Surya Deva
Well-Known Member
I politely disagree, I think that is what it really is.
-
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!
Hinduism and Buddhism
- Thread starter TheWhiteWizard
- Start date
I politely disagree, I think that is what it really is.
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
Well, Suraj, who told you that memory and personal identity is are enduring phenomena? It is only the karma-kandi brahmins of Gaya who said that Buddha is a deceiver, because what he taught hurt their livelihood. Buddha was a great philosopher of hinduism, just like Mahavira, Sankara, Madhva, Ramanuja, Nimbarka, Vallabha, Chaitanya, Kabir, and Nanak. Buddha just wanted some leave from the discussions of the ultimate truth to look at more mundane things, how to conduct oneself in life for peace and happiness. That is why he asked, 'If you are hit by an arrow, would you ask what material the arrow is made up of, what is the shape of the arrow-head? No, you would call for a physician to treat you.'
Last edited:
webforumart
New Member
Hinduism and Buddhism are different religion but both have many similarities, you should study more to know in details.
want to be hindu
Member
I like what the Dali Lama has to say about this. Buddhism and Hinduism are brother and sister religions.
Many Hindu's feel that Buddhism is just one more sect of Hinduism. That you can find all the Lord Buddha's views in the Hindu scriptures. When I was in Darjeeling India at a temple that was used by both Buddhists and Hindus I was told by a number of Buddhist monks that Hinduism and Buddhism just use different language for the same truth.
I know this upsets many American Buddhists so out of respect for them I go with the Dali Lamas view of our two faiths.
Worshipper
Active Member
This is a question I've been wondering a lot about lately. I've been reading about both Hinduism and Buddhism lately, and reading the Vedas and the Bhagavad-Gita as well as Buddhist writings.
It's clear that the two religions are related, but how close are they compared to other related religions in the world?
I'm a Christian, and I consider all Christians to have pretty much the same religion as me, with some differences here and there some big and some small, but none big enough to make us adherents of separate faiths. Some Christians would consider me not a Christian, but I don't think that really matters.
My faith is similar to that of the Jews. I think of them as worshipping basically the same god I do (except they don't worship Jesus as god), and I use much of their scripture as part of my own Christian worship (though not all Christians do). Indeed, much of their theology is important in defining my own Christian religion. But it is still a distinguishably different religion.
Muslims are often considered as a related faith to Judaism and Christianity, and of course they recognize many of the prophets of both faiths as prophets. But I think most Christians I've known think of Muslims as worshipping a fundamentally different god from us and the Jews, and see Islam as only sort of related to Christianity.
And of course, within Christianity there are some definitely distinct traditions, such as the difference between what you might call the apostolic churches and the protestant churches. They share basic beliefs about things like general cosmology, the purpose of life and even a rough idea of how to achieve life's purpose, but they have some significant cosmological differences and some big differences in belief about the details of how to achieve life's purpose. They all agree that Jesus is necessary for achieving life's purpose, but they tend to disagree about whether Jesus works through the rituals of a priestly class on the one hand or through grace through individual private faith on the other.
Are Hinduism and Buddhism seen by Hindus and/or Buddhists as being as closely related as Christianity and Judaism? Are they seen as a bit more distant, like Judeo-Christianity and Islam? Or are they even more similar, like Protestantism and Apostolicism (i.e., Catholicism, Orthodoxy, etc.)?
It's hard for me as a Westerner to understand comparisons like brother and sister religions or two sides of a single coin, because depending on one's perspective about Western religions, one could make similar statements about each of the pairs I've talked about, even though the adherents of the various Western religions have some very different views about the degrees of similarity between the two partners in each pair.
It's clear that the two religions are related, but how close are they compared to other related religions in the world?
I'm a Christian, and I consider all Christians to have pretty much the same religion as me, with some differences here and there some big and some small, but none big enough to make us adherents of separate faiths. Some Christians would consider me not a Christian, but I don't think that really matters.
My faith is similar to that of the Jews. I think of them as worshipping basically the same god I do (except they don't worship Jesus as god), and I use much of their scripture as part of my own Christian worship (though not all Christians do). Indeed, much of their theology is important in defining my own Christian religion. But it is still a distinguishably different religion.
