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?
Post Reply
User avatar
Spiny Norman
Posts: 5121
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Spam, wonderful spam

Is Nibbana a type of Moksha, or something different?

Post by Spiny Norman » 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
"My religion is very simple - my religion is ice-cream."
Dairy Lama

User avatar
Sam Vara
Posts: 2339
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm

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: 103
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: 993
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: 795
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.
Matthew 7

davidbrainerd
Posts: 993
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
polarbear101
Posts: 998
Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 7:39 am
Location: California

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

Post by polarbear101 » 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: 795
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.
Matthew 7

User avatar
aflatun
Posts: 584
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: 584
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: 584
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: 795
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.
Matthew 7

User avatar
aflatun
Posts: 584
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: 795
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.
Matthew 7

chownah
Posts: 6474
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

User avatar
polarbear101
Posts: 998
Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 7:39 am
Location: California

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

Post by polarbear101 » Fri Sep 22, 2017 4:11 am

Sam Vara wrote: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.
Yes, vimutti comes from the same root as vimokkha in Pali, the root muc. I would suggest that moksha in buddhism is not ineffable. It is the extinguishment (=nibbana) of greed, hate, and delusion. And the presence and absence of these 3 unwholesome roots can be seen with wisdom.

Vimutti
Vimutti (f.) [fr. vimuccati] release, deliverance, emanci- pation D i.174; iii.288; S v.206 sq. (abhijānāti), 222 (ariya˚), 266, 356; A ii.247, iii.165 (yathābhūtaŋ pajānāti), 242, Sn 54, 73, 725 sq.; J i.77, 78, 80; Ps i.22; ii.143 sq.; Nd1 21; Pug 27, 54 sq.; Vbh 86, 272 sq., 392 (micchā˚) Nett 29; Vism 410; Sdhp 614. -- ceto˚ (& paññā˚) emancipation of heart (and reason) D i.156; iii.78, 108, 247 sq., 273; S i.120; ii.214; iv.119 sq.; v.118 sq., 289 sq.; A i.123 sq., 220 sq.; 243; ii.36, 87, 214; iii.20, 131, 400; iv.83, 314 sq.; v.10 sq.; Vbh 344; Nett 40, 43, 81 sq., 127. -- sammā˚ right or true emancipation A ii.222 sq.; v.327; Ps i.107; ii.173. -- See also arahatta, upekkhā, khandha ii.A, dassana, phala, mettā.
-- rasa the essence of emancipation A i.36; iv.203; PvA 287. -- sāra substance or essence of emancipation A ii.141, 243; iv.385.

http://dsalsrv02.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/p ... :1823.pali
“There is a method of exposition by means of which a bhikkhu—apart from faith … apart from acceptance of a view after pondering it—can declare final knowledge thus: ‘Destroyed is birth … there is no more for this state of being.’ And what is that method of exposition? Here, bhikkhus, having seen a form with the eye, if there is lust, hatred, or delusion internally, a bhikkhu understands: ‘There is lust, hatred, or delusion internally’; or, if there is no lust, hatred, or delusion internally, he understands: ‘There is no lust, hatred, or delusion internally.’ Since this is so, are these things to be understood by faith, or by personal preference, or by oral tradition, or by reasoned reflection, or by acceptance of a view after pondering it?”

“No, venerable sir.”

“Aren’t these things to be understood by seeing them with wisdom?”

“Yes, venerable sir.”

“This, bhikkhus, is the method of exposition by means of which a bhikkhu can declare final knowledge thus: ‘Destroyed is birth … there is no more for this state of being.’

[similarly with the other senses including the mind]

“This, bhikkhus, is the method of exposition by means of which a bhikkhu—apart from faith, apart from personal preference, apart from oral tradition, apart from reasoned reflection, apart from acceptance of a view after pondering it—can declare final knowledge thus: ‘Destroyed is birth, the holy life has been lived, what had to be done has been done, there is no more for this state of being.’”

https://suttacentral.net/en/sn35.153
Nibbana is definitely moksha in that it is liberation and that Pali language equivalents of the term moksha can mean nibbana, although they can also mean the 8 attainments (jhanas and formless states) and the 4 brahmaviharas. I take it to be obvious that buddhist and hindu notions of moksha are not identical.

See Ven. Anālayo's encyclopedia entries on Vimokkha, Vimutti, and Vimuttāyatana

: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
Sam Vara
Posts: 2339
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm

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

Post by Sam Vara » Fri Sep 22, 2017 9:28 am

polarbear101 wrote:
Sam Vara wrote: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.
Yes, vimutti comes from the same root as vimokkha in Pali, the root muc. I would suggest that moksha in buddhism is not ineffable. It is the extinguishment (=nibbana) of greed, hate, and delusion. And the presence and absence of these 3 unwholesome roots can be seen with wisdom.
You're right - ineffability is too strong here. My point is that given our own lack of experience of what is being referred to, and our necessary reliance upon apophatic and figurative language, we lack the ability to be certain about whether the three terms are synonymous or not.

Saengnapha
Posts: 268
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2017 10:17 am

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

Post by Saengnapha » Fri Sep 29, 2017 4:08 am

Correct me if I am mistaken, but moksha, liberation, describes an event in nature, a kind of moment, often described as a release. Nibbana seems to be the state of the liberated one. A Buddha takes no position, doesn't rest on any conceptual form or activity. This is ineffable.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: altar and 33 guests