Is Nibbana a type of Moksha, or something different?

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths. What can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
Dinsdale
Posts: 5688
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Is Nibbana a type of Moksha, or something different?

Post by Dinsdale » Thu Sep 21, 2017 2:11 pm

I was looking at this Wiki article, and would be interested in your thoughts:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moksha
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moksha#Buddhism
Buddha save me from new-agers!

User avatar
Sam Vara
Posts: 3846
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Sussex, U.K.

Re: Is Nibbana a type of Moksha, or something different?

Post by Sam Vara » Thu Sep 21, 2017 3:00 pm

The term moksha means "release, emancipation, liberation", and so I guess the Pali term that comes closest would be vimutti. The difficulty with all three terms is that they are said to be ineffable and the language describing them tends to be apophatic or figurative, so there is little that we can do in order to determine whether they are synonymous.

User avatar
zerotime
Posts: 118
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: Is Nibbana a type of Moksha, or something different?

Post by zerotime » Thu Sep 21, 2017 3:59 pm

I wonder if the pali equivalent is mokkha like in "Patimokkha"

davidbrainerd
Posts: 1011
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2016 3:12 am

Re: Is Nibbana a type of Moksha, or something different?

Post by davidbrainerd » Thu Sep 21, 2017 5:20 pm

Spiny Norman wrote:I was looking at this Wiki article, and would be interested in your thoughts:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moksha
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moksha#Buddhism
Just from the Dhammapada you'd have no idea of a no-soul concept in Buddhism. Sabbe sankhra anicca. Sabbe sankhara dukkha. Sabbe sankhara (or dhamma) anatta. With verse 279 being the only thing even contortable in that direction, yet it contextually clearly just means no compounded thing is the self, its clear Buddhism did not teach there is no soul till later. Buddhism is clearly an offshoot of Jainism. And clearly in Buddha's time it was not that divergent metaphysically, but only in ascetic practices.

User avatar
cappuccino
Posts: 1305
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am

Re: Is Nibbana a type of Moksha, or something different?

Post by cappuccino » Thu Sep 21, 2017 9:00 pm

With Moksha there is a higher Self.
So relatively it's "more pure" than mere self.

Nirvana is selfless.
Although… not soulless.
neither eternal identity, nor annihilation

davidbrainerd
Posts: 1011
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2016 3:12 am

Re: Is Nibbana a type of Moksha, or something different?

Post by davidbrainerd » Thu Sep 21, 2017 11:02 pm

cappuccino wrote:With Moksha there is a higher Self.
So relatively it's "more pure" than mere self.

Nirvana is selfless.
Although… not soulless.
Just like your food has no vitamins yet does have vitamins....

User avatar
Polar Bear
Posts: 1120
Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 7:39 am
Location: Bear Republic

Re: Is Nibbana a type of Moksha, or something different?

Post by Polar Bear » Thu Sep 21, 2017 11:05 pm

Vimokkha is the pali equivalent of the sanskrit term (vi)moksha:
Vimokkha
Vimokkha (& Vimokha) [fr. vi+muc, cp. mokkha1] deliverance, release, emancipation, dissociation from the things of the world, Arahantship D ii.70, 111); iii.34, 35, 230, 288; M i.196 (samaya˚ & asamaya˚); S i.159 (cetaso v.); ii.53, 123; iii.121; iv.33; A ii.87; iv.316; v.11; Vin v.164 (cittassa); Sn 1071 (which Nd2 588 expls as "agga" etc., thus strangely taking it in meaning of mokkha2, perhaps as edifying etym.); Nd2 466 (in expln of Bhagavā); Ps i.22; ii.35 (as 68!), 243; Pug 11 sq.; Vbh 342; Dhs 248; Nett 90, 100, 119, 126; Vism 13, 668 sq.; Miln 159; PvA 98; Sdhp 34, 264. <-> The three vimokkhas are: suññato v., animitto v., appaṇihito v. Ps ii.35; Vism 658. The eight vimokkhas or stages of emancipation, are: the condition of rūpī, arūpa -- saññī, recognition of subha, realization of ākāsânañc'āyatana, of viññāṇ'ânañc'āyatana, ākiñcaññ'āyatana, neva -- saññā -- n'âsaññ'āyatana, saññāvedayita -- nirodha D iii.262 (cp. Dial. iii.242), A i.40; iv.306; Vbh 342; expld in detail at Ps ii.38 -- 40. [cp. BSk. aṣṭau vimokṣāḥ, e. g. AvŚ ii.69, 153.] -- In sequence jhāna vimokkha samādhi samāpatti (magga phala) at Vin i.97, 104; iii.91; iv.25; A iii.417, 419; v.34, 38; Vbh 342. -- See also jhāna.

http://dsalsrv02.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/p ... :1824.pali
:anjali:
"I don't envision a single thing that, when developed & cultivated, leads to such great benefit as the mind. The mind, when developed & cultivated, leads to great benefit."

"I don't envision a single thing that, when undeveloped & uncultivated, brings about such suffering & stress as the mind. The mind, when undeveloped & uncultivated, brings about suffering & stress."

User avatar
cappuccino
Posts: 1305
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am

Re: Is Nibbana a type of Moksha, or something different?

Post by cappuccino » Thu Sep 21, 2017 11:37 pm

davidbrainerd wrote:Just like your food has no vitamins yet does have vitamins....
find your self, if you can.
neither eternal identity, nor annihilation

User avatar
aflatun
Posts: 812
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2016 2:40 pm
Location: Bay Area, CA

Re: Is Nibbana a type of Moksha, or something different?

