Buddhism, Hinduism, and Jainism

[FerventGodSeeker]

What's the difference between the three of them? They all sound extremely similar in their views, but that's probably just because I'm an ignorant Westerner, lol. Can someone explain it?

FerventGodSeeker

 

[Green Gaia]

Well trying not to write a book, I found these descriptions:

Hinduism
The origins of Hinduism can be traced to the Indus Valley civilization sometime between 4000 and 2500 BCE. Though believed by many to be a polytheistic religion, the basis of Hinduism is the belief in the unity of everything. This totality is called Brahman. The purpose of life is to realize that we are part of God and by doing so we can leave this plane of existance and rejoin with God. This enlightenment can only be achieved by going through cycles of birth, life and death known as samsara. One's progress towards enlightenment is measured by his karma. This is the accumulation of all one's good and bad deeds and this determines the person's next reincarnation. Selfless acts and thoughts as well as devotion to God help one to be reborn at a higher level. Bad acts and thoughts will cause one to be born at a lower level, as a person or even an animal.

Hindus follow a strict caste system which determines the standing of each person. The caste one is born into is the result of the karma from their previous life. Only members of the highest caste, the brahmins, may perform the Hindu religious rituals and hold positions of authority within the temples.

Buddhism
Buddhism developed out of the teachings of Siddhartha Gautama who, in 535 BCE, reached enlightenment and assumed the title Buddha. He promoted 'The Middle Way' as the path to enlightenment rather than the extremes of mortification of the flesh or hedonism. Long after his death the Buddha's teachings were written down. This collection is called the Tripitaka. Buddhists believe in reincarnation and that one must go through cycles of birth, life, and death. After many such cycles, if a person releases their attachment to desire and the self, they can attain Nirvana. In general, Buddhists do not believe in any type of God, the need for a savior, prayer, or eternal life after death. However, since the time of the Buddha, Buddhism has integrated many regional religious rituals, beliefs and customs into it as it has spread throughout Asia, so that this generalization is no longer true for all Buddhists. This has occurred with little conflict due to the philosophical nature of Buddhism.

Jainism
The founder of the Jain community was Vardhamana, the last Jina in a series of 24 who lived in East India. He attained enlightenment after 13 years of deprivation and committed the act of salekhana, fasting to death, in 420 BCE. Jainism has many similarities to Hinduism and Buddhism which developed in the same part of the world. They believe in karma and reincarnation as do Hindus but they believe that enlightenment and liberation from this cycle can only be achieved through asceticism. Jains follow fruititarianism. This is the practice of only eating that which will not kill the plant or animal from which it is taken. They also practice ahimsa, non-violence, because any act of violence against a living thing creates negative karma which will adversely affect one's next life.


Also, you can check out the Buddhism, Hinduism, and Jainism forums here on RF.

 

[Valjean]

Well it's a good thing that practitioners of the Indian traditions are not in the majority on RF, or we'd already have 200 posts taking exception to, protesting, or clarifying Maize' descriptions. But trying to describe religions with no official dogma or formal, organized church is problematic. There's little that can be said about the Eastern Religions that actually applies across-the -board.
I've met Jains who eat at McDonalds and polytheistic Buddhists. Hinduism's strict caste system is actually illegal in India.

This being said, I'll throw in my two cents.
The metaphysics and goals of these traditions are essentially the same. All revolve around the concept of enlightenment.
Enlightenment is the "expansion" of the mind to the point of directly perceiving a multi-dimensional quantam Reality. All three traditions aknowledge the impossibility of describing or even approaching any concept of such a Reality from a 3-D perspective.
Hinduism and its Jain and Buddhist offshoots differ in traditions and culture. Hinduism and Jainism are similar enough that Gandhi, for example, was perfectly comfortable with either label.
Buddhism has taken the impossibility of describing an 11-dimensional Universe to a 3-D mind to heart and does not even make the attempt. Traditional Hinduism, on the other side of the coin, is obsessed with trying to describe and depict the ineffable.

Metaphysically, all the Eastern Religions are comparable. Their differences are cosmetic.

 

[Comet]

Well it's a good thing that practitioners of the Indian traditions are not in the majority on RF, or we'd already have 200 posts taking exception to, protesting, or clarifying Maize' descriptions. But trying to describe religions with no official dogma or formal, organized church is problematic. There's little that can be said about the Eastern Religions that actually applies across-the -board.
I've met Jains who eat at McDonalds and polytheistic Buddhists. Hinduism's strict caste system is actually illegal in India.

