Differences Between Moksha And Nirvana

S

Silverbackman

Prince Of Truth
Messages
267
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
California
What are the differences between moksha and nirvana? Both concepts are basicly the same thing, which is releasment from the cycle of rebirth. What makes moksha and nirvana that much different?

Nirvana to Hindus and Buddhists;

  1. Buddhism. The ineffable ultimate in which one has attained disinterested wisdom and compassion.
  2. Hinduism. Emancipation from ignorance and the extinction of all attachment.
Moksha is a more broader term that means both of these definations of Nirvana, so is there really much difference? What do you think?
 
Silverbackman said:
Moksha is a more broader term that means both of these definations of Nirvana, so is there really much difference? What do you think?
Click to expand...
In Hinduism, the terms moksha, nirvana and mukti (liberation) are used as synonyms to describe release or freedom from the cycles of birth and death (samsara). Moksha is a process and not a state of being. In the Hindu definition, moksha is not something to be experienced or realized, but rather attained upon God-realization (I suspect this where the difference lies between the Hindu and Buddhist definitions of nirvana).

In many schools of thought, one continues to exist after moksha in the causal plane of existence free of karma and maya, until final oneness (technically termed vishvagrasa) is attained. However, some people may also use the term moksha to mean the final oneness between Brahman and Atman. As an aside, in monistic schools of Hinduism, the state of oneness is called a merger (complete oneness); whereas the non-monistic schools call it a union (Atman is eternally distinct).
 
Namaste all,


another salient difference between them is that, for Buddhists, Nirvana/Nibbana is not the "goal" or the "ultimate destination" or however it may be termed. Nirvana is, for lack of a better term, a "rest station" along the path.

metta,

~v
 
Vajradhara said:
Namaste all,


another salient difference between them is that, for Buddhists, Nirvana/Nibbana is not the "goal" or the "ultimate destination" or however it may be termed. Nirvana is, for lack of a better term, a "rest station" along the path.

metta,

~v
Click to expand...

Then what is the "goal" or "ultimate destination" of Buddhism?
 
Silverbackman said:
Then what is the "goal" or "ultimate destination" of Buddhism?
Click to expand...

generally speaking, and of course knowing that we are using conventional consensus...

the "goal" so to speak, is Buddhahood.

in practice, it is the difference between the Arhant and the Bodhisattva.

metta,

~v
 
As a Hindu these are my understandings of the words Mukti, Moksha, and Nirvana

Mukti is reaching an understanding of God, or the relationship between Atman and Bramhan. Realizing the truth. Great men, leaders of a religious organizations and sanyasis are supposed to have attained Mukti. Generally used in connection with the death of religious leaders.

Moksha is a blessing of freedom from the cycle of birth and death. Any good person can attain Moksha

One is encouraged to do good things in life to attain Moksha
Only your acts determine your spiritual goal of getting Moksha
There is no forgiveness for your bad deeds.

Nirvana is the ecstatic feeling of the Atman becoming one with Bramhan
Nirvana describes that happy feeling.Nirvana may follow Moksha or Mukti
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Whey Kewl, Indyram! I am not Hindu, but read the Pali Buddhist Canon. It is my understanding that the Sanātana Dhamma believes just so. Welcome aboard, my Friend!
 
Hi, Indyram, and welcome to the forum.

Even though I come from Buddhist and Theosophical roots, I agree with your ideas. I think we are all tallking about the same things, we are just using different words to describe the same after-death states.
 
:) Well, I am an atheist hindu. I know that universe and all things in it are constituted by 'physical energy'. The various waves in it and their interference gives rise to the impression of existence of things including ourselves. Our birth and death are just these interference patterns. What constitutes me was there even before my so-called birth and will be there even after my so-called death. Birth and death being appearances. Knowing this is enlightenment from ignorance (avidya), Mukti, Moksha, pasha (the bondage of believing what we perceive), and nirvana (ni+vana, the jungle has been cleared).
 
Aupmanyav. I can "switch on" an atheistic self, but it becomes cluttered in Process Theology, Whitehead and Hartshorne arekinda-sorta like the Samkhya and Mimamsa.
 
