Differences between Hinduism and Buddhism

[Emanyalpsid]

I see that on this forum a lot of people use input from different religions interchangeably. This is understandable as a lot of concepts used in Hinduism are also used in Buddhism.  For example, non-duality is a part of Hinduism as well as Buddhism, however how this non-duality is seen from both religions is quite different. Non-duality is used in a lot of religions or streams as one can see on wikipedia, most of these are based on Hinduism or Buddhism.

There are some fundamental differences between Hinduism and Buddhism and if someone doesn´t know these, he will probably get confused if he uses input from different religions to achieve´enlightenment.´ Enlightenment in Buddhism is different from enlightenment in Hinduism and if one doen´t know the differences they will be misguided.  Therefore I will name some  important similarities and differences. I am familiar with Buddhism, however, I am not that familiar with Hinduism, so if someone can complement or correct me, that would be nice.

Similarities

Both religions see the self (Atman) as cause of suffering. Therefore, in both religions, seeing through the self is part of the way to enlightenment. Before you attain insight in the self, this self consists out of your body, your psych (thoughts, etc) and possibly your soul (depending on your worldview).

Differences

In Hinduism they hold that there is a soul or self in every being. Atman is often refered to as a soul of an individual and is within Brahman. Other religions or streams refer to Brahman as infinite consciousness, absolute infinity, or god and is the cause of everything and everything is in it. Brahman is the cause of Atman. So in Hinduism part of the self stays, namely the soul, and there are two absolutes, namely Brahman and Atman.

Buddhists see that everything of Atman (thus including the soul) has a cause and that this cause lies in ignorance, or not knowing. This ignorance or not knowing refers to the cause of the self and the nature of reality as a whole. If you gain insight into the cause of the self, which is the nature of reality, one removes the first cause and the whole of Atman is dissolved. 

For a buddhist, any attachment to something absolute is caused by ignorance or not-knowing and is an illusion and a cause of suffering. They see that the nature of reality is of dependent origin and everything is relative. Everything is dependent upon something and something is dependent upon everything else. A flower is only a flower because there is a universe, time, matter, gravity, a planet, a soil, water, sun, etc. So, buddhists see that without a reality there is no consciousness and without consciousness there is no perceived reality. However, reality, without us perceiving it, exists, so existence is not dependent upon consciousness, only our reality. Space is dependent upon time, matter is dependent upon gravity, life is dependent upon its surrounding, etc. There is no absolute in buddhism.

So, for buddhists, holding on to Brahman or Atman is a piece of the self that remains, as it is the belief, out of ignorance or not-knowing, in the soul and an absolute consciousness. So for a buddhist, people who believe in a soul or absolute consciousness are people who have not attained full enlightenment yet and still suffer.

How do they suffer? Well, if you believe in a soul or absolute consciousness, this comes from your interpretation of what you experience, which comes from your desire for meaning. This desire for meaning is the cause of your suffering, because when you have a desire you are unsatisfied. So, you hold on to this soul or absolute consciousness, they are who you are. So, you are still something, although this something is formless. This desire is also the cause of negative emotions, like agitation or doubt, which can be triggered if you are confronted with information which conficts with your belief, like this text. There is something you don't know.. This will eat at you.

 

 

 

Edited December 9, 2018 by Emanyalpsid

[Shadowraix]

Different teachings that overall lead you to the same end goal.

[Anirban657]

@Emanyalpsid In Hinduism also Krishna(The Supreme Brahman) is the cause of everything.

If you look closely then you will find out that the word "Brahman","Atman" is also a Sanskrit word.

[Preetom]

@Emanyalpsid

Hell...I thought about quoting parts of your post and replying, but it sounds way too contradicting. Some parts are just factually wrong as far as I've researched.

I'll just leave it here...before it turns into another religion war

 

[Emanyalpsid]

It seems to me that it would be extrermely helpful for people in search for enlightenment to be able to make a distinction between the buddhist enlightenment and the hinduist enlightenment as they are fundamentally different. If they don't know this difference, they will just be confused what enlightenment is and how to get there.

