Nirvana/God

Is the Buddhist concept of Nirvana any different than the Hindu concept of Moksha? It seems to me, according to the ways I've seen them explained and defined, that they are just two different terms for mystical union with God. I know that Buddhists tend to stray away from the God idea, but in actuality is Nirvana just another name for what some call God Consciousness? I like to think so...but than again I'm not enlightened!

 

Well,...~
Yeah.
I mean, I spent years completely fascinated with the study of Buddhism,
butthen you have to realize- it's really just a sect of Hinduism.
The terms are the same because they're all just branches of the saem philosphical school,
using in general the same language {the Theravada Buddhist branced uses, traditionally, Pali; but, the Mahayana -being designed to be reached more easily by the people- used the more popular Sanskrit in their writings [like Gautama told the Bhikkus- it's a path for the people, ya gotta use the vernacular]},
same concepts, etc.
It's all really just a part of the same path...

Grouve on, dude

 

All religions are just fingers pointing at the moon

The moon is one consciousness that is in all time/space, beyond all time/space, sometimes called God.


People that are fighting about religion are usually really hung up on the finger and haven't even looked to where its pointing


In other words


get the Buddha mind, the christ heart, and see Krishna who is all, ya dig Allah?

 

Ooo! How about the Krishna flute?!

 

In some schools of Hindism it's very much the same kind of concept, esp. Advaita. In others it's somewhat different. Vaishnavas in general don't seek to merge into the One Reality, but believe that the goal is to continue as an individual separate soul in relation to Krishna.
There's many similarities between Hindu and Buddhist teachings. Whilst I don't think it's quite fair to say Buddhism is a branch of Hinduism, it is certainly rooted in it.The main difference seems to be that Buddha rejected the Vedas.
Some branches of Chriatian mysticism, esp that of Miester Eckhart are also similar to Advaita/Buddhism.

 

I just know that Gautama himself shrugged off the whole God concept all together. He never stated wether God existed or not, just that the whole concept only serves to delude us while we are still unenlightened beings...my guess is because it is unknowable. In Buddhism, I don't think God fits anywhere into the eightfold path, possibly for fear of it becoming an attachment that one cannot rid of. The way I see it, from what I've read in the Gita and other texts, is that a little Bhakti would perfectly compliment the eightfold path without any contradictions, but I'm really not qualified to say that. I think that the eightfold path is an excellent map for the jnani yogi, but would it make sense to throw some bhakti in there? I guess maybe GP is right with the finger pointing at the moon bit.

 

Many Buddhist schools also practice forms of devotion. The Pure Land school of Japan for instance rely on the grace of Amitabha for salvation, and the main practice is repitition of the Nembutsu, the name of Amitabha - very much like Japa in Hinduism. "Namo Amida Bhutsu" is the formula used.

In Tantric Tibetan Buddhism too there is devotion to the Dhyanai Buddhas.

I'd say God is 'unknown' rather than 'unknowable' - there is a big difference. If we say God or Buddha is unknowable, then there could be no chance of enlightenment or mystical union.
In the end, in practical terms, it seems that Buddha or the Buddha nature = God.

There is also the doctrine of the Tri-Kaya - the 'three bodies' of the Buddha.
These are: Nirmana Kaya - the earthly Buddhas such as Gautama, Samboghya Kaya - the Dhayani Buddhas, 'Cosmic' forms of the Buddha nature, similar to the Hindu gods in all but name, and the Dharma-Kaya, the absolute and undifferentiated Buddha nature. This is very similar to Hindu beliefs in many respects.

 

Yes.

 

I suppose Bhakti confuses me sometimes. If God truly is without form, and cannot be known through our limited perception, than what exactly is it that the Ishta-Deva does? What purpose does it serve? Is it a process of ego elimination? The hindu deities like Krishna and Shiva are obviously not God, only symbols. How does worship of a symbol lead to the unknown Brahman? It seems to me that such worship may help you develop a one pointed mind, but what good is it constantly thinking of just another aspect of maya? It may also eventually lead to visions or something, but isn't that only subconscious garbage(seeing that your subconscious would probably be so full of deity). Is that not the same thing certain drugs do? I mean, the human mind is powerful, and if it is constantly absorbed in deity, than of course your reality would become that. But what good is that when it is not the goal, just another worldy form?? Come to think of it, I don't even know if this topic fits in with this thread, but I don't want to get annoying asking all these questions...

