SAṂSĀRA
The root of the word is ‘sṛ’, meaning to flow or to run. Together with the prefix ‘saṃ’ (meaning ‘together’ or ‘complete’) we get a meaning of ‘to wander on’ or ‘continuous flowing’. Within the context of Buddhism, it refers to the continuous rounds of birth and death (Jpn. ‘seishi’ 生死) that we go through, life after life, in a seemingly endless loop, like groundhog day. The Buddha was searching for an answer of why we are stuck on this merry-go-round and how to get off of it – as well as the reasons for things such as why we suffer, why are we born, why we grow old, sick and eventually die. The concept of saṃsāra is not unique to Buddhism, although we do have a somewhat unique take on it – it was a concept already known at the time of the Buddha. However, contrary to popular belief, it was not the “standard” view of people at the time. Instead, there were numerous different religious thoughts and views, some related to saṃsāra, and some completely different.
In the early Vedic period (1500-1000 BCE) there was no clear doctrine of saṃsāra, although the Ṛigveda contains multiple, sometimes conflicting, teachings on the afterlife. In later systems we see the idea of being reborn in the ‘pitṛloka’ – a heavenly like ancestral realm. Overall there was no idea of somehow being trapped in an endless loop of rebirths.
In the late Vedic period (800-500 BCE) we begin to see clear doctrines of repeated rebirths, although this was not universally accepted and is not the same as the Buddhist view of saṃsāra. In this same period we begin to see the idea that knowledge (vidyā) is a means to attain liberation (mokṣa). However, this was the view of the elites, and not part of common practice. The caste system also played a large role in separating the elites and the priests from the everyday individual.
We must also keep in mind that the Buddha was predominantly part of the śramaṇa movement (ascetic practitioners), and there were numerous different śramaṇa movements. However, even these movements did not have a standard view of saṃsāra. There were śramaṇa groups that had a strong view of saṃsāra such as the Jains, but there were also materialist groups such as the Cārvākas, who rejected ideas of rebirth and karma, holding direct perception and empiricism as being proper sources of knowledge, and rejected all forms of ritualism. And there were many other groups that had numerous different views, such as the Ājīvikas who accepted views of rebirth, but rejected the idea of karma.
So, as we can see that concept of saṃsāra – the continuous rounds of birth and death, and suffering (duḥkha) were the primary concerns that inspired the Buddha to abandon his life of luxury and his family – in reality, it was his compassion for all sentient beings that primarily drove the Buddha, as he recognised that these concepts are universal to all sentient beings, and if he could find a way to end suffering, he could then teach us how to end suffering, thus freeing all sentient beings from saṃsāra.
What is interesting, is that we now have a modern Buddhists who reject the idea of saṃsāra, karma, rebirth, and even rituals much like the Cārvākas did, believing these to be “cultural baggage” or latter additions to dharma. However the data simply doesn’t support this rhetoric, and in my honest opinion this view is nothing more than orientalism.
NIRVĀṆA
Just like the concept of saṃsāra, it is often incorrectly assumed that the concept of Nirvāṇa was borrowed from previous religions and philosophies, however just like the concept of saṃsāra, Nirvāṇa also has a more complicated history.
Nirvāṇa is a combination of tho words; ‘nir’ meaning ‘out’ and the root ‘vā’ meaning ‘to blow’, giving us a meaning of ‘to blow out’ or ‘to extinguish’. Within the context of Buddhism this means to ‘extinguish’ or ‘blow out’ the fires of greed, hatred, and ignorance, leading to the cessation of duḥkha and the endless cycle of rebirth. Another word to describe this is ‘mokṣa’ meaning ‘to be free’ or ‘released’ or ‘liberated’ which generally wasn’t used in early Buddhism, but appears frequently in later and Mahāyāna Buddhism. However, even in Mahāyāna, vimukti/vimokṣa is used more frequently than mokṣa.
In the early Vedic period (1500-1000 BCE) there was no doctrine on Nirvāṇa or mokṣa. The religious goals of the time were for prosperity, longevity, and heavenly/divine reward.
By the time of the early Upaniṣads (800-400 BCE) in the later Vedic period we begin to see ideas of mokṣa (liberation) from rebirth through knowledge (vidyā), but just like the ideas of saṃsāra, these weren’t the common view.
It was with the rise of the śramaṇa movements that we see ideas of liberation at the forefront – however, just like their views of saṃsāra their views of mokṣa and Nirvāṇa were also different to the Buddhist ideas. For example, the Ājīvikas believed liberation was achieved through fate, and not through our own efforts. For others, realising ‘self’ (ātman) as brahman – a form of eternal being or universal consciousness was supposed to bring liberation. The materialists rejected any form of postmortem liberation.
Many scholars believe the Buddha’s interpretation of Nirvāṇa, and even his use of the word, were his own unique innovation of the pre-existing concept of Nirvāṇa. For the Buddha and Buddhists, crucially, Nirvāṇa does not require a ‘self’ (ātman), and it is not annihilation, instead it is the ending of the conditions that create and sustain suffering, and it is achievable in the here and now.
Tendai Buddhism UK 