[N.B. This is the forum that was called ‘Exploring Buddhism’. The new name simply describes it better.]
The main difference is generally buddhism has a no soul concept and nor inherant existance concept and hinduism, most forms at least, do. A universal soul nor personal soul, is not abscribed to generally in buddhism. Nor is a inherantly existant creator diety.
Dieties and such names, are often interchangeable between some forms of buddhism and hinduism but in buddhism they are considered in a noninherantly existant quality or as a pure form of aware aspect, not as a theist diety is.
So if you tend to theism....hinduism is probably best for you.
If not buddhism. Best of all is probably to stay where you are in your religion. Great understandings can be found in all religions. STaying with the religion of birth is usually easiest.
That is my personal opinion.
Many hindus claim buddhism as hinduism. In fact the india supreme court subsequent to a legal issue declared buddhism a form of hinduism. I believe jainism was also so conscripted in this action. Buddhism some such peoples think, reflects but a empty aspect perhaps to the totality of things.
Buddhists however globally generally, firmly disagree. There do exist however a small number of hindu buddhists that do affirm this belief in india. In areas adjacent to india the buddhism seems very very close to hinduism in many regards. Some in india, claim the buddha as only a social reformer as he denied the caste system and equalized all to include women in the sanga.
Globally however the core differences identify it as separate and distinct. The key difference is in dependent origination concepts and relatedly no soul/self noninherant existance.
The term hindu is a fairly recent occurance as it relates to a central theistically based indian religion. Prior to the last century it refered to a place in india. More recently it has abscribed very many forms of belief into one indian belief structure calling itself hinduism. Buddhist thusly do not generally consider themselves derived from hinduism. The buddha was most exposed to brahamism which though now hindu was at the time of the buddha brahamism not hinduism. The buddha however firmly rejected brahamism and its related core practices such as the fire ceremony. Hinduism, the term, did not then exist. Hindus did.
Obscure forms of hinduism however do engage the empty concepts buddhists are familiar with. These are not forms one finds in the west however.
Hindus have a differing story but that is the buddhist side with qualifiers as described.
I accept your ideas and what you wrote.As i said i like them both, but off course there is no hinduism as hinduism.Kind of hinduism i consider as most magnificent is advaita vedanta,especially Ramana Maharsi who was/is really realized one,i think.And there are also good schools with master-disciple tradition like Yoga in daily life or Yoga Fellowship of Paramahansa Yogananda that i accept as good and usefull.But there are hindu schools that are really limited,sectarian and stupid like those,i heared, who killed thousands of cows as sacrifice to some godness.Also many fake sadhus and self-called relaized gurus and masters.But i try to take in the best i can from hinduism
Buddhism is great and i like all schools theravada,mahayana,vajrayana and also dzogchen,they are all very high teachings with great masters and I see my path in some of this kinds.But i dont want to limit myself only to one path.But it is hard to say that you can go deeper in for example buddhistm when you are doing also hindu practices.What do you think ?
Well the main deifference is no-soul in buddhism and soul,atman and god,brahman in hinduism.But hindus also say that you must destroy ego,no ?And isnt nirvana and brahma the same ? State that comes when you destroy ego ? What do you think ?
Thanks a lot.I wish you all best.
When you get down to substance, what is the key difference between Buddhism and other religions (including Hinduism)? According to what the Dalai Lama said recently in Budapest, it is the concept of emptiness. If one isn't open to the concept of emptiness, then I doubt that one should become a Buddhist. Sure, one can select a few juicy bits of Buddhism and throw them together with a few juicy bits of Hinduism, but there's no guarantee that the resulting mixture will amount to anything at all.
Another difference between Buddhism and Hinduism is that Hinduism has the caste system. In all fairness, some modern Hindus don't believe in the caste system, but their religion did create the system and some Hindus still deeply believe in it. Whereas Buddhism was against the caste system from the beginning.
There's nothing horrible about reading about other religions. The understanding that one gains from doing that can make one feel tolerance and compassion for practicioners of other religions. The Dalai Lama is always trying to create harmony between the world's different religions.
