2
3

QuestionTrying to understand difference between Hinduism and Buddhism (self.Buddhism)

Jacob_wallace が 投稿

For a long time, I figured Buddhism was basically the atheist version of Hinduism and didn't give it much thought. Recently I've found out that Buddhism cosmology is more or less the same as Hindu cosmology, and many Buddhists worship gods/goddesses, and believe in heaven and hell realms.

I've heard the difference is Hinduism sees the world as full whereas Buddhism sees the world as empty. As I explore both concepts though, there doesn't seem to be much much difference, as crazy as that sounds.

I've also heard Buddhism rejects the idea of a soul. But why care about nirvana then? If it's not your soul being reborn and suffering, then why try to free your karma? What does it even mean to free one's karma? I still don't get Buddhist rebirth.

全 21 件のコメント
並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A

[–]Little_Morrymahayana 10ポイント11ポイント  (0子コメント)

First of all, Hinduism isn't a discrete thing the way Buddhism or, say, Christianity is thing. It's an artificial, 19th c. (or thereabouts) designation of the indigenous religions of Hindustan (more properly Bharat, basically modern India and it's sphere of cultural influence). In fact, if Buddhism in India had survived the Mughal era, no doubt it would have been categorized as Hinduism (Jainism is too, for example, despite protestations). It comprises incredibly varied religions, from Vedic ritualism to village animism to phenomena we'd more easily recognize from an academic ethnographical POV as fully formed religions. The main current religions under the umbrella of Hinduism are Smartism, Saivism, Shaktism and Vashnavism. These share many concepts and scriptures, but at the same time have widely divergent cosmologies, theologies and ritual practices. They're at least as different and as similar as Judaism, Christianity and Islam are.

Buddhism comes from the same stock: the brahminical culture of the Vedas and the Sramenera tradition of mendicants. As such it shares many concepts with Hinduism, although you always have to be careful: the ideas called dharma in Buddhism and Hinduism are clearly related but at the same time very, very different.

Arguably the closest spiritual relation between Buddhism and Hinduism could be said to be that between Mahayana Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta. (Gaupada, the more-or-less founder of Advaita Vedanta, is said to have been deeply influenced by the Buddhist Madhyamika teachings in particular.) They both share an emphasis on personal liberation and have similar ideas about the general illusoriness of reality. But: their ultimate view is again arguably quite different. Whereas in Mahayana Buddhism there's no identifiable ultimate nature of reality and of me, in classical Advaita, there's an ultimately existing atman (which you could translate as self) which is indistinguishable from Brahman, the formless, all-pervading, fundamental essence of God. Other differences are of course that Buddhism doesn't accept the validity of the Vedas and subsequent Vedic texts.

As to your question re. why you'd wanna attain nirvana if there is no soul: because samsara is suffering, dukkha (first Noble Truth). Luckily, this suffering has an identifiable cause in grasping to a self (second Noble Truth). That means that suffering can be ended (third Noble Truth). Following the path to that ending of suffering (fourth Noble Truth) is then kinda a no brainer. Compare having a nightmare: even though the giant tentacle-covered Donald Trump chasing you through an unending series of Nickleback concerts isn't actually real, it's still vastly preferable to wake up. Similarly, the absence of an identifiable self doesn't mean getting rid of dukkha is a bad idea.

[–]PeachesAreHealthy 6ポイント7ポイント  (13子コメント)

Buddhists believe in the four noble truths, the three marks of existence, and dependent origination. Also, Mahayana Buddhists are motivated by relative bodhicitta. Hinduism lacks these things.

The first part of the Buddhist eightfold path is Right View, and this is important because the way you view reality affects the karma you create. If two people behave the exact same way but have different beliefs about emptiness, they will accomplish different spiritual results. If you lack the view of emptiness, you will be chained in samsara forever.

As for rebirth, I remember a video in which Yuttadhammo Bhikku said, "It's not that Buddhists believe in rebirth. Buddhists don't believe in death." All we have is an ever-changing continuum of impermanent experiences with no core that can be labeled the root of it all. You are not the same person as you were when you were a newborn infant, but you also are not entirely different from that person. This continuum does not cease upon the death of he body, it just undergoes a more significant type of change than it had for the past 80+ years.

But why care about nirvana then?

Because of the first noble truth: dukkha. Buddhists aspire to liberate themselves or all sentient beings from dukkha. Dying of cancer again and again sucks, and being reborn as a chicken is even worse.

If it's not your soul being reborn and suffering, then why try to free your karma?

Your mind is being reborn. But unlike the concept of the soul, Buddhists believe that the mind has no permanent unchanging essence, and thus nothing that can be labeled a self. Think of a car. It has wheels, windows, pedals, a trunk, so on and so on. But if you examine all these little parts, you won't find anything that can be labaeld "car." The car has no permanent essence; it's only an amalgamation of a bunch of things all of which are not cars by themselves.

What does it even mean to free one's karma?

