What resemblance is there between Moksha and Nirvana?

Question

Both Moksha and Nirvana are said to free oneself from the cycle of reincarnations/samsara. Other than this soteriological goal, do they have any resemblances? And how does/can one know in which path (dao) one should cultivate oneself?

Answer 1

The term nirvana is more common in Buddhism, while moksha is more prevalent in Hinduism.

In the Buddhist context, nirvana refers to realization of non-self and emptiness, marking the end of rebirth by stilling the fires that keep the process of rebirth going.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moksha

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana

mana eva manushyanam

karanam bandha-mokshayoh

bandhaya visayasango

muktyai nirvisayam manah

“For man, mind is the cause of bondage and mind is the cause of liberation. Mind absorbed in sense objects is the cause of bondage, and mind detached from the sense objects is the cause of liberation. As the mind, so the man; bondage or liberation are in your own mind.”

When he realizes the truth that nothing is ever bound him, he realizes he is always liberated.

how does/can one know in which path (dao) one should cultivate oneself?

Destroying the root cause is the most important thing. Since the root cause is dealt with in detail in this file, you can find the answer yourself:

Who Am I? (Nan Yar?) The Teachings of Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharshi. PDF document

If what I have understood is correct, in the case of Nirvana in Buddhism,

The ultimate goal of Buddhism is Nirvana. With Nirvana, the bhikkhu becomes successful. Birth and death have no place in Nirvana, and there is no degradation from there. There is no room for personality. Nirvana is not a place to travel long distances, to be known, to be seen. Trishna's intense thirst will not bother him anymore. The cycle of samsara stops. The fullness of freedom is already being felt as the bondage of thoughts and feelings changes. Nirvana is Samyak Jnana or complete consciousness. It is free from virtues, pleasures and sorrows, and their root causes completely destroyed state.

The same is seen/realized/'attained' also in Moksha.

This ancient text: Avadhoota Gita also reveals the ultimate state of a jeevanmukta -- (One who has attained nirvikalpa-samādhi)

If you can find more similarities from the text given above, you may consider them as well.

Answer 2

Both moksha and nirvana aim at the release from suffering (dukkho) in the cycle of the phenomenal world (samsara). However, they are differences between the terms. The former is more common in Hinduism, Sikhism and Jainism and the latter within Buddhism.

It is close also to the notion of gnosticism in Christianity and fana in Islam, though there are much more obvious differences here.

Adi Shankara in his Vivekachudimani commented:

Beyond caste, creed, family or lineage

That which is without name or form

Beyond merit and demerit

That which is beyond space, time and matter

You are that, God himself

Meditate this within yourself

Enlightement in moksha is to realise this and escape rebirth. Patanjali reinforces this by saying:

After the dissolution of ignorance

Comes the removal of communion with the material world

This is the route to Kaivalyam

Here, Kaivalyam is another concept in Hinduism akin to moksha, particularly in yoga.

In Buddhism, for nirvana, one should realise all experienced phenomena is not-self. Whilst in the other traditons listed above, we should realise the acceptance of self and the identification of self with Brahman, the personal consciousness with the universal consciousness. In nirvana, the self is extinguished when it realises it is not, whilst in moksha the self is absorbed in Brahman when it is understood that it is nothing other than Brahman.

Fana in Sufi Islam means extinction and this suggests that it is closer to nirvana in Buddhism which etymologically means roughly the same. And in Islam, there is the fana of fana, the extinction of extinction. However, it is closer to moksha. For example, compare the saying ana al-Haq (I am the Truth) attributed to al-Hallaj to what Vivekachudimani wrote above, "you are that, God himself". Here, it needs to be understood that al-Haq (the Truth) is another name of Allah. Nevertheless, it is not the same as moksha since there is no notion of being eternally released from the wheel of existence.

Answer 3

'Enlightenment' comes with a lot of baggage that is hard to draw out. It has been used for intellectual movements in mainland Europe and Scotland, and many different religious movements including Jainism and Hinduism, as well as Buddhism.

In his discourses the Buddha was often asked questions about the soul, and he would always begin by asking questioners exactly what they mean by it. If asker and questioner are operating on different assumptions, answers won't make sense.

So how did the Buddha describe himself? His first statement on what had happened to him after arising from the Bodhi Tree, and encountering a Brahman who questioned him, was this:

"Master, are you a deva?" "No, brahman, I am not a deva." "Are you a gandhabba?" "No..." "... a yakkha?" "No..." "... a human being?" "No, brahman, I am not a human being."

"When asked, 'Are you a deva?' you answer, 'No, brahman, I am not a deva.' When asked, 'Are you a gandhabba?' you answer, 'No, brahman, I am not a gandhabba.' When asked, 'Are you a yakkha?' you answer, 'No, brahman, I am not a yakkha.' When asked, 'Are you a human being?' you answer, 'No, brahman, I am not a human being.' Then what sort of being are you?"