However, it makes sense for Buddhists to focus primarily on Buddhism. If you believe--like I do--that Buddha was enlightened (in the precise Buddhist sense of the word), but you aren't sure if the founders of other religions were, then it makes sense to spend your time and energy following the teacher you are sure of (Buddha), rather than to waste too much time on the "maybes."
And isnt nirvana and brahma the same ? State that comes when you destroy ego ?
This is gonna be a long one...and it's just a cursory glance...one example used...
Advaita Vedanta asserts:
A very important assumption in all vedAnta is that man suffers from bondage in the course of his life in this world. This is said to be sam.sAra, which involves being caught in an endless cycle of births and deaths. The quest therefore is to seek a way out of this bondage, to break the cycle of rebirths and attain moksha or liberation.
The most important issues in vedAnta have to be understood with respect to what constitutes bondage and what constitutes liberation. The advaita school is of the view that jnAna (knowledge) of man's true nature is liberation. Bondage arises from ignorance (avidyA) of man's true nature, and therefore removal of ignorance roots out this bondage. Liberation is therefore nothing more or nothing less than man knowing his true nature. This true nature is his innermost essence, the Atman, which is nothing other than brahman. He who knows this, not merely as bookish knowledge, but through his own Experience, is liberated even when living. Such a man is a jIvanmukta, and he does not return to the cycle of rebirths.
"...advaita vedAnta maintains that really brahman is devoid of all attributes, and is therefore known as nirguNa. brahman may be described as in the upanishads, as Truth (satyam), Knowledge (jnAnam), Infinite (anantam), or as Being (sat), Consciousness (cit), Bliss (Ananda), but none of these terms can be truly interpreted as attributes of brahman as a Super-person/God.
Rather, it is because brahman exists, that this whole universe is possible. It is because brahman exists that man ascribes attributes to brahman. However, brahman's true nature cannot be captured in words, for all these attributes are ultimately just words.
Hence, it is man's ignorance of Its true nature that postulates attributes to brahman, thereby describing It in saguNa terms (with attributes).
This saguNa brahman is ISvara, the Lord, whose essential reality as brahman is not dependent on anything else, and does not change because of the production of this universe.
Therefore, advaita holds that brahman's own nature (svarUpa- lakshaNa) is devoid of any attributes (nirguNa), while It is seen for the temporary purposes of explaining creation (taTastha- lakshaNa) to be ISvara, with attributes (saguNa)
The Pali Canon's Response: On Nibbana
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html
"There is that dimension where there is neither earth, nor water, nor fire, nor wind; neither dimension of the infinitude of space, nor dimension of the infinitude of consciousness, nor dimension of nothingness, nor dimension of neither perception nor non-perception; neither this world, nor the next world, nor sun, nor moon.
And there, I say, there is neither coming, nor going, nor staying; neither passing away nor arising: unestablished, unevolving, without support (mental object). This, just this, is the end of stress."http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html
There is, monks, an unborn, unbecome, unmade, unfabricated.
If there were not that unborn, unbecome, unmade, unfabricated, there would not be the case that emancipation from the born, become, made, fabricated would be discerned. But precisely because there is an unborn, unbecome, unmade, unfabricated, emancipation from the born, become, made, fabricated is discerned.http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html
One who is dependent has wavering. One who is independent has no wavering. There being no wavering, there is calm. There being calm, there is no desire. There being no desire, there is no coming or going. There being no coming or going, there is no passing away or arising. There being no passing away or arising, there is neither a here nor a there nor a between-the-two.
This, just this, is the end of stress.
The Brahmajala Sutta: 62 Wrong Views
Anatta-lakkhana Sutta: The Discourse on the Not-self Characteristic
Ananda Sutta: To Ananda
Vacchagotta Sutta: With Vacchagotta
No this is not possible. A clear definitive path must eventually be chosen.Without one, no foundation will ever present and one thusly will have nothing to build upon. The structure of the spiritual thusly will never develope, and progress.
