Is it possible to be hindu and buddist at the same time?

[Martin]

Secular humanist.

I guess that's quite similar to secular Buddhism?

 

[Martin]

No, of course not. However, they're not so different that their beliefs have to be incompatible with each other.

The main doctrinal incompatabilities I see are anatta (not-self) negating Atman, and sunyata (emptiness) negating Brahman.
Both traditions believe in karma, rebirth and versions of moksha.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Are they identical?

Are any two things? Take any two people, are their beliefs, their experiences, their values ever identical? So then take 100 members of any religious group, and you have, inevitably, 100 different ways of experiencing the teachings of the religion. Is that then 100 different religions? Or are the similarities, which unite, in fact more important than the differences, which divide?

 

[Martin]

Are any two things? Take any two people, are their beliefs, their experiences, their values ever identical? So then take 100 members of any religious group, and you have, inevitably, 100 different ways of experiencing the teachings of the religion. Is that then 100 different religions? Or are the similarities, which unite, in fact more important than the differences, which divide?

History shows that the differences can assume a great deal of importance, particularly where the Abrahamic traditions are concerned.
Given this, I think it is better to acknowledge and respect the differences, rather than trying to paper over the cracks.
In relation to this thread, there clearly are differences between the beliefs/teachings/methods of Buddhist and Hindu schools, so why pretend otherwise? Would it not be more useful to understand what those differences are?

 

[Martin]

That can be said about any religion, if your reduce them down to their lowest common denominators. Judaism and Islam are extremely similar, but try telling either a Jew or Muslim that either there's only an insignificant difference between the two religions, or that they're one and the same.

You can't be both!

Maybe that focus on difference is a feature of the Abrahamic traditions? Though I don't think the Dharmic traditions are immune from it, judging by the heated debates I've seen between members of different sects.

 

[RestlessSoul]

History shows that the differences can assume a great deal of importance, particularly where the Abrahamic traditions are concerned.
Given this, I think it is better to acknowledge and respect the differences, rather than trying to paper over the cracks.

Maybe. As a general rule, I consider it better always to focus on similarities rather than differences between people, their cultures, values and beliefs. Doesn’t history suggest that attaching too much importance to supposed differences, almost inevitably leads to conflict?

 

[Martin]

Maybe. As a general rule, I consider it better always to focus on similarities rather than differences between people, their cultures, values and beliefs. Doesn’t history suggest that attaching too much importance to supposed differences, almost inevitably leads to conflict?

I think conflict usually results from a lack of respect for the other parties position. It's a form of intolerance. You can't get rid of the differences, but you can respect them.

 

[RestlessSoul]

I think conflict usually results from a lack of respect for the other parties position. It's a form of intolerance. You can't get rid of the differences, but you can respect them.

Yes, you can respect differences, and I wouldn't want to eradicate them. They are part of what my dad called "the rich tapestry of life". But intolerance comes first of all from a "them and us" mentality which is inevitable when differences between specific groups become the focus of attention.

 

[Secret Chief]

I guess that's quite similar to secular Buddhism?

Well, one might think so, but reading this...

- What is Secular Humanism? | Free Inquiry

,,, I can't say I really identify too much with it. Much of it reads like atheism in its Sunday best.

Buddhism straddles the line between secular philosophy and religion.

 

[sayak83]

Is it possible to be hindu and buddist at the same time?

One can accept aspects of both and meld it into something that works for that person.
For example one can accept Buddhist meditative practice while believing in Hindu Brahman metaphysics.
Or one can accept Buddhist metaphysics while following Hindu yogic practice.

 

[Martin]

One can accept aspects of both and meld it into something that works for that person.
For example one can accept Buddhist meditative practice while believing in Hindu Brahman metaphysics.
Or one can accept Buddhist metaphysics while following Hindu yogic practice.

That's a useful distinction (practice v. metaphysics), though meditative practices are usually based on certain assumptions, or presumed truths. So for example, Buddhist vipassana meditation is "designed" to reveal the 3 marks (suffering, impermanence and not-self).
Usually meditative practices are done for specific reasons, and these will vary according to the school. Also the meaning attached to various meditative attainments will vary according to the school.

 

[Martin]

Yes, you can respect differences, and I wouldn't want to eradicate them. They are part of what my dad called "the rich tapestry of life". But intolerance comes first of all from a "them and us" mentality which is inevitable when differences between specific groups become the focus of attention.

Yes, and cynical politicians have been known to exploit the differences between people. The difficulty I see here is that humans are inherently tribal, and differences are always going to be a focus of attention. The challenge is then how to manage these differences in a less destructive way.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Question: is the Pali Kanha the same as Krishna?

Could be. I am not aware of Buddhist legends. As an atheist, I consider all of them as false. Buddha taught me his philosophy and not Buddhist legends.

 

[Aupmanyav]

There are no two religions that are synonymous, not if anyone actually understands or cares about the respective tenets or their convictions.
You cannot be two different religions at the same time. You are either one or the other, or a hybrid that requires a different classification.

I never said that I am a Buddhist. I am a Hindu but I have learned a lot from Buddha - He is one of my gurus. The basic difference is about 'what exists'. Buddha did not define it, kept silent. Hindus and Advaitists in particular, accept the existence of a universal substrate, Brahman. But other than that, I have no problem with Buddhist philosophy.

