What is the Difference between hinduism and buddhism???

[cavscout65]

What is the Difference between hinduism and buddhism???

 

[Green Gaia]

Do you mean theologicaly, or something else? Buddhism grew out of Hinduism, the Buddha was born a Hindu. He had differences of opinion with the Hindus and his teachings became what we know as Buddhism.

 

[Green Gaia]

I found this link that might answer your question better than me.

 

[cavscout65]

so what would be there differences between how they view god?

 

[Green Gaia]

I'll copy my answer to you from the PM I just sent: Most Hindus have a more personal view of God. Buddhists are largely unconcerned with God, a more Deistic view if you will. But ask my fellow Hindu and Buddhist forum members to please correct me on that if I am mistaken.

 

[meogi]

Hindus and Buddhists don't concern themselves with gods (and there are lots, and lots of them in both). Being a god is just another form of 'rebirth' through karma. Being a god generally isn't looked upon as a good thing though, becuase you are too content with being 'perfect,' you do not study hindu/buddhist teachings, and you 'use up' a large amount of your good karma (after you die as a god, you'll probably be an insect or animal).
The 'main' focus of basic hinduism and buddism is to achieve nirvana. Which is basically an 'end' to the cycle of ressurrections. Although, as Engyo has pointed out, it seems less important in Mahayana Buddhism (mainly Japanese)... although nirvana is still the end goal for all of them. They are mostly concerned with the ressurrection before you attain nirvana.

Correct me if I got something wrong...

 

[Master Vigil]

From my study, the hindus had many many gods. I never heard of them being reborn from karma as gods. Nor have I heard of them dying and becoming insects. However, I would say the biggest difference is the idea of self. Hindus had what they called atman, or self. But they have what is called Brahma, or the universal god. Or everything if you will. And they believe that everything, including one's atman, is a part of Brahma. And everyone has this inner Brahma truth inside of them. This idea gave rise to Satyagraha (Gandhi's philosophy). But the Buddha said that if the atman was just a part of Brahma, than there is no self at all. And it is just an illusion. So the buddhist idea, or atleast the original idea was to get rid of the illusion of self and achieve enlightenment and nirvana. Buddhists didn't adapt the caste system either like the hindu's (I don't think). Also, the Buddha never claimed to be a god, but some groups later in the development of Buddhism thought he was. And there were many buddhas that were born and reborn. And they were all a part of buddha nature. (Sort of like the idea of Brahma). And to pray to Buddha, would help in the path to enlightenment and nirvana.

 

[Green Gaia]

Hindus and Buddhists don't concern themselves with gods (and there are lots, and lots of them in both). Being a god is just another form of 'rebirth' through karma. Being a god generally isn't looked upon as a good thing though, becuase you are too content with being 'perfect,' you do not study hindu/buddhist teachings, and you 'use up' a large amount of your good karma (after you die as a god, you'll probably be an insect or animal).
The 'main' focus of basic hinduism and buddism is to achieve nirvana. Which is basically an 'end' to the cycle of ressurrections.

I disagree that Hindus don't concern themselves with gods. They are very much concerned with god and realizing and becoming the God-within. You don't use up karma, it's a cause and effect concept. There's not a pool of karma somewhere for you and when it's gone, you're just screwed. Also, I disagree that once you attain liberation (this is for Hindus, Nirvana is a more Buddhist concept), or fully realize that God-within, your soul has a choice of whether or not to be reborn again or stay with God. If it chooses to be reborn again, it will start out at a lower life form, and work it's way up until it reaches human.

Why do you say being god isn't looked on as being a good thing?

 

[Green Gaia]

From my study, the hindus had many many gods.

No, they have one god, but that god manifests in different forms. Hinduism is not polytheistic. They recognize the one Supreme Creator God. But also recognize that different people will experience and see that God differently, and allow for that. It doesn't mean the worship many gods, they worship the same god differently.

 

[Engyo]

[snip] Also, the Buddha never claimed to be a god, but some groups later in the development of Buddhism thought he was. And there were many buddhas that were born and reborn. And they were all a part of buddha nature. (Sort of like the idea of Brahma)

Actually, any group which considered Buddha as a god would no longer be Buddhist. I admit that some of the Pure Land practices may resemble this sort of idea on the surface; deeper research reveals significant differences.

And to pray to Buddha, would help in the path to enlightenment and nirvana.

Here, I would say that praying *TO* Buddha is a misnomer. In Buddhism one isn't praying *TO* something outside onesself. One doesn't pray *TO* the Buddha; one may offer thanks or gratitude to the Buddha for showing the Path towards enlightenment. However, the power being manifest does not belong to the Buddha, it is inherent in the practitioner.

Also there is often confusion regarding terminology: Anyone can attain supreme enlightenment and become a Buddha. However, when the term "the Buddha" is used, it indicates the historical figure, Siddhartha Gautama or Shakyamuni (sage of the Shakya clan). He is accorded this title because he was the first person here in this time to attain enlightenment and teach his attainment to others.

 

[Master Vigil]

"No, they have one god, but that god manifests in different forms."

I understand, which was the point of my discussing Brahma. However, for the hindu's each god is distinct from one another. And they are worshipped separately.

And Engyo, were there not buddhists who claimed that to achieve enlightenment, all one had to do was say the name of buddha over and over again? And others had the same idea with the lotus sutra? Not necessarily praying "to", but accepting him almost as divine as if "he" alone can give them enlightenment.

 

[Engyo]

Master Vigil -

Enlightenment isn't "given". It is achieved. Whether one chooses to recite the Buddha's name, or the title of the Lotus Sutra (which I do), or engage in any of the other practices common to the many different Buddhist schools, doesn't change the premise that change comes from within, and only the individual can create that change for themselves. It cannot be bestowed from outside, by the Buddha or anyone or thing else. Nowhere does it ever say that the Buddha alone can do this; only that the Buddha offers the most direct and expedient Path towards that goal.

Now I will grant that one could mistake the intent of some of the teachings and practices, especially if one is reading from a theistic point of view. But I submit that a closer/deeper reading of any or all of them will support my contention. I think what may confuse folks is that the Buddha as an enlightened being can be such a sublimely skilled teacher as to be able to understand the one phrase which can cause you to make that change in yourself, and to use that phrase to teach you. However he (or she) does *not* have the power to change you without effort and intention on your part, and therein lies the difference.

Hope this helps.....

 

[Master Vigil]

I understand. And I thank you for your insight.