So if you want no progression in the spiritual do such a thing as this quote references.
If you are not satisfied with your present spiritual state and want advancement perhaps to more greatly help others...you must eventually choose a path.
Buddhism as displayed with your theistically framed statements....may not be best for you.
Hinduism may be best. That is my opinion since you asked what is thought.
Combining the two and being not from a area that may naturally combines the two...will only lessen both.
If you are from Buthan or some parts of india that do naturally by circumstance combine the two....certainly combine the two. That is how you were taught it is best for you to do that.
You birthed into that, such change would be most difficult. But don't question your faith with questions here if that be your circumstance.
If that is not your circumstance....no, since you asked I advise do not that.
Buddha Nature and AtmanAt that time, Mahāmati the Bodhisattva-Mahāsattva said this to the Blessed One: Now the Blessed One makes mention of the Tathāgata-garbha in the sutras, and verily it is described by you as by nature bright and pure, as primarily unspotted, endowed with the thirty-two marks of excellence, hidden in the body of every being like a gem of great value, which is enwrapped in a dirty garment, enveloped in the garment of the Skandhas, Dhātus, and Āyatanas, and soiled with the dirt of greed, anger, folly, and false imagination, while it is described by the Blessed One to be eternal, permanent, auspicious, and unchangeable.
Is not this Tathāgata-garbha taught by the Blessed One the same as the ego-substance taught by the philosophers? The ego as taught in the systems of the philosophers is an eternal creator, unqualified, omnipresent, and imperishable.
The Blessed One replied:
No, Mahāmati, my Tathāgata-garbha is not the same as the ego taught by the philosophers; for what the Tathagatas teach is the Tathāgata-garbha in the sense, Mahāmati, that it is emptiness, reality-limit, Nirvana, being unborn, unqualified, and devoid of will-effort; the reason why the Tathagatas who are Arhats and Fully-Enlightened Ones, teach the doctrine pointing to the Tathāgata-garbha is to make the ignorant cast aside their fear when they listen to the teaching of egolessness and to have them realise the state of non-discrimination and imagelessness.
I also wish, Mahāmati, that the Bodhisattva-Mahāsattvas of the present and future would not attach themselves to the idea of an ego [imagining it to be a soul].
Mahāmati, it is like a potter who manufactures various vessels out of a mass of clay of one sort by his own manual skill and labour combined with a rod, water, and thread, Mahāmati, that the Tathagatas preach the egolessness of things which removes all the traces of discrimination by various skilful means issuing from their transcendental wisdom, that is, sometimes by the doctrine of the Tathāgata-garbha, sometimes by that of egolessness, and, like a potter, by means of various terms, expressions, and synonyms. For this reason, Mahāmati, the philosophers' doctrine of an ego-substance is not the same as the teaching of the Tathāgata-garbha.
Thus, Mahāmati, the doctrine of the Tathāgata-garbha is disclosed in order to awaken the philosophers from their clinging to the idea of the ego, so that those minds that have fallen into the views imagining the non-existent ego as real, and also into the notion that the triple emancipation is final, may rapidly be awakened to the state of supreme enlightenment.
Accordingly, Mahāmati, the Tathagatas who are Arhats and Fully-Enlightened Ones disclose the doctrine of the Tathāgata-garbha which is thus not to be known as identical with the philosopher's notion of an ego-substance.
Therefore. Mahāmati, in order to abandon the misconception cherished by the philosophers, you must strive after the teaching of egolessness and the Tathāgata-garbha.
At that moment then the Blessed One recited this verse:
'The personal soul, continuity, the Skandhas, causation, atoms, the supreme spirit, the ruler, the creator, —[they are] discriminations in the Mind-only.'
On NirvanaAt that time Mahāmati the Bodhisattva-Mahāsattva again said this to the Blessed One:
Thou speakest of Nirvana, Blessed One. What is meant by this term Nirvana?