It would be helpful for them, if there is a difference, which there is, to explain these differences. It would seem rather oblivious to let this be there but not discuss it.

Unless there is a preference on this forum for one of the two, but then it would be better to make this clear.

If you can explain how Hinduism looks at enlightenment this would be very helpful, like I said my knowledge is very limited.

As what I get out of the video you posted, according to advaita, consciousness is absolute and everything appears in consciousness. This is similar as to what I wrote that Brahman is the cause of everything and everything is within Brahman.

Edited December 10, 2018 by Emanyalpsid

[Leo Gura]

They are not different enlightenments but one and the same.

"Soul" refers to a subtle aspect of the individualized self. That too is eventually transcended into pure nonduality regardless of which path you take. "Soul" is a technical term. It refers to subtle states of consciousness. Nondual is beyond even that.

Transcendence goes:

Gross >> Subtle >> Causal >> Nondual

[Emanyalpsid]

21 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

They are not different enlightenments but one and the same.

"Soul" refers to a subtle aspect of the individualized self. That too is eventually transcended into pure nonduality regardless of which path you take. "Soul" is a technical term. It refers to subtle states of consciousness. Nondual is beyond even that.

Not quite, while in Buddhism there is no absolute. This makes for a major difference in how non-duality, and therefore reality, is perceived.

According to my understanding of Hinduism, this non-duality or One is absolute consciousness and everything is in it.

In Buddhism there is no One, but only conditions of dependent origin.

Edited December 10, 2018 by Emanyalpsid

[Joseph Maynor]

To me, it bugs me that they’re both ‘isms’.   Enlightenment is not about ‘isms’.  These theories are used to bring about Enlightenment, but they have huge cons if clung to in the wrong way.  Knowing how to use the raft to cross the river but then leaving the raft behind after crossing is so important in Enlightenment Work.  So many people wanna drag the raft around with them after the river has been crossed.  

Edited December 10, 2018 by Joseph Maynor

[Leo Gura]

@Emanyalpsid Your understanding of Buddhism is weak.

Buddha-mind is the Absolute. The Ox is Brahman. Atman = Brahman. Form is formlessness. Formlessness is form. Everything = Nothing = God = Self = Consciousness = Love = Infinity = Oneness

[Emanyalpsid]

This is not a technicality but a fundamental difference. You probably dont know where I am coming from but I attained Nirvana, in the buddhist context, and I can therefore, from a buddhist view, see where the differences are.

In Buddhism, the buddha nature where you are refering to means the realization of emptiness, this is the realization that nothing is absolute.

If you refer to the Ten Bulls or the Ten Ox Herding Pictures, these come from Zen, which is a mix between Buddhism and Taoism. The pictures are made somewhere in the 11th century. The ten ox herding pictures are comparable to the ten Bodhisattva Buhmi, or 10 stages of enlightenment in the Mahayana school of buddhism. They have nothing to do with Hinduism or Brahman as they stem from China.

 

 

Edited December 10, 2018 by Emanyalpsid

[Amanaki]

42 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

To me, it bugs me that they’re both ‘isms’.   Enlightenment is not about ‘isms’.  These theories are used to bring about Enlightenment, but they have huge cons if clung to in the wrong way.  Knowing how to use the raft to cross the river but then leaving the raft behind after crossing is so important in Enlightenment Work.  So many people wanna drag the raft around with them after the river has been crossed.  

Both Buddhism and Hinduism has become a religion. But in the beginning it was a cultivation path, not build on belief but about realization of no self.

Buddha even said at one time, All he had teached was how to end suffering. But humans put to much in to it 

Shakyamuni did never call his teaching Buddhism, it is called Dhamma/Dharma and it is the same in Hinduism. So it is humans later on who called it this "isms" 

[Sockrattes]

35 minutes ago, Amanaki said:

Both Buddhism and Hinduism has become a religion. But in the beginning it was a cultivation path, not build on belief but about realization of no self.

"Atman" literally means "i" and refers to a self. And many Hindu schools even some Advaitans refer to a "Jiva", which is an individual soul.

 

@Emanyalpsid I don't know much about Buddhism but there are at least 2 kinds of enlightenment in Hinduism: Moksha and Kaivalya.