It means you are no longer doing things that cause you to be reborn in samsara.

[–]national_sanskritpure land 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

As for rebirth, I remember a video in which Yuttadhammo Bhikku said, "It's not that Buddhists believe in rebirth. Buddhists don't believe in death." All we have is an ever-changing continuum of impermanent experiences with no core that can be labeled the root of it all. You are not the same person as you were when you were a newborn infant, but you also are not entirely different from that person. This continuum does not cease upon the death of he body, it just undergoes a more significant type of change than it had for the past 80+ years.

This comment has best explanation of buddhist rebirth I have read in long time.

[–]wemustknowdeath 0ポイント1ポイント  (7子コメント)

I think it is the consciousness that is reborn, no? Also although impermance is taught in reference to the five aggregates, there is the unconditioned which is not subject to change. So the deathless can be seen as a 'root' if you like. This is pretty clear from this sutra:

And the Blessed One, this connection, on that occasion, breathed forth this solemn utterance: "There is, O monks, a state where there is neither earth, nor water, nor heat, nor air; neither infinity of space nor infinity of consciousness, nor nothingness, nor perception nor non-perception; neither this world nor that world, neither sun nor moon. It is the uncreate. That O monks, I term neither coming nor going nor standing; neither death nor birth. It is without stability, without change; it is the eternal which never originates and never passes away. There is the end of sorrow.

"It is hard to realize the essential, the truth is not easily perceived; desire is mastered by him who knows, and to him who sees aright all things are naught. There is, O monks, an unborn, unoriginated, uncreated, unformed. Were there not, O monks, this unborn, unoriginated, uncreated, unformed, there would be no escape from the world of the born, originated, created, formed. Since, O monks, there is an unborn, unoriginated, uncreated and unformed, therefore is there an escape from the born, originated, created, formed."

[–]Manjuvajra 0ポイント1ポイント  (6子コメント)

Its not the consciousness that is reborn, its the imputation of the self onto the aggregates.

[–]wemustknowdeath 0ポイント1ポイント  (4子コメント)

It is said to be the "evolving consciousness" (Pali: samvattanika viññana, M.1.256)[11][12] or "stream of consciousness" (Pali: viññana sotam, D.3.105) [13] that reincarnates. The early Buddhist texts make it clear that there is no permanent consciousness that moves from life to life.[14] The lack of a fixed self does not mean lack of continuity. In the same way that a flame is transferred from one candle to another, there is a conditioned relationship between one life and the next: they are neither identical nor completely distinct. Source: wikipedia

[–]Manjuvajra 0ポイント1ポイント  (3子コメント)

There's the eye consciousness, ear consciousness, nose consciousness, tongue consciousness, and bodily consciousness. Upon death, the skandhas of form, feeling, discriminations, mental functions, and consciousnesses disentegrate, fall apart. So, the thing that is reborn cannot be any of these.

What is reborn is the very subtle mind and its mounted wind. This is the imputation itself of an ignorantly established self of persons and self of phenomena.

Upon death, the very subtle drop splits open and the imputation of the self and phenomena, the very subtle wind and mind, enters the central channel where it exits the body in one of six places. These places corrospond to the six realms. Exiting the anus leads to rebirth in a hell realm, exiting the jewel leads to rebirth as a hungry ghost, exiting the navel leads to rebirth as an animal, exiting the heart leads to rebirth as a human, exiting the throat leads to rebirth as a demi-god, and exiting the crown leads to rebirth as a god.

This is the point of the yoga of the transference of consciousness where the deity is generated and expelled upwards through the crown.

This is also the point of heart yoga, to be reborn human again.

[–]wemustknowdeath -3ポイント-2ポイント  (2子コメント)

This isnt from any theravada sutra and so it isnt what the buddha taught. I think this is tibetan Buddhism? Well I dont know the real answer anyway.

[–]Manjuvajra 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

The Buddha absolutely taught this.

[–]wemustknowdeath 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Some I think but not all. The first paragraph I have read before, but the rest I havent. It does sound like Tibetan buddhism with the heart yoga stuff?

[–]Jacob_wallace[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (3子コメント)

Many Hindus believe Buddha to be an incarnation of Vishnu, and therefore embrace his teachings.

[–]PeachesAreHealthy 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

They're not embracing his view, which is the most important thing. They're ignoring it and syncretizing the parts of Buddhism that seem pleasant into their Hindu beliefs.

[–]Little_Morrymahayana 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Well, in a way. But see for example this quote about Lord Buddha from A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, the founder of the well known Vaishnava revivalist and preaching movement ISKCON:

Now, how he is cheating? He is the incarnation of God, but he is preaching amongst people who don't believe in God. So he is cheating in this way, that "Yes, there is no God. You hear me." But he is God. The people amongst whom he is preaching, they don't believe in God, but they accept Lord Buddha. But he is God. So by cheating, he is making others to worship God. God is there. But superficially they think, "We don't believe in God. We believe in Lord Buddha." And Lord Buddha is God. Therefore in the Bhāgavata it is said that his business will be cheat the atheist class of men. (Source.)

