user471: Nirvana is described in Samyutta Nikaya 43 as 

"the unfabricated (unborn?), the uninclined, the truth, the far shore,
  the subtle, the very difficult to see, the unaging (eternal?), the
  stable, the unintegrating, the unmanifest, the unproliferated
  (nippapancan), the peaceful, the deathless, the sublime, the
  auspicious, the secure, the destruction of craving, the wonderful, the
  amazing, the unailing, the unailing state, Nibbana, the unafflicted,
  dispassion, purity, freedom, the unadhesive, the island, the shelter,
  the asylum, the refuge, the destination."

Also from another source in Buddhism Stack Exchange, I see Samyutta Nikaya 43 as quoting Buddha as saying 

"There is, monks, that base where there is neither earth, nor water,
  nor heat, nor air; neither the base of the infinity of space, nor the
  base of the infinity of consciousness, nor the base of nothingness,
  nor the base of neither-perception-nor-non-perception; neither this
  world nor another world; neither sun nor moon. Here, monks, I say
  there is no coming, no going, no standing still; no passing away and
  no being reborn. It is not established, not moving, without support.
  Just this is the end of suffering."

The Tao Te Ching chapter 1 says 

"The tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao. The name that can be
  named is not the eternal Name." 

while chapter 7 says, 

"The Tao is
  infinite, eternal. Why is it eternal? It was never born; thus it can
  never die." 

And chapter 14 says, 

"Look, and it can't be seen. Listen,
  and it can't be heard. Reach, and it can't be grasped. Above, it isn't
  bright. Below, it isn't dark. Seamless, unnamable, it returns to the
  realm of nothing. Form that includes all forms, image without an
  image, subtle, beyond all conception.  Approach it and there is no
  beginning; follow it and there is no end. You can't know it, but you
  can be it ..."

The Bhagavad Gita states in chapter 2, 

"The Atma is neither born nor does it die at any time, nor having been it will cease to exist again. It is unborn, eternal, permanent, and primeval. The Atma is not destroyed when the body is destroyed.",  "This Atma cannot be cut, burned, wetted, or dried up. It is eternal, all pervading, unchanging, immovable, and primeval. The Atma is said to be unmanifest, unthinkable, and unchanging." 

And in 12.3, 

"... the imperishable, the undefinable, the unmanifest, the omnipresent, the unthinkable, the unchanging, the immovable, and the eternal Brahman;". In addition, other texts use "neti neti" (not this, not this) to say that Brahman is indescribable or all that is not impermanent.

From the above, it looks like all are the same, yet if we look at other references, Tao and Brahman is the origin or source of all things, but Nirvana is not. And Brahman can also assume attributes in the changing world or become God the Person or Consciousness, but Nirvana does not. Also, the aspirant can become or become one with the Tao or Brahman, but in Buddhism, one has to "unbecome" or let go of all that is impermanent, to realize Nirvana. But then again, Tao and Hindu sources also discuss letting go of all that is impermanent.
My question is, do Buddhists ever consider that it is possible that goals in other religions like Tao and Brahman, may in fact be the same as Nirvana, if we look beyond the semantics. And therefore, the practices in these religions, may in fact lead in the right direction?
Of course, we can also say that one could start off as a Taoist or Hindu, but after a few Jhanas, move towards being Buddhist, towards Nirvana. Or perhaps, all these labels are irrelevant at that point.

user254: I suspect that when and if you have learned some Buddhist view, then you can read e.g. the passage which you quoted from the Tao Te Ching and interpret that from a Buddhist perspective.
For example, it seems to me to be talking about non-self and/or the impermanence of conditioned/compound objects.
Whether it is talking about that, instead of just seeming to be talking about that, is another matter. The "epiphany" in Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance is that the Tao corresponds to the author's conception of Quality (which I think is a.k.a. Virtue). Perhaps that implies that the Tao Te Ching can map to (been seen as a description of) almost any transcendental insight.
That doesn't IMO imply that every transcendental insight is alike, nor that the Tao Te Ching is especially good (skillful, accurate) at teaching such insight.

My question is, do Buddhists ever consider that it is possible that goals in other religions like Tao and Brahman, may in fact be the same as Nirvana, if we look beyond the semantics.

