Nibbana vs Brahman

[dylanj]

there was a good discussion about this here

[No_Mind]

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 .

I believe they both are the same

There is a discussion here https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/ques ... ahman-atma

[sentinel]

Bhikkhu Bodhi: There is one that comes in the Majjihima Nikaya that is in the end of sutta 51 where he is speaking about the progressive development of the disciple where he goes on through the different stages of mediation and insight and at the end he becomes an arahat. A liberated one and he says he dwells, atma bhutto brahma vihara. He dwells with a self that has become Brahma. So it seems almost to be echoing the Upanishads formula of the self that has become Brahma.(Brahman)

[Upeksha]

Bhikkhu Bodhi: There is one that comes in the Majjihima Nikaya that is in the end of sutta 51 where he is speaking about the progressive development of the disciple where he goes on through the different stages of mediation and insight and at the end he becomes an arahat. A liberated one and he says he dwells, atma bhutto brahma vihara. He dwells with a self that has become Brahma. So it seems almost to be echoing the Upanishads formula of the self that has become Brahma.(Brahman)

That's pretty interesting.....and advances this discussion rather well.

[Pondera]

I believe the “Brahma viharas” are secondary to nibanna. In suttas, the Buddha speaks of monks who aim for such spheres as those who aim for a lesser objective.

And, earlier it was mentioned that infinite consciousness equates to “being one with Brahman”. I believe this is true. The Brahma viharas are infinite spheres. In my experience, the sphere of loving kindness, for example, is embodied by none other than the Personage of the Christ Himself.

[No_Mind]

Bhikkhu Bodhi: There is one that comes in the Majjihima Nikaya that is in the end of sutta 51 where he is speaking about the progressive development of the disciple where he goes on through the different stages of mediation and insight and at the end he becomes an arahat. A liberated one and he says he dwells, atma bhutto brahma vihara. He dwells with a self that has become Brahma. So it seems almost to be echoing the Upanishads formula of the self that has become Brahma.(Brahman)

What is the source? The Brahman at end .. did you insert it?

[sentinel]

Bhikkhu Bodhi: There is one that comes in the Majjihima Nikaya that is in the end of sutta 51 where he is speaking about the progressive development of the disciple where he goes on through the different stages of mediation and insight and at the end he becomes an arahat. A liberated one and he says he dwells, atma bhutto brahma vihara. He dwells with a self that has become Brahma. So it seems almost to be echoing the Upanishads formula of the self that has become Brahma.(Brahman)

What is the source? The Brahman at end .. did you insert it?

Yes , I inserted . Please see below.


Bhikkhu Bodhi: Yes, in this particular grammatical form Brahma Bhutto, one can’t determine whether Brahma here represents Brahman or Brahma; the impersonal absolute or Brahma as the supreme deity. And then the word Brahma in the sense of holy or supreme occurs in numerous compounds in the Pali cannon. What’s called the spiritual life or the holy life is brahmacharya. Literally it’s the course or path to the holy or to the divine, the divine life. And then the Buddha himself is said to be Brahma bhutto, one who has become Brahma which is understood to mean, become the Holy, become the supreme. But there’s not an explicit statement or an explicit formulation that uses Brahma clearly in the sense of the impersonal divine absolute.

[Upeksha]

I believe the “Brahma viharas” are secondary to nibanna. In suttas, the Buddha speaks of monks who aim for such spheres as those who aim for a lesser objective.

And, earlier it was mentioned that infinite consciousness equates to “being one with Brahman”. I believe this is true. The Brahma viharas are infinite spheres. In my experience, the sphere of loving kindness, for example, is embodied by none other than the Personage of the Christ Himself.

I don't think that squares with the quote, because the Brahma metaphor was a simile for becoming an arahat. Whereas the 4 Brahma viharas are more like the moral virtues or attributes that Brahma has.

[Spiny Norman]

Yeah and Trump will win Nobel Prize in literature in 2018. Keep dreaming bro .. keep dreaming

Just imagine being tied down and forced to listen to Trump's tweets on a continuous loop.

[Spiny Norman]

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.

Agreed, but this doesn't sound much like Nibbana.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dha ... bbana.html

[Saengnapha]

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.

Agreed, but this doesn't sound much like Nibbana.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dha ... bbana.html

Especially the way he is explaining Brahman. But, otoh, the same problems exist explaining Nibbana.

[No_Mind]

Bhikkhu Bodhi: There is one that comes in the Majjihima Nikaya that is in the end of sutta 51 where he is speaking about the progressive development of the disciple where he goes on through the different stages of mediation and insight and at the end he becomes an arahat. A liberated one and he says he dwells, atma bhutto brahma vihara. He dwells with a self that has become Brahma. So it seems almost to be echoing the Upanishads formula of the self that has become Brahma.(Brahman)

What is the source? The Brahman at end .. did you insert it?

Yes , I inserted . Please see below.


Bhikkhu Bodhi: Yes, in this particular grammatical form Brahma Bhutto, one can’t determine whether Brahma here represents Brahman or Brahma; the impersonal absolute or Brahma as the supreme deity. And then the word Brahma in the sense of holy or supreme occurs in numerous compounds in the Pali cannon. What’s called the spiritual life or the holy life is brahmacharya. Literally it’s the course or path to the holy or to the divine, the divine life. And then the Buddha himself is said to be Brahma bhutto, one who has become Brahma which is understood to mean, become the Holy, become the supreme. But there’s not an explicit statement or an explicit formulation that uses Brahma clearly in the sense of the impersonal divine absolute.

What is the source .. the link ..

e.g.

When you see things in the world like banana peels that have no great value for you, then you're free to walk in the world without being moved, without being bothered, without being hurt in any way by all of the various kinds of things that come and pass away, whether pleasant or unpleasant. This is the path that leads you to freedom. - Ajahn Chah

http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/tree-forest.pdf

[sentinel]

What is the source? The Brahman at end .. did you insert it?

Yes , I inserted . Please see below.


Bhikkhu Bodhi: Yes, in this particular grammatical form Brahma Bhutto, one can’t determine whether Brahma here represents Brahman or Brahma; the impersonal absolute or Brahma as the supreme deity. And then the word Brahma in the sense of holy or supreme occurs in numerous compounds in the Pali cannon. What’s called the spiritual life or the holy life is brahmacharya. Literally it’s the course or path to the holy or to the divine, the divine life. And then the Buddha himself is said to be Brahma bhutto, one who has become Brahma which is understood to mean, become the Holy, become the supreme. But there’s not an explicit statement or an explicit formulation that uses Brahma clearly in the sense of the impersonal divine absolute.

What is the source .. the link ..

e.g.

When you see things in the world like banana peels that have no great value for you, then you're free to walk in the world without being moved, without being bothered, without being hurt in any way by all of the various kinds of things that come and pass away, whether pleasant or unpleasant. This is the path that leads you to freedom. - Ajahn Chah

http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/tree-forest.pdf

https://m.facebook.com/100017760575189/ ... d%3D&mdf=1

[Spiny Norman]

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.

Agreed, but this doesn't sound much like Nibbana.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dha ... bbana.html

Especially the way he is explaining Brahman. But, otoh, the same problems exist explaining Nibbana.

I think it's correct to describe Brahman as the underlying reality or "ground of being". Describing Nibbana in those terms is problematic.

[Saengnapha]

Agreed, but this doesn't sound much like Nibbana.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dha ... bbana.html

Especially the way he is explaining Brahman. But, otoh, the same problems exist explaining Nibbana.

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?