Is Buddhism a part of Hinduism?

[Marcion]

The Buddha rejected Hinduism and discovered a path later labeled as Buddhism which of course is distinct as a religion. The middle way.

Did Buddha really reject Hinduism or was it more Brahmanism which he rejected?
Did they actually think in terms of Hindu or Buddhist in those days, or were there simply many different ways of striving to follow dharma and Buddhism was just a drastically different one from the others?

Jainism was conceived by Mahavira around the same time as Buddhism was and also departed from many traditional Brahmanistic concepts and practices.
Nevertheless both Buddhism and Jainism are closely tied to other Hindu paths, they e.g. both have Tantric traditions that owe a lot to Hindu Tantra and all three movements share many Tantric gods and godesses eventhough their names were mostly changed after adoption.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Did Buddha really reject Hinduism or was it more Brahmanism which he rejected?
Did they actually think in terms of Hindu or Buddhist in those days, or were there simply many different ways of striving to follow dharma and Buddhism was just a drastically different one from the others?

Jainism was conceived by Mahavira around the same time as Buddhism was and also departed from many traditional Brahmanistic concepts and practices.
Nevertheless both Buddhism and Jainism are closely tied to other Hindu paths, they e.g. both have Tantric traditions that owe a lot to Hindu Tantra and all three movements share many Tantric gods and godesses eventhough their names were mostly changed after adoption.

If Siddhartha did not reject Hinduism , it would be rather difficult to speculate as to why he left the palace and did not adhere to other practices such as his time spent as an ascethic.

Personally, I think monastics incorporated Hinduism with Buddhism into a hybrid practice as many people seem to do with Buddhism with their own respective religions.

Buddhism can be versatile I suppose but I don't think the full 'benefits' can be realized in like that many religions can be considered a distraction.

 

[Aupmanyav]

If Siddhartha did not reject Hinduism , it would be rather difficult to speculate as to why he left the palace and did not adhere to other practices such as his time spent as an ascetic.
Buddhism can be versatile I suppose but I don't think the full 'benefits' can be realized in like that many religions can be considered a distraction.

That is nothing unusual. Many Hindus and Jains do it even today; and in Jainism, their renunciation of worldly life or life itself is hugely celebrated.* See the first two videos. There are hundreds on Youtube.
Diksha: Becoming a monk.
Santhara: The Jain practice of abandoning food for death, so that there is no increase in 'karmas'.

Buddhism in the beginning was a sect of Hinduism. I have been benefited by both, Hinduism and Buddhism in equal measure.

 

[Samana Johann]

Brahman Ronik, Brahmans, householders,

Actually the Buddha did not reject (as useful) any label of any religion, but told that what ever skillful parts can be found, can be found within his footprints, his Dhamma:

Explained here by Ven. Sariputta to his fellows:

“Friends, just as the footprints of all legged animals are encompassed by the footprint of the elephant, and the elephant's footprint is reckoned the foremost among them in terms of size; in the same way, all skillful qualities are gathered under the four noble truths. Under which four? Under the noble truth of stress, under the noble truth of the origination of stress, under the noble truth of the cessation of stress, and under the noble truth of the path of practice leading to the cessation of stress."

In same way, what ever skillful quality is regarded, taught and put into practice within such called "Hinduism", labeled by it, can be regarded as approved as long term beneficial, as part of his teachings, by the Buddha and his good following disciples.

Another teachings counts the footprint of an Elephant as place where every good teaching (prints of other animals) would fit in. So it's possible, for Hindus, to part-take in this regard on what the Buddha approved and as they, those who believe in certain understandings of kamma, are upholding cause and effect, they always gain preference in being accepted as homeless followers before the followers of other sects.

 

[ajay0]

There are obvious similarities between Buddhism and Hinduism.

But where both differ greatly is that Buddhism has modern democratic principles of equality, fraternity engrained in its teachings and practice, while Hinduism does not due to its caste system and caste discrimination.