If we "look beyond the semantics", what's left?
You're saying, "If we ignore what it's saying, if we ignore the meaning of the literature, then are they the same?"

And therefore, the practices in these religions, may in fact lead in the right direction?

There are some who suggest that these religions are leading in the wrong direction: that they teach, for example, that an eternal self (immortality) is possible.
Then again, Hinduism, Taoism, and Buddhism have coexisted historically for quite a while, and influenced each other. Who's to say whether Taoist immortality and Buddhist deathlessness are or are not the same?
I think that even only within Buddhism, the schools of Buddhism differ on the subject of "Buddha-nature".

It also might be worth noting that traditions/religions/practices may be 'mixed' within a single person. For example, someone posted a question recently with videos of Papaji: he was "Hindu", and/but it's also easy to find evidence that he studied some Buddhism, for example here he is quoted as saying,

The school history book which contained Buddha’s picture was a simple guide for children. The main bio­graphical facts were there, but the concepts of meditation and enlightenment were not adequately explained. Pre­sumably the author did not think that these very essential points would be of interest to children. So, I remained ig­norant of what he was really doing under that tree and why his final accomplishment was so great.


user16912: The essential difference between Atman of Vedanta (Hinduism) and Nibbana of Buddhism appears to be that the former is conditioned (sankatha) by PERCEPTION of worldly phenomena, whilst the latter is not.
The former is the SUBJECT, which knows, perceives, experiences every phenomenon in the mundane world including the Mind itself. In this context the Mind is not the Subject, as referred to by western philosophers in a Subject/Object relationship but the Mind itself is the Object of Atman.  To realise  Atman, one needs to be in a state of conscious PERCEPTION conditioned by mundane phenomena.
Nibbana, on the other hand is unconditioned (asankatha) by PERCEPTION of mundane phenomena. Simply put, mundane consciousness ceases, similar to a blackout (Sunna), referred to as the Çessation of FEELING and PERCEPTION or sanna-vedayita-nirodha in Pali and the yogi graduates intuitively to the state of Nibbana. In this context, intuition implies subliminal consciousness i.e. below Perception.
The ascetic Gautama (The Buddha) is said to have differed from his Vedanta teachers, on the question of Atman being the highest level of the development of consciousness. It is through his quest for Liberation that he discovered a state of mind beyond mundane consciousness i.e.the Supramundane, Unconditioned State of Nibbana. Although there are many similarities, it appears that this is one of the few  distinctions between the two philosophies of Vedanta (Hinduism) and Buddhism. 

user-1: From the above, it looks like all are the same, yet if we look at other references, Tao and Brahman is the origin or source of all things, but Nirvana is not.
Nirvana is not the substrate of the source but it is the abiding in that source. The Hindus describe the Brahman as sat-chit-anand, which means truth-consciousness-bliss. The Buddha was the most scientifically accurate in His description of Nirvana because he did not say anything about Nirvana. Nirvana is blowing out, so it's not a positive or negative conceptualization. The way Samyukta Nikaya explains, Nibbana is a state and not an entity. Whereas Hindu Brahman is an entity which they ascribe a nature of having a self.  
Brahman is a noun and Nirvana is a verb. You abide in Nirvana and Brahman is 'there'. So basically realizing of Brahman by Brahman itself is Nibbana. Nibbana takes the final leap. You can talk about the Brahman by coming out of the 8th Jhnana. 
What the Buddha calls the 'anuttarā-samyak-saṃbodhi' is Nirvana and Patanjali describes this as, if I am not wrong, Nirbij Samadhi as the highest goal. So in the Vedas when it is declared, 'Aham Brahmasmi' (I am Brahman) that declaration is Nirvana, the Brahman is not the Nirvana, the realization of it is. 
The definition of Nirvana in terms of modern philosophers and scientists can then be given as (universal) 'consciousness conscious of itself'. So, Nirvana becomes a constant experiencing constant abiding. And Hindu Brahman is the Universal Consciousness, as Patanjali describes as Purusha or Ishwara.
And the Tao also means the Brahman itself but when the Taoists say, 'living in the Tao', that means Nirvana. 
do Buddhists ever consider that it is possible that goals in other religions like Tao and Brahman, may in fact be the same as Nirvana, if we look beyond the semantics. And therefore, the practices in these religions, may in fact lead in the right direction?
The goals of other religion are not the same. Don't know much about Taoism, but I can attest from my own experience of a practicing Hindu for 26 years that although Hinduism makes a lofty statement about the ultimate reality of the nature of Brahman, the GOAL  of Hinduism is not its realization. The GOAL of practicing Hindus remain, 'living in abundance by pleasing the Hindu pantheon'. The Hindu idea is that if you live in accordance with its script in a natural way you will ultimately attain to that. 
However, Buddha explicitly made it a GOAL to attain Nibbana. It's extremely different.   
And therefore, the practices in these religions, may in fact lead in the right direction?
No, practicing Hinduism does not at all lead one in the right direction. Hindus give very little stress on Karma. In fact Hindus believe that if you please gods your Karma can be wiped out, it can even be wiped out by bathing in river Ganges. 
Furthermore, to be a Hindu you have to, I repeat you have to have a 'caste or varna'. So in effect, you end up getting a view about yourself even before you set out to realize 'no-self' and that to wrong in itself. 
Maybe if you practice Patanjali's yoga sutras you might end up in Nirvana but the practice of Patanjali's 'ashtanga yoga' is not per se a Hindu practice, its something one explicitly undertakes to get there. 

