Is there a great deal of difference between the thought of Buddha concerning attachment to the impermanence of the physical word, emotions, thoughts, and how Hinduism or other traditions view this problem?
Not really.
In a nutshell, impermanence is a concept that has meaning and validity
when correctly employed.
Hinduist schools of thought often do not make any particular use of impermanence and similar concepts. That is not a problem at all; they will have their own concepts and use them in what will be, hopefully, sound Dharmic doctrine. Just like Buddhist teachers have much the same goal and duty with our own concepts.
The actual disagreements are much more a function of specific takes from various teachers and Gurus than from the specific core concepts used by each doctrine.
And that should not be a big surprise. After all, both doctrines are calibrated by the world as it is. Their validity is not an abstract matter, nor could it.
What would really make Buddha's teachings different from those of Hinduism in this regard aside from Buddha's original rejection of mountains of rituals (which perhaps Buddhism itself developed over time in some forms).
The main contrasts between Buddhism and the average mainstream Hindu Dharma include:
- The use of the concept of Anatta, which directly contrasts and arguably denies with the Hindu Atman.
- A take on the Devas that is somewhat unusual by Hindu sensibilities. It also makes them fairly peripheral from a doctrinary standpoint as well, although that depends a lot on specific adherents and teachers.
- Naturally, the scriptures of Buddhism such as they are do not include the Vedas and Upanishads, at least canonically.
- Buddhist Rebirth is a lot different from Hindu teachings of Reincarnation.
- There are also some other core concepts related to Anatta and impermanence, such as Interdependent Origination and Vacuity.
- And of course, we have our own core doctrines, such as the Four Noble Truths, which are not particularly Hindu in form or use.
It occurred to me that the pronouncements of Ecclesiastes in the name of King Solomon address this as well: Vanity, Vanity, all is Vanity. Attachment only to the permanent and eternal which is not of this world is the only path to happiness. This is reflected in Kabbalistic teachings I am sure and cannot be too different than those of the Buddha and Hinduism.
You should expect well-cared religion to attempt to remain useful and relevant, indeed.
