Heaven and Nirvana/ Comparative Religion

[Nick the Pilot]

Vaj,

Thanks for the info. I know the Trikaya is mentioned in Mahayana, but I was not sure about Theravada.

You said,

"...the Abidharma does make mention of these subjects but does so through a different means."

--> In what way?

[Vajradhara]

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

Vaj,

Thanks for the info. I know the Trikaya is mentioned in Mahayana, but I was not sure about Theravada.


You said,

"...the Abidharma does make mention of these subjects but does so through a different means."

--> In what way?

the Abidhama is a more systematic way in which the teachings are described, as such, the method that this information is conveyed in is through the discussion of the philosophical point of view upon which the Buddha Dharma is founded. though, in truth, there are four permutations of this view to be found in the various Buddhist schools today. the Abidhamma is typically not presented in the same manner as the Suttas in this regard.

metta,

~v

[Nick the Pilot]

Vaj,

In Theravada, is there a correlative term for a concept such as Sabhogakaya?

[Francis king]

its sambhogakaya- complete/perfect (sam) enjoyment (bhoga) (kaya) body/vehicle....

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Nick,

Francis answered your query eloquently

metta,

~v

[Neemai]

Namaste Vajradhara,

Do you mind if I ask a semi-related question? -

Would you equate Nirvana in any way with the liberation or Moksha of the Upanishads? I was thinking of how ''Heaven'' might correlate with concepts within Hinduism also. If moksha was seen as the Heaven of Hinduism, if you like? (Not that I see it like that!)

I've often heard of the notion of moksha, or attainment of Brahma-Bhuta or Brahman being compared with the Buddhist Nirvana, but wondered what your opinion would be on the subject? Does the difference in the beliefs of Buddhism and Hinduism regarding the soul nullify any comparison between them, or are they both describing the same truth, just from different perspectives?

There is one verse in the Srimad Bhagavatam Purana, which for me, identifies the three major universal ways of viewing the Supreme, including both personal and impersonal viewpoints:

"Learned transcendentalists who know the Absolute Truth call this nondual substance Brahman, Paramatma or Bhagavan." (1.2.11)

Brahman being the state of impersonal liberation [equated to Moksha and possibly Nirvana also]
Paramatma being the realisation that God is within the heart of all beings.
Bhagavan being the realisation that God is a Person, and that we have an eternal relationship with Him.

Without going too off-track I wanted to know if you were "happy" with this Brahman realisation, or Moksha being equated to Nirvana, or if you see the two as being very different concepts?

Obviously the other details regarding belief in a Supreme God, don't fit in well with the vast majority of Buddhist paths (I understand that the odd Mahajana follower will see Buddha as a manifestation, or form of God? But that this opinion is not exactly widespread, or at all mainstream.)

Sorry for cramming so many questions in one post, but this is an interesting area of discussion.

Does anyone have any other thoughts on it all?

Hari Om,


... Neemai

[Nick the Pilot]

Neemai,

I am a Theosophist. In Theosophy, Moksha is seen as being identical to Nirvana.

Hinduism teaches reincarnation, correct? Regarding Heaven, does Hinduism teach of a place of peaceful rest between incarnations? Does Hinduism see Moksha as a "place" to "go" to after the cycle of reincarnation is finished?

[Neemai]

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

Neemai,

I am a Theosophist. In Theosophy, Moksha is seen as being identical to Nirvana.

Hinduism teaches reincarnation, correct? Regarding Heaven, does Hinduism teach of a place of peaceful rest between incarnations? Does Hinduism see Moksha as a "place" to "go" to after the cycle of reincarnation is finished?

Hello Nick,

the traditions of Hinduism pretty much all teach reincarnation and the theory of samsara in a similar, but not identical way, to the Buddhist view of samsara & re-birth.

