The biggest difference between Buddhism and Hinduism.

[kaisersose]

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

Same here.

All I can guarantee you is that as long as you are searching for happiness, you will remain unhappy - UG

 

[wmjbyatt]

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

Since when does a path need a destination? Ever gone on a hike? The Way is the goal, the path is the end, the ride is the point. Just cuz it's got no culmination don't make it not a path, see?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

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

So long as there an 'I' not believing in paths, that 'I' is as far from enlightenment as the 'I' who believes in paths.

Perhaps it can be said that being on a path is a temporary expedient for the unenlightened devotee, but with enlightenment, the I who is seeking is found to be one with THAT which is being sought, this Oneness is in reality non-dual and hence the apparent traveller ceases to be along with the conceived path.

 

[wmjbyatt]

So long as there an 'I' not believing in paths, that 'I' is as far from enlightenment as the 'I' who believes in paths.

Perhaps it can be said that being on a path is a temporary expedient for the unenlightened devotee, but with enlightenment, the I who is seeking is found to be one with THAT which is being sought, this Oneness is in reality non-dual and hence the apparent traveller ceases to be along with the conceived path.

Nah, man. It isn't non-dual. For something to be non-dual, it has to separated from the dual. Get it? Reality isn't non-dual. Reality isn't dual. Reality just IS. Actually, it ain't, but it's beneath language, so sayin' it "is" is as close as we're gonna get, methinks. Quit getting 98% down a good road and then quittin'. The "I" doesn't exist, but neither does anything else. Even emptiness is empty (Diamond Sutra, man, sit down with some trees and some words and it'll make the no-sense that is all-sense and yada yada yada). Point being, not even no-self is real. It's all nothing, and from nothing it all POPS! back into everything.

Rock on.

 

[Smoke]

So long as there an 'I' not believing in paths, that 'I' is as far from enlightenment as the 'I' who believes in paths.

I do not claim to be enlightened.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Nah, man. It isn't non-dual. For something to be non-dual, it has to separated from the dual. Get it? Reality isn't non-dual. Reality isn't dual. Reality just IS. Actually, it ain't, but it's beneath language, so sayin' it "is" is as close as we're gonna get, methinks. Quit getting 98% down a good road and then quittin'. The "I" doesn't exist, but neither does anything else. Even emptiness is empty (Diamond Sutra, man, sit down with some trees and some words and it'll make the no-sense that is all-sense and yada yada yada). Point being, not even no-self is real. It's all nothing, and from nothing it all POPS! back into everything.

Rock on.

Nah, the concept of duality can only emerge from a limited mind that deals with concepts that represent the dualistic perspective of subject and object. THAT* which is on the other side of the concept of non-duality or oneness is all that exists or doesn't exist

* Yes, it is understood that THAT is also a concept but is used as an expedient to represent that which can't be represented.

BTW, if you prefer the concept of IS to the others commonly used, that's cool.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I do not claim to be enlightened.

Sorry Smoke, I understand that and didn't intend to score a point at your expense which is why your user name was not quoted. I was just using the quote to take the point you made to the next level, that of focusing on absolute non-duality. However I can see why you posted back, so please accept my apologies.

Trying to discuss non-duality in language is of course fraught with problems, perhaps ultimately impossible and why wmjbyatt is on the case...

 

[Smoke]

Sorry Smoke, I understand that and didn't intend to score a point at your expense

No problem. I don't claim be enlightened, so why would it offend me if somebody says I'm not?

 

[zenzero]

Friend smoke,

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

In the same vein:
There is nothing to be said; why say, even that much???
Hahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Its not about saying or believing; its all about the state of one's MIND!

Love & rgds

 

[zenzero]

Friend WayFarer,

The biggest difference between Buddhism and Hinduism.

Personal understanding is that Gautama evolved the *DHARMA* which is SANATAN.
Differences are all perceptions of the human mind; in reality Gautama's efforts were only to cut few more roots of the Mind's Attachments even for those on the dharma path.

Love & rgds

 

[SageTree]

Friend WayFarer,



Personal understanding is that Gautama evolved the *DHARMA* which is SANATAN.
Differences are all perceptions of the human mind; in reality Gautama's efforts were only to cut few more roots of the Mind's Attachments even for those on the dharma path.

Love & rgds

Dear Double Z,

Would you say then that the relative words used to express this are to shift the focus thus establishing a new neural path way of thought? To me it's like 'non-self'.... it's still a 'self' in traditional conceptions, but the term designates a deeper clearer, less attached way to approach? Pardon me if that is a poor example or incorrectly stated, however that is how I perceive this.