user-1: "But then again, Tao and Hindu sources also discuss letting go of all that is impermanent"
We can have 2 groups advocating letting go of what is impermanent, and yet, if they disagree on what is impermanent, there will be endless debate with practitioners. Following to its conclusion, the risk of the first group is to hold to something that appears to be permanent but isn't. A question here would be what would be the risk of the other group?
Buddhist doctrine not only refers to the practice of "letting go impermanent things", but quite significant, it does not overlook our inclination to take something that takes a long time to show its impermanence as permanent. This is a risk of being deluded the Buddha has suggested a few times, which asks for a kind of careful evaluation that is perfectly thorough.
[edit:]
For example, the Buddha describes in the Brahmajāla Sutta how a recluse "attains to such a degree of mental concentration that with his mind thus concentrated, [purified, clarified, unblemished, devoid of corruptions] he recollects his numerous past lives[...]" and, while exploring a very long time far back and not seeing a limit for the universe or rebirths, that person concludes that "the self and the world are eternal" -- a premature, careless conclusion, one of many wrong views. The simile of the elephant's footprint (Cūlahatthipadopama Sutta) also illustrates:

The Blessed One said: "Suppose an elephant hunter were to enter an elephant forest and were to see there a large elephant footprint, long in extent and broad in width. A skilled elephant hunter would not yet come to the conclusion, 'What a big bull elephant!' Why is that? Because in an elephant forest there are dwarf female elephants with big feet. The footprint might be one of theirs.
"So he follows along and sees in the elephant forest a large elephant footprint, long in extent and broad in width, and some scratch marks high up. A skilled elephant hunter would not yet come to the conclusion, 'What a big bull elephant!' Why is that? Because in an elephant forest there are tall female elephants with prominent teeth & big feet. The footprint might be one of theirs.
"So he follows along and sees in the elephant forest a large elephant footprint, long in extent and broad in width, with some scratch marks and tusk slashes high up. A skilled elephant hunter would not yet come to the conclusion, 'What a big bull elephant!' Why is that? Because in an elephant forest there are tall female elephants with tusks & big feet. The footprint might be one of theirs.
"So he follows along and sees in the elephant forest a large elephant footprint, long in extent and broad in width, with some scratch marks and tusk slashes high up and some broken-off branches. And he sees that bull elephant at the foot of the tree or in an open clearing, walking, standing, sitting, or lying down. He comes to the conclusion, 'That's the big bull elephant.'