Agnideva said:
In Hinduism, the terms moksha, nirvana and mukti (liberation) are used as synonyms to describe release or freedom from the cycles of birth and death (samsara). Moksha is a process and not a state of being. In the Hindu definition, moksha is not something to be experienced or realized, but rather attained upon God-realization (I suspect this where the difference lies between the Hindu and Buddhist definitions of nirvana).

In many schools of thought, one continues to exist after moksha in the causal plane of existence free of karma and maya, until final oneness (technically termed vishvagrasa) is attained. However, some people may also use the term moksha to mean the final oneness between Brahman and Atman. As an aside, in monistic schools of Hinduism, the state of oneness is called a merger (complete oneness); whereas the non-monistic schools call it a union (Atman is eternally distinct).
Click to expand...

Here is the 'Linch-pin':

"DHARMA"

{I know what the Gita says about Action, Attachment, in-action, neglect of action etc}

When is "DHARMA" dismissed?
The "Sva(self)-"DHARMA" can be extingished?
When is "DHARMA" no longer relevant?

How can it ever be that "DHARMA" is transcended, or surpassed?

IMO:
"Before enlightenment there is Dharma; after enlightenment there is Dharma"

IMO: the Dharma of each individual speck of creation [animate or in-animate] possesses it's own indivisiable 'self-dharma' that can not [by definition] be extinguished.

IMO:
"Dharma never disappears it just changes forms"
---just as the old science maxim says:
"Energy never disappears it only ever changes form"



Linch·pin/ˈlinCHˌpin/ A pin passed through the end of an axle to keep a
wheel in position; A person or thing vital to an enterprise or organization.
 
Moksha is the liberation from ego-mind.

Nirvana is the realization we are nothing which arises - the word actually means no-thing-ness.

These are not different, ego is the attachment to the story of us, whether we call it the self or mind, it is the same. What both point to as Self or Mind does not differ, but it is the ego which tries to categorize these things.

Buddha-nature and Self point to exactly the same realization, and is not different from what is called God. It is the non-dual understanding which comes from direct experience, the knowing that all is perpetually One.

Please do not focus on such terminology, trust your heart to know the way home, and let it show you what will assist your journey.
 
radarmark said:
Aupmanyav. I can "switch on" an atheistic self, but it becomes cluttered in Process Theology, Whitehead and Hartshorne are kinda-sorta like the Samkhya and Mimamsa.
Click to expand...
:) Would you like to sort it out or it is comfortable as it is? In the latter case, let it be. Why be just an atheist? :D
 
I am slowly abandoning the atheist... but the panentheistic self that remains (as described) is very demanding on my hard core logical intellect. Kinda like AA "let go, let God" (even though 99% of Abrahamic religious individuals would still consider me an atheist because there is no paternal G-d or prophecy).
 
radarmark said:
I am slowly abandoning the atheist... but the panentheistic self that remains (as described) is very demanding on my hard core logical intellect. Kinda like AA "let go, let God" (even though 99% of Abrahamic religious individuals would still consider me an atheist because there is no paternal G-d or prophecy).
Click to expand...

If there is one thing you must abandon to advance on the spiritual path, it is certainly our normal notions of logic. There is absolutely nothing logical about religion once you move beyond the surface, and all true knowers will speak in paradoxes and contradictions only to try to include the whole in their speech.

Logic always chooses one side, truth must include both sides, else it is only a half truth.
 
I am, for a certain period at the second level of reality. Therefore, I think. At the first level, I am Brahman.
 
Aupmanyav said:
I am, for a certain period at the second level of reality. Therefore, I think. At the first level, I am Brahman.
Click to expand...

The story about you exists within the reality that is Brahman.

Suffering is inherent to the wave, for it knows it must fall back into the ocean, yet it does not wish to. All religion is about dropping this identification with the wave and seeing we are the ocean, we are Brahman.

Living as the wave is fun, provided we recognize that it is not true. Liberation is only found in dropping the temporary and returning to our original state, if you do not desire liberation yet though it is perfectly good... an apple will struggle to stay on the tree until it is ripe, then it falls of its own accord.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top