And there is probably many many more.

And if i remember correctly Theravada and Mahayana Buddhism has different views on Nirvana, since they have a different view on "the self" or "no self".

So i don't think you can just solve this debate and draw lines in something which is going on for at least 2500 years.

But it is safe to say that many Hindu-teachers and Buddhist-teachers had no love for each other, because of their fundamental differences. Even someone like Ramakrishna who was Hindu (Shaktism, Vaishnavism and Advaita), Muslim and Christian seem to dislike Buddhism. But his chief disciple Vivekananda said that Buddhism was the "fulfilment of Hinduism". Then again some Buddhist teachers said that Vivekananda had no clue what he is talking about.

The war was always and probably will always going on, because of course everyone thinks their own truth is the only real one and everyone else is deluded or something. And patronising is real as well. Everyone is trying to describe the world from his own certain point of view.

"Every man takes the limits of his own field of vision for the limits of the world."

- Arthur Schopenhauer

There are differences in concepts. Maybe there are even different stages of enlightenment. Maybe we have to get enlighten gradually from human to god and all the way up to God. Maybe you are a Babygod. Maybe you don't exist at all. Maybe maybe. I don't know.

I will tell you if i find that out. :D^^

Edited December 10, 2018 by Sockrattes

[Emanyalpsid]

24 minutes ago, Amanaki said:

Both Buddhism and Hinduism has become a religion. But in the beginning it was a cultivation path, not build on belief but about realization of no self.

Buddha even said at one time, All he had teached was how to end suffering. But humans put to much in to it 

Shakyamuni did never call his teaching Buddhism, it is called Dhamma/Dharma and it is the same in Hinduism. So it is humans later on who called it this "isms" 

Indeed, thanks for the clarification. I was going to write something about this but could not find the right words yet.

Buddha figured out a way to the non-self and even realized non-existence; everything is of dependent origin.

He then told of his way to other people, eventually they wrote their interpretation down and so fort. However, with each interpretation differences started to emerge, which led to different paths and later different schools.

With Hinduism there became a greater distinction to Buddhism as they have a fundamentally different interpretation of the Dharma. 

The whole religion of Buddhism or Hinduism is what people made of it, with all the rules, traditions, and all the other stuff that comes along with them, like you said.

 

[Amanaki]

3 minutes ago, Emanyalpsid said:

Indeed, thanks for the clarification. I was going to write something about this but could not find the right words yet.

Buddha figured out a way to the non-self and even realized non-existence; everything is of dependent origin.

He then told of his way to other people, eventually they wrote their interpretation down and so fort. However, with each interpretation differences started to emerge, which led to different paths and later different schools.

With Hinduism there became a greater distinction to Buddhism as they have a fundamentally different interpretation of the Dharma. 

The whole religion of Buddhism or Hinduism is what people made of it, with all the rules, traditions, and all the other stuff that comes along with them, like you said.

 

Yes we see it very similar i see

[Preetom]

53 minutes ago, Emanyalpsid said:

everything is of dependent origin.

I have a question.

How do you know this or make this claim?

Do you see that in order to make any claim whatsoever, there has to be a 'knowing' of it. Or else you're just spreading gibberish. This knowing itself is Brahman/Buddha mind/infinite that no space, time, object can bound and which alone exists. Actually it's factually wrong to say Brahman exists, is conscious, is blissful. Brahman is existence itself, consciousness/knowing itself, bliss itself.

3 hours ago, Emanyalpsid said:

consciousness is absolute and everything appears in consciousness.

That is not Advaita Vedanta. That is pretty much all religious philosophy. This is just a fancy way of saying that ''God created the Universe'.  If you say that 'something' appears in Consciousness, then how will you explain that something?

Advaita Vedanta says that Brahman itself 'appears' as the multifarious subjects (all sentient creatures) and Objects (The common, physical universe). But none of it can ever stain or bind Brahman. There is nothing else other than Brahman.

And you mention that Atman is the soul. But that is not the case. The soul is called Jeeva. Jeeva is the person we take ourselves to be with all our conditioning. With the death of the body, Jeeva does not die. It keeps on moving from body to body until it's karma gets burnt and thus get liberated.