B.R.Ambedkar, who is the architect of the Indian constitution and a convert from Hinduism to Buddhism, remarked thus...

My social philosophy may be said to be enshrined in three words: liberty, equality and fraternity. Let no one, however, say that I have borrowed by philosophy from the French Revolution. I have not. My philosophy has roots in religion and not in political science. I have derived them from the teachings of my Master, the Buddha.
~ B. R. Ambedkar

The original Hinduism taught by the Rishis also revolves around equality and fraternity. Majority of the rishis were of low origin. But with time, smritis or man-made customs came up contradicting the srutis. This may have been essential in certain times, but ought to have been changed with the passage of time when it was rendered obsolete. But those in privileged positions wanted the system to be so, and prevented any changes inspite of the teachings of Buddha to the contrary, rendering Hindu society weak and denegerate. This is one of the main reasons why India was ruled by the muslims for the last one millenium.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Sankaracharya was just 8 year old when he undertook renunciation, Ramana was 16, Vivekananda was 23, and so on.

Indeed, all Indian religions, Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism and Sikhism; give first importance to 'dharma' (fulfilling of ones duties and engaging in righteous conduct).

 

[Marcion]

My view now is that Buddhism is not part of Hinduism but is a separate religion or philosophy that must not be associated with Hinduism. The dhamma it professess is not the Hindu dharma of adherence to truth and justice, but is a dhamma that addresses a different goal.

I see Buddhism as just another Hindu reform movement and have placed it in the Hindu reform movement list.
Compare so-called 'Hindu reform movements'

However, I agree that the Buddhist dhamma is not the same as Hindu dharma. Lord Anandamurti also rejected Hindu dharma and focusses on Manava (human) dharma rather than any religous dharma (which he does not consider as the true meaning of dharma).
Following Manava dharma does not depend on which religious or non-religious context you do your spiritual practices in.

 

[atanu]

I am having trouble understanding Buddhist-Hindu relations.

1. Siddartha Gautama rejected conventional Hindu practices

2. When he became Buddha Siddartha said he would not be reborn again, yet Hindus believe in Kalki Avatar and other Avatars

3. Many say Buddhism is a type of atheism but the Shinto, Daoist and Chinese religions which believe in Buddha also have Gods and Goddesses

4. India used to be a Buddhist Empire and Thailand, Cambodia, Burma and Bhutan used to be Hindu but this all reversed and now there are hardly any Buddhists in India and even fewer Hindus in South East Asia. There are no Hindus in China, Japan or Korea but they believe in Buddha

5. What do Sikhs think about Buddha?

Buddha did not depend on Vedas. But Hindus consider the Vedas the inviolable. Once one keeps that aside and enquires about the ultimate teaching regarding the freedom in these two religions, one finds the followings:

Svetastatara Upanishad Mantra 14
na tatra sūryo bhāti na candratārakaṃ nemā vidyuto bhānti kuto 'yam agniḥ /
tam eva bhāntam anubhāti sarvaṃ tasya bhāsā sarvam idaṃ vibhāti // 6.14 //

The sun does not shine there, nor the moon and the stars, nor these lightnings-much less this fire. He shining, everything shines after Him. By his light all this is lighted.​

Compare this with

Where water, earth, fire, & wind have no footing: There the stars do not shine, the sun is not visible, the moon does not appear, darkness is not found. And when a sage, a brahman through sagacity, has known [this] for himself, then from form & formless, from bliss & pain, he is freed.

— Ud 1.10​

...

On knowing the truth that is prior to space-time one is freed of bondage.

 

[Marcion]

Your evidence is an appropriate issue but only goes to show that Buddhism is not even a Hindu reform movement: Hinduism is religious while Buddhism is non-religious as a philosophy.