 

The forms of Krishna and Shiva are not merely symbols. The general idea is that as well as the attributeless impersonal Brahman, Nirguna Brahman, there is also Saguna Brahman, Brahman with attributes. Krishna and Shiva are forms of this One Saguna Brahman.

They are forms manifested by the Divine of Itself. They are not worldly forms but exist on a plane of being above the human mind and consciousness.

The term 'thinking about' God or a form of God is perhaps a bit misleading. The best 'thinking of God' is a silent contemplation, or saying of japa, prayer etc. To try to mentally formulate god to oneself continually is not what's meant. If you are constantly thinking 'God is this, or God is that' that's just the mind doing it's stuff. Jumping about like a monkey, as Ramakrishna put it. It is easier to simply accept that it is only through surrender, and that includes surrender of the mental processes, that one can connect with any divine reality or higher consciousness. If the mind and heart can be quiet and surrender to God, then He Himself can fill the whole being with Himself, which is the real knowledge.
Most people find it hard to have any relation with the unmanifest, so the Divine appears here under various appearances to lead us back to Himself.

In another sense, avatars etc are intermediaries - through the avatar one can come to the Supreme, because the avatar is coming from the Supreme, and even embodies it. It's like in Christianity Jesus said he came 'from the Father', that He 'and His Father are One', and that those who believe will come to the Father through Him.
Christ too is a form of this Saguna Brahman.

No doubt there are other sides to this too, but that's a few thoughts.

 

So you are saying it is the act of practice itself is surrender to God? The act of japa or the act of breath meditation, just that process alone, is surrender to God? I guess I understand that. Japa and breath meditation have both been very difficult for me, because behind the breathing and mantra I am constantly trying to feel God, or replace everything with God. I always have "god alone is real, all else is unreal" going through my head at the same time that I am supposed to be concentrating on the mantra or breathing. Is that really surrender to God? Isn't that more...meditation? Concentration practice?

And another thing...perhaps you could elaborate further on the concept of Saguna Brahman(or whichever one was the ishtadeva)? What is the point of the image? It seems to me that it is no different than being obsessed with spiderman or something. I mean Shiva, he has dreads, snakes all over him, ash etc...to me, he looks cool...and I respect his qualities. But isn't he just a part of Hindu MYTHology? How does the absolute fit into this? I understand that God shows himself in forms that make it easier for us to understand Him, but it doesn't help me understand at all! All I see is a picture, an image, not God. I don't know what God is like...but I'm sure he is quite beyond an image. You say it is more than a symbol, that it is Brahman in maya or whatever, but how do I know that? How do I feel that firsthand? I need to understand this Bhakti and Ishtadeva/Saguna Brahman thing, because it seems to be calling me. I want my Ishta Deva to be more than a symbol...I want to know why I am repeating the name of this symbol...why do I meditate on this symbol??? I can't figure this out, all I see is an image with respectable qualities. How do I find the God in all of this???? Im so sorry to go on like this and waste your time, but I reallly want to be able to have faith in my practice, or else I am just wasting time.

 

when I was young, I didn't understand why a Hindu woman from India that I knew was so offended when Americans thought they understood Hinduism, or compared/likened Brahma or Brahman to their concept of God. It's not the same. It is very short-sighted of anyone to think it is the same. That is ethnocentrism, thinking that your concepts fit someone else's beliefs. It doesn't work that way, and it is quite offensive to those raised Hindu or Buddhist when people think that your [Christian] concept of God even comes close to being the same thing they are talking about. You can't possibly understand. I remember how upset I got when it was pointed out to me that I couldn't possibly understand, but I'm nearly 20 years older now and realize that it's true.

 

I'm India, born and raised Hindu. I am not at all offended, I encourage people of all faiths to try and bring a united understanding to the vision of their respective scriptures. If the bible is carefully analyzed, it reveals the same vision of the infinite that the vedas do, as proven by Paramahamsa Yogananda.