:namaste
SageTree

 

[zenzero]

Friend ST,

That is exactly the personal understanding!
Gautama as personal understanding goes was perceived as a *threat* by the followers of the so called *dharma* at the time as none could guide Gautama properly and so he found his own way which ofcourse was in relation to his grounding which as we know is *sanatan dharma*; in a way he evolved it further in every aspect.
Friend ST, though his middle path was accidental in nature but existence found Gautama to be the right vessel for IT.
Till the arrival of Gautama, the *self* was the focal point but Gautama shifted the focus of the *self* further to that of the MIND. One is what his mind creates or imagines/visualises/perceives.
No-mind is now the focus from the Mind.[mind evolved to no-mind]

Love & rgds

 

[SageTree]

Thanks Double Z-ji,

That make complete sense.... to my understanding

:namaste
SageTree

 

[Sikh]

The difference between Hinduism and Buddhism is defined by the central focus of Lord Siddhartha--Human Suffering. The Brahmans maintained that people suffer because they have gone away from the true reality or truth of one consciousness. Their Karma of ignorance in their previous lives define what caste and thereby the amount of suffering/ignorance they can expect in their current life. Because in this system of Caste, only the Brahmans could be taught to attain full enlightenment or liberation from ignorance/suffering--Lord Siddhartha's compassion for all people was forced developed a loop hole.
If life was an illusion, he maintained, then so must suffering be. He then went on to define suffering, coming ultimately to the understanding that the ego's need to remain as a form in the mind was causing it. He developed techniques that would allow lay people to gradually be free of the ego and ultimately free of suffering.
At its core the difference is about what the Brahmans considered higher forms of consciousness, ultimately arriving and merging with the true and sole consciousness. Lord Siddhartha considered these states of consciousness irrelevant, because the desire to attain them was a form of attachment, Brahmans disagreed.

 

[Madhuri]

The difference between Hinduism and Buddhism is defined by the central focus of Lord Siddhartha--Human Suffering. The Brahmans maintained that people suffer because they have gone away from the true reality or truth of one consciousness. Their Karma of ignorance in their previous lives define what caste and thereby the amount of suffering/ignorance they can expect in their current life. Because in this system of Caste, only the Brahmans could be taught to attain full enlightenment or liberation from ignorance/suffering--Lord Siddhartha's compassion for all people was forced developed a loop hole.
If life was an illusion, he maintained, then so must suffering be. He then went on to define suffering, coming ultimately to the understanding that the ego's need to remain as a form in the mind was causing it. He developed techniques that would allow lay people to gradually be free of the ego and ultimately free of suffering.
At its core the difference is about what the Brahmans considered higher forms of consciousness, ultimately arriving and merging with the true and sole consciousness. Lord Siddhartha considered these states of consciousness irrelevant, because the desire to attain them was a form of attachment, Brahmans disagreed.

You're talking about the difference between Buddhism and Castism. In the Gita, Krishna's teachings are very similar to what you just explained about Buddha's teachings of ego and higher consciousness.

In Hinduism, it is our ego that traps us in illusion and ignorance. While in illusion we experience suffering. When we reach a higher plane of consciousness through Realisation (ie. Enlightenment) then there is no more suffering, as suffering is but a state of perception.

I think that the God concept is a core difference. In Hinduism, God IS the Reality. And that Reality, when Realised, is eternity, knowledge and Bliss. I don't hear anything about this in Buddhism.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I think that the God concept is a core difference. In Hinduism, God IS the Reality. And that Reality, when Realised, is eternity, knowledge and Bliss. I don't hear anything about this in Buddhism.

True enough, but according to my understanding, the reason 'God' and and other conceptualizations/descriptions of Reality are not entertained in Buddhism is that Buddha understood that Reality when realized will be 'found' on the other side of the ideas and concepts that are meant to represent IT.

IOW, Buddha understood that Reality represented by the concept 'God' exists independent of the concept and therefore for the Reality itself to be realized. then the conceptualizer must cease conceptualizing a symbol that indirectly stands for it. There is no further need for the raft once the far shore has been reached.

For me, the ultimate goal of Buddhism is the exactly the same as the ultimate goal of Hinduism, but this goal is not the goal that can be conceptualized but Reality beyond the concept of Reality.

 

[atanu]

True enough, but according to my understanding, the reason 'God' and and other conceptualizations/descriptions of Reality are not entertained in Buddhism is that Buddha understood that Reality when realized will be 'found' on the other side of the ideas and concepts that are meant to represent IT.

IOW, Buddha understood that Reality represented by the concept 'God' exists independent of the concept and therefore for the Reality itself to be realized. then the conceptualizer must cease conceptualizing a symbol that indirectly stands for it. There is no further need for the raft once the far shore has been reached.

For me, the ultimate goal of Buddhism is the exactly the same as the ultimate goal of Hinduism, but this goal is not the goal that can be conceptualized but Reality beyond the concept of Reality.

Hello Ben

I fully agree. Buddha taught that there was an unborn reality that makes worthwhile all efforts to come out of dukkha cycle. Similarly, Vedanta teaches that Brahman is attained by Neti-Neti. Vedanta also teaches that Word and Mind recoils from that.

