Brahman and Nirvana vs Non-existence

[CelPatBruYanks]

I will start off by saying that my understanding of Eastern religions is limited, I am a "westerner" and as such, understanding the logic of eastern thinking is sometimes difficult for me, and my experience and knowledge of Hinduism and Buddhism are limited.

That said, what is the difference between:

Brahman and non-existence?

Nirvana and non-existence?

Both of them, with Nirvana in particular, don't seem to be all that different from non-existence. If the Atman/Consciousness is not self-aware but is essentially a disembodied consciousness floating around, how is that different from your consciousness simply ceasing to exist?

[Burninglight]

I will start off by saying that my understanding of Eastern religions is limited, I am a "westerner" and as such, understanding the logic of eastern thinking is sometimes difficult for me, and my experience and knowledge of Hinduism and Buddhism are limited.

That said, what is the difference between:

Brahman and non-existence?

Nirvana and non-existence?

Both of them, with Nirvana in particular, don't seem to be all that different from non-existence. If the Atman/Consciousness is not self-aware but is essentially a disembodied consciousness floating around, how is that different from your consciousness simply ceasing to exist?

I think when people are in an accident and fall into a coma or a vegetable state that would be equal to nirvana IMO. People in eastern religions try to do this without being in an accident, and Brahman is one of three gods Vishnu is another I don't know the third

[JohnPaul]

I will start off by saying that my understanding of Eastern religions is limited, I am a "westerner" and as such, understanding the logic of eastern thinking is sometimes difficult for me, and my experience and knowledge of Hinduism and Buddhism are limited.

That said, what is the difference between:

Brahman and non-existence?

Nirvana and non-existence?

Both of them, with Nirvana in particular, don't seem to be all that different from non-existence. If the Atman/Consciousness is not self-aware but is essentially a disembodied consciousness floating around, how is that different from your consciousness simply ceasing to exist?

I think when people are in an accident and fall into a coma or a vegetable state that would be equal to nirvana IMO. People in eastern religions try to do this without being in an accident, and Brahman is one of three gods Vishnu is another I don't know the third

Brahma is the remote impersonal creator of all things. When Brahma exhales, the universe comes into existence. When Brahma inhales again, the universe vanishes. Fortunately, Brahma is a very slow breather.

Like many higher religions, Hinduism consists of two different levels of belief, a "story" level with multiple "gods" for the masses, and a higher more abstract and philosophical level for the intellectual elite, which interprets the gods and stories of the masses more metaphorically.

[Divine Insight]

I will start off by saying that my understanding of Eastern religions is limited, I am a "westerner" and as such, understanding the logic of eastern thinking is sometimes difficult for me, and my experience and knowledge of Hinduism and Buddhism are limited.

Probably the single best "heads-up" I can give you on the Eastern religions is to begin by recognizing that there are as many different views, sects and "denominations" of Eastern mystical views as there are sects, and denominations of Western Views. So it's just as unrealistic to expect a "single answer" concerning Eastern religions as it would be to expect a "single answer" asked about say even, the Abrahamic Hebrew western picture of God.

Before I address your questions directly allow me to first agree with something that John Paul said:

Like many higher religions, Hinduism consists of two different levels of belief, a "story" level with multiple "gods" for the masses, and a higher more abstract and philosophical level for the intellectual elite, which interprets the gods and stories of the masses more metaphorically.

I totally agree with this, and would further like to point out that the Eastern religions are far more abstract and less dependent upon scriptures than the Western religions. There is not "Word of God" in the Eastern religions. All that exists are writings of wise men (potentially who may have had divine insight).

So for this reason, when viewing Eastern spiritual philosophies it's best to view them as abstractly as possible. And avoid a strict "dogmatic" approach that is more in line with Western thinking.

That said, what is the difference between:

Brahman and non-existence?

