/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.17618961]

Is there any theologian that thoroughly compares the doctrine of enlightenment in Buddhism and Hinduism (Nirvana vs Moksha)?
Buddhists will tell you that Moksha is just a lower state of understanding and that Nirvana is higher, and Hindus will tell you that Nirvana is annihilation and Moksha is true awakening. I'd like a more neutral and complete analysis.

[Anonymous No.17619002]

>poo chakras
>theologian
they don't exist

[Anonymous No.17619061]

>>17619002
Thanks for your input

[Anonymous No.17619356]

bump

[Anonymous No.17619394]

>>17618961
Read Coomaraswamy on Buddhism.

[Anonymous No.17619404]

>>17619394
What does he say, in a nutshell?

[Anonymous No.17619442]

>>17619404
The perfection of Atman and the achievement of Nirvana are equivalent spiritual achievements; two different paths to the same goal.

[Anonymous No.17619480]

>>17619442
Sounds like a stretch considering anatta's explicit denial of an immortal self, no?

[Anonymous No.17619496]

>>17618961
>inb4 that one retarded Theravadin buddhist starts ranting about intellectuals and mental masterbation

[Anonymous No.17619509]

>>17619480
Anon, I am in a poor condition right now and can not argue this. If you are interested in "a thorough comparison", as you said you were, go read his writings on Buddhism. If you are not, then you will have to wait until the Buddhabros arrive. I am certain I have seen this point rebutted several times already, but I do not remember the exact nature of the refutation. I believe it was something to the extent that Buddhism denies the existence of an enduring and personal self under normal circumstances, but does not at all comment on what follows Nirvana.

[Anonymous No.17619583]

Buddhism is for dalits and baizuos who drink s*y lattes. Take the Jain pill.

[Anonymous No.17619618]

>>17619583
>being an ascetic
No thanks

[Anonymous No.17619635]

>>17618961
They both say that Videha mukti and Parinirvana is the complete and final liberation and the attainment of the Unconditioned, where there is no physical body left, it’s what someone passes into after attaining the status of Jivanmukti or Nirvana respectively and then their body dies. Pass this its hard to compare because the Buddhists dont admit any principle or factor which allows people to experience Parinirvana, since according to them we are just aggregates which die out and dont pass into Parinirvana, so the Buddhist is unable to affirm anything about it except for the two contradictory positions that everything that makes us up as concious beings dies out, but somehow, some magical way, Parinirvana is not an extinction.

Vedantins say that after Videha mukti one lives eternally on as the immutable and self-knowing awareness-bliss of Brahman.

[S10241875 No.17619722]

>>17618961
>compares the doctrine of enlightenment in Buddhism and Hinduism
No, and such a book cannot be created. Well, that is, either it will turn out to be simplistic and incorrect, or completely gigantic.
Hinduism and Buddhism are collective name.
If we take Buddhism, which has a more or less strict organization, then you can find big differences between different schools, sometimes within one school, but in different books.
Hinduism does not have an organizational structure at all, it's just all the spiritual traditions of the inhabitants of India (Except Buddhism, Jainism and imported religions) in aggregate. There, the diversity in the understanding of the same term will be even greater.

[Anonymous No.17620064]

>>17619509
retard can't present his arguments

I hate perennialists

[Anonymous No.17620082]

>>17619618
ngmi bro

[Anonymous No.17620101]

>>17619583
Why should I Jain? The Vedas are pretty dope.

[Anonymous No.17620120]

>>17619722
This is a good point, for example a lot of Vaishnavite theologies reject the concept of impersonal Brahman. For them moksha is eternal bliss in Vaikuntha, Vishnu's heaven, not a realisation of non-duality. In fact the latter is quite a minority position, even in non-dualist Shaivite and Shakta schools, non-dualism is not the falling away of an unreal illusion but a spiritual path in which souls are evolved from and then absorbed back into God.

[Anonymous No.17620122]

>>17619480
>anatta's explicit denial of an immortal self, no?
Buddha never said this is what anatta means, in the Pali Canon he only uses it as a adjective to describe the status of lacking an atman of the specific nouns to which he applies anatta in the Pali Canon. He never said “there is no Atman that exists anywhere, period”. But for whatever reasons the Buddhist textual tradition decided to interpret what he meant as “Atmans dont exist”.

[S10241875 No.17620258]

>>17620120
Yes. I am not especially interested in Hinduism, but here is the only "basic" treatise that I have completely read "Nyāya Sūtras" + "Nyāyavārttika" (school of logicians). There are very strong differences from any neo-Hinduism in the popular presentation.

[Anonymous No.17620369]

>>17620120
>even in non-dualist Shaivite and Shakta schools, non-dualism is not the falling away of an unreal illusion
The world is not considered ontologically as illusion by them but they still consider that liberation is waking up from the illusion of being a human being who is separate from God and existing in a world of multiplicity. That’s why in Kashmir Shaivism they have a maya-shakti which is Shivas power that induces ignorance and individuation. Even in Sri Vaishnavism the beginningless relation between karma and the soul which is intrinsically pure is held by them to be due to ignorance.