"Brahman, the fermentations by which — if they were not abandoned — I would be a deva: Those are abandoned by me, their root destroyed, made like a palmyra stump, deprived of the conditions of development, not destined for future arising. The fermentations by which — if they were not abandoned — I would be a gandhabba... a yakkha... a human being: Those are abandoned by me, their root destroyed, made like a palmyra stump, deprived of the conditions of development, not destined for future arising.

"Just like a red, blue, or white lotus — born in the water, grown in the water, rising up above the water — stands unsmeared by the water, in the same way I — born in the world, grown in the world, having overcome the world — live unsmeared by the world. Remember me, brahman, as 'awakened.' " - from the Pali Dona Sutta

Buddha described following the Eightfold Path as essential to following his path and solving the problem of the arising of suffering:

And what is that ancient path, that ancient road, traveled by the Rightly Self-awakened Ones of former times? Just this noble eightfold path: right view, right aspiration, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration. That is the ancient path, the ancient road, traveled by the Rightly Self-awakened Ones of former times. I followed that path. Following it, I came to direct knowledge of aging & death, direct knowledge of the origination of aging & death, direct knowledge of the cessation of aging & death, direct knowledge of the path leading to the cessation of aging & death. I followed that path. Following it, I came to direct knowledge of birth... becoming... clinging... craving... feeling... contact... the six sense media... name-&-form... consciousness, direct knowledge of the origination of consciousness, direct knowledge of the cessation of consciousness, direct knowledge of the path leading to the cessation of consciousness. I followed that path. -Nagara Sutta

In Buddhist thought Buddha is described as self-awakened, the tathagata or 'thus-come one'. Followers of the dharma who attain this awakening are Arahants in Therevada, and Boddhisattvas in Mahayana and Vajrayana (assuming they choose to continue attachment to the awakening of all beings, anyway). Pratyeka Buddhas attained independent full awakening, but do not teach the full path to it, and are considered by some to have included Lao Tzu and Confucius, among others.

The ancient mantra 'om mani padme hum' is used in Hinduism and Buddhism. It has two images of awakening. Mani means jewel, and should be understood in relation to the metaphor of Indra's Net, the net of minds reflecting each other. In Mahayana soteriology it represents our buddha nature, the intrinsic capacity of minds to become awakened, rooted in unconditioned awareness. Padme means lotus, and represents purity arising from impurity. Om and hum are sacred syllables we can relate to their impacts on the breath.

Another metaphor given in the sutras is 'unshakeable liberation':

Mahāvedalla Sutta (PTS MN i.292) informs us that of all the various types of deliverance of mind (cetovimutti), the unshakeable deliverance of mind is declared the best or highest (akuppā tāsaṃ cetovimutti aggamakkhāyati; PTS MN i.298). Moreover, it says, the 'unshakeable deliverance of mind' is empty of lust, empty of ill will, and empty of delusion (sā kho panākuppā cetovimutti suññā rāgena, suññā dosena, suññā mohena; ibid.). The commentary to this same passage says that the unshakeable deliverance of mind is the fruit of arahantship; it is the strongest (jeṭṭhikā) of all, hence it is said in the sutta that it is declared the best or highest (akuppāti arahattaphalacetovimutti; sā hi tāsaṃ sabbajeṭṭhikā, tasmā aggamakkhāyatīti vuttā; PTS Ps ii.354). -from the Translators notes on Akuppa Sutta: Discourse on the Unshakeable

You can read about how Buddha considered that he had explored all of the teachings and practices available from Hinduism or Sanatana Dharma at that time here: A Sketch of the Buddha's Life Readings from the Pali Canon

Moksha is used in relation to the same ideas of mani and padme, understanding of dependent origination and leaving the wheel of rebirth. But for Buddhists it lacks the Eightfold Path and the commiment to bodhicitta or the awakening not only for one being but all beings, which is the path to the cessation of suffering. Only this is the liberation which is unshakeable.

Answer 4

The similarities between Mokhsha and Nirvana are more striking than the differences. As you say both teachings are doctrines of salvation. Moreover, both arise from the same Indian ground: The general accepted doctrine of transmigration. The latter is shared by nearly all Indian worldviews.

The first textual indication of this teaching is in the Brahmanas and the early Upanishads from the first millenium BCE. Possibly the idea of transmigration, i.e. of a cyclic existence, derives from the observation of the lifecycle of plants during a year, and more general from cyclic phenomena in nature during the period of one year. The idea of transmigration has been taken for granted. As far as I know, it has never been questioned in Indian texts.

Also etymologically there is no great difference: Mokhsha = liberation, release from, Nirvana = blown out, extinguished.

Your final question about the right path has no universally accepted answer. IMO each person has to check by him/herself the underlying wordview, has to find out whether he/she feels any need for salvation, and has to make a personal decision to follow one or the other teaching - or to dismiss both of them.