Nibbana vs Brahman

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
James Tan
Posts: 754
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2017 1:26 pm

Nibbana vs Brahman

Post by James Tan » Sun Mar 04, 2018 1:00 pm

Greetings ,


All orthodox schools of Hinduism hold the premise, "Atman exists, as self evident truth".

On the other hand ,

Buddhism, in contrast, holds the premise, "Atman does not exist (or, An-atman) as self evident".

The ultimate goal of Buddhism is Nibbana .

The ultimate goal of Hinduism is Brahman .

Buddha himself and his disciples attained Nibbana and proving that state is the Truth .

samanas brahmanas yogis rishis renunciates is the living proof of Thou Art That .

Nibbana i.e. the ending of dukkha ,
the extinction of life .

Brahman i.e. the moksa ,
the ultimate knowledge , immortality .

User avatar
cappuccino
Posts: 1481
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am

Re: Nibbana vs Brahman

Post by cappuccino » Sun Mar 04, 2018 2:04 pm

Brahman is simply the realm of infinite consciousness.

Second formless jhana

James Tan
Posts: 754
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2017 1:26 pm

Re: Nibbana vs Brahman

Post by James Tan » Sun Mar 04, 2018 2:10 pm

cappuccino wrote:
Sun Mar 04, 2018 2:04 pm
Brahman is simply the realm of infinite consciousness.

Second formless jhana
How do you support your statement ?

User avatar
cappuccino
Posts: 1481
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am

Re: Nibbana vs Brahman

Post by cappuccino » Sun Mar 04, 2018 2:14 pm


James Tan
Posts: 754
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2017 1:26 pm

Re: Nibbana vs Brahman

Post by James Tan » Sun Mar 04, 2018 2:34 pm

cappuccino wrote:
Sun Mar 04, 2018 2:14 pm
The Thirty-one Planes of Existence
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dha ... /loka.html
(The Immaterial World (arupa-loka).
Consists of four realms that are accessible to those who pass away while meditating in the formless jhanas.)

(The inhabitants of these realms are possessed entirely of mind. Having no physical body, they are unable to hear Dhamma teachings.)

First , nothing that says Brahman is realm of infinite consciousness / second formless jhana.

Another thing is , how would it be possible for one exists only with mind but without a physical "body" ?
This is contradictory to Buddha's teachings saying that 5 aggregates exists with 6 sense organs vs 6 sense objects vs 6 sense consciousnessess .

Thanks .

User avatar
cappuccino
Posts: 1481
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am

Re: Nibbana vs Brahman

Post by cappuccino » Sun Mar 04, 2018 2:36 pm

Maybe you will never have the answer. Never mind.

James Tan
Posts: 754
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2017 1:26 pm

Re: Nibbana vs Brahman

Post by James Tan » Sun Mar 04, 2018 2:38 pm

cappuccino wrote:
Sun Mar 04, 2018 2:36 pm
Maybe you will never have the answer. Never mind.
Keep it !

User avatar
Lucas Oliveira
Posts: 778
Joined: Wed Jun 10, 2015 10:07 pm

Re: Nibbana vs Brahman

Post by Lucas Oliveira » Sun Mar 04, 2018 4:53 pm

Maybe they're talking about the same thing. only they used different names and different technical explanations.
In Indian religions, nirvana is synonymous with moksha and mukti.[note 1] All Indian religions assert it to be a state of perfect quietude, freedom, highest happiness along with it being the liberation from samsara, the repeating cycle of birth, life and death.[6][7]

However, Buddhist and non-Buddhist traditions describe these terms for liberation differently.[8] In the Buddhist context, nirvana refers to realization of non-self and emptiness, marking the end of rebirth by stilling the fires that keep the process of rebirth going

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana
perhaps all religions have the same goal.

but we have not yet accomplished this goal and we are discussing technical names and different technical explanations.

it's just a theory


:namaste:
I participate in this forum using Google Translator. http://translate.google.com.br

http://www.acessoaoinsight.net/

User avatar
cappuccino
Posts: 1481
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am

Re: Nibbana vs Brahman

Post by cappuccino » Sun Mar 04, 2018 6:45 pm

Furthermore, the monk who is a learner reflects, 'Is there outside of this doctrine & discipline any brahman or contemplative who teaches the true, genuine, & accurate Dhamma like the Blessed One?' And he discerns, 'No, there is no brahman or contemplative outside of this doctrine & discipline who teaches the true, genuine, & accurate Dhamma like the Blessed One.'

