy. It can make it easier to accept the teachings of the sages and such figures when they talk about deeper things, after finding the basic things bear out.

I don't think Buddhism and Hinduism are as different as is sometimes exaggerated. We're talking about the same Ultimate Reality from perspectives, as most all Indian thought schools do.

 

[Mindmaster]

You would still wish good rebirth. So it's in your interest to be moral and ethical in your life and do good deeds and be compassionate. These bring rewards in this life and in the next..on average. Hinduism considers being good and ethical in pursuit of family, material and sensual happiness as worthy goals in and of themselves. Hinduism has a list of 10 recommendation for this purpose.

Yamas and Niyamas - वेद Veda
These 10 yamas and niyamas are considered the first stages of any Hindu practice and appropriate for any lay person.

It's important to differentiate "good deeds" done for an expectation of moksha, and good deeds done for absolutely no consideration of reward whatsoever. You only get there in the latter case.

Personally, as one with a western mind I found this hard to grasp, initially. It's not so much what is done, but how it is done that matters.

 

[Runewolf1973]

I believe that the understanding which the Hindus and Buddhists teach can come to some naturally without being told or being taught. For me personally, it's like it's just second nature. Maybe I was Hindu or Buddhist in a past life or something. I never read any books about it, but it's like I just know it, it makes sense. Wierd I guess...

 

[Buddha Dharma]

@Runewolf1973 Buddhism acknowledges one can indeed touch Nirvana spontaneously. There's nothing wrong with that, but it isn't likely to bear fruit 99% of the time.

It's spontaneous because one doesn't even know how they did it. They aren't likely to just know how to repeat the experience. It was a happy accident.

This gives one trying to go it solitary no further way to proceed and work with any insight they may have gotten. The Buddhas and other teachers offer time-tested ways of entering the Jhanas and other liberated states.

 

[Runewolf1973]

It's important to differentiate "good deeds" done for an expectation of moksha, and good deeds done for absolutely no consideration of reward whatsoever. You only get there in the latter case.

Personally, as one with a western mind I found this hard to grasp, initially. It's not so much what is done, but how it is done that matters.

You are absolutely correct.

 

[Runewolf1973]

@Runewolf1973 Buddhism acknowledges one can indeed touch Nirvana spontaneously. There's nothing wrong with that, but it isn't likely to bear fruit 99% of the time. It was a happy accident. It gives one trying to go it solitary no further way to proceed and work with any insight they may have gotten. The Buddhas and other teachers offer time-tested ways of touching the Jhanas and other liberated states.

Perhaps there was never a need to proceed, or to go any further. We are already exactly in that perfect moment of absolute oneness. It's just a matter of us realizing that. That could be why books and teachings about the subject just don't interest me. But I guess it is useful for some to get there.

 

[Mindmaster]

I started out that way in Buddhism. I took a leap to trust the Buddha and I kept gaining insight and making breakthroughs that confirmed it to me. My life has improved so much just from the smallest benefits of the path. I used to be very impulsive with my emotional whims and flights of fancy. It can make it easier to accept the teachings of the sages and such figures when they talk about deeper things, after finding the basic things bear out.

I don't think Buddhism and Hinduism are as different as is sometimes exaggerated. We're talking about the same Ultimate Reality from perspectives, as most all Indian thought schools do.

I think both paths share similar goals, just venerate different Gurus/teachers. I had a similar experience, but with medically noticeable changes on stress tests. I went from high stress to being nearly so low you couldn't measure it. I think what most westerners don't realize is that "detachment" isn't a dogmatic belief, it is a result of successes in practices. It's more that dharma is the result of advancement than something you are just supposed to take for rote. Whether I gained liberation or not via those actions, it would be beneficial to my health and make me a nicer person to everyone around me. Those reasons are good enough, even without some unknowable thing that still remains outside of your awareness.

People coming from Western religious backgrounds (including me initially) struggled with this in that every other path expects you to believe them, dharmic paths expect you to find out.

 

[sayak83]

It's important to differentiate "good deeds" done for an expectation of moksha, and good deeds done for absolutely no consideration of reward whatsoever. You only get there in the latter case.

Personally, as one with a western mind I found this hard to grasp, initially. It's not so much what is done, but how it is done that matters.

This is true. However doing good deeds with expectation of reward is still good and is meritorious in karmic sense. Hinduism is not only for the saints and ascetics, but also for the billions of lay Hindus who wish to live their life in an ethical way while seeking material, psychological and spiritual rewards and goals. Hinduism is just like the Himalayan peaks, with austere snow-clad clarity of the rarefied upper reaches, but also decked with Alpine Meadows, gurgling streams and verdant forests of sensuous life at the lower slopes and valleys.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

I think both paths share similar goals, just venerate different Gurus/teachers.