At the time that Buddhism started, there was no concept like religion, it did not exist.
What you can say about Buddhism is that it departs from more Vedic ways of thinking (such as also found in European Pagan religions) and chooses a much more Tantric approach concentrating on an clear and effective spiritual cult (system of practices) rather than mythical beliefs and superstitious ritualism.
So if you want to exclude the more Tantric paths from Hinduism because they reject the more Vedic way of thinking, then that in itself is a personal choice. But I don't think that you can do that, Hinduism is in my eyes any path that originated in greater India and is philosophically rooted there. I don't see it as a religion.

 

[Sagarworld]

Buddhism and Hinduism are two different religions.

when the wicked people use the Vedic religion to fulfil their bad wishes had started taking the wrong meaning of Vedas and this way started telling people that sacrifice of human beings, animals, consuming alcohol and lustful desires are a part of Vedic religion. This way when people were troubled with the deterioration of Vedic religion and wrong meaning of it, to re-establish Vedic religion, Lord Vishnu reincarnated on this earth. This incarnation of Lord Vishnu was Gautam Buddha who is also known in the names of Bhagwan Buddha, Tathagata, Bodisatva, Siddhartha and Shakyamuni.

Gautam Buddha Learnt Gautam learnt from Brahmins, all the four Vedas and six Shastras. Then he started strong penance. In the end, he attained Truth. he promoted four “Arya Satyas” and also preached “Arya Ashtanmarg” following which was inevitable for all his followers.
it took a form of Boddh religion.
Buddhism is a more simplistic religion that Hinduism, which can be intimidating and confusing to many.

 

[Marcion]

I only go by what the Indian State run by the Hindu Nationalist Party the Bharatiya Janata Party says:.

I will never put my trust in politicians.

 

[Srivijaya]

Buddhism is non-religious as a philosophy.

Whilst Buddha never worshiped anything, he also never taught philosophy.

 

[Martin]

Buddhism isn't a school of Hinduism.
There are some similarities, but also some important differences, a couple of the obvious ones being:
1. Anatta is incompatible with Atman.
2. Shunyata is incompatible with Brahman.

Note that both "Buddhism" and "Hinduism" are umbrella terms for collections of diverse schools, so it's good not to over-generalise.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Delayed reply. No real difference.
1. If the perceived world is illusiory as in 'maya', how is it different from 'Anatta'?
2. Buddhist 'shunyata' is not nihilism. Only that Buddha refused to dwell upon it.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Even more delayed reply:

As I understand it, the greatest difference between the two is that Hinduism emphasizes Self; Buddhism emphasizes Non-Self.

 

[Howard Is]

Even more delayed reply:

As I understand it, the greatest difference between the two is that Hinduism emphasizes Self; Buddhism emphasizes No-Self.

It is actually ‘ not self’. As in ‘the aggregates are not self’.

 

[SalixIncendium]

It is actually ‘ not self’. As in ‘the aggregates are not self’.

It was a typo. I fixed it. Thanks for pointing that out.

 

[Martin]

Even more delayed reply:

As I understand it, the greatest difference between the two is that Hinduism emphasizes Self; Buddhism emphasizes Non-Self.

Yes, you could say that one focuses on a presence, the other on an absence.

 

[Martin]

It is actually ‘ not self’. As in ‘the aggregates are not self’.

Sure, but Nibbana is not self too. So we have "sabbe dhamma anatta", which means there is no self in the created or the uncreated. Its not like Advaita, which posits something "beneath" the aggregates.

 

[Martin]

Delayed reply. No real difference.
1. If the perceived world is illusiory as in 'maya', how is it different from 'Anatta'?
2. Buddhist 'shunyata' is not nihilism. Only that Buddha refused to dwell upon it.

Maya assumes Brahman as it's cause or "substrate", whereas anatta doesn't have such an assumption. With Buddhism, neti-neti is taken to its logical conclusion, with no exceptions. As you know, Advaita developed quite late, possibly under influence from Buddhism.
Meanwhile shunyata negates the existence of anything like Brahman.