Nibbana vs Brahman

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths. What can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
Saengnapha
Posts: 872
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2017 10:17 am

Re: Nibbana vs Brahman

Post by Saengnapha » Wed Mar 07, 2018 11:47 am

Dinsdale wrote:
Tue Mar 06, 2018 3:58 pm
Saengnapha wrote:
Mon Mar 05, 2018 3:22 pm
Dinsdale wrote:
Mon Mar 05, 2018 1:39 pm


I think it's correct to describe Brahman as the underlying reality or "ground of being". Describing Nibbana in those terms is problematic.
Where have you seen Brahman described as the ground of being?
I meant it in a loose sense, as the basis for everything that exists. I should have left it at "underlying reality". ;)
Do you think apart from all the interpretations of what Brahman is, such as 'the true self', 'the eternal reality', etc., that the ineffable state of the unconditioned, which Brahman is also thought of as, is not the same as Nibbana, just using a different set of vocabulary? There is so much 'stuff', philosophy, linguistic/dialectics that has grown over and around these terms that it makes it very difficult for anyone other than a 'realizer' to really say what is the case. It seems to me like words and phrases like 'I am That', and 'Suchness' cannot be very very apart.

James Tan
Posts: 383
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2017 1:26 pm

Re: Nibbana vs Brahman

Post by James Tan » Wed Mar 07, 2018 12:19 pm

Actually , some were saying about the Brahman was the remnants from Kasyapa Buddha .

Dinsdale
Posts: 5526
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: Nibbana vs Brahman

Post by Dinsdale » Wed Mar 07, 2018 2:21 pm

Saengnapha wrote:
Wed Mar 07, 2018 11:47 am
Dinsdale wrote:
Tue Mar 06, 2018 3:58 pm
Saengnapha wrote:
Mon Mar 05, 2018 3:22 pm

Where have you seen Brahman described as the ground of being?
I meant it in a loose sense, as the basis for everything that exists. I should have left it at "underlying reality". ;)
Do you think apart from all the interpretations of what Brahman is, such as 'the true self', 'the eternal reality', etc., that the ineffable state of the unconditioned, which Brahman is also thought of as, is not the same as Nibbana, just using a different set of vocabulary? There is so much 'stuff', philosophy, linguistic/dialectics that has grown over and around these terms that it makes it very difficult for anyone other than a 'realizer' to really say what is the case. It seems to me like words and phrases like 'I am That', and 'Suchness' cannot be very very apart.
Yes, it's quite possible these are different explanations for a similar experience. I do think the explanations and assumptions are significantly different though.

As an example, I used to do "silent worship" with the Quakers. They would tend to associate the experience of inner stillness with the presence of God, whereas I wouldn't ( I didn't share their belief ). It was like we were explaining a rather similar experience in different ways.
Buddha save me from new-agers!

Saengnapha
Posts: 872
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2017 10:17 am

Re: Nibbana vs Brahman

Post by Saengnapha » Thu Mar 08, 2018 4:09 am

Dinsdale wrote:
Wed Mar 07, 2018 2:21 pm
Saengnapha wrote:
Wed Mar 07, 2018 11:47 am
Dinsdale wrote:
Tue Mar 06, 2018 3:58 pm


I meant it in a loose sense, as the basis for everything that exists. I should have left it at "underlying reality". ;)
Do you think apart from all the interpretations of what Brahman is, such as 'the true self', 'the eternal reality', etc., that the ineffable state of the unconditioned, which Brahman is also thought of as, is not the same as Nibbana, just using a different set of vocabulary? There is so much 'stuff', philosophy, linguistic/dialectics that has grown over and around these terms that it makes it very difficult for anyone other than a 'realizer' to really say what is the case. It seems to me like words and phrases like 'I am That', and 'Suchness' cannot be very very apart.
Yes, it's quite possible these are different explanations for a similar experience. I do think the explanations and assumptions are significantly different though.
Yes, it seems every religion or philosophical model has a different explanation of what their view is. Since there is no common explanation shared, how can anyone measure what the actual realization of a person really is? To measure, we need some kind of standard, some kind of agreed upon referents that give certainty. Since this seems impossible, people will be left to their own chosen path for better or worse. At best, we could only surmise if there is a similarity of one model to another. If there is not, we resort to debate and the eventual higher/lower judgement of one over the other. Yet, this debate is never ending because it doesn't end in certainty although some will swear that the rhetoric is sufficient for them.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yan kong and 66 guests