Again with your secular atheist agenda, which invariably leads to misrepresentation.

These are my views. If people have any problem with them, it does not concern me. I have no problem with secularism, except that in India it does not mean absence of religion - it means equality of religions - 'Sarva dharma sama bhava' (Treat all religions in the same way). That is a cardinal principle of Indian Constitution.

Does it even matter? Both religions are impermanent.

Well, we have been around for upward of 5,000 years. It is said that in a storm a tree which does not bend is broken. One that bends, changes, survives.

 

[Aupmanyav]

No. Buddhism does not accept the Vedas, nor does it accept Atman, nor does it accept Ishvara.

That is no problem. I too do not consider the Vedas or Gita to be any God's word. I too do not accept existence of Atma or Ishwara. Understand 'Advaita', non-duality. If some one does not believe in duality of God and humans or among beings; then whence atma, whence Ishwara?

That can be said about any religion, if your reduce them down to their lowest common denominators. Judaism and Islam are extremely similar, .. You can't be both!

So too are Christianity and Bahaiism. Same stem. I am not both Hindu and Buddhist. I am an orthodox Hindu. But I am a minimalist, I removed all floss from my belief. God, soul, heaven, hell, rebirth or resurrection, judgement or deliverance (moksha, nirvana); All things that have no evidence.

 

[Ashoka]

I don't think it's possible to practice them at the same time, BUT. I do think if you have an affinity for a deity in Buddhism, such as Tara or Kuan Yin, you can offer them worship and homage.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Buddhist vipassana meditation is "designed" to reveal the 3 marks (suffering, impermanence and not-self).
Usually meditative practices are done for specific reasons, and these will vary according to the school. Also the meaning attached to various meditative attainments will vary according to the school.

All meditation (Dhyana) have goals, and 'Vipassana' is to see clearly ('Vi' for emphasis and 'passana' is from Sanskrit root 'Pashya' to see). Buddhism concentrated on suffering which was not a major point with Hindus. They took it as 'Karma-phala' (result of actions in this and previous lives). Hindus have no problem with impermanence (maya) and questions about 'self'. So, these two are not any difference, Vipassana is no special kind of meditation, that is a blurb.

Etymology online: literally "to take entirely," from per "thoroughly" (see per) + capere "to grasp, take," from PIE root *kap- "to grasp."
perceive | Search Online Etymology Dictionary, Indo-European Lexicon: PIE Etymon and IE Reflexes

 

[DNB]

I still say its too vast to count for every case. You have countless Hindu sects believing different things. I am not as knowledgeable on Buddhism, but I'm going to guess there's a lot of variance between sects, as well. To say it never could connect anywhere.... well, that would be an awful lot of knowledge to pick up in one lifetime.

Dharmic religions aren't quite the same as Abrahamic religions. It isn't really this or that, and we don't tend to fight about our differences for the most part.

Sorry, are we speaking about similarities? If so, then yes, of course, all Christian Protestantism, for example, can be summed up in a few fundamental tenets, and the majority of Christians on any given day will not know the difference. I imagine that the same can be said about any other religion.
But, to those who are well versed in their respective dogmas, liturgies and doctrines, will never call a Methodist an Amish, or a Quaker a Lutheran, or a Baptist a Congregationalist, an Episcopalian a Presbyterian, etc... And, these are all part of the same religion. Therefore, what disparities must there exist between different religions? In other words, Kung-Fu is not Karate, Tai-Kwan-Do is not Judo, Thai Boxing is not American Boxing, etc...despite the almost identical intent and training.

I'm being very technical here, JustGeorge. I know that for all intents and purposes many religions, sects, and denominations are fundamentally the same, and again, most adherents would barely be able to articulate in any significant manner, what the actual differences are between their religion and the alleged sister religion.

Either way, those who have studies their religions in an in-depth manner, would never confuse one for another.

 

[DNB]

Are any two things? Take any two people, are their beliefs, their experiences, their values ever identical? So then take 100 members of any religious group, and you have, inevitably, 100 different ways of experiencing the teachings of the religion. Is that then 100 different religions? Or are the similarities, which unite, in fact more important than the differences, which divide?

It would depend on how serious one takes their religion. I'm a Christian, does that make by default either Presbyterian, Methodist, Baptist, Quaker, Lutheran, Episcopalian, Catholic, etc...? That is, all of them?
Not at all, I'm very serious and specific about my beliefs, and will never adhere to certain particular doctrines from any of the groups that I just mentioned. But, as a Christian I cannot abide as a Jew or Muslim, nor a Buddhist or Hindu. One precept, namely love, is not enough to unite all belief systems in the world.

A Buddhist who thinks that he's a Hindu, is nothing more than an extremely confused and misinformed congregant.

 

[DNB]

Maybe that focus on difference is a feature of the Abrahamic traditions? Though I don't think the Dharmic traditions are immune from it, judging by the heated debates I've seen between members of different sects.

Well, that would pretty much underscore my point.
Historically speaking, typically a faction was created by dissention within the parent sect - there was a disagreement that could not be resolved. In other words, never were there any disparate religions formed, that turned out to be identical to another pre-existing religion. All religions and all sects are never the same, only the complacent or uneducated will not make a distinction.