• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Jainism and Buddhism

Buddha Dharma

Buddha Dharma

Dharma Practitioner
See @Aupmanyav the way you define the Jain Jiva and moving to the unconstructed. That's a good example of what I meant in my last post that the Jiva may not fundamentally conflict with Buddhism.

@Lyndon Buddhists don't deny the existence of a true self, in a manner of speaking, but we are less quick to philosophize about it. It invites the possibility to get caught in the ego. The ego tries to cling to having substance, but is produced by the Skandhas. In Mahayana we have several names for this true self/nature of Dharmas like Citta and Tathata. Tathata means the suchness nature of all Dharmas and the unfathomable nature of the Buddha body: Dharmakaya.

This unfathomable real nature of the unconstructed is alluded to in the Heart Sutra with the following line: all dharmas are forms of/marked with emptiness- meaning there is something to Dharmas being discussed. Some also translate the Heart Sutra this way: the characteristics of the voidness of all Dharmas 'IS'...
 
Last edited:
Aupmanyav

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
Buddha Dharma said:
See @Aupmanyav the way you define the Jain Jiva and moving to the unconstructed. That's a good example of what I meant in my last post that the Jiva may not fundamentally conflict with Buddhism.
Click to expand...
:D The concept of Jiva my not conflict with the three religions, but it conflicts with my personal belief, i.e., Advaita. For me, jiva exists only in the virtual world that we perceive, otherwise, it is all Brahman and none else, right from the grain of sand on the banks of River Ganges in Varanasi to President Trump or Queen Elizabeth.
 
FooYang

FooYang

Active Member
JRMcC said:
Could anyone here explain what the primary differences between Jainism and Buddhism are?
Click to expand...

Buddhism's essential doctrine is "no-self" and "no-Soul/Atma". Jainism is 180 degrees the opposite, where everything is infinite transmigration of Souls/Atma which have created this universe.
Very different, in fact entirely different, from both Buddhism and Hinduism.
 
SlaveofShinri

SlaveofShinri

New Member
I was Buddhist for quite some time but eventually found that I more greatly appreciated the emphasis on Ahimsa and Anekantavada in Jainism.
 
Martin

Martin

Spam, wonderful spam (bloody vikings!)
Aupmanyav said:
That is true. According to Jainism, soul exists and is eternal, in humans as well as in animals. Buddhism denies soul. Buddhism advocates middle path, Jain ascetism is more extreme. Jainism requires vegetarianism even for the leity, buddhism requires that one does not be the cause of death of an animal. Whereas the mention of rebirth, heaven and hell is metaphorical in Buddhism, Jainism believes in rebirth, haven and hell. Wikipedia has nice articles on both, Buddhism and Jainism.The language of Jain scriptures is Prakrit, whereas that of Buddhism is Pali. These were only regional differences as both languages are closely related to Sanskrit. Here is a comparision of Buddhism and Jainism and their differences: Buddhism vs Jainism - Difference and Comparison | Diffen
Click to expand...

Actually a lot of Buddhists have a literal view of rebirth and the realms, and the secular ("metaphorical") view is mainly a modern western phenomenon.
 
Martin

Martin

Spam, wonderful spam (bloody vikings!)
Buddha Dharma said:
I don't think Buddhism disagrees with all ideas of a soul, fundamentally. It would be a difference in emphasis and not in kind for example, to compare Anatta and the Advaitic Atman. Buddhism actually posited several alternate theories to that of the Atman early on. Citta and the Puggala are both that. Buddhism shunned the Atman of the Vedic religion of the time specifically, because it tried to give substantiality to the ego. The Jain Jiva may do that too, but I think that isn't clear. Since Jains hold to Anekantavada, which is fluid and cuts through ego concepts.
Click to expand...

I disagree. In my view anatta (not-self) and shunyata (emptiness) are the defining teachings of the Buddhist schools.
 
Aupmanyav

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
Martin said:
Actually a lot of Buddhists have a literal view of rebirth and the realms, and the secular ("metaphorical") view is mainly a modern western phenomenon.
Click to expand...
Sure, many lay Buddhist may not have full comprehension of teachings of their religion, but I would not use the epithet 'mainly western' for it.
 
Martin

Martin

Spam, wonderful spam (bloody vikings!)
Aupmanyav said:
Sure, many lay Buddhist may not have full comprehension of teachings of their religion, but I would not use the epithet 'mainly western' for it.
Click to expand...

Again with your atheist secular agenda.
The fact remains that the majority of Buddhists have the "traditional" view of rebirth and realms, including Western Tibetan Buddhists. And it's not just the lay Buddhists.
 
Last edited:
Martin

Martin

Spam, wonderful spam (bloody vikings!)
FooYang said:
Buddhism's essential doctrine is "no-self" and "no-Soul/Atma". Jainism is 180 degrees the opposite, where everything is infinite transmigration of Souls/Atma which have created this universe.
Very different, in fact entirely different, from both Buddhism and Hinduism.
Click to expand...

Interesting. I'd assumed Jainism had more in common with Hinduism, given the transmigration of souls aspect.
 
Secret Chief

Secret Chief

nirvana is samsara
Martin said:
the majority of Buddhists have the "traditional" view of rebirth and realms
Click to expand...

Steady on there.

“Firewood, after becoming ash, does not again become firewood. Similarly, human beings, after death, do not live again.”
- Dogen Zenji. (Founder of Soto Zen Buddhism). Hardly a Westerner or lay. :)
 
Martin

Martin

Spam, wonderful spam (bloody vikings!)
Secret Chief said:
Steady on there.

“Firewood, after becoming ash, does not again become firewood. Similarly, human beings, after death, do not live again.”
- Dogen Zenji. (Founder of Soto Zen Buddhism). Hardly a Westerner or lay. :)
Click to expand...

I'm generalising, of course. And objecting to the misrepresentation that Buddhists (generally) have a metaphorical view of rebirth and realms. They don't.
Personally I'm agnostic on these questions, so I don't have an axe to grind. But misrepresentation is irritating.
 
Last edited:
Aupmanyav

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
Martin said:
Again with your atheist secular agenda.
The fact remains that the majority of Buddhists have the "traditional" view of rebirth and realms, including Western Tibetan Buddhists. And it's not just the lay Buddhists.
Click to expand...
Which is not what Buddha said.
 
Martin

Martin

Spam, wonderful spam (bloody vikings!)
Aupmanyav said:
Which is not what Buddha said.
Click to expand...

Have you studied the Buddhist suttas, and have you practiced in Buddhist traditions? If not, then I don't think you're qualified to say what the Buddha taught, or what Buddhists believe.
Sorry, but I don't regard an atheist Advaitin as a reliable source of information about Buddhism.

Anyway, this is off-topic here, so we should probably take the discussion elsewhere.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top