Replied the Blessed One:
When the self-nature and the habit-energy of all the Vijñānas, including the Ālaya, Manas, and Manovijñāna, from which issues the habit-energy of wrong speculations—when all these go through a revulsion, I and all the Buddhas declare that there is Nirvana, and the way and the self-nature of this Nirvana is emptiness, which is the state of reality.
Further, Mahāmati, Nirvana is the realm of self-realisation attained by noble wisdom, which is free from the discrimination of eternality and annihilation, existence and non-existence. How is it not eternality?
Because it has cast off the discrimination of individuality and generality, it is not eternality.
How about its not being annihilation?
It is because all the wise men of the past, present, and future have attained realisation.
Therefore, it is not annihilation.
Again, Mahāmati, the Great Parinirvana is neither destruction nor death.
Mahāmati, if the Great Parinirvana is death, then it will be a birth and continuation. If it is destruction, then it will assume the character of an effect-producing deed.
For this reason, Mahāmati, the Great Parinirvana is neither destruction nor death. Neither has it anything to do with vanishing;l it is the goal of the Yogins.
Again, Mahāmati the Great Parinirvana is neither abandonment nor attainment, neither is it of one meaning nor of no-meaning; this is said to be Nirvana.Further, Mahāmati, there are four kinds of Nirvana. What are the four? They are:
(1) the Nirvana which is attained when the self-nature of all things is seen as nonentity;
(2) the Nirvana which is attained when varieties of individual marks characterising all things are seen as non-entities;
(3) the Nirvana which is attained when there is the recognition of the non-existence of a being endowed with its own specific attributes; and
(4) the Nirvana which is attained when there takes place the severance of the bondage conditioning the continuation of individuality and generality of the Skandhas.
Mahāmati, these four views of Nirvana belong to the philosophers and are not my teaching.
According to my teaching, Mahāmati, the getting rid of the discriminating Manovijñāna—this is said to be Nirvana.At that time again, Mahāmati the Bodhisattva-Mahāsattva said this to the Blessed One: Nirvana, Nirvana is talked of by the Blessed One; what does this term designate? What is the Nirvana that is discriminated by all the philosophers?
Said the Blessed One: Then, Mahāmati, listen well and reflect well within yourself; I will tell you.
Certainly, Blessed One; said Mahāmati the Bodhisattva-Mahāsattva and gave ear to the Blessed One.
The Blessed One said this to him:
As to such Nirvanas as are discriminated by the philosophers, there are really none in existence.
Some philosophers conceive Nirvana to be found where a system of mentation no more operates owing to the cessation of the Skandhas, Dhātus, and Āyatanas, or to the indifference to the objective world, or to the recognition that all things are impermanent; or where there is no recollection of the past and present, just as when a lamp is extinguished, or when a seed is burnt, or when a fire goes out, because then there is the cessation of all the substrate, which is explained by the philosophers as the non-rising of discrimination. But, Mahāmati, Nirvana does not consist in mere annihilation.
Again, some explain deliverance by going to another quarter and abode, as when a wind stops blowing, when the discrimination of objects ceases. Again, some philosophers explain deliverance by the getting-rid of the [dualistic] view of knower and known. Some conceive deliverance to be the cessation of discrimination where one sees permanence and impermanence.
Again, some explain the discrimination of various forms as the bearer of pain, and yet not understanding that there is nothing but what is seen of the Mind itself, are alarmed by the notion of form, and seek their happiness in formlessness. In this they cherish the notion of Nirvana.
Again some conceive this to be Nirvana: that in consideration of generality and individuality recognisable in all things inner and outer, they are never destroyed, maintaining their being throughout the past, present, and future. Again some conceive that Nirvana is an ego-soul, a being, a vital force, a nourisher, a supreme spirit, and the indestructability of all things.
Again, Mahāmati, some philosophers owing to their foolishness declare this to be Nirvana: that there is a primary substance, there is a supreme soul, and they are seen differently by each, and that they produce all things from the transformations of the qualities.