As per the simile above, it is only correct without the slightest chance of mistake and room for doubt, for one to say "What a big bull elephant!" when he actually sees the actual big bull elephant. If, in one hand, this simile denounces the risk of partial evaluations and premature conclusions, in the other, the rest of the discourses insist on thorough investigations (delusion, after all, is not to be diminished, but exterminated).
Back to impermanence, in a related note, the Buddha even acknowledges somewhere else (SN 12.61) that, for an uninstructed person, it makes more sense to regard the body as permanent than the mind, as it is seen to endure for a long time -- and nothing in the mind is seen to stick for more than a moment.
"My question is, do Buddhists ever consider that it is possible that goals in other religions like Tao and Brahman, may in fact be the same as Nirvana, if we look beyond the semantics. And therefore, the practices in these religions, may in fact lead in the right direction?"
I think it is important not only to see Buddha's attempts of descriptions of nirvana, but the requirements for it. For example, if "Brahmanism" (or Taoism, or ...) requires something equivalent to the 7 enlightenment factors to be developed, and its goal culminates on the permanent destruction of all fetters (sakkāyadiṭṭhi, vyāpādo, kāmacchando,  avijjā, etc) and a full understanding of something equivalent to the Four Noble Truths and conditioned arising, I think that would be a good start before assessing if the goals are the same.
As for going on the right direction, I think buddhists [should] acknowledge any person moving on the "right direction" if she, in whatever religious background, is (inadvertently or not) cultivating insight, skills and states that, ultimately, lead to nirvana -- where "right" means moving towards final liberation. Even if she is not aiming at it, or if she is still in ignorance or clinging to impermanent things here and there (buddhist practitioners are also). From the sutras, this seems pretty much the actual attitude of the Buddha in this matter:

But, bhikkhus, those ascetics and brahmins who understand aging-and-death, its origin, its cessation, and the way leading to its cessation; who understand birth ... volitional formations, their origin, their cessation, and the way leading to their cessation: these I consider to be ascetics among ascetics and brahmins among brahmins [...]
-- SN 12.13

and:

[...] and the Blessed One said, "In any doctrine & discipline where the noble eightfold path is not found, no contemplative of the first... second... third... fourth order [stream-winner, once-returner, non-returner, or arahant] is found. But in any doctrine & discipline where the noble eightfold path is found, contemplatives of the first... second... third... fourth order are found. The noble eightfold path is found in this doctrine & discipline, and right here there are contemplatives of the first... second... third... fourth order. Other teachings are empty of knowledgeable contemplatives. And if the monks dwell rightly, this world will not be empty of arahants."
-- Mahaparinibbana Sutta, DN 16


user295: The Hindus had developed Samadhi (Concentration / Mastery over the Mind / Higher Mind) up to the the 8th Jhana, and also had a strong moral basis, but Buddhism went one step further and introduced Wisdom and Insight to the practice. The fact that many contemporary practitioners are strong in virtue and concentration would be the reason they manage to develop insight very quickly after meeting the Buddha.
So the practices of virtue and developing a higher mind does pay off in progressing on the Buddhist path also and will help when you switch to the developing Insight and Wisdom. But to go all the way to Nirvana you have to practice Wisdom and Insight which is only found in Buddhism, in the right and complete form. This was the discovery of the Buddha.
Also Buddhism has no notion of Soul / Atman or any unchanging core as taught in Hinduism.

471: <p>Nirvana is described in <a href="http://www.leighb.com/studysn.htm" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Samyutta Nikaya 43</a> as </p>

<blockquote>
  <p>"the unfabricated (unborn?), the uninclined, the truth, the far shore,
  the subtle, the very difficult to see, the unaging (eternal?), the
  stable, the unintegrating, the unmanifest, the unproliferated
  (nippapancan), the peaceful, the deathless, the sublime, the
  auspicious, the secure, the destruction of craving, the wonderful, the
  amazing, the unailing, the unailing state, Nibbana, the unafflicted,
  dispassion, purity, freedom, the unadhesive, the island, the shelter,
  the asylum, the refuge, the destination."</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Also from <a href="https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/3880/471">another source</a> in Buddhism Stack Exchange, I see Samyutta Nikaya 43 as quoting Buddha as saying </p>

<blockquote>
  <p>"There is, monks, that base where there is neither earth, nor water,
  nor heat, nor air; neither the base of the infinity of space, nor the
  base of the infinity of consciousness, nor the base of nothingness,
  nor the base of neither-perception-nor-non-perception; neither this
  world nor another world; neither sun nor moon. Here, monks, I say
  there is no coming, no going, no standing still; no passing away and
  no being reborn. It is not established, not moving, without support.
  Just this is the end of suffering."</p>
</blockquote>

<p>The <a href="http://acc6.its.brooklyn.cuny.edu/~phalsall/texts/taote-v3.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Tao Te Ching</a> chapter 1 says </p>