But the whole purpose of Spiritual paths is to directly realize that Jeeva is ultimately non-existent and it never existed. Atman was wrongly identified with Jeeva by imagining itself as Jeeva(like a dream). Once this realization dawns(Enlightenment), the Jeeva nature vanishes once and for all and the equation becomes like this,

Atman=Brahman

There were never 2 things(atman and brahman) in the first place.

Edited December 10, 2018 by Preetom

[Sockrattes]

@Preetom Thank you. You clearly know what you are talking about.

I have a question and maybe you know what Advaita (or Hinduism in general) says to this:

If i'm the witness consciousness then who is making what i'm witnessing?

Any sources on this?

[Preetom]

21 hours ago, Emanyalpsid said:

Everything is dependent upon something and something is dependent upon everything else. A flower is only a flower because there is a universe, time, matter, gravity, a planet, a soil, water, sun, etc.

Do you seriously consider that as the 'Truth'?

If so, then your explanation is very anthropomorphic(human thought biased). There is actually no such thing as a 'flower'. You see a batch of colors through your human lens and name that a 'flower'. Go ask a dog or fish what a flower is. They don't see a 'flower' like you do. Same thing with time, space, gravity and anything you can perceive or conceive.

When Hindus say that there is no Universe, they mean that there is no Universe as you think it is. But there is definitely 'something'. This 'something' is perceived one way through our human lens, different ways through a dogs lens, a bee's lens, a fish's lens etc. There is no objective physical universe with soil, water, air, humans, objects etc as we assume. It only appears like that to our human lens.

Now what is that 'something'? Beneath any illusion or appearance, there must be a Reality. For example, the mirage in the desert appears like a 'pond', but it's Reality is ''a play of light''. The TV screen appears like the Breaking Bad show, but it's Reality is a flat, contentless screen. That 'something' is Brahman/Absolute Consciousness.

Brahman alone appears as the shared physical Universe and the multifarious lenses(subjects) simultaneously. This Subject-Object relationship is dual and one can't legitimately exist without the other. But none of that affects Brahman. You can't legitimately claim the existence of an object(universe) unless you(as a knowing subject) is present. Vice versa, you can't have your 'human consciousness' stand alone without the perception of an object(just like your human consciousness collapses in deep sleep). Only Brahmanic Consciousness alone exists and can stand on it's own ground; thus it is called the Absolute.

Note that, this Consciousness is NOT human consciousness, or subject-object dual consciousness. Vedanta gives a straightforward definition of Brahman Consciousness. Anything you can be aware of, is NOT it. Any consciousness you think about, is NOT it.

Edited December 10, 2018 by Preetom

[Preetom]

@Emanyalpsid

The bottom line is, if we rely on language or a thought form as irrefutable Truth, then that can always be challenged. No claim can ever stand on itself. It will inevitably collapse. I'll pose some questions.

1) What are we defending when we argue in the name of 'Truth'?

2) That which is actually True, does that need any defending? Does Truth care if it is defended or not?

3) What is Truth 

[Preetom]

8 minutes ago, Sockrattes said:

@Preetom Thank you. You clearly know what you are talking about.

I have a question and maybe you know what Advaita (or Hinduism in general) says to this:

If i'm the witness consciousness then who is making what i'm witnessing?

Any sources on this?

I'll try my best to answer your question. But I need further clarification please.

Are you asking about the origin and the workings of the contents(or objects) that you witness as the witnessing consciousness?

[Sockrattes]

12 minutes ago, Preetom said:

I'll try my best to answer your question. But I need further clarification please.

Are you asking about the origin and the workings of the contents(or objects) that you witness as the witnessing consciousness?

Yes. That's my question. Where does the contents come from and why?

Brahman is existence-consciousness-bliss and hindu scholars and scriptures are extremely convincing in what they are claiming. But i can't abide in it as long there is no real explanation why all this is.

"Brahman makes all this to know himself" or "this is a game" won't fit to those deep philosophical explanations of prasthanatrayi.

Edited December 10, 2018 by Sockrattes