Post by aflatun » Fri Sep 22, 2017 1:08 am

davidbrainerd wrote:
Spiny Norman wrote:I was looking at this Wiki article, and would be interested in your thoughts:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moksha
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moksha#Buddhism
Just from the Dhammapada you'd have no idea of a no-soul concept in Buddhism. Sabbe sankhra anicca. Sabbe sankhara dukkha. Sabbe sankhara (or dhamma) anatta. With verse 279 being the only thing even contortable in that direction, yet it contextually clearly just means no compounded thing is the self, its clear Buddhism did not teach there is no soul till later. Buddhism is clearly an offshoot of Jainism. And clearly in Buddha's time it was not that divergent metaphysically, but only in ascetic practices.
David:

Honest question, what do you find lacking in samkhya?
"People often get too quick to say 'there's no self. There's no self...no self...no self.' There is self, there is focal point, its not yours. That's what not self is."

Ninoslav Ñāṇamoli
Senses and the Thought-1, 42:53

"Those who create constructs about the Buddha,
Who is beyond construction and without exhaustion,
Are thereby damaged by their constructs;
They fail to see the Thus-Gone.

That which is the nature of the Thus-Gone
Is also the nature of this world.
There is no nature of the Thus-Gone.
There is no nature of the world."

Nagarjuna
MMK XXII.15-16

User avatar
aflatun
Posts: 812
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2016 2:40 pm
Location: Bay Area, CA

Re: Is Nibbana a type of Moksha, or something different?

Post by aflatun » Fri Sep 22, 2017 1:13 am

cappuccino wrote:
davidbrainerd wrote:Just like your food has no vitamins yet does have vitamins....
find your self, if you can.
Cappuccino: This is very weak argument against Self, if that's how you're intending it. The Self cannot appear in the world anymore so than the eye can appear in its field of vision.
"People often get too quick to say 'there's no self. There's no self...no self...no self.' There is self, there is focal point, its not yours. That's what not self is."

Ninoslav Ñāṇamoli
Senses and the Thought-1, 42:53

"Those who create constructs about the Buddha,
Who is beyond construction and without exhaustion,
Are thereby damaged by their constructs;
They fail to see the Thus-Gone.

That which is the nature of the Thus-Gone
Is also the nature of this world.
There is no nature of the Thus-Gone.
There is no nature of the world."

Nagarjuna
MMK XXII.15-16

User avatar
aflatun
Posts: 812
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2016 2:40 pm
Location: Bay Area, CA

Re: Is Nibbana a type of Moksha, or something different?

Post by aflatun » Fri Sep 22, 2017 1:15 am

Spiny Norman wrote:I was looking at this Wiki article, and would be interested in your thoughts:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moksha
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moksha#Buddhism
Sure I don't see why we can't call Nibbana a form of moksha, but this is just semantic, right? I get the feeling you were you asking something more specific? Like what's the difference between Moksha and Nibbana?
"People often get too quick to say 'there's no self. There's no self...no self...no self.' There is self, there is focal point, its not yours. That's what not self is."

Ninoslav Ñāṇamoli
Senses and the Thought-1, 42:53

"Those who create constructs about the Buddha,
Who is beyond construction and without exhaustion,
Are thereby damaged by their constructs;
They fail to see the Thus-Gone.

That which is the nature of the Thus-Gone
Is also the nature of this world.
There is no nature of the Thus-Gone.
There is no nature of the world."

Nagarjuna
MMK XXII.15-16

User avatar
cappuccino
Posts: 1305
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am

Re: Is Nibbana a type of Moksha, or something different?

Post by cappuccino » Fri Sep 22, 2017 1:23 am

A strong argument against self is made by Buddha, of course you actually have to accept the teaching.

I don't think david is accepting the teaching, therefore, any argument is beside the point.
Last edited by cappuccino on Fri Sep 22, 2017 1:31 am, edited 1 time in total.
neither eternal identity, nor annihilation

User avatar
aflatun
Posts: 812
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2016 2:40 pm
Location: Bay Area, CA

Re: Is Nibbana a type of Moksha, or something different?

Post by aflatun » Fri Sep 22, 2017 1:31 am

cappuccino wrote:A strong argument against self is made by Buddha, of course you actually have to accept the teaching.
Of course
I don't think david is accepting the teaching, therefore, any argument is beside the point.
From what I can tell he is accepting the teaching, he simply doesn't accept how most of us understand it.
"People often get too quick to say 'there's no self. There's no self...no self...no self.' There is self, there is focal point, its not yours. That's what not self is."

Ninoslav Ñāṇamoli
Senses and the Thought-1, 42:53

"Those who create constructs about the Buddha,
Who is beyond construction and without exhaustion,
Are thereby damaged by their constructs;
They fail to see the Thus-Gone.

That which is the nature of the Thus-Gone
Is also the nature of this world.
There is no nature of the Thus-Gone.
There is no nature of the world."

Nagarjuna
MMK XXII.15-16

User avatar
cappuccino
Posts: 1305
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am

Re: Is Nibbana a type of Moksha, or something different?

Post by cappuccino » Fri Sep 22, 2017 1:36 am

A strong argument against self is made by Buddha.
neither eternal identity, nor annihilation

chownah
Posts: 7333
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: Is Nibbana a type of Moksha, or something different?

Post by chownah » Fri Sep 22, 2017 3:02 am

This is great. We've got the nibbana is this or that or something else thread and I'm sure that it is possible that we could have a similar moksha is this or that or something else thread......and now in this thread we have the collision of these too....SWEET.....
chownah

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 91 guests