 

It's not really for me to prescribe how you should practice. I can only repeat what has come to me in the way of teachings and from experience.

In doing japa, it is best not to try for anything in particular. Just try to do it simply, from the heart, and be as relaxed as you can. Some speak of 'taking a bath in the divine name' - that's a good way to see it. Just as when you get into a hot bath the tension flows out from the body, so when you enter this bath the tension in the heart and mind are eased away.
This surrender is a process of letting go - the thing is to let oneself go into the japa. Just let it flow, and don't try to pin down any feeling of a divine presence - that will come of itself.
Just focus on the mantra or divine name, and if your attention wanders, bring it back. Try to make the japa a prayer of your whole being - Ramakrishna said to be just like a child and cry "Ma! Ma!" - that is the kind of approach to have. But still, don't do it with expectation of a result, but for the practice sake. One day you suddenly realize this is kind of conduit one is forming through which the divine grace and light can flow into you.

So - saying the mantra is like a form of prayer, and the will behind it is the will or aspiration to surrender to God. It is one way of surrendering to the Divine. And a way which many people have found effective, and not only in Hinduism, but Christianity, Sufism and Buddhism too have similar practices.

I can't say anything about breathing exercises as I am not at all familiar with them other than just relaxed rythmic brething as a way of getting into a calm state.

But whatever practices you do, it is always important to try to be peaceful and calm - that is the basis for progress.

 

and plus if you think about it, how many christians would get offended if you said that the hindu god was the same as the christian god? an awful lot im sure. its all religious close-mindedness and fundamentalism. they are ignorant.

 

Yes - and demonstrated - lived - by Sri Ramakrishna.

It's a very limiting idea that no non Indian person can come to an understanding of Indian philosophy. If it were true, you'd expect the reverse to be true also, and that Indians would be incapable of understanding western science or philosophy which clearly, they are not.

 

So what if I repeated the name of Batman over and over again. Would that lead me to God? How can I believe that these mytholigical creations are in actuality forms of God? Is not everything??? Why such specific forms if God truly is everything?

 

The form of batman is just a human concoction. The forms of the gods are the result of the vision of the Rishis, and the Self manifestation of the Divine.
They have symbolism associated with them that reveals knowledge of their inner nature. But if you go back to Mundaka Upanishad, you'll find the following:

The Supreme Person.

"Heavenly, formless is the Person
He is without and within, unborn,
Breathless, mindless, pure,
Higher than the highest imperishable"

This Supreme Person is all of the forms of God at once. He is depicted wearing a different dress under different forms, that's all.

God is everything only to the person who sees with that vision - sahaja I think it's called. From the standpoint of our relative consciousness, there are many un-divine things, and some anti-divine. These exist inside and outside.

If you want, you could just select some object, a stone say, and worship that. If you could truly come to see God in it, and it was sufficient to satisfy the soul's aspiration, fine.
But the divine is more easily seen in the forms of avatars and gods and other spiritual personalities. And they are at least a form which can easily be seen to represent the Supreme Person of the Upanishad.
Also, avatars usually give some teachings, and that can help us too.

 

Everything is divine. However, that divinity shines clearly for all to see in Christs and in Krishnas, much more so than in any ordinary object of the world. Therefore, it is easier to recognize the divine such forms, which si why they are given so much importance and prominence. If you identified batman as the divine, and in full reverence and love repeated his name, you will without doubt attain liberation. In fact shastras tell us that even if none of the forms of god described anywhere are able to bring full devotion to your heart, you come up with one of your own, meditate upon that. In Gita Krishna says, ye yatha maam prapadyante, taam tathaiva bhajamyaham - in whichever way a person worships me, I will reveal myself to them through that form.

Specific forms are themselves not necessary. If you are capable of recognizing the divine in everything everywhere at al times, that is the best and most direct way to enlightenment. However, it is only one in billions that can spontaneously discover that vision. To the vast majority, it is well nigh impossible without preliminary sadhana.

 

Concordance there Bhaskar