This being said, I'll throw in my two cents.
The metaphysics and goals of these traditions are essentially the same. All revolve around the concept of enlightenment.
Enlightenment is the "expansion" of the mind to the point of directly perceiving a multi-dimensional quantam Reality. All three traditions aknowledge the impossibility of describing or even approaching any concept of such a Reality from a 3-D perspective.
Hinduism and its Jain and Buddhist offshoots differ in traditions and culture. Hinduism and Jainism are similar enough that Gandhi, for example, was perfectly comfortable with either label.
Buddhism has taken the impossibility of describing an 11-dimensional Universe to a 3-D mind to heart and does not even make the attempt. Traditional Hinduism, on the other side of the coin, is obsessed with trying to describe and depict the ineffable.

Metaphysically, all the Eastern Religions are comparable. Their differences are cosmetic.

As a Monist who claims no "religion" as his way, I understand 100% to what you are saying. Buddhism is the most different if you break it down. Yet it is similar to asking: What is the difference between a Catholic, Methodist, and a Baptist????
There are many differences on a small level that aren't seen from the outside looking in - or when put into terms to those that view things from a very different angle.

(Some scholars believe that Jainism is older than Hinduism) Just an interesting fact that Jainism is also viewed by the majority or religious scholars who have studied it as the least changed religion in the past 2000 years.

To the poster I would say that trying to explain a religion, let alone 3 to somebody would take a long time indeed. If you are interested in them, perhaps you should make time to read of any that interest you..... or start a PM converstation with Seyorni or another. :yes: Hope you got what you needed by 3 small replies though!

 

[FerventGodSeeker]

Well it's a good thing that practitioners of the Indian traditions are not in the majority on RF, or we'd already have 200 posts taking exception to, protesting, or clarifying Maize' descriptions. But trying to describe religions with no official dogma or formal, organized church is problematic. There's little that can be said about the Eastern Religions that actually applies across-the -board.
I've met Jains who eat at McDonalds and polytheistic Buddhists. Hinduism's strict caste system is actually illegal in India.

This being said, I'll throw in my two cents.
The metaphysics and goals of these traditions are essentially the same. All revolve around the concept of enlightenment.
Enlightenment is the "expansion" of the mind to the point of directly perceiving a multi-dimensional quantam Reality. All three traditions aknowledge the impossibility of describing or even approaching any concept of such a Reality from a 3-D perspective.
Hinduism and its Jain and Buddhist offshoots differ in traditions and culture. Hinduism and Jainism are similar enough that Gandhi, for example, was perfectly comfortable with either label.
Buddhism has taken the impossibility of describing an 11-dimensional Universe to a 3-D mind to heart and does not even make the attempt. Traditional Hinduism, on the other side of the coin, is obsessed with trying to describe and depict the ineffable.

Metaphysically, all the Eastern Religions are comparable. Their differences are cosmetic.

Thanks for sharing. That's what I was thinking, because it seems as though they all basically teach the same things, but simply with a slightly different twist or different wording (although often with the same wording, too). That's why I wanted to know the specific differences.
You said that Ghandi was comfortable with being called either Hindu or Jain...was he a fruititarian like Maize described Jains as being?
also, the religion you ascribe to is Vedanta. I'm assuming that's also an Eastern religion; how is it different from the other three? Or is it a subcategory?

FerventGodSeeker

 

[FerventGodSeeker]

As a Monist who claims no "religion" as his way

Sorry, what's a Monist?

Yet it is similar to asking: What is the difference between a Catholic, Methodist, and a Baptist????

I suppose it is similar in some ways, although in practice, liturgy, and even theology and soteriology, the three are quite different, even from an outsider's perspective.

To the poster I would say that trying to explain a religion, let alone 3 to somebody would take a long time indeed. If you are interested in them, perhaps you should make time to read of any that interest you..... or start a PM converstation with Seyorni or another. :yes: Hope you got what you needed by 3 small replies though!

Well I did learn some things, but I hope to keep learning more, as always. I didn't expect a detailed analysis of each religion, I was just looking for some basic differences between the three, since it seems to me that they are virtually identical in actual teaching.

FerventGodSeeker

 

[Booko]

What's the difference between the three of them? They all sound extremely similar in their views, but that's probably just because I'm an ignorant Westerner, lol. Can someone explain it?