Muslims are often considered as a related faith to Judaism and Christianity, and of course they recognize many of the prophets of both faiths as prophets. But I think most Christians I've known think of Muslims as worshipping a fundamentally different god from us and the Jews, and see Islam as only sort of related to Christianity.
And of course, within Christianity there are some definitely distinct traditions, such as the difference between what you might call the apostolic churches and the protestant churches. They share basic beliefs about things like general cosmology, the purpose of life and even a rough idea of how to achieve life's purpose, but they have some significant cosmological differences and some big differences in belief about the details of how to achieve life's purpose. They all agree that Jesus is necessary for achieving life's purpose, but they tend to disagree about whether Jesus works through the rituals of a priestly class on the one hand or through grace through individual private faith on the other.
Are Hinduism and Buddhism seen by Hindus and/or Buddhists as being as closely related as Christianity and Judaism? Are they seen as a bit more distant, like Judeo-Christianity and Islam? Or are they even more similar, like Protestantism and Apostolicism (i.e., Catholicism, Orthodoxy, etc.)?
It's hard for me as a Westerner to understand comparisons like brother and sister religions or two sides of a single coin, because depending on one's perspective about Western religions, one could make similar statements about each of the pairs I've talked about, even though the adherents of the various Western religions have some very different views about the degrees of similarity between the two partners in each pair.
want to be hindu
Member
Before the Islamic invasion of India there were very little in fighting between the faiths.
Believe it or not some Hindus turned Buddha into a incarnation of Vishnu just like Krishna and Rama. Some people from Nepal I have found it hard at times to tell who is Hindu and who is Buddhist.They go to each others temples to pray. I believe in advaita Vedanta In some ways I share more beliefs with Buddhists then I do with some sects of Hinduism like the Vishnava sects. So I would say that Hindus are to Buddhist what Catholics are to http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...l&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=lutherans&spell=1Lutherans We are not the same but we have a lot of areas of over lap. Many American Buddhists do not see the groups as close as I do.In fact some might see it more like Islam and Christianity.
It is my understanding that Dharmic religions are by their own nature not really subject to this kind of comparison. I usually think of the Sanatana Dharma (that's Hinduism for the less fond of affectations among you) not as a religion proper, but as a whole family of faiths and traditions bound together by cultural links and, especially, by a common language. It is my understanding that there is no such a thing as a true basic Hinduist doctrine, but rather lineages of Gurus and disciples attempting to develop the best religious life they can, based on their own reflections and interpretations.
Although Buddhism has a (perhaps deserved, although I have some doubts myself) reputation for maleability, I think it has nothing on Hinduism in this regard.
On the other hand, Buddhism has redefined itself often enough though history, by means of the efforts of such notables as Boddhidharma and Shinram Shonin. Also, it is stressed that practicioners are supposed to have their own interpretations and develop their own understanding of the doctrine. So it this regard it is a very interesting contrast to Hinduism indeed, as much for its similarities as for its contrasts. For instance, if there is one thing that does _not_ unite Buddhist schools at all, it is language. Whatever common ground we have comes from actual doctrine and dialog, not from any common inherited language and terminology. On the contrary, Japanese Buddhism, Theravada, Tibetan Schools, Zen and Pure Land couldn't have much less common terms if they tried.
The bottom line, I suppose, is that a dedicated practicioner with a true heart is supposed to not think much of the differences among faiths and practices. All beings are, after all, pretty much the same deep enough at heart.
You could probably make a case (as I did in the past) that, say, Advaita Vedanta with a particularly open-minded Guru is fairly undistinguishable from Buddhism (say, of some Tibetan tradition), but that is pretty much besides the point. Religious practice is not a technical matter that can be mastered by external forms or even doctrinal scriptures. It does indeed reside in the hearts, actions and understandings of people.
That said, I must agree that there are significant doctrinal challenges in attempting to be a syncretic Hinduist-Buddhist. Buddhism directly denies Atman and the transmigration of souls (with some very interesting and qualified exceptions in Vajrayana traditions).
Hinduists often understand Buddhism to be an "export variety" of Hinduism, but other than some references to Brahma and other Sanatana Dharma deities (in arguably very different incarnations that what the Sanatana Dharma describes them as being, and which often appear to deny rather than support allegiances of common ground between the two faiths) there is very little indeed to support that claim. Even those deities are pretty much gone and forgotten these days, other than in Tibetan schools.
