Differences between Hinduism and Buddhism

[Forestluv]

9 minutes ago, purerogue said:

It does not really matter what way you look at it , digging, or not digging, outcome will be the same, 

Yes. The subjective experience feels like digging. Yet, from an ultimate perspective, distinctions collapse and there is singularity.

I would be mindful of context for the phrase "outcome will be the same". That assumes cause and effect within a timeline.

[RichardY]

Some distinctions I noticed. Could be wrong, intuitively I feel the categories have relevance. 

-----------------------------------

Hinduism: Moral Relativism. Pantheistic God(Brahman). Enlightened caste holier than thou. Avatars.

Buddhism: Amoral, No God/Atheistic, overcome Maya/Illusion(Evil). Accountability. Life negating, birth control (anti-clockwise swastika)

Taoism: No Morality, if one follows "the way" how is morality relevant? It's not. Character Virtue: 3 Treasures; Kindness(Frankincense), Humility(myrrh), Simplicity (Gold).

Islam: Moral Absolutism, Pantheistic God.  Evil as spirits, such as jin. External Evil, those that will not submit to Allah and his prophet.

Jainism:  Moral Pluralism. Focus on habit, Karma Evil to be overcome. Accountability. Life affirming. (Clockwise swastika). Some form of ascension.

Judaism: Morality. Messianic.

Christianity: Transcendental Morality, Transcendent God. Accountability. Internal Evil, to be overcome, Risen Lord.

Tengrism: No Morality. Sky god (Maya). Will to Power.

Nordic Paganism: No Morality.  Maya, Hall of the Mountain King, Narrative. A Pantheon of Gods(but flawed....), , . Aesir(lifeforce) fight the Vanir (Presumably, the Vain Beings) Will to Power

Satanism: Amoral, Life affirming, Logical outcome of Objectivism, Will to Power.

Scientology: No morality, ascent to godhood. Maximum Optimism.

Conflux: Mad World, Donnie Darko or Nietzschean Universe.  Heraclitus (the weeping philosopher) Maximum Pessimism. Drew the short straw, in absolute infinity. Eternal recurrence. Tangent Universe.

---------------------------------------

Pantheism or Atheism, are functionally no different, As Spinoza noted,.... or even Deism. Spinoza's universe is absolute, as the one substance is God, which confers with a Newtonian(a Deist) absolute universe. However, I agree with Leibniz that the Universe is relativistic, as confirmed, but initially rejected by Einstein(bias towards Spinoza).

Moral Relativism becomes obsolete as soon as people articulate moral judgements.
Absolute Morality involves knowing, and is therefore a contradiction.
 

[purerogue]

5 minutes ago, Mikael89 said:

Truth is not dependant on anything. Maybe not even on itself. Maybe that's why it created Maya. "Now I'll show that I'm not even dependant on myself!" And then it made it forget itself in Maya/materialism/ego.

What I mean by outcome will be the same , is that always falls back in to  soup , no matter what, no matter what progress you make, in the end it all boils down to the soup, you can increase your conscious state, maybe even leave this body and explore other realities, but it all falls back to the soup.

 

Edited December 10, 2018 by purerogue

[Adam M]

they're the same

[Forestluv]

20 minutes ago, purerogue said:

What I mean by outcome will be the same , is that always falls back in to  soup , no matter what, no matter what progress you make, in the end it all boils down to the soup, you can increase your conscious state, maybe even leave this body and explore other realities, but it all falls back to the soup.

Yes. All "paths" lead back to the soup - which is Everything / Nothing. 

[purerogue]

17 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

Yes. All "paths" lead back to the soup - which is Everything / Nothing. The soup is unpalatable to a mind that wants to believe in things as objectively true. The self loves to believe it is holding a spoonful that is the true soup. 

It does not matter, mind , or no mind, objective, or not objective, transcend , or not, if you are something, you already are the soup and belief that there can be no soup is already soup.

Edited December 10, 2018 by purerogue

[Forestluv]

22 minutes ago, purerogue said:

It does not matter, mind , or no mind, objective, or not objective, transcend , or not, if you are something, you already are the soup and belief that there can be no soup is already soup.

Of course. And after soup realization, the search for soup ends - yet the cooking goes on. . . 

[Emanyalpsid]

If I come to think about Brahman a bit more I come to the conclusion that it is not really non-duality, because if there is an absolute, there is a thing (Brahman) opposed to nothing. 

This is beyond the subject-object distinction of course.

[Leo Gura]

@Emanyalpsid Dude, enough mental masturabtion.

You cannot understand what the words Brahman or Absolute refer to because you have not yet reached a fully nondual state of consciousness.

Go self-inquire or meditate, and stop conceptualizing about enlightenment. Your conceptualizing monkey mind is precisely what stands in the way.

Or better yet, try some 5-MeO-DMT because otherwise you are gonna waste years chasing your own tail.

Psychedelics make this so clear.

[Emanyalpsid]

In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.

I will bow as this is your land.

[Mu_]

7 hours ago, Preetom said:

That brings up a question.

Is the Absolute Truth one or many?

It is logically impossible to have more than one Absolute Truth.

So if Hinduism and Buddhism don't recognize this, are they prescribing 2 different Absolute Truths? That's just not right..

Well in the spirit of debate, this brings up a interesting question, one in which can put the mind in a realization of checkmate......perhaps forcing one to drop the question....

