Can Buddhists actually be called Hindus?

[Rainbow Mage]

I would argue yes, but I know it will vary by who you ask. I would argue that Buddhism could be called by the very least, a spinoff religion from Sanatana Dharma. I think it goes further then that though. The religion now called Buddhism developed from a teacher who was himself a Hindu, and sometimes used the Hindu scriptures to teach people new outlooks. I think I would call Buddhism a sect of Sanatana Dharma, but what does everyone else think?

 

[Engyo]

Are you also calling Christianity and Islam sects of Judaism? Based on the above logic you ought to be doing so.

If you are going to ignore the fact that the primary basis of religious thought differs between the two, then all religions are sects of whatever you want to call the primordial religion, aren't they?

 

[Rainbow Mage]

Are you also calling Christianity and Islam sects of Judaism? Based on the above logic you ought to be doing so.

If you are going to ignore the fact that the primary basis of religious thought differs between the two, then all religions are sects of whatever you want to call the primordial religion, aren't they?

I suppose you have a point, but are Buddhism and Sanatana Dharma really that different at their cores?

 

[Engyo]

I suppose you have a point, but are Buddhism and Sanatana Dharma really that different at their cores?

I haven't studied Sanatana Dharma, but I was under the impression that annatta (no(t)-self) and anicca (impermanence) are somewhat contrary to most Hindu thought. I could be wrong about that.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

I haven't studied Sanatana Dharma, but I was under the impression that annatta (no(t)-self) and anicca (impermanence) are somewhat contrary to most Hindu thought. I could be wrong about that.

I think at one time they may have been, but I find modern Sanatana Dharma to be much closer to these ideas then not, including on ideas such as annatta. Annatta could be seen as a statement about the nature of the atman, not a denial of it.

 

[Engyo]

I think at one time they may have been, but I find modern Sanatana Dharma to be much closer to these ideas then not, including on ideas such as annatta. Annatta could be seen as a statement about the nature of the atman, not a denial of it.

So, what you are saying here is that *modern* Sanatana Dharma is closer to modern Buddhist Dharma than they were when the original Buddhist Dharma was taught?

I'm not really sure that lends any credence to your original argument. Just sayin'.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

So, what you are saying here is that *modern* Sanatana Dharma is closer to modern Buddhist Dharma than they were when the original Buddhist Dharma was taught?

I'm not really sure that lends any credence to your original argument. Just sayin'.

No that's not necessarily what I mean. Sanatana Dharma has always been very diverse. These ideas existed in some schools of Sanatana Dharma before Buddhism existed. They are just much more in the majority today.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

I would argue yes, but I know it will vary by who you ask. I would argue that Buddhism could be called by the very least, a spinoff religion from Sanatana Dharma. I think it goes further then that though. The religion now called Buddhism developed from a teacher who was himself a Hindu, and sometimes used the Hindu scriptures to teach people new outlooks. I think I would call Buddhism a sect of Sanatana Dharma, but what does everyone else think?

No, because Buddhists don't want to be called Hindu's. Advaita Hinduism is much closer to Buddhism then the Dvaita sect of Hinduism.

The Buddhists also don't accept the Vedas so they are Nastika "heterodox school of Indian thought" and not Astika "Orthodox school" like Vedanta. Still I cannot see why Astika and Hinduism are synonymous. Some Tribal cults who have no knowledge or belief in the Vedas are seen by most as Hindu.

Both traditions come from the same cultural melting pot. I see Buddhism as just one more Indian sect. Since it makes some Buddhist angry, out of respect I define them differently from Hindus.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

I haven't studied Sanatana Dharma, but I was under the impression that annatta (no(t)-self) and anicca (impermanence) are somewhat contrary to most Hindu thought. I could be wrong about that.

Buddhist believe in annatta no self. Advaita Vedanta believes that the individual self is the same as Brahman. We only think that we are different due to maya. All is really ONE. Sounds somewhat alike to me. There are differences to be sure.

 

[EverChanging]

Wannabe Yogi,

I'm reading through some of the Upanishads for the first time and can see what you mean about similar concepts being put into different words. For instance -- and I may be understanding this incorrectly, as these texts are unfamiliar to me and my cultural background -- some of the texts suggest that the universe is our self, which stretches the concept of "self" so far as to make it at least seem compatible with the doctrine of no self or no atman.

I don't know enough about Hinduism to make any firm statements, but Hinduism is so syncretic, diverse, and continually evolving that I don't think Hinduism and Buddhism are necessarily incompatible, depending on the sect or practitioner, I suppose.

I remember reading in a religious studies class that the Buddha was actually absorbed into the Hindu pantheon somehow, so I don't see why they are fundamentally incompatible. But I'm also very new to Hinduism. I'm sure others will disagree. I'm much more familiar with Buddhism.

 

[nameless]

I haven't studied Sanatana Dharma, but I was under the impression that annatta (no(t)-self) and anicca (impermanence) are somewhat contrary to most Hindu thought. I could be wrong about that.

to my understanding, the buddhist 'self' refers to ego, and not soul. The anatta which Buddha thought is no different from 'soul' concept in hinduism.

 

[LuisDantas]

I suppose you have a point, but are Buddhism and Sanatana Dharma really that different at their cores?

Actually yes, certainly enough to deserve names of their own. There is no shared scripture, what few shared concepts there are end up either being denied outright (atman vs anatman) or at least reinterpreted to a considerable extend (Brahma and the other Devas) and most contemporary schools don't even keep that.

There are certainly communities, particularly in Nepal, where it is difficult to tell whether someone is a Buddhist or an Hindu, but that is due to a strong syncretism, not to any inherent similarity or compatibility between the religions.

That said, I agree that the religions are not necessarily incompatible. In fact, I have a hard time thinking of a religion that couldn't be made compatible with some form of Hinduism.

 

[KennethM]

I think at one time they may have been, but I find modern Sanatana Dharma to be much closer to these ideas then not, including on ideas such as annatta. Annatta could be seen as a statement about the nature of the atman, not a denial of it.

You're mincing words... well actually languages... anatta is Pali for anatman (Sanscrit). It is by definition a denial of the atman.

 

[Katzpur]

I would argue yes, but I know it will vary by who you ask. I would argue that Buddhism could be called by the very least, a spinoff religion from Sanatana Dharma. I think it goes further then that though. The religion now called Buddhism developed from a teacher who was himself a Hindu, and sometimes used the Hindu scriptures to teach people new outlooks. I think I would call Buddhism a sect of Sanatana Dharma, but what does everyone else think?

I don't know, but Abraham Lincoln once said, "How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? The answer is 'four.' Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it one."

 

[atanu]

to my understanding, the buddhist 'self' refers to ego, and not soul. The anatta which Buddha thought is no different from 'soul' concept in hinduism.

Yes, Buddhist self refers to ego self as it is clearly related to skandha -body. Particular consciousness rises in relation to skandha in particular ways. That does not, IMO, mean that Buddha taught absence of the knowledge principle underlying the world.

It has come out in many discussions that the very strict guideline to deny atma in Buddhism is not to encourage the ego self.This teaching also exists in the form of Neti-Neti in Vedanta -- whereby all that can be experienced or thought of is rejected as non eternal truth.. On the other hand, in respect of many Buddhists (possibly young and western), I find it incongruent that knowledge of biological brain or fossil records can be held to be more true than the directly evident "I Am", which is direct perception that is more direct than an apple on one's palm.

For the OP, it can certainly be said that Buddhists cannot be called Hindus, just as a white rose and pink rose are not same though very close generically.

(But due to impermanence, can any difference still be held as real?).

...