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 mean, of course the Hindu's think of it as God, but what about Buddhists? I know Buddhists tend to stray away from the whole God idea, seeing as it doesn't pertain to the eightfold path, but in actuality is it not exactly what Hindu's call Brahman/God?

 

It's a good question and yes, there's perhaps a difference between nirvana and whatever Hindu equivalent there is.

Depending upon the type of Buddhist some choose not to spend their time seeking a separate nirvana besides life, ie., they seek to find nirvana as inseperable from samsara.

That's something that is not found in Hindu notions of moksha except in a few tantras.

 

Oh but it is! Perhaps the most well known branch of Hinduism, Advaita Vedanta, believes that Maya(Illusory existence/Samsara) is none other than Brahman(God). They stress that everything is Brahman, and that includes worldy existence, and that it is up to the practitioner to see Brahman in all.

 

Sure, the belief is taught, but not how to actualize the belief. Hinduism still generally remains a priest-centric, dualistic religion, in spite of the mystics. It's all good walking around saying, "Aham Brahmhasmi, tat vam asi...."

 

It depends what branch of Hinduism you mean. You're right about some, but the same applies to some Buddhist schools too, just substitute the word lama for priest - there's really little differnce between the two.
Most of the 'greats' of Hindusim in recent times - Ramkrishna, Vivekananda, Aurobindo etc, were certainly not involved in any kind of dualistic priestly religion.
As to actualizing the belief, Hinduism has many methods for this, as does Buddhism and other paths too.

 

Honestly, having done both, my experience is that Hindu gurus in the West might have a good selling point or two or three but they eventually die off, become corrupt and ultimately just teach rehash Upanishads without so much realization. In India even there are maybe a few real wise gurus, and you would find them easier on the net now than in person, and yet, when the day is over, what did they teach you exactly?

Whereas the Buddhadharma is always the same, subject to ones own ability to understand only, and one can have a good guru or bad one but the Bodhidharma doesn't change so one is safe. Moreover one has the sangha who help one through many times. And then at some point perhaps one does make a connection with a truely realized lineage. It's like having a wall socket to plug ones practice into, just like in the Hindu lineages.

But more human and warm and full of what life's as a human is innately about, and not so much about big sacrifices to devas. For instance the grand functions of Tsok and Ganachakra, though dedicated to all 6 realms are given wholly to humans to eat.

Moreover the Buddhists of the Great Vehical stay around and reaffirm their vow to guide others to liberation in the midst of samsara whereas most Sannyasin and so on are just trying to split ASAP. Which leads to subtle issues of coexisting in modernity with yogic awareness.

But I bet you that the few wandering yogis in the West that you ever may have overlooked are mostly Buddhist now, and moreso in the future, since Maharishi Mahesh Yogi became such a Materialist.

I mean, who really knows enough to study Sri Vidya, follow Chandipath, or Kali, find a true Dashmahavidya master, or study one of the other true Advaita branches like Kashmiri Shivism. I mean, just because India has Advaita tantras and teachings does not mean that Advaita is actively taught, experienced, or understood, especially by the rank materialists of most of modern India.

No, in this world, Advaita is only understood by a few tantrics, maybe Hindu, maybe Buddhist, maybe Daoist,

but it's most easily and well understood by those who study Dzogchen.

 

But we're not talking about Hindu gurus in the west. But if we were, it isn't at all true to say that all have become corrupt etc. Some have 'died off', in accord with the way of all flesh.
I haven't actually come across one who teaches a 'rehash' of the Upanishads.

Buddhadharma is by no means one thing as it exists today in reality. One would hardly recognize Tibetan Buddhism as the same religion as Zen for instance, and again, even in Japan, Zen and Pure Land schools are almost diametrically opposed in their general approach.

If you think of the Mahrishi as a good example of a 'Hindu' teacher, I'm not surprised you have a low opinion. Quite honestly, he is simply a faker.
But I don't think there are so many 'wandering yogis' in the west - there may be western people who practice Yoga in one of its many forms. No doubt some have begun with Hinduism and moved onto Buddhism, and some who began with Buddhism have moved onto Hinduism.

That would not be necessary to gain a full understanding of Hindu philosophy. One could read the works of modern illuminated masters like Sri Ramakrishna, Vivekanada, Sri Aurobindo, Paramhansa Yoganada. One could read shastra such as the Bhagavad Gita etc.
And my experience is that Buddhist texts are no more acessible than Hindu, and in some cases, less so.

Are there such beings as tantric taoists?

 

http://www.google.com/search?q=taoi...ient=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official

 

BBB said:
That would not be necessary to gain a full understanding of Hindu philosophy. One could read the works of modern illuminated masters like Sri Ramakrishna, Vivekanada, Sri Aurobindo, Paramhansa Yoganada. One could read shastra such as the Bhagavad Gita etc.
And my experience is that Buddhist texts are no more acessible than Hindu, and in some cases, less so.