FerventGodSeeker

Buddhism has its roots in Hinduism as Christianity has its roots in Judaism.

Jainism is a prehistoric religion, but since its origin is on the Indian subcontinent, it has influenced Hinduism, and thus Buddhism as well.

Hope this helps.

 

[FerventGodSeeker]

Buddhism has its roots in Hinduism as Christianity has its roots in Judaism.

Well Christianity has its roots in Judaism because it is the continuation of Old Testament Judaism through the fulfillment of Jewish prophecy...is that the kind of relationship Hinduism and Buddhism share? How specifically did Buddhism emerge out of Hinduism? I've heard that the Buddha was part of a Hindu family, but beyond that I don't know much.

Jainism is a prehistoric religion, but since its origin is on the Indian subcontinent, it has influenced Hinduism, and thus Buddhism as well.

Oh, Jainism is older than Hinduism? I guess there seems to be some debate as to which is more ancient.

FerventGodSeeker

 

[Feathers in Hair]

Hmm... Maybe we can help more if we know what specifics you're looking for. Are you wanting the theological differences, the origins, or something else?

 

[FerventGodSeeker]

Hmm... Maybe we can help more if we know what specifics you're looking for. Are you wanting the theological differences, the origins, or something else?

Well I was looking mostly for differences in theology, doctrine, etc. But knowing the history would also be nice. Anything you can contribute would be great.

FerventGodSeeker

 

[Booko]

Well Christianity has its roots in Judaism because it is the continuation of Old Testament Judaism through the fulfillment of Jewish prophecy...is that the kind of relationship Hinduism and Buddhism share? How specifically did Buddhism emerge out of Hinduism? I've heard that the Buddha was part of a Hindu family, but beyond that I don't know much.

Yes, the Buddha was born into a Hindu family, and Buddhism began in India. Rather like Christianity moved outside of the Holy Land, Buddhism moved out of India also, and went East mostly.

There are some passages in the Dharmapada (Pali Canon at least) that are identical with passages in the Bhagavad-Gita.

Just as Christians believe that there are passages in Hebrew texts that prophesy the coming of Christ, there are apparently prophecies in Hinduism that Buddhists understand to predict the Buddha. Don't ask me what they are -- I just know that's what a Buddhist monk told me once.

Oh, Jainism is older than Hinduism? I guess there seems to be some debate as to which is more ancient.

It's difficult to tell when they're both very ancient and there's been some crossover in ideas.

Oh, I know you didn't ask about the Sikhs, but they're essentially what happened when Islam collided with Hinduism.

 

[Feathers in Hair]

I'm sorry, FGS... I've been looking around the internet, and can't seem to find any better summary than the one that Maize found. I apologize about that.

 

[Valjean]

Thanks for sharing. That's what I was thinking, because it seems as though they all basically teach the same things, but simply with a slightly different twist or different wording (although often with the same wording, too). That's why I wanted to know the specific differences.
You said that Ghandi was comfortable with being called either Hindu or Jain...was he a fruititarian like Maize described Jains as being?
also, the religion you ascribe to is Vedanta. I'm assuming that's also an Eastern religion; how is it different from the other three? Or is it a subcategory?

FerventGodSeeker

For most of his life Gandhi was a typical, Indian lacto-vegetarian.
He grew up in a sort of Jain neighborhood and was strongly influenced by Jain teachings on harmlessness. He does confess to some adolescent experimentation with meat-eating, but he soon gave that up. When he left India to attend university in England his mother made him swear that he would remain faithful to their traditions and never touch meat.

Almost all religions are subcategories of subcategories. Vedanta is usually described as one of the orthodox systems of Hinduism.
Vedanta is a Hindu metaphysical philosophy and, of course, it itself may be divided into several subcategories.

It's all quite confusing....

 

[Valjean]

Thanks for sharing. That's what I was thinking, because it seems as though they all basically teach the same things, but simply with a slightly different twist or different wording (although often with the same wording, too). That's why I wanted to know the specific differences.
You said that Ghandi was comfortable with being called either Hindu or Jain...was he a fruititarian like Maize described Jains as being?
also, the religion you ascribe to is Vedanta. I'm assuming that's also an Eastern religion; how is it different from the other three? Or is it a subcategory?

