Comparison of Nirvana, Tao and Brahman/Atma

May be the goals of Buddhism, Hinduism , and Taoism are similar or same. But as per Gautam Buddha, only vipassana is the only way, which he has followed to reach the ultimate Nirvana( which Buddha discovered in the quest to know the truth). It was not his goal to reach nirvana. Vipassana doesn't speak of setting goals and meditate . Buddha has considered any other practices, which is right , will lead to nirvana .

Brahman/Atman lacks positive descriptions, but becomes absurdist and psychologically nihilist through 'neti, neti': denying a thing every property/description but saying it still exists, keeps the mind guessing on the propertiless thing (which it is, of course, not), and in doubt. It's unlike nibbana because it sides with Fullness and not Emptyness.

Taoism is much more a reification of Emptiness/sunyata than an outright Brahman. It feels to me like a Mahayana, with a sprinkle of steroids/other wrong views.

"You can't know it, but you can be it" is very similar to Buddhism being a practice, not an ideology (and nibbana not being reachable through reason alone):

Banish learning, discard knowledge: People will gain a hundredfold. Banish benevolence, discard righteousness: People will return to duty and compassion. Banish skill, discard profit: There will be no more thieves. These three statements are not enough. One more step is necessary. Look at plain silk; hold uncarved wood. The self dwindles; desires fade.

Appears more like the path of those Buddhists who disregard scriptures for meditative practice than the path of theists.

But "Form that includes all forms" is certainly more Platonic. It seems to stray into the Tathagatagarbha territory really, but overall is closer than Brahman - because it accurately singles out Emptiness, even if it adds a capital letter and ignores the emptiness of emptiness, so to say.

Attain complete emptiness, Hold fast to stillness. The ten thousand things stir about; I only watch for their going back. Things grow and grow, But each goes back to its root. Going back to the root is stillness. This means returning to what is. Returning to what is Means going back to the ordinary. Understanding the ordinary: Enlightenment. Not understanding the ordinary: Blindness creates evil. Understanding the ordinary: Mind opens. Mind opening leads to compassion, Compassion to nobility, Nobility to heavenliness, Heavenliness to Tao. Tao endures. Your body dies. There is no danger.

There is an acknowledgement of unsatisfactoriness with transitory experience (but this is around in all major reificationist religions), and the solution that Lao Tzu offers is almost word for word with the Buddha's, but in fact the presentation of the enduring Tao turns away from dependent origination, and saves the individual from extinguishment in the end, so Taoism does turn away from impermanence at the last moment, but it's almost as if it's one click away from seeing the root of all things as ignorance/craving.

I would think that a Taoist, meeting the Buddha, would agree with him much quicker than a Brahminist, because a lot more common ground would be found between them.

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.

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.

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.

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.