That, I guess, is the advantage of Dharmic religions over Abrahamic ones. One has lots more room to fine-tune its perspective, at the cost of a lot more "work" and far greater responsibility over one's own religious life.
Although Buddhism has a (perhaps deserved, although I have some doubts myself) reputation for maleability, I think it has nothing on Hinduism in this regard.
On the other hand, Buddhism has redefined itself often enough though history, by means of the efforts of such notables as Boddhidharma and Shinram Shonin. Also, it is stressed that practicioners are supposed to have their own interpretations and develop their own understanding of the doctrine. So it this regard it is a very interesting contrast to Hinduism indeed, as much for its similarities as for its contrasts. For instance, if there is one thing that does _not_ unite Buddhist schools at all, it is language. Whatever common ground we have comes from actual doctrine and dialog, not from any common inherited language and terminology. On the contrary, Japanese Buddhism, Theravada, Tibetan Schools, Zen and Pure Land couldn't have much less common terms if they tried.
The bottom line, I suppose, is that a dedicated practicioner with a true heart is supposed to not think much of the differences among faiths and practices. All beings are, after all, pretty much the same deep enough at heart.
You could probably make a case (as I did in the past) that, say, Advaita Vedanta with a particularly open-minded Guru is fairly undistinguishable from Buddhism (say, of some Tibetan tradition), but that is pretty much besides the point. Religious practice is not a technical matter that can be mastered by external forms or even doctrinal scriptures. It does indeed reside in the hearts, actions and understandings of people.
That said, I must agree that there are significant doctrinal challenges in attempting to be a syncretic Hinduist-Buddhist. Buddhism directly denies Atman and the transmigration of souls (with some very interesting and qualified exceptions in Vajrayana traditions).
Hinduists often understand Buddhism to be an "export variety" of Hinduism, but other than some references to Brahma and other Sanatana Dharma deities (in arguably very different incarnations that what the Sanatana Dharma describes them as being, and which often appear to deny rather than support allegiances of common ground between the two faiths) there is very little indeed to support that claim. Even those deities are pretty much gone and forgotten these days, other than in Tibetan schools.
That, I guess, is the advantage of Dharmic religions over Abrahamic ones. One has lots more room to fine-tune its perspective, at the cost of a lot more "work" and far greater responsibility over one's own religious life.
zenzero
Its only a Label
Friend LD,
Nice post.
The major difference between the TWO i.e. Dharmic and Abhrahamic religion to my understanding is the WAY/PATh which is all about merging.
Where Dharmic religion finally depends on MEDITATION Abrahamic religion depends on prayers which is BHAKTI YOGA of Dharmic religions.
Without meditation it is impossible to drop the MIND which is the prerequisite for merging.
I am informed by catholic priests that they too undergo meditation programs if that be true of all Abhrahamic religions then would state that it is not widespread for any effect.
Love & rgds
Nice post.
The major difference between the TWO i.e. Dharmic and Abhrahamic religion to my understanding is the WAY/PATh which is all about merging.
Where Dharmic religion finally depends on MEDITATION Abrahamic religion depends on prayers which is BHAKTI YOGA of Dharmic religions.
Without meditation it is impossible to drop the MIND which is the prerequisite for merging.
I am informed by catholic priests that they too undergo meditation programs if that be true of all Abhrahamic religions then would state that it is not widespread for any effect.
Love & rgds
lilithu
The Devil's Advocate
Namaste Luis,
Overall I enjoyed your post but take (small) issue with your last paragraph:
I know plenty of Buddhists and Hindus who believe as they were taught without much further thought, and I know plenty of Christians, Jews, and Muslims who have thought deeply about their faith and taken responsibility over their own religious life.
Overall I enjoyed your post but take (small) issue with your last paragraph:
I do agree that the theology of the Dharmic faiths encourages more self-cultivation than the theology of the Abrahamic faiths. But in practice, religion is much less influenced by theology than it is social norms.