As John Paul already mentioned Brahman is more like the creator. The main spirit. I think a good analogy with Western religions is to think of Brahman as being a similar concept as the "Holy Spirit". Although in Eastern religions we are a direct part of facet of the "Holy Spirit" (or Brahman). So even though on the level of the masses Brahman is sometime depicted as a "God" not unlike the personified male God of Abraham, on the level of the more abstract, Brahman is thought of more as the "Holy Spirit" of which we are a part. After all, Eastern spiritual philosophies are ultimately pantheistic (All is God)

So the best way to think of "Brahman" in an Eastern context is to think of Brahman as the "Holy Spirit" of which we are an inseparable part. And again, this would be on the highest abstract level as John Paul points out.

The Eastern philosophy is ultimately "Tat T'vam Asi" (meaning "You are That", or you are the "Holy Spirit" in manifestation). So in that sense you are "Brahman", but then again, so is everything and everyone else.

Nirvana and non-existence?

Both of them, with Nirvana in particular, don't seem to be all that different from non-existence. If the Atman/Consciousness is not self-aware but is essentially a disembodied consciousness floating around, how is that different from your consciousness simply ceasing to exist?

Well, this is clearly a very deep and complex topic. And the "Heads-up" to realize here is that it's also very deep and complex among the Eastern mystics.

In other words, there is no single answer that everyone would agree with.

I confess, that I have no spent a lot of time researching Hinduism specifically, but I have spent much time studying the many forms of Buddhism which is an offshoot of Hinduism.

There are many different ideas of what "Nirvana" means in the various Buddhisms.


To begin with I think the ultimate basic concept is that this all revolves around the idea of reincarnation. The idea of Buddhism is to "get out of the cycle of reincarnation". And that means to "Snuff Out" this cycle of reincarnation.

Nirvana means to "Snuff Out".

At first glance this may seem that the idea is to cease to exist altogether. In fact, that's a very controversial concept within Eastern Mysticism itself. What happens after you "Snuff Out" the cycle of reincarnation? Do you just then cease to exist?

This question has been answered quite differently in various Eastern mystical philosophies.

Some proclaim that it's simply a meaningless question to ask. After all, mysticism is called mysticism precisely because it doesn't claim to have all the answers. Life is a mystery, and mysticism acknowledges the mystery. So what happens after you escape the cycle of reincarnation is anyone's guess.

Others proclaim that it does indeed mean that you will then cease to exist altogether. Which is deemed to be better than continuing on for eternity in an endless cycle of reincarnation. (this is like saying that the answer to the question "To be or not to be", should be "Not to be".)

Many people don't like either of the above two ideas, so they imagine a different kind of spiritual existence beyond reincarnation. And this is where the concept of "Nirvana" becomes more like a concept of "Heaven" or eternal paradise.

It still means "to snuff out", but what is being "snuffed out" is the cycle of physical reincarnation, and the idea is that the consciousness then moves on to a more spiritual level of some sort (similar to the Christians idea of Heaven only without a central dictator). After all, "Tat T'vam Asi" (you are that). You are "God" or Brahman. So if there is a spiritual state of bliss consciousness there will be no one to "Lord over you". Nor would you be "Lord over" anyone else. It would be something totally unimaginable to our current human thinking.

Like I say, mysticism is about mystery. The idea is not to have the precise answers but rather to accept that they are indeed mysteries beyond out wildest imagination.

I like to think of it as follows:

Imagine the "best" possible scenario that you can possibly muster in your imagination. The absolutely "PERFECT PARADISE" that you can possible imagine.

And then realize that what you have just imagined has fallen far short of how truly grand spiritual bliss truly is.

That's the idea. "With God all things are possible", couple that with "Tat T'vam Asi" (i.e. You are God), and you begin to realize that all possibilities are yours.