I've gotten to where I enjoy comparing the various Dharmic traditions, so permit me to say that as far as I can tell we don't venerate our gurus in very different ways either. A guru for a Buddhist is usually the founder of one's lineage, school, or just a figure one feels important and influential for them. We chant Om Sadhu Sadhu for our gurus, which I don't 100% recall if Hindus do? I think so?

 

[RoaringSilence]

this happens a lot , many people in past have also wished for entangled lives , be it connected to another person or as a gesture of devotion or service to a particular deity , moksha seeker usually is born with those tendencies .. those who go towards monkhood have a natural pull towards it .. that is why they simply don't find satisfaction in the material world and drop it midway or choose monkhood helplessly ... its simply irresistible to them, moksha is also a reward for a ripen soul .. imo its 100% natural calling.

 

[Mindmaster]

Perhaps there was never a need to proceed, or to go any further. We are already exactly in that perfect moment of absolute oneness. It's just a matter of us realizing that. That could be why books and teachings about the subject just don't interest me. But I guess it is useful for some to get there.

It's not just about the oneness, though initially that's what it seems.

It's also about living your life in an optimal way that aligns with your fundamental nature, so you aren't fighting against yourSelf. (notice what I did there!) A lot of your potential energy to do good things in your life, and in others is wasted in the flux of the mind and emotions or chasing desires and creating worries, anger, and sorrow. You could have all of that back, so to speak. This is something I didn't realize until I started weeding them out. There are _extremely_ practical reasons to walk along the path, it's not just a religious thing... It's sort of the "science" of optimal experience... Being able to give everything, expect nothing, and do it every single moment of your life. Admittedly, I'm not "there yet", but I'm far better off now that I was.

 

[Mindmaster]

I've gotten to where I enjoy comparing the various Dharmic traditions, so permit me to say that as far as I can tell we don't venerate our gurus in very different ways either. A guru for a Buddhist is usually the founder of one's lineage, school, or just a figure one feels important and influential for them. We chant Om Sadhu Sadhu for our gurus, which I don't 100% recall if Hindus do? I think so?

Well, I know little of what is "orthodox" Advaita but the teachers I admire (specifically Ramana Maharshi) put very little importance on rituals or practices of that nature. Most of the focus is on jnana and self-inquiry methods. In fairness, any of the methods in the Bhagavad Gita (karma, bhakti, jnana, raja) were considered valid by him, and he outlined methods for each. He just felt inquiry worked better and was more successful for western minds. I know that proper Hindus do rituals for their gurus, but since "my guru" seemingly shooed me away from that I am just trusting him. (There is a long winded argument to this, but basically it's sort of like doing a ritual to yourself since the Self is in all things, including you. That Self is the same Self that was in the Guru, so it all gets about silly around there.)

 

[Mindmaster]

This is true. However doing good deeds with expectation of reward is still good and is meritorious in karmic sense. Hinduism is not only for the saints and ascetics, but also for the billions of lay Hindus who wish to live their life in an ethical way while seeking material, psychological and spiritual rewards and goals. Hinduism is just like the Himalayan peaks, with austere snow-clad clarity of the rarefied upper reaches, but also decked with Alpine Meadows, gurgling streams and verdant forests of sensuous life at the lower slopes and valleys.

The Gita says that too:

"Self-sacrifice, giving, and self-discipline should not be renounced, for they purify the thoughtful. Yet even these, Arjuna, should be performed without desire for selfish rewards. This is essential."

It's basically clarified that good acts count either way, so long as they are good. If they are good for you, you desire the rewards, and they are still good for others they are still good. However, I mention it in the most idealistic sense, in my previous posts.. Not to be confusing or anything...

Much of the Gita really puts a focus on tyaga than sannyasa, so if we were following it perfectly we would not be monks. (In my view...) But, focusing on good acts rather than not-acting...

 

[sayak83]

The Gita says that too:

"Self-sacrifice, giving, and self-discipline should not be renounced, for they purify the thoughtful. Yet even these, Arjuna, should be performed without desire for selfish rewards. This is essential."

It's basically clarified that good acts count either way, so long as they are good. If they are good for you, you desire the rewards, and they are still good for others they are still good. However, I mention it in the most idealistic sense, in my previous posts.. Not to be confusing or anything...

Much of the Gita really puts a focus on tyaga than sannyasa, so if we were following it perfectly we would not be monks. (In my view...) But, focusing on good acts rather than not-acting...

Yes I understand. The OP poster was however asking what about those who like samsara and want to be here. So I was writing to emphasize that there is much of benefit for them as well.

 

[Aupmanyav]

From a Buddhist or Hindu perspective, what happens if I have no desire for liberation from the cycle of death and rebirth? I am quite content if that cycle continues as is.

Your wish. Welcome.
At least, for your own sake, follow your 'dharma'.

Good response! What if one already realizes that Oneness? It just seems like there is nothing more to realise .. may as well just enjoy the ride for the sake of the ride.

Yes, there is nothing more to realise. The ride may be different from what you think it to be at the moment, but sure, it is enjoyable.

These 10 yamas and niyamas are considered the first stages of any Hindu practice and appropriate for any lay person.

I accept all except 'īshwara pranidhāna' (worship God, as you know it).

 

[Aupmanyav]

It's important to differentiate "good deeds" done for an expectation of moksha, and good deeds done for absolutely no consideration of reward whatsoever. You only get there in the latter case.

Personally, as one with a western mind I found this hard to grasp, initially. It's not so much what is done, but how it is done that matters.

It is equally difficult for a Hindu mind too. Actions only because it is 'dharma' regardless of rewards/returns:
Bg 2.47

Maybe I was Hindu or Buddhist in a past life or something. I never read any books about it, but it's like I just know it, it makes sense. Wierd I guess...

If you believe in a past or future life, I believe in none. But yes, some people can understand it by their experience of life.

 

[Aupmanyav]

A guru for a Buddhist is usually the founder of one's lineage, school, or just a figure one feels important and influential for them. We chant Om Sadhu Sadhu for our gurus, which I don't 100% recall if Hindus do? I think so?

We just touch their feet, or touch the feet of the idol (or image) if they are no more and then touch our forehead, connect. A chant or a prostration is optional.

Much of the Gita really puts a focus on tyaga than sannyasa, so if we were following it perfectly we would not be monks. (In my view...) But, focusing on good acts rather than not-acting...

No, Mindmaster, one can be a sannyasi even without abandoning anything but two. Krishna said:

"Jñeyaḥ sa nitya-sannyāsī, yo na dveṣṭi na kāńkṣati;
nirdvandvo hi mahā-bāho, sukhaḿ bandhāt pramucyate."
(Know him as always renounced, one who neither hates nor desires; such a person, free from all dualities, easily overcomes material bondage, O mighty-armed Arjuna, and is completely liberated.)
Bg 5.3
(Please note, my take is not the same as Prabhupada, I am an atheist. But that does not falsify the truth mentioned here)

 

[YmirGF]

Some wonderful ideas floating in this thread. It's a pleasant break from the usual inanity on RF. Thanks to @Buddha Dharma @sayak83 and @Mindmaster for your thoughts on these matters. That said...

I owe a tremendous debt to Hinduism and Buddhism, both. The two philosophies helped me to delve further than I understood and am still playing catch-up, to a certain extent, although not as much as in years gone by. For me, mindfulness, is the greatest treasure and I'm unconcerned about many details that others have mentioned. Mindfulness helps you to keep sailing ahead because you are constantly aware of what is around you and how your actions intersect with the world you know. You become focused, here and now, always and in all ways.

One thing that has really helped me over the years, aside from mindfulness, is an idea from Carlos Castaneda's Don Juan. In several spots in the books, the old crank implores Carlos to "live every moment as if it were your last moment on earth". That doesn't mean, "I am SO dead. Ok, we're toast" etc, I believe it is intended to mean that doing so generates an intense focus on the moment - and corresponds neatly with -- mindfulness. Each action become deliberate and I can attest at how liberating that sensation is. Guilt pangs virtually vanish and even morality slips to the wayside as you are paying attention and doing things to the best of your ability because you are consciously making each moment count. It's an incredibly empowering act, but, the act never stops.

Another tidbit I have grown to understand is that I am an actor, playing a role, a role that employs liberal amounts of ad lib, but stay on track with the general script I have created for my life. Goal setting is another tremendously empowering thing. Again, setting achievable goals builds intense focus. (I'm sensing a pattern here. Hmmmm. )

To my way of thinking/seeing/being one simply becomes compassionate. It's not something you should have to work at and is more a perk of expanding awareness, as is the inexhaustible bliss. Likewise, true compassion does not require a reward or even recognition. Compassion, to be trite, is literally the gift that keeps on giving as the compassionate act radiates outwards from the moment of inception.

Lastly, once one recognizes that there is an aspect of personality that I refer to as the larger identity (the sense of "self" beyond Oneness), you no longer need external teachers and are well on your way, as you have formed a relationship with and have an open dialogue with your inner reality.

I hope this helps, but then again, what would I know?