I know plenty of Buddhists and Hindus who believe as they were taught without much further thought, and I know plenty of Christians, Jews, and Muslims who have thought deeply about their faith and taken responsibility over their own religious life.
lilithu
The Devil's Advocate
There is a long history of the contemplative tradition within Catholicism. I don't think they would describe it as dropping the MIND so much as the EGO.
(One prayer that I was taught by my minister is:
"More of Thee, Lord, and less of me."
repeat...)
Jnana, bhakti, and marga yogas all exist within the Abrahamic faiths. They're just not spelled out as such. I think these paths are universal because they reflect human nature.
Greetings, lilithu. BTW, that's a curious alias.
Well, that's certainly true. I don't really think that in general terms Abrahamic religions encourage such reflections and attitude as well as Dharmic ones theorically do, but that may well be just because I live in a culture where Dharmic religions have to earn their attention. And of course, those are general tendencies. There is certainly nothing to stop an Christian, Judaism practicioner or Muslim from being very a very wise religious person.
Well, that's certainly true. I don't really think that in general terms Abrahamic religions encourage such reflections and attitude as well as Dharmic ones theorically do, but that may well be just because I live in a culture where Dharmic religions have to earn their attention. And of course, those are general tendencies. There is certainly nothing to stop an Christian, Judaism practicioner or Muslim from being very a very wise religious person.
lilithu
The Devil's Advocate
It means nothing more than a contraction of Lilith and Hu - two names I chose because they have meaning to me. I thought the double 'h' was redundant, so dropped it. After the fact, I was pleased to learn that it's very similar to lilitu, the plural form for a Babylonian wind demon/succubus that the Hebrew myth of Lilith is supposedly modeled (and named) after. So it went full circle.
We're in agreement. The theology of the Dharmic faiths inherently encourages self-cultivation much more so than the Abrahamic faiths, but there is a long history of contemplative reflection, scholarship, and mysticism within the each of the Abrahamic traditions.
I think this discussion is relevant to another thread - the one asking why Christianity and Islam are so successful. Thank you. :namaste
want to be hindu
Member
Frubals to you ! well done. :clap But we are in Maya so I must argue one point. (We would not have any fun if we all had the same view of the world)
Buddhism denies the Atman this is true. In a way Advaita Vedanta almost believes the samething. There is no difference between the Atman and Brahman. It is a illusion of Maya to believe there are differences. If there is no individuality is not reincarnation also a illusion? This is why Adi Sankara is called a crypto-Buddhist by some Buddhists and Hindus .
Buddhism denies the Atman this is true. In a way Advaita Vedanta almost believes the samething. There is no difference between the Atman and Brahman. It is a illusion of Maya to believe there are differences. If there is no individuality is not reincarnation also a illusion? This is why Adi Sankara is called a crypto-Buddhist by some Buddhists and Hindus .
lilithu
The Devil's Advocate
Theravada Buddhism denies Atman. Mahayana (or at least some forms of it) says that Buddhism's Anatman IS Hinduism's Atman.
(Contrarian that I am, when someone says they are the same, I point to the differences and when someone says they are different, I point to the similarities.)
I think it depends on what what one means by the terms. Sometimes we use the same words but mean different things, and other times we use different words but mean the same thing (or something very similar).
Agreed.
Last edited:
Thanks for the warmth
Well, yes. Although I see an important difference between no individuality and individuality as an illusion.
Still, reincarnation is not a belief that I have; much in the contrary, really. I even make a point of clarifying Brazilian Spiritists on this matter when I have the opportunity.
I would like some context; I fear I do not know who Adi Sankara is.
I wish more people did that. All too often true understanding is unavailable because people don't make the effort to go beyond words.
Dialetics is a precious skill indeed
lilithu
The Devil's Advocate
Could you elaborate?
My pleasure.
The way I see it (and to the best of my knowledge it is very orthodox and consensual Buddhist doctrine too, including Vajrayana schools that are often understood as being reincarnationist), individuality is indeed an illusion of sorts. It is a set of mental aggregates (and a fairly unstable one at that). "Who we are" changes rather easily, depending much on physical environment, corporal health, nutrition, sleep and even company and subject matter.
Still, for all its unstability, it is there. We think of ourselves as distinct people, not as pure extensions of others or of something else. We have urges and needs and joys that are often very personal indeed. That's a plain fact that I don't think it's wise to try to deny.