Regarding a Heaven, Krishna mentions a "Supreme Abode or destination" several times throughout the Bhagavad-Gita:

"That which the Vedāntists describe as unmanifest and infallible, that which is known as the supreme destination, that place from which, having attained it, one never returns — that is My supreme abode." (BG 8.21)

"Those who are free from false prestige, illusion and false association, who understand the eternal, who are done with material lust, who are freed from the dualities of happiness and distress, and who, unbewildered, know how
to surrender unto the Supreme Person attain to that eternal kingdom." (BG 15.5)

"That supreme abode of Mine is not illumined by the sun or moon, nor by fire or electricity. Those who reach it never return to this material world." (BG 15.6)

Further, in the Srimad Bhagavatam there are details given of a spiritual realm, called Vaikuntha, which according to the Vaishnava traditions of Hinduism, is the ultimate destination of all pure worshippers of Vishnu, or associated Avatars. This is the nearest match I have come across to the Abrahmic heaven, with Krishna or Vishnu being the God therof :

After thus traveling all over the universes, they also entered into the spiritual sky, for they were freed from all material contamination. In the spiritual sky there are spiritual planets known as Vaikuṇṭhas, which are the residence of the Supreme Personality of Godhead and His pure devotees and are worshiped by the residents of all the material planets...all the residents are similar in form to the Supreme Personality of Godhead. They all engage in devotional service to the Lord without desires for sense gratification.

In the Vaikuṇṭha planets is the Supreme Personality of Godhead, who is the original person and who can be understood through the Vedic literature...In those Vaikuṇṭha planets there are many forests which are very auspicious. In those forests the trees are desire trees, and in all seasons they are filled with flowers and fruits because everything in the Vaikuṇṭha planets is spiritual and personal.

Above Texts is from 3.15.13-16 of the Srimad Bhagavatam. For full text see: http://vedabase.net/sb/3/15/en1

Does a heaven full of forests and flowers sound familiar? Maybe it is the kind of place where we would all like to be, or all consider heavenly??

I've never read anything which described specifically what is suppossed to happen between births, although I have a some memory of text which says, once we leave one body, our consciousness carries us to the next one according to our desires in this one.

Is there a concept of Heaven or a Spiritual world within Theosophy also?

Best wishes,

... Neemai

[Nick the Pilot]

Neemai,


Hinduism does not make a clear distinction between Heaven (between-reincarnation rest) and Moksha/Nirvana (birth-cycle-ending existence)? I am surprised. I see the two concepts as completely different. You quoted,

"Those who are free from false prestige, illusion and false association, who understand the eternal, who are done with material lust, who are freed from the dualities of happiness and distress, and who, unbewildered, know how to surrender unto the Supreme Person attain to that eternal kingdom." (BG 15.5)

--> This is the same as the Theosophical contention that Nirvana must be earned, and that no amount of divine forgiveness can be used to get a person into Nirvana. (As a matter of fact, Theosophy sees entering Nirvana as a lot harder than most people suspect.)

In your other quote, references to freedom from material contamination, and freedom from false prestige, illusion & false association seem to apply both to Heaven-like and Moksha/Nirvana-like states. Amazing!

"Does a heaven full of forests and flowers sound familiar?"

--> This is exactly like a Theosophical Heaven, but quite different from a Theosophical Moksha/Nirvana.

"I've never read anything which described specifically what is suppossed to happen between births, although I have a some memory of text which says, once we leave one body, our consciousness carries us to the next one according to our desires in this one."

--> This describes perfectly the Theosophy view of between-incarnation existence. In Theosophy, all lower-level desires must be absolutely eliminated before Nirvana can be entered. He/she who still has lower-level desires is doomed to another incarnation, no matter what he/she does.

"Is there a concept of Heaven or a Spiritual world within Theosophy also?"

--> Yes. However, Theosophy uses Spiritual to refer to Heaven, Nirvana, and many levels above Nirvana. Does Hinduism have levels above Moksha?

~~~

By the way , I see you use the spelling Paramatma. Theosophy uses the spelling Paramatman. Do you see a difference between the two?

[Neemai]

Hi Nick,

it sounds like the traditions we both follow may have a number of beliefs in common.

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

Hinduism does not make a clear distinction between Heaven (between-reincarnation rest) and Moksha/Nirvana (birth-cycle-ending existence)? I am surprised. I see the two concepts as completely different.

I don't think I explained this very well, LoL - I am in agreement with your comment. I have not read anything in any scriptures that describes a period of 'heaven' between births (unless you include taking birth elsewhere on a better ['heavenly'] planet before coming back here). Moksha is seen as the end of the reincarnation cycle - so the two are totally different.

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

Yes. However, Theosophy uses Spiritual to refer to Heaven, Nirvana, and many levels above Nirvana. Does Hinduism have levels above Moksha?

According to the Puranic texts, moksha is just the start of spiritual life. Beyond this there is actual spiritual existence. For followers of the Bhakti paths, moksha is not even an aim - Love of God (and thus the desire to serve Him) is described as being an eternal activity which is much more important than liberation:

"O Lord, for those who always engage in Your service, which is more exalted than liberation, all material opulence is insignificant. They do not even care for liberation, not to speak of the benefits of kama, artha and dharma." (SB 7.8.42)

"Lord Siva replied: Surely this saintly brahmana does not desire any benediction, not even liberation itself, for he has attained pure devotional service unto the inexhaustible Personality of Godhead." (SB 12.10.6)

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

By the way , I see you use the spelling Paramatma. Theosophy uses the spelling Paramatman. Do you see a difference between the two?

They are both translations of the same Sanskrit word, just alternate spellings.

What is given as the ultimate goal in Theosophy? Is heaven described in a similar way?

Hare Rama!


... Neemai

[Nick the Pilot]

Neemai, you said,

"it sounds like the traditions we both follow may have a number of beliefs in common."

--> Yes. Both are very similar.

"I have not read anything in any scriptures that describes a period of 'heaven' between births (unless you include taking birth elsewhere on a better ['heavenly'] planet before coming back here)."

--> Heaven is not spent on another planet. I am glad I have at least given you this new idea of Heaven vs. Moksha.

"According to the Puranic texts, moksha is just the start of spiritual life."

--> Theosophy agrees.

"For followers of the Bhakti paths, moksha is not even an aim - Love of God (and thus the desire to serve Him) is described as being an eternal activity which is much more important than liberation...."

--> This is a big difference between Bhakti and Theosophy. Theosophy does not teach the idea of an Almighty God, as Hinduism apparantly does. We do not use phrases such as, "the inexhaustible Personality of Godhead."

"What is given as the ultimate goal in Theosophy?"

--> The ultimate goal is reunification with the Absolute. Theosophy does not talk about God, rather, it talks about the Absolute. There are several differences. For example, the Absolute is never given human attributes. (The Absolute never gets angry, never needs worship or glorification, etc.) Anthropomorphization of the Absolute is not allowed.

"Is heaven described in a similar way?"

--> No. Heaven is a place of flowers and rainbows, like you described before. Nirvana (Moksha) is completely different. Here is one short, partial description of Nirvana.

"Try to imagine the whole universe filled with and consisting of an immense torrent of living light, and in it a vividness of life and an intensity of bliss beyond all description, a hundred thousand times beyond the greatest bliss of heaven. At first we feel nothing but bliss; we see nothing but the intensity of light; but gradually we begin to realize that even in this dazzling brightness there are brighter spots — nuclei, as it were — which are built of the light because there is nothing but the light, and yet through them somehow the light gleams out more brightly, and obtains a new quality which enables it to be perceptible upon other and lower planes, which without this would be altogether beneath the possibility of sensing its effulgence. And by degrees we begin to realize that these subsidiary suns are the great Ones, that these are Planetary Spirits, Great Angels, Karmic Deities, Buddhas, Christs and Masters, and that through Them the light and the life are flowing down to the lower planes. (The Masters and the Path pp. 198-199

Another aspect of Nirvana is that separateness disappears. In Nirvana, the idea that you and I are separate individuals disappears. Also, Nirvana is a place where dependence on physical objects (trees, mountains, physical human bodies) disappears.

[_Z_]

great thread! and nice to be back after all my pc troubles


i haven’t read all the replies, but i would think the answer is that:

a more profound perception of heaven may be the same as nirvana, it depends on perspective. some people believe god to be an entity beyond form [and formlessness], and that any description of god is only there as a means of enveloping an idea of him, something to grab hold of - so to say. such descriptions are only there to help people advance towards the purer view.