The view that Lord Buddha is an avatar of Vishnu usually comes with the idea that he came to spread false teachings, either to lead already "evil" people further astray or (as in this quote) to give utterly unqualified folks at least a semblance of decency.

The whole thing is rather anachronistic anyway, as the Vishnu-centred Bhakti movement that centres around the avataras of Vishnu (or Narayana, or Krishna) dates from at least 1000 years after Lord Buddha's life.

And in any case: most Hinduism you'll actually find in real life isn't overly concerned with philosophy or spirituality. It's more about going to the temple, having the darshan of saints (or of folks who at least manage to come across hella saintly on TV, like the late Sathya Sai Baba) and feeling good. Putting a picture of the Buddha next to a Shiva Lingam and a statue of Radhe-Syam ain't no thing and does not imply a well-thought out inclusivist theology in the background. (Note I am not intending this as criticism. It's just that the spectrum of religious experience is a lot wider than Western "searchers" tend to acknowledge or have access to.)

[–]national_sanskritpure land 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Well, Hindus theoretically believe him avatar of Vishnu but they neither study nor practice his teachings. Vague respect and fondness is how Hindus think of Buddha.

[–]numbersev 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

I've heard the difference is Hinduism sees the world as full whereas Buddhism sees the world as empty.

All unawakened human beings see the world in terms of existence vs. non-existence instead of appropriately seeing it solely in terms of causation.

The Buddhas' teachings are different from all others due to one fundamental difference: the Buddha rejected all sixty two possible classifications of a self. The reason is because of the truth of conditioned (arisen) phenomena and causation. Anything that comes into being is dependent on other causes and is inconstant. Nothing has an inherent true identity outside of transience. This is the essence of emptiness and not self. Nothing has a self.

The Buddha taught how to view the world in accordance with reality. Doing so leads to the discernment in the cause and cessation of stress in each and every form, all caused from the same thing.

Hinduism falls into the same fallacy as Abrahamic religions. Promise of an eternal refuge where no eternal refuge can be found. The Buddha said that those teachings may lead to a rebirth in a brahma heaven where one lives for aeons but without breaking through to the truth they are still subject to wandering on as they always have been, subject to birth in a deprived destination (animal, ghost, torture).

[–]Dhammakayaram 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

The word hinduism appears in the English lexicon in 1829. It is not a term of Indian origin. It was used by British colonialists to describe India's complex religious culture as if it were coherent enough to be construed as a single, systematic religion. It is a mistake to pit the term "hinduism" against Buddhism since its colonialist inventors didn't understand Indian religious culture moreover that it could not be homogenized as they wished it to be.

[–]wemustknowdeath 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Many Buddhists may believe in Gods etc, but the Buddha did not teach to worship Gods or even believe in Gods. The Buddha taught two things, suffering, and the path leading to the end of suffering. He alikened his teaching to a palm full of leaves in a forest of trees. So he taught only what was necessary for people to live a peaceful life.

The problem is your talking about Hinduism in a broad context. It has many different forms. Vedanta, is quite similar to Buddhism, for example the teachings of Sri Ramana Maharshi he mentions the importance of awareness or mindfulness. Although they do differ on philosophical issues like the existence of a soul. There are other sects of Hinduism that are more different and less compatible with Buddhism, for example bhakti yoga and devotion to Lord Krishna is called Krishnaism. They believe they are capable of a higher enlightenment than those who do not devout themselves to a personal God. There are many more sects and groups in India which have very different practices and beliefs. Buddhism is much more coherent, even taking into account Tibetan practices and differences between Theravada and Mahayana

To end karma is to end greed, hatred, and delusion, and purify the mind, this is said to end the cycle of rebirth. It is easy to get bound down by semantics here, because ultimately words are different from experience. It is good to bear that in mind when trying to make sense of all this!

[–]clickstation 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Hinduism is a huge broad religion evolving over thousands of years. The vedanta Hinduism is very different from the rites-and-rituals Hinduism, while being quite similar to (some branches of) Buddhism.

[–]bleuenverttheravada 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I don't think belief in the rebirth or nirvana is important. All I can really know is what I learn from experience. As far as I am aware all that is real is the present moment. Developing morality and concentration through meditation I can improve my ability to manage dukkha and act create good karma around me. Sure attaining a state of perfect awareness would be great, but it doesn't need to exist for me to want to improve my experience :)

Buddhism is neat because it doesn't require any faith. One can use the path the buddha has shared, by experiencing and discovering it for oneself. The cosmology behind it I think just helps cultivate desire but it is not necessary in my opinion :)

[–]Manjuvajra 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

They are not the same gods even though they look similar. Buddhism is incomparably superior to Hinduism because only Buddhism leads to the two aims of higher rebirth and liberation from suffering.

[–]Jacob_wallace[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Hinduism aims for that as well.