At the same time, all the really important things in life do indeed "bleed over" from each person to others. Subjective, wonderful things like personal examples, higher feelings, and the like; somewhat more technical things such as language and culture; and even material resources themselves. In my personal understanding, the essence of religion and the meaning of life resides in learning to appreciate those various flows and caring for them so that they are as joyous and constructive as possible.
As I like to describe it to my atheist colleagues, there is life after death. It is a plain fact. It just so happens that it is not the same life that ended with death.
I know that many people believe in some sort of reincarnation or ressurrection after death. I'm not one of those people, and I tend to find religious texts describing such things either alegorical or mistaken. I much prefer to think of life as an opportunity to take a meaningful torch from those that existed before us and those who exist at the same time as we do and care for that torch in the best way possible before passing it over to yet another generation.
The way I see it (and to the best of my knowledge it is very orthodox and consensual Buddhist doctrine too, including Vajrayana schools that are often understood as being reincarnationist), individuality is indeed an illusion of sorts. It is a set of mental aggregates (and a fairly unstable one at that). "Who we are" changes rather easily, depending much on physical environment, corporal health, nutrition, sleep and even company and subject matter.
Still, for all its unstability, it is there. We think of ourselves as distinct people, not as pure extensions of others or of something else. We have urges and needs and joys that are often very personal indeed. That's a plain fact that I don't think it's wise to try to deny.
At the same time, all the really important things in life do indeed "bleed over" from each person to others. Subjective, wonderful things like personal examples, higher feelings, and the like; somewhat more technical things such as language and culture; and even material resources themselves. In my personal understanding, the essence of religion and the meaning of life resides in learning to appreciate those various flows and caring for them so that they are as joyous and constructive as possible.
As I like to describe it to my atheist colleagues, there is life after death. It is a plain fact. It just so happens that it is not the same life that ended with death.
I know that many people believe in some sort of reincarnation or ressurrection after death. I'm not one of those people, and I tend to find religious texts describing such things either alegorical or mistaken. I much prefer to think of life as an opportunity to take a meaningful torch from those that existed before us and those who exist at the same time as we do and care for that torch in the best way possible before passing it over to yet another generation.
Surya Deva
Well-Known Member
Adivatia Vedanta does not deny Atman. It denies illusory self. Atman is real self and ego is illusory self. The Mahanirvana Sutra in Buddhism is identical with Hindu Atman.
lilithu
The Devil's Advocate
Namaste, Luis. I agree with pretty much everything you said. There is no reincarnation. There is rebirth. And yes, I agree that that's obvious.
What confuses me about Vajrayana however, is the stories that I've heard about identifying reborn Lamas by whether or not they can recognize an object used by the previous Lama. That, to me, suggests a belief in reincarnation. Are the stories untrue? Or is it that bits of the aggregates that we think of as ourselves are maintained after death?
There are moments when I've been able to see how a trait that I "possess" was passed to me from my mother (whether genetically or behaviorally) who got it from her parent. Or a teacher, or some other person who has touched my life. Interdependency. At these moments, I can see that what I think of as my "self" is indeed a collection of aggregates passed from one "node" (for lack of a better word) to another. (And yet, as you said, existing as an identifiable entity at the time.) I can see how a trait that I "possess" could be passed on to others with whom I come into contact, and thus continue indefinitely. But I do not as yet understand how a new life recognizes the bowl or cloak that a previous life used to use.
What confuses me about Vajrayana however, is the stories that I've heard about identifying reborn Lamas by whether or not they can recognize an object used by the previous Lama. That, to me, suggests a belief in reincarnation. Are the stories untrue? Or is it that bits of the aggregates that we think of as ourselves are maintained after death?
There are moments when I've been able to see how a trait that I "possess" was passed to me from my mother (whether genetically or behaviorally) who got it from her parent. Or a teacher, or some other person who has touched my life. Interdependency. At these moments, I can see that what I think of as my "self" is indeed a collection of aggregates passed from one "node" (for lack of a better word) to another. (And yet, as you said, existing as an identifiable entity at the time.) I can see how a trait that I "possess" could be passed on to others with whom I come into contact, and thus continue indefinitely. But I do not as yet understand how a new life recognizes the bowl or cloak that a previous life used to use.
Last edited: