user448: A few days ago, I came across an article on Buddhism primarily about "Nirvana."
 After I read the article, I started to wonder because "Nirvana" sounds similar to Hinduism's "Moksha."  Does anyone know about possible parallels between the two concepts?  Are "Moksha" and "Nirvana" essentially the same?  If they are not similar, what are the differences between the two religious teachings?
The question was already asked on the Hinduism Stack Exchange Site, but it is not currently receiving any positive responses.

user2353: The original answer saying that attaining personal wealth and mastery of sex is important for moksha is completely, 100% wrong and as a hindu I am extremely offended. Moksha and Nirvana are connected and the buddhist concept basically branches from the hindu concept of Moksha. Please please do not spread wrong knowledge about our religion. Moksha is a way to be one with the God and remove yourself from the cycle of rebirth. It is essentially what nirvana is.

user715: Enlightenment like ice cream comes in different flavors, but in the end they are all ice cream, made from milk, cream and sugar. 
Examined with the intellect there are a lot of seeming differences, even within a single religion's idea of enlightenment - Bodhisattva or Arhat? Japanese Zen or Thai Theravada? Realizing the Atman or becoming a deva? 
Examined with pure awareness where one loses the egotic sense of self, there is no difference, all paths lead here - but this is rarely said because it is impossible to explain this view in words.

‘Emptiness’, after all, is not an idea to be grasped: it is
  a provocation, a literal insult to the intelligence

In any case in his discourse on Simsappa leaves the Buddha says such questions are not answered by him, because they don't solve the problem of suffering.

The personal enlightenment model of Buddhism says the Arhat is liberated from further becoming, but this doesn't mean annihilation, neither is it further existence. Arhats and Buddhas are said to guide others to enlightenment after their bodily death too by appearing in dreams and visions of aspirants, and hence the existence of Reliquaries to them. 

The Tatagatha (i.e. Buddha) never answers this question: SN 44.6 - Does the Tathagata exist after
  death?.

The Bodhisattva belief is that personal enlightenment is not possible until all beings are liberated. 

See Arahants, Bodhisattvas, and Buddhas by Ven. Bhikkhu
  Bodhi 

These two ideals may appear contradictory, but they are all compatible and become indistinct eventually. 
So too with Hinduism vs Buddhism.
Both Buddhism and Hinduism agree that there is no end to the cycle of life per se, the universe or multiverse is created and destroyed perpetually despite all the many Arhats and Bodhisattvas, because they don't leave the system. See Aggañña Sutta 

Hindus are not a single people, there are numerous ideas that all make one Hindu, since it is a Western classification of religion in the Indian subcontinent. Following this "dharmic" ideal, in Indian law there are no Buddhists or Jains in the Constitution, there are only those who follow Indian religions (Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, various kinds of animistic and vedic traditions commonly called Hindus) all referred to as Hindus (of India), and non Indian religions such as Christianity. 
In fact, the Buddha is seen by many Hindus as an avatar of Vishnu.
Buddha statues sit side by side with Hindu gods in prayer rooms in homes in India, and Ganesha jostles with Buddha in Thailand, a Buddhist country.
In any event, Hinduism and Buddhism are not an Orthodoxy but an Orthopraxy. 

There is no correct belief, only correct action.

There is no Hindu or Buddhist Pope who can lay down the law. Popularly though, it is common for Buddhists to believe Hindus are orthodox with rites and rituals. 

Arhats and Bodhisattvas are not at war with creation, they are a part of creation, just as much as Samsara. There can be no left side without the right side, there can be no Nirvana without Samsara. 
The Zen movement in Japan is especially fascinated with this, a radical immersion in samsara because it is no different from Nirvana -  It becomes less true to say that ‘an individual has experiences’ than that ‘experience has individuals’.

To say there is enlightenment is a lie, but to say there is no
  enlightenment is a bigger lie.


user179: Moksha and Nirvana are the same in that:

The cycle of live, death and rebirth is broken
once attained, one is free from Samsara
It's attainable through practise
Meditation techniques are employed in attaining both

They differ in that:

Moksha tends to explained as a merger with Atman, or Brahma which Buddhist don't believe.

Their main philosophical difference is found in the wiki quote:

Nirvana, a concept common in Buddhism, is the realization that there
  is no self nor consciousness; while moksha, a concept common in many
  schools of Hinduism, is acceptance of Self, realization of liberating
  knowledge, the consciousness of Oneness with all existence and
  understanding the whole universe as the Self. Nirvana starts with
  the premise that there is no Self, moksha on the other hand, starts
  with the premise that everything is the Self; there is no
  consciousness in the state of nirvana, but everything is One unified
  consciousness in the state of moksha.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moksha


448: <p>A few days ago, I came across an article on Buddhism primarily about "Nirvana."
 After I read the article, I started to wonder because "Nirvana" sounds similar to Hinduism's "Moksha."  Does anyone know about possible parallels between the two concepts?  Are "Moksha" and "Nirvana" essentially the same?  If they are not similar, what are the differences between the two religious teachings?</p>