<blockquote>
  <p>"The tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao. The name that can be
  named is not the eternal Name." </p>
</blockquote>

<p>while chapter 7 says, </p>

<blockquote>
  <p>"The Tao is
  infinite, eternal. Why is it eternal? It was never born; thus it can
  never die." </p>
</blockquote>

<p>And chapter 14 says, </p>

<blockquote>
  <p>"Look, and it can't be seen. Listen,
  and it can't be heard. Reach, and it can't be grasped. Above, it isn't
  bright. Below, it isn't dark. Seamless, unnamable, it returns to the
  realm of nothing. Form that includes all forms, image without an
  image, subtle, beyond all conception.  Approach it and there is no
  beginning; follow it and there is no end. You can't know it, but you
  can be it ..."</p>
</blockquote>

<p>The <a href="http://eawc.evansville.edu/anthology/gita.htm" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Bhagavad Gita</a> states in chapter 2, </p>

<blockquote>
  <p>"The Atma is neither born nor does it die at any time, nor having been it will cease to exist again. It is unborn, eternal, permanent, and primeval. The Atma is not destroyed when the body is destroyed.",  "This Atma cannot be cut, burned, wetted, or dried up. It is eternal, all pervading, unchanging, immovable, and primeval. The Atma is said to be unmanifest, unthinkable, and unchanging." </p>
</blockquote>

<p>And in 12.3, </p>

<blockquote>
  <p>"... the imperishable, the undefinable, the unmanifest, the omnipresent, the unthinkable, the unchanging, the immovable, and the eternal Brahman;". In addition, other texts use "neti neti" (not this, not this) to say that Brahman is indescribable or all that is not impermanent.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>From the above, it looks like all are the same, yet if we look at other references, Tao and Brahman is the origin or source of all things, but Nirvana is not. And Brahman can also assume attributes in the changing world or become God the Person or Consciousness, but Nirvana does not. Also, the aspirant can become or become one with the Tao or Brahman, but in Buddhism, one has to "unbecome" or let go of all that is impermanent, to realize Nirvana. But then again, Tao and Hindu sources also discuss letting go of all that is impermanent.</p>

<p>My question is, do Buddhists ever consider that it is possible that goals in other religions like Tao and Brahman, may in fact be the same as Nirvana, if we look beyond the semantics. And therefore, the practices in these religions, may in fact lead in the right direction?</p>

<p>Of course, we can also say that one could start off as a Taoist or Hindu, but after a few Jhanas, move towards being Buddhist, towards Nirvana. Or perhaps, all these labels are irrelevant at that point.</p>
 254: <p>I suspect that when and if you have learned some Buddhist view, then you can read e.g. the passage which you quoted from the Tao Te Ching and interpret that from a Buddhist perspective.</p>

<p>For example, it seems to me to be talking about non-self and/or the impermanence of conditioned/compound objects.</p>

<p>Whether it <em>is</em> talking about that, instead of just <em>seeming</em> to be talking about that, is another matter. The "epiphany" in Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance is that the Tao corresponds to the author's conception of Quality (which I think is a.k.a. Virtue). Perhaps that implies that the Tao Te Ching can map to (been seen as a description of) almost any transcendental insight.</p>

<p>That doesn't IMO imply that every transcendental insight is alike, nor that the Tao Te Ching is especially good (skillful, accurate) at teaching such insight.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>My question is, do Buddhists ever consider that it is possible that goals in other religions like Tao and Brahman, may in fact be the same as Nirvana, if we look beyond the semantics.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>If we "look beyond the semantics", what's left?</p>

<p>You're saying, "If we <strong>ignore what it's saying</strong>, if <strong>we ignore the meaning</strong> of the literature, then are they the same?"</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>And therefore, the practices in these religions, may in fact lead in the right direction?</p>
</blockquote>

<p>There are some who suggest that these religions are leading in the wrong direction: that they teach, for example, that an eternal self (immortality) is possible.</p>

<p>Then again, Hinduism, Taoism, and Buddhism have coexisted historically for quite a while, and influenced each other. Who's to say whether Taoist immortality and Buddhist deathlessness are or are not the same?</p>

<p>I think that even only within Buddhism, the schools of Buddhism differ on the subject of "Buddha-nature".</p>