FerventGodSeeker

For most of his life Gandhi was a typical, Indian lacto-vegetarian.
He grew up in a sort of Jain neighborhood and was strongly influenced by Jain teachings on harmlessness. He does confess to some adolescent experimentation with meat-eating, but he soon gave that up. When he left India to attend university in England his mother made him swear that he would remain faithful to their traditions and never touch meat.

Almost all religions are subcategories of subcategories. Vedanta is usually described as one of the orthodox systems of Hinduism.
Vedanta is a Hindu metaphysical philosophy and, of course, it itself may be divided into several subcategories.

It's all quite confusing....

 

[Comet]

I hope this will make sence..... I am on some new pain killers and am not seeing 100% straight still.

http://www.jainworld.com/jainbooks/antiquity/jainorel.htm

That link compares the other two to Jainism. Jainism is considered older than the other two by many scholars. Hope that link came up for you.

 

[kaboom]

@Booko, below info needs more research and its not what you have mentioned.

Oh, I know you didn't ask about the Sikhs, but they're essentially what happened when Islam collided with Hinduism

 

[Treks]

LOL Booko posted that 9 years ago. You've created a zombie thread. Congratulations.

It may not be entirely accurate to say that Sikhi is what happens when Islam collides with Hinduism. Sikhi has much more in common with Hinduism than Islam. However, it is squarely its own philosophy.

 

[Aupmanyav]

(Some scholars believe that Jainism is older than Hinduism) Just an interesting fact that Jainism is also viewed by the majority or religious scholars who have studied it as the least changed religion in the past 2000 years.

Green Gaia has given a good capsule description of the three. We did not have one name for the the myriad traditions that we followed in our quite large land (if not as vast as for some other countries) and over-flowing population. It is the foreigners (Iranians and Bactrians) who called us Hindus (the people living near River Indus and East of it. We had 'matas' (opinions) and 'panths' (roads), like the Jain mata, Buddha mata or the Sikh panth. We have lived in relative peace through out the history. In time, some matas and panths distanced from the main body, but we still have respect for each other. As for Hinduism, it is not formatted to be static and has changed with time and will change in future. That flexibility has been its advantage. For example, I am a monist and atheist but very much Hindu.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

This thread was made awhile ago I know, but to say as others said: I think the goals of the three are essentially the same. They're all from the Indian subcontinent and deal in the questions Indian civilization has thought the most important.

I've come to wonder myself if the three should really be considered different at all, in the sense of being distinct religions. I'm not sure they are. Buddhism and Jainism are technically Hindu philosophies that fall under the categorization Nastika (heterodox in the sense of rejecting the Vedas), but are concerned with the same fundamental questions Indian thought has tended to be.

There is not a great gulf of difference in fundamentals. I find myself wondering at this juncture if Buddhists and Jains shouldn't answer to being Hindus ourselves? This would accurately speak to the fundamentals shared among all Dharmic worldviews, and would serve as a unifying point at a time where the future of the Dharma has never been more uncertain.

I've read opinions from some authors that Buddhists and Jains could rightfully be calling ourselves Hindu and perhaps we should. That's why my religious description is now Dharmic/Buddhist. I have come to see Buddhism as less a division from Hindu thought, and more as another one of the many schools that forms a part of the rich tapestry of Indian pluralism and diversity.

 

[crossfire]

This thread was made awhile ago I know, but to say as others said: I think the goals of the three are essentially the same. They're all from the Indian subcontinent and deal in the questions Indian civilization has thought the most important.

I've come to wonder myself if the three should really be considered different at all, in the sense of being distinct religions. I'm not sure they are. Buddhism and Jainism are technically Hindu philosophies that fall under the categorization Nastika (heterodox in the sense of rejecting the Vedas), but are concerned with the same fundamental questions Indian thought has tended to be.

There is not a great gulf of difference in fundamentals. I find myself wondering at this juncture if Buddhists and Jains shouldn't answer to being Hindus ourselves? This would accurately speak to the fundamentals shared among all Dharmic worldviews, and would serve as a unifying point at a time where the future of the Dharma has never been more uncertain.

As a Buddhist, I really wouldn't classify myself as Hindu, because Buddha dharma really is separate from culture. (If beings from other realms could learn and benefit from the Dharma, this would pretty much demonstrate that it isn't tied to Indian culture.) Buddha separated himself from society and renounced the household life in order to seek enlightenment, so there is no reason to tie Buddhadharma back into Indian culture. Your mileage may vary.