If you accept this, then "Nirvana", to you, could mean totally unrestrained bliss beyond your wildest imagination.

~~~~

If you're looking for concrete answers to the "Truth of reality", it's anyone's guess. You're not going to find those answers in religion. The only place they can possibly reside is in your own imagination.

If you believe that there is a spiritual essence to reality and that we are ultimately spiritual beings, then what's stopping you from also believing that "anything is possible?"

If that's true, then you should not be able to 'out-imagine' reality. In other words, whatever you can imagine can become your reality.

I have personally come to the realization that it's a true 'miracle" that anything exists at all. That very notion is "impossible" yet here we are.

Therefore I must conclude that "anything is possible".

And so I have no problem accepting this idea that "Nirvana" or "Heaven" or whatever you'd like to call it, is truly unbounded and can be as wild as your wildest imagination.

Anyway, thanks for the questions, I enjoyed elaborating on my answers. (ha ha) +

[Burninglight]

I will start off by saying that my understanding of Eastern religions is limited, I am a "westerner" and as such, understanding the logic of eastern thinking is sometimes difficult for me, and my experience and knowledge of Hinduism and Buddhism are limited.

That said, what is the difference between:

Brahman and non-existence?

Nirvana and non-existence?

Both of them, with Nirvana in particular, don't seem to be all that different from non-existence. If the Atman/Consciousness is not self-aware but is essentially a disembodied consciousness floating around, how is that different from your consciousness simply ceasing to exist?

I think when people are in an accident and fall into a coma or a vegetable state that would be equal to nirvana IMO. People in eastern religions try to do this without being in an accident, and Brahman is one of three gods Vishnu is another I don't know the third

Brahma is the remote impersonal creator of all things. When Brahma exhales, the universe comes into existence. When Brahma inhales again, the universe vanishes. Fortunately, Brahma is a very slow breather.

Like many higher religions, Hinduism consists of two different levels of belief, a "story" level with multiple "gods" for the masses, and a higher more abstract and philosophical level for the intellectual elite, which interprets the gods and stories of the masses more metaphorically.

You are 80 and soon you will be meeting your Creator. You don't want to go into eternity believing that eastern demonic stuff. It is just a bunch of intellectual gibberish that will profit you nothing. There is only one name given whereby we might be saved and that is Jesus Christ.

Brahma sounds more like Islam's Allah to me!

[JohnPaul]

I will start off by saying that my understanding of Eastern religions is limited, I am a "westerner" and as such, understanding the logic of eastern thinking is sometimes difficult for me, and my experience and knowledge of Hinduism and Buddhism are limited.

That said, what is the difference between:

Brahman and non-existence?

Nirvana and non-existence?

Both of them, with Nirvana in particular, don't seem to be all that different from non-existence. If the Atman/Consciousness is not self-aware but is essentially a disembodied consciousness floating around, how is that different from your consciousness simply ceasing to exist?

I think when people are in an accident and fall into a coma or a vegetable state that would be equal to nirvana IMO. People in eastern religions try to do this without being in an accident, and Brahman is one of three gods Vishnu is another I don't know the third

Brahma is the remote impersonal creator of all things. When Brahma exhales, the universe comes into existence. When Brahma inhales again, the universe vanishes. Fortunately, Brahma is a very slow breather.

Like many higher religions, Hinduism consists of two different levels of belief, a "story" level with multiple "gods" for the masses, and a higher more abstract and philosophical level for the intellectual elite, which interprets the gods and stories of the masses more metaphorically.

You are 80 and soon you will be meeting your Creator. You don't want to go into eternity believing that eastern demonic stuff. It is just a bunch of intellectual gibberish that will profit you nothing. There is only one name given whereby we might be saved and that is Jesus Christ.

Brahma sounds more like Islam's Allah to me!

Thanks for your opinion. You have just helped to confirm my already very low opinion of Christianity. I don't know how old you are, but you obviously have a lot to learn.

[JohnPaul]

Divine Insight wrote:

It still means "to snuff out", but what is being "snuffed out" is the cycle of physical reincarnation, and the idea is that the consciousness then moves on to a more spiritual level of some sort (similar to the Christians idea of Heaven only without a central dictator). After all, "Tat T'vam Asi" (you are that). You are "God" or Brahman. So if there is a spiritual state of bliss consciousness there will be no one to "Lord over you". Nor would you be "Lord over" anyone else. It would be something totally unimaginable to our current human thinking.