<hr>

<p>It also might be worth noting that traditions/religions/practices may be 'mixed' within a single person. For example, someone posted a question recently with videos of Papaji: he was "Hindu", and/but it's also easy to find evidence that he studied some Buddhism, for example <a href="http://www.satsangbhavan.net/papaji_in_love_with_buddha.htm" rel="nofollow">here he is quoted as saying</a>,</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>The school history book which contained Buddha’s picture was a simple guide for children. The main bio­graphical facts were there, but the concepts of meditation and enlightenment were not adequately explained. Pre­sumably the author did not think that these very essential points would be of interest to children. So, I remained ig­norant of what he was really doing under that tree and why his final accomplishment was so great.</p>
</blockquote>
 16912: <p>The essential difference between Atman of Vedanta (Hinduism) and Nibbana of Buddhism appears to be that the former is conditioned (sankatha) by PERCEPTION of worldly phenomena, whilst the latter is not.</p>

<p>The former is the SUBJECT, which knows, perceives, experiences every phenomenon in the mundane world including the Mind itself. In this context the Mind is not the Subject, as referred to by western philosophers in a Subject/Object relationship but the Mind itself is the Object of Atman.  To realise  Atman, one needs to be in a state of conscious PERCEPTION conditioned by mundane phenomena.</p>

<p>Nibbana, on the other hand is unconditioned (asankatha) by PERCEPTION of mundane phenomena. Simply put, mundane consciousness ceases, similar to a blackout (Sunna), referred to as the Çessation of FEELING and PERCEPTION or sanna-vedayita-nirodha in Pali and the yogi graduates intuitively to the state of Nibbana. In this context, intuition implies subliminal consciousness i.e. below Perception.</p>

<p>The ascetic Gautama (The Buddha) is said to have differed from his Vedanta teachers, on the question of Atman being the highest level of the development of consciousness. It is through his quest for Liberation that he discovered a state of mind beyond mundane consciousness i.e.the Supramundane, Unconditioned State of Nibbana. Although there are many similarities, it appears that this is one of the few  distinctions between the two philosophies of Vedanta (Hinduism) and Buddhism. </p>
 -1: <p><strong>From the above, it looks like all are the same, yet if we look at other references, Tao and Brahman is the origin or source of all things, but Nirvana is not.</strong></p>

<p>Nirvana is not the substrate of the source but it is the <strong>abiding in that source</strong>. The Hindus describe the Brahman as sat-chit-anand, which means truth-consciousness-bliss. The Buddha was the most scientifically accurate in His description of Nirvana because he did not say anything about Nirvana. Nirvana is blowing out, so it's not a positive or negative conceptualization. The way Samyukta Nikaya explains, Nibbana is a state and not an entity. Whereas Hindu Brahman is an entity which they ascribe a nature of having a self.  </p>

<p>Brahman is a noun and Nirvana is a verb. You abide in Nirvana and Brahman is 'there'. So basically realizing of Brahman by Brahman itself is Nibbana. Nibbana takes the final leap. You can talk about the Brahman by coming out of the 8th Jhnana. </p>

<p>What the Buddha calls the '<strong>anuttarā-samyak-saṃbodhi</strong>' is Nirvana and Patanjali describes this as, if I am not wrong, <em>Nirbij Samadhi</em> as the highest goal. So in the Vedas when it is declared, '<strong><em>Aham Brahmasmi</em></strong>' (I am Brahman) that declaration is Nirvana, the Brahman is not the Nirvana, the realization of it is. </p>

<p>The definition of Nirvana in terms of modern philosophers and scientists can then be given as (universal) '<strong><em>consciousness conscious of itself</em></strong>'. So, Nirvana becomes a constant experiencing constant abiding. And Hindu Brahman is the Universal Consciousness, as Patanjali describes as <em>Purusha</em> or <em>Ishwara</em>.</p>

<p>And the Tao also means the Brahman itself but when the Taoists say, '<em>living in the Tao</em>', that means Nirvana. </p>

<p><strong>do Buddhists ever consider that it is possible that goals in other religions like Tao and Brahman, may in fact be the same as Nirvana, if we look beyond the semantics. And therefore, the practices in these religions, may in fact lead in the right direction?</strong></p>

<p>The goals of other religion are not the same. Don't know much about Taoism, but I can attest from my own experience of a practicing Hindu for 26 years that although Hinduism makes a lofty statement about the ultimate reality of the nature of Brahman, the <strong>GOAL</strong>  of Hinduism is not its realization. The <strong>GOAL</strong> of practicing Hindus remain, 'living in abundance by pleasing the Hindu pantheon'. The Hindu idea is that if you live in accordance with its script in a natural way you will ultimately attain to that. </p>

<p>However, Buddha explicitly made it a GOAL to attain Nibbana. It's extremely different.   </p>

<p><strong>And therefore, the practices in these religions, may in fact lead in the right direction?</strong></p>

<p>No, practicing Hinduism does not at all lead one in the right direction. Hindus give very little stress on Karma. In fact Hindus believe that if you please gods your Karma can be wiped out, it can even be wiped out by bathing in river Ganges. </p>

<p>Furthermore, to be a Hindu you have to, I repeat you have to have a 'caste or varna'. So in effect, you end up getting a view about yourself even before you set out to realize 'no-self' and that to wrong in itself. </p>

<p>Maybe if you practice Patanjali's yoga sutras you might end up in Nirvana but the practice of Patanjali's 'ashtanga yoga' is not per se a Hindu practice, its something one explicitly undertakes to get there. </p>
 -1: <p><strong>&quot;<em>But then again, Tao and Hindu sources also discuss letting go of all that is impermanent</em>&quot;</strong></p>
<p>We can have 2 groups advocating letting go of what is impermanent, and yet, if they disagree on what is impermanent, there will be endless debate with practitioners. Following to its conclusion, the risk of the first group is to hold to something that appears to be permanent but isn't. A question here would be what would be the risk of the other group?</p>
<p>Buddhist doctrine not only refers to the practice of &quot;letting go impermanent things&quot;, but quite significant, it does not overlook our inclination to take something that takes a long time to show its impermanence as permanent. This is a risk of being deluded the Buddha has suggested a few times, which asks for a kind of careful evaluation that is perfectly thorough.</p>
<p>[<strong>edit</strong>:]
For example, the Buddha describes in the <a href="http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.01.0.bodh.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Brahmajāla Sutta</a> how a recluse &quot;attains to such a degree of mental concentration that with his mind thus concentrated, [purified, clarified, unblemished, devoid of corruptions] he recollects his numerous past lives[...]&quot; and, while exploring a very long time far back and not seeing a limit for the universe or rebirths, that person concludes that &quot;the self and the world are eternal&quot; -- a premature, careless conclusion, one of many <em>wrong views</em>. The simile of the elephant's footprint (<a href="http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.027.than.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Cūlahatthipadopama Sutta</a>) also illustrates:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The Blessed One said: &quot;Suppose an elephant hunter were to enter an elephant forest and were to see there a large elephant footprint, long in extent and broad in width. A skilled elephant hunter would not yet come to the conclusion, 'What a big bull elephant!' Why is that? Because in an elephant forest there are dwarf female elephants with big feet. The footprint might be one of theirs.</p>
<p>&quot;So he follows along and sees in the elephant forest a large elephant footprint, long in extent and broad in width, and some scratch marks high up. A skilled elephant hunter would not yet come to the conclusion, 'What a big bull elephant!' Why is that? Because in an elephant forest there are tall female elephants with prominent teeth &amp; big feet. The footprint might be one of theirs.</p>
<p>&quot;So he follows along and sees in the elephant forest a large elephant footprint, long in extent and broad in width, with some scratch marks and tusk slashes high up. A skilled elephant hunter would not yet come to the conclusion, 'What a big bull elephant!' Why is that? Because in an elephant forest there are tall female elephants with tusks &amp; big feet. The footprint might be one of theirs.</p>
<p>&quot;So he follows along and sees in the elephant forest a large elephant footprint, long in extent and broad in width, with some scratch marks and tusk slashes high up and some broken-off branches. And he sees that bull elephant at the foot of the tree or in an open clearing, walking, standing, sitting, or lying down. He comes to the conclusion, 'That's the big bull elephant.'</p>
</blockquote>
<p>As per the simile above, it is only correct without the slightest chance of mistake and room for doubt, for one to say &quot;What a big bull elephant!&quot; when he actually <em>sees</em> the actual big bull elephant. If, in one hand, this simile denounces the risk of partial evaluations and premature conclusions, in the other, the rest of the discourses insist on thorough investigations (delusion, after all, is not to be diminished, but exterminated).</p>
<p>Back to impermanence, in a related note, the Buddha even acknowledges somewhere else (<a href="http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.061.than.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">SN 12.61</a>) that, for an uninstructed person, it makes more sense to regard the body as permanent than the mind, as it is seen to endure for a long time -- and nothing in the mind is seen to stick for more than a moment.</p>
<p><strong>&quot;<em>My question is, do Buddhists ever consider that it is possible that goals in other religions like Tao and Brahman, may in fact be the same as Nirvana, if we look beyond the semantics. And therefore, the practices in these religions, may in fact lead in the right direction?</em>&quot;</strong></p>
<p>I think it is important not only to see Buddha's attempts of descriptions of nirvana, but the <em>requirements</em> for it. For example, if &quot;Brahmanism&quot; (or Taoism, or ...) requires something equivalent to the 7 enlightenment factors to be developed, and its goal culminates on the <em>permanent</em> destruction of all fetters (<em>sakkāyadiṭṭhi</em>, <em>vyāpādo</em>, <em>kāmacchando</em>,  <em>avijjā</em>, etc) and a full understanding of something equivalent to the Four Noble Truths and conditioned arising, I think that would be a good start before assessing if the goals are the same.</p>
<p>As for going on the right direction, I think buddhists [should] acknowledge any person moving on the &quot;right direction&quot; if she, in whatever religious background, is (inadvertently or not) cultivating insight, skills and states that, ultimately, lead to nirvana -- where &quot;right&quot; means moving towards final liberation. Even if she is not aiming at it, or if she is still in ignorance or clinging to impermanent things here and there (buddhist practitioners are also). From the sutras, this seems pretty much the actual attitude of the Buddha in this matter:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>But, bhikkhus, those ascetics and brahmins who understand aging-and-death, its origin, its cessation, and the way leading to its cessation; who understand birth ... volitional formations, their origin, their cessation, and the way leading to their cessation: these I consider to be ascetics among ascetics and brahmins among brahmins [...]</p>
<p>-- <a href="http://suttacentral.net/en/sn12.13" rel="nofollow noreferrer">SN 12.13</a></p>
</blockquote>
<p>and:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>[...] and the Blessed One said, &quot;In any doctrine &amp; discipline where the noble eightfold path is not found, no contemplative of the first... second... third... fourth order [stream-winner, once-returner, non-returner, or arahant] is found. But in any doctrine &amp; discipline where the noble eightfold path is found, contemplatives of the first... second... third... fourth order are found. The noble eightfold path is found in this doctrine &amp; discipline, and right here there are contemplatives of the first... second... third... fourth order. Other teachings are empty of knowledgeable contemplatives. And if the monks dwell rightly, this world will not be empty of arahants.&quot;</p>
<p>-- Mahaparinibbana Sutta, <a href="http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.16.5-6.than.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">DN 16</a></p>
</blockquote>
 295: <p>The <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu" rel="noreferrer">Hindus</a> had developed <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samadhi" rel="noreferrer">Samadhi (Concentration / Mastery over the Mind / Higher Mind)</a> up to the the 8th <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhy%C4%81na_in_Buddhism" rel="noreferrer">Jhana</a>, and also had a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C5%9A%C4%ABla" rel="noreferrer">strong moral basis</a>, but Buddhism went one step further and introduced <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vipassan%C4%81" rel="noreferrer">Wisdom and Insight</a> to the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threefold_Training" rel="noreferrer">practice</a>. The fact that many contemporary practitioners are strong in virtue and concentration would be the reason they manage to develop insight very quickly after meeting the Buddha.</p>

<p>So the practices of virtue and developing a higher mind does pay off in progressing on <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Path_to_Nirvana" rel="noreferrer">the Buddhist path</a> also and will help when you switch to the developing Insight and Wisdom. But to go all the way to Nirvana you have to practice Wisdom and Insight which is only found in Buddhism, in the right and complete form. This was the discovery of the Buddha.</p>

<p>Also Buddhism has no notion of Soul / Atman or any unchanging core as taught in <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinduism" rel="noreferrer">Hinduism</a>.</p>