-----But I'm not talking about texts. I'm talking living traditions of Shakti.

I don't think Maharishi was a faker, due to knowing too many of his adherents which now suffuse every other movement of any sort in the world. I support Ammachi, which is where many of the older Hinduphiles have gone. She's straight!

 

Good job passing judgements.

 

Nirvana is to be nothingness. God is the first point of existence from nothigness, where all is one, undifferentiated. God as we understand it, emanates from the void.

Peace and love
Jnanic

 

This essay might be worth reading
http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/zfa/zfa04.htm
give it a try either way

 

Nirvana is NOT nothingness, it is not non-existence. It is existent reality, it is in fact existence itself, as the zen master Dogen put it.

 

Nirvana arises from the AWARENESS of nothingness.

I thought it obvious to us all that simple nothingness purely by itself cannot be classed as nirvana as it requires the awareness of nothingness. This is the whole point of being conscious in existence.

However if you wish to say the nirvana is "existent reality" (I believe that is a tautology, a repetition), existence itself, so be it. It would be futile to argue the nature of nirvana.

Just existing for most life on this planet does not bring nirvana. All is being, all exists, yes clearly, but not all is then nirvana, clearly. It is through the awareness of nothingness that there is the awareness of pure being, everything, oneness, nirvana.

Peace and love
Jnanic

 

Nirvana cannot be defined in intellectual language. Simple as that.

 

Well nirvana can be defined - the question really is how well or appropriately or completely, yes?

It is amazing what can be done by language and intellect. That does not mean to say that language or intellect experience nirvana, they do not. They are not the experience of nirvana. The definition of the state of nirvana is not the experience of the state itself, which can only be "known" or experienced directly and immediately in that moment. The living truth. The definition is only a mental description of that reality, not the reality of nirvana itself. It is true that as it arises through the awareness of nothingness that it is not knowable as such by the mind. But defining something and knowing it are two different things.

Defining nirvana is useful for all of us who seek to understand and live it as the being within, even though we "fail" most of the time, but not all the time. It is a great paradox that when I or anyone else lets go of all thought and emotion of it and everything else, so that there is a sense of emptiness inside, that there arises bliss, compassion and oneness, without thought, dogma or belief. The mental understanding of it fosters the letting go necessary for being it.

Peace and love
Jnanic

 

I disagree. I think playing the definition game is actually a block to experience.

 

OK.

It is only a block for those who perpetually live in the intellect, to appear clever or boost the spiritual ego. Nirvana is certainly not about living in the head or even a mind acquainted with the jargon.

Of course all spiritual people suffer from this at times, but there are those who do little else than think about being free or loving or at peace but not live it.

For me, to define the purpose of being human, nirvana, is not a game as such. It is an earnest, practical and living thing for me or else, why bother at all?

In my experience, it is not a block to experience as I experience unconditional peace and bliss frequently within. A state of utter sweetness and joy that seems infinite, that words cannot do it justice, a state that is not dependent upon anything it seems, not even staying alive. I cannot deny that state, that experience that I have known in deeper and deeper forms so so many times. Buddhists themselves describe 4 levels of bliss and this has been my experience.

No disrespect intended, but it does not matter whether anyone believes me or not, because it is unconditional of anything or anyone. In this way and in that moment, it is almost effortless or at least, extremely easy.

However, if by letting go of any definition of nirvana as you suggest, the state can become less impermanent and fully effortless as my normal waking state, then noone will be more pleased than me, because I sense that would be easy to do. For I have let go of things far far more precious to me than the definition of nirvana in my life already. So I shall this, for I am here on these blogs to learn as well as communicate. Thank you Bill.

Peace and love
Jnanic

 

at any rate, there is nirvana in some Hindu tantras like Sri Vidya. It is a form of great knowledge available, but one can't know if it's the same as Buddhist nirvana without treading the paths. The question really is, do humans develop along the same lines regardless of religion or do religions really make a difference for human evolution or development of perception. My guess is that like catalysts they provoke change but are not the medium for it, that occurs within, or the end result, that is from the practitioner.

 

I have no reason to disbelieve you.
In effect what I said is based pretty much on my own experiences, and is perhaps also conditioned to an extent by the Buddhist teachings of Zen, and also the Hindu Sankara.
According to Vedanta, all we can say of nirvana is that it is 'not this, not that'.(neti neti) We cannot define in qualitative language that which has no quality.

In Zen too there is the idea that 'zen has nothing to say'.
Images of the mind seeking nirvana are likened to a sword which cannot cut itself or an eye which cannot see itself.

However, I think you're right up to a point - the mind needs some goal, something towards which to aspire. But its like any new experience - even on the mundane level - for example it is impossible to convey to a virgin the pleasure of sex. It has to be lived and experienced.