<p>The question was already asked on the <a href="https://hinduism.stackexchange.com/questions/1980/the-differences-between-nirvana-in-buddhism-and-moksha-in-hinduism">Hinduism Stack Exchange Site</a>, but it is not currently receiving any positive responses.</p>
 2353: <p>The original answer saying that attaining personal wealth and mastery of sex is important for moksha is completely, 100% wrong and as a hindu I am extremely offended. Moksha and Nirvana are connected and the buddhist concept basically branches from the hindu concept of Moksha. Please please do not spread wrong knowledge about our religion. Moksha is a way to be one with the God and remove yourself from the cycle of rebirth. It is essentially what nirvana is.</p>
 715: <p>Enlightenment like ice cream comes in different flavors, but in the end they are all ice cream, made from milk, cream and sugar. </p>

<p>Examined with the intellect there are a lot of seeming differences, even within a single religion's idea of enlightenment - Bodhisattva or Arhat? Japanese Zen or Thai Theravada? Realizing the Atman or becoming a deva? </p>

<p>Examined with pure awareness where one loses the egotic sense of self, there is no difference, all paths lead here - but this is rarely said because it is impossible to explain this view in words.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>‘Emptiness’, after all, is not an idea to be grasped: it is
  a provocation, a literal insult to the intelligence</p>
</blockquote>

<p>In any case in his <a href="http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn56/sn56.031.wlsh.html" rel="nofollow">discourse on Simsappa leaves</a> the Buddha says such questions are not answered by him, because they don't solve the problem of suffering.</p>

<hr>

<p>The personal enlightenment model of Buddhism says the Arhat is liberated from further becoming, but this doesn't mean annihilation, neither is it further existence. Arhats and Buddhas are said to guide others to enlightenment after their bodily death too by appearing in dreams and visions of aspirants, and hence the existence of Reliquaries to them. </p>

<blockquote>
  <p>The Tatagatha (i.e. Buddha) never answers this question: <a href="http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn44/sn44.006.than.html" rel="nofollow">SN 44.6 - Does the Tathagata exist after
  death?</a>.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>The Bodhisattva belief is that personal enlightenment is not possible until all beings are liberated. </p>

<blockquote>
  <p><em>See <a href="http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bodhi/arahantsbodhisattvas.html" rel="nofollow">Arahants, Bodhisattvas, and Buddhas by Ven. Bhikkhu
  Bodhi</a></em> </p>
</blockquote>

<p>These two ideals may appear contradictory, but they are all compatible and become indistinct eventually. </p>

<p>So too with Hinduism vs Buddhism.</p>

<p>Both Buddhism and Hinduism agree that there is no end to the cycle of life per se, the universe or multiverse is created and destroyed perpetually despite all the many Arhats and Bodhisattvas, because they don't leave the system. See <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agga%C3%B1%C3%B1a_Sutta" rel="nofollow">Aggañña Sutta</a> </p>

<hr>

<p>Hindus are not a single people, there are numerous ideas that all make one Hindu, since it is a Western classification of religion in the Indian subcontinent. Following this "dharmic" ideal, in Indian law there are no Buddhists or Jains in the Constitution, there are only those who follow Indian religions (Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, various kinds of animistic and vedic traditions commonly called Hindus) all referred to as Hindus (of India), and non Indian religions such as Christianity. </p>

<p>In fact, the Buddha is seen by many Hindus as an avatar of Vishnu.</p>

<p>Buddha statues sit side by side with Hindu gods in prayer rooms in homes in India, and Ganesha jostles with Buddha in Thailand, a Buddhist country.</p>

<p>In any event, Hinduism and Buddhism are not an Orthodoxy but an <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthopraxy" rel="nofollow">Orthopraxy</a>. </p>

<blockquote>
  <p>There is no correct belief, only correct action.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>There is no Hindu or Buddhist Pope who can lay down the law. Popularly though, it is common for Buddhists to believe Hindus are orthodox with rites and rituals. </p>

<hr>

<p>Arhats and Bodhisattvas are not at war with creation, they are a part of creation, just as much as Samsara. There can be no left side without the right side, there can be no Nirvana without Samsara. </p>

<p>The Zen movement in Japan is especially fascinated with this, a radical immersion in samsara because it is no different from Nirvana -  <a href="http://aeon.co/magazine/society/did-zen-philosophy-create-the-kamikaze/" rel="nofollow">It becomes less true to say that ‘an individual has experiences’ than that ‘experience has individuals’.</a></p>

<blockquote>
  <p>To say there is enlightenment is a lie, but to say there is no
  enlightenment is a bigger lie.</p>
</blockquote>
 179: <p>Moksha and Nirvana are the same in that:</p>

<ul>
<li>The cycle of live, death and rebirth is broken</li>
<li>once attained, one is free from Samsara</li>
<li>It's attainable through practise</li>
<li>Meditation techniques are employed in attaining both</li>
</ul>

<p>They differ in that:</p>

<ul>
<li>Moksha tends to explained as a merger with Atman, or Brahma which Buddhist don't believe.</li>
</ul>

<p>Their main philosophical difference is found in the wiki quote:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Nirvana, a concept common in Buddhism, is the realization that there
  is no self nor consciousness; while moksha, a concept common in many
  schools of Hinduism, is acceptance of Self, realization of liberating
  knowledge, the consciousness of Oneness with all existence and
  understanding the whole universe as the Self. Nirvana starts with
  the premise that there is no Self, moksha on the other hand, starts
  with the premise that everything is the Self; there is no
  consciousness in the state of nirvana, but everything is One unified
  consciousness in the state of moksha.</p>
  
  <p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moksha" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moksha</a></p>
</blockquote>