For starters when you or anyone brings up the subject "Absolute Truth"  what is being said first?  Then based upon what is meant in the language/symbol of "Absolute Truth", the question is then, is that Absolute Truth?  Which then brings into question again, what Is The Absolute Truth to compare the established question/idea of absolute truth against to then be able to answer the question?  

Edited December 10, 2018 by Mu_

[Leo Gura]

@Emanyalpsid Lol 

[Preetom]

57 minutes ago, Mu_ said:

Well in the spirit of debate, this brings up a interesting question, one in which can put the mind in a realization of checkmate......perhaps forcing one to drop the question....

For starters when you or anyone brings up the subject "Absolute Truth"  what is being said first?  Then based upon what is meant in the language/symbol of "Absolute Truth", the question is then, is that Absolute Truth?  Which then brings into question again, what Is The Absolute Truth to compare the established question/idea of absolute truth against to then be able to answer the question?  

In ancient times Advaita Vedanta started with an inquiry like this,

"Is there one thing, if understood properly, can explain the entirety of everything?"

The search for that golden thread, the thread that connected the entire set of beads began. That is what Absolute Truth refers to. 

It was in fact found and  turned out that you can frame that golden thread in many different ways. The idea of Absolute Consciousness(Brahman) is one such way to frame it.

In this sense, 'dependent origination' is another great way to frame that exact thread. This idea coherently explains all of phenomenal reality.

Now that's all well and good but the danger lies in taking the interpretations of Truth as the real deal. Which explains the endless debate and fight over religions. Is Truth ever reached that way? No! 

[Emanyalpsid]

27 minutes ago, Preetom said:

In ancient times Advaita Vedanta started with an inquiry like this,

"Is there one thing, if understood properly, can explain the entirety of everything?"

Is the absolute truth an answer to this question?

27 minutes ago, Preetom said:

In this sense, 'dependent origination' is another great way to frame that exact thread. This idea coherently explains all of phenomenal reality.

Be careful with framing things to a thread. Dependent origination is only the name for a process, it explains nothing as there is no-thing to be explained (according to Buddhism of course). It is not an idea but direct experience; if consciousness arises experience arises.

[Preetom]

34 minutes ago, Emanyalpsid said:

Be careful with framing things to a thread. Dependent origination is only the name for a process, it explains nothing as there is no-thing to be explained (according to Buddhism of course). It is not an idea but direct experience; if consciousness arises experience arises.

Yes similarly Brahman is also another name, an empty idea used as a helpful pointer in the path for communication of the teachings.

But the words do point to 'something' and That is worth investigating.

 

[Emanyalpsid]

Yes, but the difference is that Brahman is absolute and dependent arising is not.

[Preetom]

33 minutes ago, Emanyalpsid said:

Yes, but the difference is that Brahman is absolute and dependent arising is not.

So are there parts of universe or reality which do not conform to dependent arising? 

[Mu_]

1 hour ago, Preetom said:

In ancient times Advaita Vedanta started with an inquiry like this,

"Is there one thing, if understood properly, can explain the entirety of everything?"

The search for that golden thread, the thread that connected the entire set of beads began. That is what Absolute Truth refers to. 

It was in fact found and  turned out that you can frame that golden thread in many different ways. The idea of Absolute Consciousness(Brahman) is one such way to frame it.

In this sense, 'dependent origination' is another great way to frame that exact thread. This idea coherently explains all of phenomenal reality.

Now that's all well and good but the danger lies in taking the interpretations of Truth as the real deal. Which explains the endless debate and fight over religions. Is Truth ever reached that way? No! 

Well put.

Edited December 10, 2018 by Mu_

[Mu_]

30 minutes ago, Emanyalpsid said:

Yes, but the difference is that Brahman is absolute and dependent arising is not.

What do you mean dependent arising?  

I think this whole topic was needed and very interesting.  I to use to blend Buddhism, Hinduism and even a lot of other different practice under the unquestioned assumption that they are were saying the same thing.  However when I posted something one day in a intergral next forum, some guys said I should read about a particular form of buddhism (Cant recall the name atm), but basically I learned buddhist dont seem to believe in a absolute even though I assumed thats what buddha hood/mind/emptiness was.  As you said those idea's were barriers or paths towards a seeking that missed the freedom that was already present or as you put it emptiness in which there is freedom in understanding that there is no absolute and truths/things depend on context of origin/other things defined (correct if I'm misquoting or wrong on any of these interpretations of buddhism).

This is where I was 3 months ago and had my first big awakening embodying and understanding these things.  Yet still something niggled at the edge of consciousness and it was waking up to the truth of what we are.  Not just humans, but infinity/god/oneness/Brahman as humans.  And yes all that buddhism/the above still has its place and truth in the context of human living, at least this is how I see and understand at this point.  

So it seems Buddhism (or some sects) stops at a certain point of understanding and doesn't go into the Brahman understanding.

However I will say Buddhism may be a better overall path towards "happiness" since it tackles that problem with the cultivation of good habits and treament of others/self which just realizing god doesn't necessarily transform.  Just my at this point accumulation and idea's.

Edited December 11, 2018 by Mu_

[Emanyalpsid]

37 minutes ago, Preetom said:

So are there parts of universe or reality which do not conform to dependent arising? 

There is no universe or reality existing upon itself, it is dependent upon conditions. If one conditions changes, the universe or reality changes. If all conditions are gone, the universe is gone. The conditions are just the aspect of universe. 

So, in the relativity of the universe, the dependent arising is absolute.

Can you answer the question I posed to you?

Edited December 11, 2018 by Emanyalpsid