Upeksha
Posts: 119
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2018 3:23 am

Re: Nibbana vs Brahman

Post by Upeksha » Sun Mar 04, 2018 9:19 pm

Lucas Oliveira wrote:
Sun Mar 04, 2018 4:53 pm
Maybe they're talking about the same thing. only they used different names and different technical explanations.
In Indian religions, nirvana is synonymous with moksha and mukti.[note 1] All Indian religions assert it to be a state of perfect quietude, freedom, highest happiness along with it being the liberation from samsara, the repeating cycle of birth, life and death.[6][7]

However, Buddhist and non-Buddhist traditions describe these terms for liberation differently.[8] In the Buddhist context, nirvana refers to realization of non-self and emptiness, marking the end of rebirth by stilling the fires that keep the process of rebirth going

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana
perhaps all religions have the same goal.

but we have not yet accomplished this goal and we are discussing technical names and different technical explanations.

it's just a theory


:namaste:
I kind of agree to the extent that unless someone has direct experience of both, one is necessarily engaged in very speculative metaphysics.

I'm not saying they're the same, necessarily. Only that both are clearly inexpressible, so, who can really characterise or define them at all?

Upeksha
Posts: 119
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2018 3:23 am

Re: Nibbana vs Brahman

Post by Upeksha » Sun Mar 04, 2018 9:20 pm

cappuccino wrote:
Sun Mar 04, 2018 6:45 pm
Furthermore, the monk who is a learner reflects, 'Is there outside of this doctrine & discipline any brahman or contemplative who teaches the true, genuine, & accurate Dhamma like the Blessed One?' And he discerns, 'No, there is no brahman or contemplative outside of this doctrine & discipline who teaches the true, genuine, & accurate Dhamma like the Blessed One.'
But how does he truly discern this, given that there have been countless sages in many different traditions over thousands of years?

User avatar
Sam Vara
Posts: 4093
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Sussex, U.K.

Re: Nibbana vs Brahman

Post by Sam Vara » Sun Mar 04, 2018 9:37 pm

Upeksha wrote:
Sun Mar 04, 2018 9:20 pm
cappuccino wrote:
Sun Mar 04, 2018 6:45 pm
Furthermore, the monk who is a learner reflects, 'Is there outside of this doctrine & discipline any brahman or contemplative who teaches the true, genuine, & accurate Dhamma like the Blessed One?' And he discerns, 'No, there is no brahman or contemplative outside of this doctrine & discipline who teaches the true, genuine, & accurate Dhamma like the Blessed One.'
But how does he truly discern this, given that there have been countless sages in many different traditions over thousands of years?
Good question, Upeksha. Here are two possibilities. The first is that the monk is able to see for himself that the teaching is so perfect that it would be logically impossible for it to be improved upon elsewhere, whether or not he has knowledge of what is taught elsewhere. He cannot conceive of a better teaching.

The second is that the passage is merely referring to the monk's personal experience. Given that the monk knows of several other brahmans and contemplatives, none of them compare favourably with the Buddha.

Upeksha
Posts: 119
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2018 3:23 am

Re: Nibbana vs Brahman

Post by Upeksha » Sun Mar 04, 2018 11:45 pm

Sam Vara wrote:
Sun Mar 04, 2018 9:37 pm
Upeksha wrote:
Sun Mar 04, 2018 9:20 pm
cappuccino wrote:
Sun Mar 04, 2018 6:45 pm
Furthermore, the monk who is a learner reflects, 'Is there outside of this doctrine & discipline any brahman or contemplative who teaches the true, genuine, & accurate Dhamma like the Blessed One?' And he discerns, 'No, there is no brahman or contemplative outside of this doctrine & discipline who teaches the true, genuine, & accurate Dhamma like the Blessed One.'
But how does he truly discern this, given that there have been countless sages in many different traditions over thousands of years?
Good question, Upeksha. Here are two possibilities. The first is that the monk is able to see for himself that the teaching is so perfect that it would be logically impossible for it to be improved upon elsewhere, whether or not he has knowledge of what is taught elsewhere. He cannot conceive of a better teaching.