I suggest that the beliefs of the early Christian Gnostics and the modern sect called Theosophy both contain some very interesting ideas from the Eastern religions.

The early Christian Gnostics were condemned as a heresy by the established church and stamped out, but some of their writings survived and were discovered at Nag Hammadi in Egypt in 1945 and are now translated. For example, the Gnostic "Gospel of Truth" gives a very different interpretation of the Biblical story of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. The vindictive and petty tribal wargod of the Bible is revealed as a defective impostor while the True God remains remote and pure. The human soul is a tiny spark of the True God, the "inner light" within each of us which develops spiritually through many human lifetimes and finally reaches a spiritual level sufficient to escape from this physical creation and return to its source.

Theosophy is a "sect" founded in India, England and the US in the 19th century by Helena Blavatsky, a Russian aristocrat who left her husband to travel and study independently, especially in India and Tibet. I personally think some of her reported activities while founding Theosophy may have been just a little fraudulent, but that was necessary to compete with the many "Spiritualist" groups popular at the time. There is no doubt that she was a real genius and her large book, "The Secret Doctrine," contains a mind-boggling compilation and exposition of ideas derived from several Eastern religions.

Theosophy study groups are now widely offered. They are definitely not "worship services," but are real study groups. No "belief" is required.

According to Theosophy, the univese is cyclic and repeats over very long periods of billions of years. Many tiny spiritual "sparks," called Monads, are emitted into each new universe and evolve, first through inanimate matter, then through lower organic life, finally reaching human form which then evolves spiritually through many reincarnations, finally able to escape from physical matter entirely and continue to evolve at a higher spiritual level. Teachers such as Jesus are simply more highly evolved humans who have chosen to return to physical life to help others.

[Burninglight]

I will start off by saying that my understanding of Eastern religions is limited, I am a "westerner" and as such, understanding the logic of eastern thinking is sometimes difficult for me, and my experience and knowledge of Hinduism and Buddhism are limited.

That said, what is the difference between:

Brahman and non-existence?

Nirvana and non-existence?

Both of them, with Nirvana in particular, don't seem to be all that different from non-existence. If the Atman/Consciousness is not self-aware but is essentially a disembodied consciousness floating around, how is that different from your consciousness simply ceasing to exist?

I think when people are in an accident and fall into a coma or a vegetable state that would be equal to nirvana IMO. People in eastern religions try to do this without being in an accident, and Brahman is one of three gods Vishnu is another I don't know the third

Brahma is the remote impersonal creator of all things. When Brahma exhales, the universe comes into existence. When Brahma inhales again, the universe vanishes. Fortunately, Brahma is a very slow breather.

Like many higher religions, Hinduism consists of two different levels of belief, a "story" level with multiple "gods" for the masses, and a higher more abstract and philosophical level for the intellectual elite, which interprets the gods and stories of the masses more metaphorically.

You are 80 and soon you will be meeting your Creator. You don't want to go into eternity believing that eastern demonic stuff. It is just a bunch of intellectual gibberish that will profit you nothing. There is only one name given whereby we might be saved and that is Jesus Christ.

Brahma sounds more like Islam's Allah to me!

Thanks for your opinion. You have just helped to confirm my already very low opinion of Christianity. I don't know how old you are, but you obviously have a lot to learn.

I cannot help your low opinion of Christianity, but age is irrevelant in eternity.
Keep in mind. The more up there we are in age, the closer we are to meeting our maker. It is appointed unto man once to die; after that, comes the judgment! We all have a lot to learn!

[Divine Insight]

You are 80 and soon you will be meeting your Creator. You don't want to go into eternity believing that eastern demonic stuff. It is just a bunch of intellectual gibberish that will profit you nothing. There is only one name given whereby we might be saved and that is Jesus Christ.

Brahma sounds more like Islam's Allah to me!

Sounds to me like you're the one who is spreading a demonic picture of a God in the name of Jesus as the Christ.

You're attempting to instill a fear in others by proclaiming that they can only be "saved" by Jesus Christ.

The only problem with your hateful evangelism is that it fails to acknowledge that the only thing a person needs to be "saved" from is the wrath of your demonic Christ in the first place.

