The biggest difference between Buddhism and Hinduism.

[WayFarer]

I was reading an thinking about the shortest answer I could give to a friend of mine about the difference between Buddhism and Hinduism (Sanatana Dharma) and ran across an idea that I wondered what you be the general consensus on. In one sentence the it is:

The biggest difference between Buddhism and Hinduism is Hinduism seeks the perfection of self, while Buddhism seeks the elimination of self.

I know there are many other differences such as the origins of both and several other key issues. However I have been told I tend to lecture instead of answer some questions so I wondered if this, while not being the whole of the truth, is not as accurate as one sentence on the subject can be.

:namaste

 

[LuisDantas]

Sorry, but I fear that this is incorrect. Buddhism does not believe that there is a self to be eliminated. It is not nihilism.

What about saying that Buddhism seeks overcoming the illusion of a separate self?

 

[Madhuri]

Sorry, but I fear that this is incorrect. Buddhism does not believe that there is a self to be eliminated. It is not nihilism.

What about saying that Buddhism seeks overcoming the illusion of a separate self?

What do you mean 'separate self'?

 

[LuisDantas]

The core doctrine of Buddhism may be described in at least three separate ways, Madhuri. One of those involves the idea of "Anatta" (in Sanskrit, Anatman), "non-self" or "non-soul", couple with the ideas of impermanence and of vacuity. Another way is by stating that all that exists comes into being by a web of complex interdependency.

In that respect, Buddhism is very different from both Sanatana Dharma and from the Abrahamic Faiths. We do not believe that "individual people" do exist as such. Ultimately we are only manifestations of chains of cause and effect, and the sense of self is basically a functional illusion. We are not the same person along the day, much less beyond death.

By separate self, I mean that what I am (far as I can tell, what anyone is even) is to a largely extent a direct result of the circunstances I find myself in. You can see that by taking a step back and watching how much your behavior and thinking change according to your present company. If I have a "proper" self, it sure is a lot acommodating.

 

[Engyo]

The other major difference that Luis hasn't mentioned is the issue of deity. Buddhists have many different ideas and concepts about deity(s) from outright rejection all the way to acknowledgement/acceptance, but Buddhism is fundamentally NOT about deities or worship, it is about practicing to develop ones self towards nirvana or enlightenment.

 

[Madhuri]

The core doctrine of Buddhism may be described in at least three separate ways, Madhuri. One of those involves the idea of "Anatta" (in Sanskrit, Anatman), "non-self" or "non-soul", couple with the ideas of impermanence and of vacuity. Another way is by stating that all that exists comes into being by a web of complex interdependency.

In that respect, Buddhism is very different from both Sanatana Dharma and from the Abrahamic Faiths. We do not believe that "individual people" do exist as such. Ultimately we are only manifestations of chains of cause and effect, and the sense of self is basically a functional illusion. We are not the same person along the day, much less beyond death.

By separate self, I mean that what I am (far as I can tell, what anyone is even) is to a largely extent a direct result of the circunstances I find myself in. You can see that by taking a step back and watching how much your behavior and thinking change according to your present company. If I have a "proper" self, it sure is a lot acommodating.

Ok, and that is the same as the Hindu concept except that we believe in an eternal soul (which is simply Consciousness, not this self identity that is associated with the physical body). I always get confused with Buddhism because of the way that different people define the concepts, but would the difference here be that Buddhists do not believe in an eternal soul/individuality?

 

[LuisDantas]

True. But I'm not 100% sure that Sanatana Dharma necessarily involves actual worship or belief in deities either, mind you.

 

[Madhuri]

I'd say that some schools of Hinduism and Buddhism are extremely similar while others are very different. Neither (umbrella) religion holds one specific school of thought.

 

[Engyo]

True. But I'm not 100% sure that Sanatana Dharma necessarily involves actual worship or belief in deities either, mind you.

OK, that may be true. I was basing my comment on the fact that all of the Hindu temples that I have visited here in the Houston area have had a deity focus.