Some conceive Nirvana to consist in the extinction of merit and demerit; some in the destruction of the passions by means of knowledge; some in regarding Iśvara as the free creator of the world. Some think that the world is born of interaction and that there is no [special] cause other than this cause, and clinging to it they have no awakening because of stupidity, and they conceive Nirvana to consist in this non-awakening.
Again, Mahāmati, some philosophers conceive Nirvana to be the attaining of the true path. Some cherish the thought of Nirvana as where there is the union of qualities and their owner, from which there is oneness and otherness, bothness and not-bothness. Some imagine that Nirvana is where they see the self-nature of things existing all by its own nature, such as the variegated feathers of the peacock, variously formed precious stones, or the pointedness of a thorn.
Some, Mahāmati, conceive Nirvana in the recognition of the twenty-five Tattvas (truths); some in the king's observance of the teaching of the six virtues. Some, seeing that time is a creator and that the rise of the world depends on time, conceive that Nirvana consists in recognising this fact. Again, Mahāmati, some conceive being to be Nirvana, some non-being, while some conceive that all things and Nirvana are not to be distinguished one from the other.
All these views of Nirvana severally advanced by the philosophers with their reasonings are not in accord with logic, nor are they acceptable to the wise. Mahāmati, they all conceive Nirvana dualistically and in a causal connection. By these discriminations, Mahāmati, all philosophers imagine Nirvana, but there is nothing rising, nothing disappearing here, -[and there is no room for discrimination.] Mahāmati, each philosopher relying on his own text-book from which he draws his understanding and intelligence, examines [the subject] and sins against [the truth], because [the truth] is not such as is imagined by him; [his reasoning] ends in setting the mind to wandering about and becoming confused, as Nirvana is not to be found anywhere.
Again, Mahāmati, there are others who, roaring with their all-knowledge as a lion roars, explain Nirvana in the following wise: that is, Nirvana is where it is recognised that there is nothing but what is seen of the Mind itself; where there is no attachment to external objects, existent or nonexistent; where, getting rid of the four propositions, there is an insight into the abode of reality as it is; where, recognising the nature of the Self-mind, one does not cherish the dualism of discrimination; where grasped and grasping are no more obtainable; where all logical measures are not seized upon as it is realised that they never assert themselves; where the idea of truth is not adhered to but treated with indifference because of its causing a bewilderment; where, by the attainment of the exalted Dharma which lies within the inmost recesses of one's being, the two forms of egolessness are recognised, the two forms of passions subsided, and the two kinds of hindrance cleared away; where the stages of Bodhisattvahood are passed one after another until the stage of Tathagatahood is attained, in which all the Samādhis beginning with the Māyopama (Māyā-like) are realised, and the Citta, Manas, and Manovijñāna are put away:1 [here indeed they say Nirvana is to be found].
Nirvana is severally conceived by the philosophers; but theirs is no more than imagination, it is not the way of emancipation.
Released of bound and binding and free from all expediencies, the philosophers imagine they are emancipated, but emancipation is not to be found there.
Divided into many a school are the systems of the philosophers; there is thus no emancipation in them, because of their imagination stupidly carried on.
Wrongly imbued with the ideas of cause and effect, all the philosophers are beguiled, and their is thus no emancipation for them who are of the dualistic school of being and non-being.
Enlightenment in Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta:Are Nirvana and Moksha the Same?
Vedanta and Buddhism
ego removal or destruction is not all that buddhism is. I think that also. Many many quotes could be provided to show what buddhism is. Object of cosideration, means of empoyment, though perhaps as with diety yoga of the same exact name, have a differing context... as buddhism has such with noninherant existant quality(empty) while hinduism generally does not.
Do not combine the two with qualifications mentioned is what I again think.
It is probably true that you cant do any progression when you follow also budhism and hinduism but i know some spiritual teachers from my country (slovakia) who knew how to get together this two religions.When I saw or heard them they seemed to have kind of realization.
And also the Advaita and Buddhism attitude of Nirvana/Brahma seems same to me.I think paths are diferent but the outcome is same.Thanks plwk for such as comprehensive information.