Differences are always from the view of the seeker on a particulr path.

A summary, which was written in another context is reproduced below.

Friends

All religions: Hinduism, Judaism, Islam, speak of creator-controller as distinct from the created. "I am this body" is created while "I am" is the creator or the Lord.

The underlying "I Am", is distinct from "I am this". Buddhism essentially teaches that the "I Am" is also a product -- of ignorance. Hinduism agrees but points out that the wisdom-intellect of an enlightened one does not enter the objects and thus remains as distinct "I Am". So, Buddha is such all pervading "I am" acting as teacher.

Without such teachers, it would be difficult for fragmented wisdom-intellect, entangled in localised body-minds (names-forms such as us), to attain the fullness of "I Am" and further the 'unborn'. So, enlightened teacher is God to a Hindu.

All schools of Hinduism recognise a creator along with maintainer and destroyer (although worship of a creator is in general not prescribed). But eventually these three functions are not ascribed to the highest reality called Brahman-Self. It is said that the acts of creation, maintenance, and destruction proceed from Brahman, who however is not a doer.

No doubt that the acts of creation, maintenance, destruction belongs to universal conciousness (Self-Brahman-Atman), however only when enacted as specific roles. But Self remains untainted, just as an actor enacting a role of a thief does not really become a thief or Gold, when shaped as a bangle does not lose its goldness. And ulimately there is no creation in the sense of creation of new things unrelated to the source, since the process is like making gold into various ornaments. Beneath all created forms and names, the consciousness remains the same.

But at the same time, for the worshipful Hindu, nothing is lost, since at the level of nature (prakriti-mind), conciousness enacting the role of Lord as creator, maintaner, destroyer remains valid. Similarly, consciousness enacting the role of teacher whose intellect is separate from objects, remains valid.

So, the biggest difference between Sanatana Dharma and Buddha, as a teacher said, is that Buddha did not say that the wisdom-intellect of an enlightened one does not enter the objects.

Mandukya Karika IV-99. The knowledge of the one who is enlightened and all-pervasive, does not enter into objects. And so the souls also do not enter into objects. This fact was not mentioned by the Buddha.
................​

If we do not accept 'without beginning' presence of souls (which undeniably in essence are consciousness enacting as various names and forms) all our discussions, teachings and strivings are meaningless, as of now. On the other hand, for pure consciousness, there is no seeker, no path, no liberation. ​

Om

 

[zenzero]

Friend atanu,

Buddha did not say that the wisdom-intellect of an enlightened one does not enter the objects.

Have you not heard of the *silent transmission* where Mahakasyap received all that Gautama had to offer without having spoken a single word.
Likewise there are many things that Gautama transmitted in silence and words are not necessary for those who are enlightened themselves and Gautama's efforts was to enlighten others so that they understand everything on their own.
So, kindly do not speak or listen about DIFFERENCES between Sanatan Dharma or Buddha Dharma. Buddha dharma is part of Sanatan Dharma and personally find that it is the latest offering of dharma through evolution with Gautama as the medium.

Love & rgds

 

[atanu]

Friend atanu,

Have you not heard of the *silent transmission* where Mahakasyap received all that Gautama had to offer without having spoken a single word.
Likewise there are many things that Gautama transmitted in silence and words are not necessary for those who are enlightened themselves and Gautama's efforts was to enlighten others so that they understand everything on their own.
So, kindly do not speak or listen about DIFFERENCES between Sanatan Dharma or Buddha Dharma. Buddha dharma is part of Sanatan Dharma and personally find that it is the latest offering of dharma through evolution with Gautama as the medium.

Love & rgds

Friend ZenZero

I think you misunderstand me again. I have very high regards for your unwavering conviction and the way you state that. I am 200% with you. Have no doubt.

But resting in the Pragnya, why should one not enjoy the variety also. What is the harm in enjoying a rose and a butterfly? This is the first reason for me to try to state the difference as concisely as I know to do it.

The second reason is that there are some misconceptions that Buddhism is absolutely different from Santana dharma in that it is alleged to have taught that there is nothing holding eventually. That is wrong. First, the teachings hold in the realm of prakriti-mind and guide us. Second, the teachings guide us to an unborn reality just as Neti-Neti guide us.

I hope i am clear.
.............

That said i acknowledge that i and you are labels.

Regards

Om

 

[zenzero]

Friend atanu,

Am not against anyone least of all to your words or you.
Though am not a buddhist nor have read and digested Gautama's teachings but personal understanding is that Gautama is neither in the body nor a spirit as being totally in one; the other stands out.
There is consciousness in both the duality rather the core of either duality is consciousness and to be just the consciousness is not to side with either but be both and neither or be this or that; it is TOTAL and pure consciousness.
Try and follow the ying/yang principle and you may understand.
This has come out as an extension of the dharma.

Love & rgds