 

[LuisDantas]

Ok, and that is the same as the Hindu concept except that we believe in an eternal soul (which is simply Consciousness, not this self identity that is associated with the physical body).

That may be the Zen/Chan understanding of Alaya-Vijnana. See below.

I always get confused with Buddhism because of the way that different people define the concepts, but would the difference here be that Buddhists do not believe in an eternal soul/individuality?

Far as I know, that is correct. Individuality, of course, exists. But it is still ilusory and quite fleeting.

Still, at times I wonder if the Eighth Consciousness (Alaya-Vijnana) isn't what Hindus call Atman.

Eight Consciousnesses - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Apparently Yogacara schools believe so, while Zen/Chan defines it in far less personal terms.

According to the Lankavatara Sutra and the schools of Chan/Zen Buddhism, in contrast with the Yogacara position, the store consciousness (alayavjnana) is identical with the tathagatagarbha (i.e., the womb or matrix of the Thus-come-one, the Buddha), and is fundamentally pure.[6]

Personally, I take the Zen stance. It is inherently more sensible IMO, and far easier to conciliate with other Buddhist doctrine.

 

[LuisDantas]

I'd say that some schools of Hinduism and Buddhism are extremely similar while others are very different. Neither (umbrella) religion holds one specific school of thought.

That is the price we pay for encouraging people to think for themselves, I guess...

 

[Engyo]

That is the price we pay for encouraging people to think for themselves, I guess...

And how this is different from the Abrahamic faiths? They have at least as many traditions, sects and sub-sects as Buddhism or Hinduism do.............

 

[LuisDantas]

And how this is different from the Abrahamic faiths? They have at least as many traditions, sects and sub-sects as Buddhism or Hinduism do.............

But they still see their faiths as matters of belief and scripture as opposed to understanding and mental cultivation.

 

[kaisersose]

The Advaita/Shankara school was always criticized by its opponents as pseudo-Buddhism. Shankara's grand-Guru Gaudapada is considered the author of the Mandukya Karika (of Mandukya Upanishad) and in there, he supposedly used some words which were more commonly used by Buddhists leading some people to believe he may have been a Buddhist once.

In relation to this topic - Advaita's position is that there never was an individual soul ever. The existence of such a soul is only an illusion. Some opponents incorrectly read Advaita as allowing the concept of a soul which "merges" into Brahman. But that is not the Advaita position.

This is strikingly similar to some of the posts here on Buddhism that it does not acknowledge the existence of a soul.

 

[WayFarer]

It would appear that my one sentence attempt would miss way too many of the varying points of view out there.
I guess I could always go that they are spelled differently.

 

[wmjbyatt]

Man, dudes, unity is unity, flow is flow, peace is peace. Dharma is a path, a path is way, the Way is only one (actually I s'pect it's none/all), no matter the way it looks differentiated. It's all the friggin' same, it's just a different language, a different angle. Dig what I'm sayin'?

 

[SageTree]

I don't like to post links and run but it's getting late here and I wished to pass on the article from Access to Insight, which is a really good website with many interesting articles from a variety of material.

Buddhism and Vedanta

I hope that is of use.

:namaste
SageTree

 

[Smoke]

Dharma is a path, a path is way, the Way is only one (actually I s'pect it's none/all), no matter the way it looks differentiated. It's all the friggin' same, it's just a different language, a different angle. Dig what I'm sayin'?

I think Hinduism and Buddhism are aspects of one Dharma. Even in the ways that Buddhism is a reaction against the Hinduism of Shakyamuni's day, Hinduism and Buddhism define and refine one another. So I agree that it's just a different language, a different angle. But I don't agree that the Dharma is a path or a way. I don't believe in paths.

 

[LuisDantas]

You mean, as a predestined way? Or in some other sense?

 

[Smoke]

You mean, as a predestined way? Or in some other sense?

I don't believe in paths because I don't believe there is anywhere to go.