So for near future i will read books of both B and H and try to do practices of these two,but later when need to go deeply I will have to chose what is better for me.
Btw: I wanted to go to Budapest to see H.H. but I couldnt because i was quiet bussy, even though I saw webcast and I was doing iniciation
Sorry for my english is not very good.
thank you all for your thoughts and when someone have some interesting ideas or some experiences with combinating B and H please share them with us.
But i dont know how it is when you do theravada,but i think there is some compensation in meditation in walking.But dnt know.
maestro wrote:What's the difference between Nirguna Brahman of advaita and shunyata? They both seem to be very similar.
I'm no scholar, but I'll take a stab at this question...
Nirguna Brahman is still a thing--it's some kind of universal, formless essence.
Whereas sunyata is itself the emptiness of inherent existence--it is not a "thing" which you need to "tap into" or "become one with"--it's just the reality of how things are.
Although it's certainly possible to misunderstand sunyata and to mistakenly believe that it's some "thing," and to become attached to this wrong concept.
I think that emptines and brahma etc. are just words and in real experience it is the same.You know you can always find some diferences in names or discibtions.I understand what you want to say but Brahman Nirguna in that true meaning is no form of light or guy on cloud or something else it is unimaginable like emptines shunyata.Thats my opinion,maybe i am wrong.
Thnaks a lot.
Brahman and Sunyata are different words pointing to same...Brahman appears to be more mystical and Sunyata more logical.they say "not this, no this" and negate everything includind negation to denote brahman which is same as sunyata.
I am not a scholar but could find similarity.. though i didnt understand both completely.. i still have lots of doubts, which i am getting clarification in other posts
kvakamak wrote:I want to ask what have Buddhism and Hinduism common,what are the diferences and what is your opinion about assembling these two.I like them both and i think they are in deep amount same.So tell me your ideas,please
Modern Hinduism was greatly influenced by the Buddha.
It includes a lot of superstitious beliefs and seems foolishly concerned with devotion to and unification with a supreme divinity, but you could say the same of quite a few Mahayana Buddhist groups also.
I think the initial posters mind was made up and wanted a affirmation of sorts only, but that aside...many forms of Buddhism do approximate hinduism particularly those situated close to India, but in other places as well.
Some forms of Buddhism have notions such as universal mind consciousness, soul inerherantly existant entities and such definitively rejected.
Some equate the buddha with a god and think he has such qualities based solely on faith and devotion to do things to us.
Each to their own I'd guess at this point is is impossible to state what exactly qualifies as buddhism.
A westerner making a choice of sorts.....I'd say stay with the choice of birth. A choice it was though quite unconsciously made. Hinduism more closely approximates a theistically framed belief structure, but if one wants such can indeed be found in buddhism. Not in majority but it is there for the finding.
I just wanted to say that I think True is only one and when 2 guys meditate and realize truth and they are from diferent parts of world with diferent cultures and traditions also diferent circumstances and time their describtions can be little bit diferent but in the true sense it is same.
But no matter people are buddhist or hinduist most important is to be a good person and to have real interest in truth ... once more soory for my english
Btw. I have seen very good and positive video where is His Holines Dalailama and Hindu Sadhus together good-will people
Thank you.I wish you all bests.
It would be like saying all forms of Christianity, Judaism and Islam are "the same" because they share a common history, both physical and literary.
There are those who accept the Vedas and those who do not. Buddhists and Jains are the notable ones in India who rejected the Vedas.
Even within those schools that accept the Vedas, there is a huge amount of variation between their interpretations. There is everything ranging from atheism to cultivating a personal relationship with Brahma.
The same argument -- that there is no "Buddhism" when you look at it -- can be made and it would be valid. Japanese Pure Land Buddhism has very little in common with Theravada in Sri Lanka for example.
I don't know if such a discussion as we're having will prove fruitful.
It might be better to ask something like... how does Classical Samkhya stack up against Gelug-pa tantric meditation?
Otherwise you're just using such huge general categories and no meaningful discussion can be had.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot], MSNbot Media and 11 guests