That kind of demonic Christ is a creation of Christianity. It most certainly has nothing to do with Jesus, not even within a solely biblical context. Jesus didn't go around threatening to condemn everyone who doesn't believe in him.

On the contrary the Gospels have Jesus himself saying that if a man does not believe in him or his words he will not judge that man.

The Gospels also have Jesus himself proclaiming that he did not come to judge the earth but to 'save' it. It's unclear precisely what he was hoping to save it from though.

And finally, the Gospels have Jesus asking the Father himself to forgive those who were denying him, mocking, beating him, and even nailing him to a pole to die. He supposedly appealed to the Father saying "Forgive them for they know not what they do".

So according to Jesus (via his very own words according to these fables), Jesus himself will forgive anyone if they merely don't fully understand what it is that they are doing.

Therefore is someone is worshiping God as Brahman, or as Allah, or even as the Moon Goddess. Jesus would embrace their sincere desire to know God and forgive them for their misunderstandings.

But you apparently don't care much for Jesus, because you would rather make him out to be a demon who heartlessly condemns people on mere trivial technicalities.

I personally don't see anything in the fables of Jesus that would support your demonic representation of him.

According to those fables, Jesus will forever who has a sincere heart no matter what they believe.

So your blanket judgement of non-believers in Jesus' name, is actually a direct insult to Jesus himself. And totally contrary to his teachings and moral values.

All of all the people on earth many so-called Christians appear to hate Jesus more than anyone else.

[Burninglight]

You are 80 and soon you will be meeting your Creator. You don't want to go into eternity believing that eastern demonic stuff. It is just a bunch of intellectual gibberish that will profit you nothing. There is only one name given whereby we might be saved and that is Jesus Christ.

Brahma sounds more like Islam's Allah to me!

Sounds to me like you're the one who is spreading a demonic picture of a God in the name of Jesus as the Christ.

You're attempting to instill a fear in others by proclaiming that they can only be "saved" by Jesus Christ.

The only problem with your hateful evangelism is that it fails to acknowledge that the only thing a person needs to be "saved" from is the wrath of your demonic Christ in the first place.

That kind of demonic Christ is a creation of Christianity. It most certainly has nothing to do with Jesus, not even within a solely biblical context. Jesus didn't go around threatening to condemn everyone who doesn't believe in him.

On the contrary the Gospels have Jesus himself saying that if a man does not believe in him or his words he will not judge that man.

The Gospels also have Jesus himself proclaiming that he did not come to judge the earth but to 'save' it. It's unclear precisely what he was hoping to save it from though.

And finally, the Gospels have Jesus asking the Father himself to forgive those who were denying him, mocking, beating him, and even nailing him to a pole to die. He supposedly appealed to the Father saying "Forgive them for they know not what they do".

So according to Jesus (via his very own words according to these fables), Jesus himself will forgive anyone if they merely don't fully understand what it is that they are doing.

Therefore is someone is worshiping God as Brahman, or as Allah, or even as the Moon Goddess. Jesus would embrace their sincere desire to know God and forgive them for their misunderstandings.

But you apparently don't care much for Jesus, because you would rather make him out to be a demon who heartlessly condemns people on mere trivial technicalities.

I personally don't see anything in the fables of Jesus that would support your demonic representation of him.

According to those fables, Jesus will forever who has a sincere heart no matter what they believe.

So your blanket judgement of non-believers in Jesus' name, is actually a direct insult to Jesus himself. And totally contrary to his teachings and moral values.

All of all the people on earth many so-called Christians appear to hate Jesus more than anyone else.

I don't see anything hateful in my quote. The Bible states that "Satan is the accuser of the saints." They said much worse things about Jesus. Jesus spoke about hell and a place of torment just about as much as he did of paradise. I made no judgments. It seems you are doing enough for all on the forum.

It is written: "He that has the son has life; he that doesn't have the son has not life, but the wrath of God abides on him" Jesus said, "You will all die in your sins unless you believe I am He" Jesus said, I am the way...no man comes to the father except by me" Jesus said there is not another way.

You are attempting to shoot the messenger, because you don't like God's message. The hate and judgments are coming from you not me! I see it to be love to warn someone they are in a burning building. I know not to take you seriously now!