The second is that the passage is merely referring to the monk's personal experience. Given that the monk knows of several other brahmans and contemplatives, none of them compare favourably with the Buddha.
I'd be happy to accept the monk's personal experience as true - after all, he had direct encounters with the Buddha.

What I find less easy to accept, 2,500 years later and with a manifold of traditions in a manifold of cultures all giving rise to different forms of spiritual experience, is that simply on the basis of what that monk thinks, we take it as unimpeachable truth.

:anjali:

User avatar
Sam Vara
Posts: 4093
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Sussex, U.K.

Re: Nibbana vs Brahman

Post by Sam Vara » Mon Mar 05, 2018 12:03 am

Upeksha wrote:
Sun Mar 04, 2018 11:45 pm


I'd be happy to accept the monk's personal experience as true - after all, he had direct encounters with the Buddha.

What I find less easy to accept, 2,500 years later and with a manifold of traditions in a manifold of cultures all giving rise to different forms of spiritual experience, is that simply on the basis of what that monk thinks, we take it as unimpeachable truth.

:anjali:
Agreed. But given that the Sutta is about how one can verify for oneself whether one is a sekha, there is another way of understanding this. If, as a monastic, you find that you believe
there is no brahman or contemplative outside of this doctrine & discipline who teaches the true, genuine, & accurate Dhamma like the Blessed One.
then you can count yourself as having attained the level of sekha, or "learner":
This...is a manner of reckoning whereby a monk who is a learner, standing at the level of a learner, can discern that 'I am a learner.'
That is, within the Buddha's dispensation, there is a convention that this is the label given to monks with this degree of knowledge and faith. It is not necessary that the article of faith be true (i.e. that there actually is no contemplative or brahman who teaches like the Blessed One). Merely the belief is enough to have the label bestowed on one.

User avatar
No_Mind
Posts: 1911
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 4:12 pm
Location: India

Re: Nibbana vs Brahman

Post by No_Mind » Mon Mar 05, 2018 2:58 am

cappuccino wrote:
Sun Mar 04, 2018 2:14 pm
The Thirty-one Planes of Existence
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dha ... /loka.html
That is Brahma .. a God (the Hindu God of creation .. approximately the initiator of the Big Bang or one single universe which is called kalpa in Hinduism .. a period of 4.32 billion years or one day in life of Brahma)

JT is referring to Brahman

Brahma is a God a deity. He is not of much importance since Brahma is born and dies in cycles of 311 trillion * n years (one day is 4.32 billion years and one night 4.32 billion years .. one year in his life is 311 trillion years so he dies in 311 trillion * n years)

Brahman (note the n at end) is what we concern ourselves with .. following is taken from my writings elsewhere

Brahman connotes the highest Universal Principle, the ultimate reality in the universe. In major schools of Hindu philosophy, it is the material, efficient, formal and final cause of all that exists. It is the pervasive, genderless, infinite, eternal truth and bliss which does not change, yet is the cause of all changes. Brahman as a metaphysical concept is the single binding unity behind diversity in all that exists in the universe.

Brahman is "neti, neti" (which means "not this, not that"). If you find yourself thinking of Brahman in a particular way -- It is not that; if you find yourself thinking It is opposite, It is not that either. Brahman cannot be described, because description implies distinction. Brahman cannot be distinguished from any other than It.

Like a fish is born in a lake, the Universe is born in Brahman. The lake did not create the fish but the fish was born due to the ecosystem present in the lake. This argument of mine neatly side steps arguments about Creator God (I do need to keep my Buddhist hat on too) but does not negate something greater than what we can see, feel and perceive with our five senses.

I hate to lash out but do your homework and get your concepts clear before writing cryptic four words comments on every topic under the sun.

:namaste:
Last edited by No_Mind on Mon Mar 05, 2018 4:23 am, edited 2 times in total.
I know one thing: that I know nothing

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot] and 46 guests