so heaven if like unto the nature of the invisible god [as in his abode], would at first be a place - a realm. this would only be part of the hierarchy eventually souls would advance beyond its entity and find its pure form in the heart of god.

i think all religions have an ultimate profound form, some would say Buddhism is more advanced because of its transparency and lack of entity, whilst a Christian may say that they have this nature ultimately, yet by seeing it in terms of ‘god’ they have an explanation of how it is part of everything and the creational source of everything.

so religions may be just different perspective that all lead to the same thing. i see no difference in the ultimate meaning of tao and continual creation, the awen and the divine centre [druidry] and then nirvana and heaven.
what we must remember is that each religion has had its own form of growth over time. who is to say that we havent entered a period of the final phase.
----------
nick the pilot

i liked your explanation of immutability and mutability, this is crucial as god would probably be both at the same time? i like to see ‘god’ as a universal being so he would have the ability to take all forms - in order to be able to create all, in this he would be both deaf and blind yet all seeing, hearing and feeling.

beyond the incompleteness of language - as it is metaphoric and cannot describe directly, god is above the apparent paradoxes that are always thrown up when trying to understand his core nature, this is the same as when trying to understand the core nature of existence.

[Nick the Pilot]

_Z_, you asked,

"...i liked your explanation of immutability and mutability, this is crucial as god would probably be both at the same time?"

--> Allow me to give an explanation from my belief system, although it may at first seem confusing. God cannot be both immutable and mutable at the same time. My belief system sees God as mutable. (My belief system sees God and the Absolute as different.) According to my belief system, the Absolute cannot be mutable, and God cannot be immutable.

"i like to see ‘god’ as a universal being so he would have the ability to take all forms..."

--> My belief system agrees. God is universal. As a matter of fact, we say God IS the universe. (But God is not the Absolute.) Please allow me to throw in an idea. God is universal, which means He only applies to this universe (according to my belief system ).

"...god is above the apparent paradoxes that are always thrown up when trying to understand his core nature, this is the same as when trying to understand the core nature of existence."

--> Indeed, they are one and the same paradox.

"...i see no difference in the ultimate meaning of tao and continual creation, the awen and the divine centre [druidry] and then nirvana and heaven."

--> I understand where you are coming from. However, I would say my distinction between Heaven and Nirvana makes a big difference in my belief system.

"...what we must remember is that each religion has had its own form of growth over time."

--> Yes! And I celebrate our differences.

[_Z_]

the Absolute cannot be mutable, and God cannot be immutable
God is universal, which means He only applies to this universe

interesting, however i have yet to find anything that is absolute, but have read some of your posts about it and it is a good explanation. for me it all comes down to the meaning of the term ‘universal’, in this there cannot be anything 100% distinct nor absolute ['IT' = either neither and both].

to see god as both mutable and immutable we can use an analogy of ourselves [considering we are the nearest mirror in form - to god]; we are both integral to ourselves yet interactive with the environment. similarly then god is integral to himself and ‘absolute’ in that sense, yet is also everywhere even in amongst our thoughts [and vice versa].

I would say my distinction between Heaven and Nirvana makes a big difference in my belief system.

the impression i get from books and mediums NDE’s etc is that heaven is a process of transformation, so where would it ultimately arrive at - the ultimate? what do you think that would be?

Yes! And I celebrate our differences

arent they superficial? i mean we all live in the same world, see the same things, just from different perspectives. many biblical stories appear to have derived elsewhere then had abrahamic descriptions put to them e.g:

the real Eden
i was watching a documentary about this, apparently it was an actual place situates in southern Iraq ‘where the four rivers meet’.

http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/middl..._pennisula.gif

originally the Persian gulf was the fourth river of the area not a sea, then a while after the ice melted [around 6000 BC] and as the waters from the Arabian sea rose, there was a catastrophic flood in those fertile plains - which were later referred to as ‘eden’ in the bible.

to cut a long story short; the original Persian myth represented the transition from hunter gatherers - innocence - to cultivation and civilisation. then abraham used this as a metaphor adding the catastrophic flood as an example of how god punishes the evil doers who dare to take it upon themselves to create - the apple?

[Tao_Equus]

WB Z!! Cant hang around to get nattering but glad to see you back. I have gone for out n out atheist recently. Sorry but I had no "moral" alternative and had to call time on wishful thinking. Still look forward to bigger ideas with you tho and will post soon

Tao