[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re : ARTICLE : About Hinduism and Buddhism
Manjunath Shankar (shankar@lexis-nexis.com) wrote:
>Dear Pradip,
>Thank you for article in soc.religion.hindu explaining Hinduism. I used
>the material to explain Hinduism to a friend of mine.
> However, I was not able to answer one of his queries; He wanted
>to know the fundamental difference between Hinduism and Buddhism. All
>I could tell him was that they are very similar and that Buddha was
>born a Hindu and derived many of his teachings from Hinduism. But
>are there any stark differences between the two religions? If you
>happen to know, or could point out a source where I could dig it up,
>I would be gratetful.
>Thanks again.
>shankar@lexis-nexis.com
>.--
>Shankar
Dear Manjunath,
I am glad that the article was of use to you.
The subject of the exact relationship between Hinduism and Buddhism
is highly controversial. I will try to briefly point out the major points of
agreement and disagreement and also point out where Hindu and Buddhist scholars
disagree. I will also give you some references that you can consult.
1. Buddha rejects the Karma Kanda of the Vedas but did not deny the
Jnana Kanda (i.e the Upanishads). This is the view of the Hindu scholars. The
Buddhists probably feel that Buddha rejected the whole of the Vedas. It is,
however, true that Buddhist theologians would quote from the Upanishads when
they thought that it would strengthen their case. Buddhists have their own
scriptures like Dhammapada.
2.Buddha kept silent about the existence of the Ultimate Reality. To
some Buddhist sects this implies that Buddha does not believe in any Ultimate
Reality. Other Buddhist sects like the Tibetan system thinks that Buddha did
believe in an Ultimate Reality. However, all Buddhist sects reject the concept
of Personal God. Thus some of the Buddhist sects are very close to the Advaita
system of Sri Sankara in that they both believe in Impersonal Reality. Modern
Hindu theologians have interpreted Buddha's silence as to mean that he was
merely saying that the Ultimate Reality can not be expressed in words.
3.Both Hinduism and Buddhism believe in Karma and rebirth. There is,
however, one major difference. Hindus believe that the Atman transmigrates
from one birth to another. Buddhism believes that nothing transmigrates
from one birth to another since there is no such thing as the Atman. In the
Buddhist view the karmas of one individual give birth to another, but the two
individuals are not related. This is a fundamental difference between the two
systems. Radhakrishnan, however, feels that this is not Buddha's position and
that Buddha does accept the Atman doctrine.
4. In Sanatan Dharma, a person who realizes God or Self is freed from
the cycle of Birth and Death and is no longer subjected to the cycle of Karma.
According to the theistic systems of Sri Ramanuja and Sri Madhva the liberated
person retains his individuality even in the divine abode. According to Sri
Sankara's Advaita system the liberated person merges in to Brahman. This is
because the Atman is really Brahman and the liberated person has himself
become Brahman. The difference can be understood as follows. You can think of
the liberated person as a candle light while Brahman as the sun. Sri Ramanuja
and Sri Madhva are saying that the candle light while similar to the sun can
never be the sun. It remains a candle light. Sri Sankara is saying that the
liberated individual is like a light which merges in the effulgent glory of
Brahman just as a river merges in the sea. Thus all individuality is lost.
Sri Ramakrishna says that both positions are true and depends on the
wish of the liberated person. If the liberated person is a devotee, he will
not want to become sugar but want to eat sugar. Thus the devotee will retain
his individuality to enjoy God's love. On the other hand, those who are jnani
wants to merge with Brahman. Sri Ramakrishna also makes the point that
although the individuality of the jnani is lost (in agreement with Sri
Sankara) this loss is not annihilation. It is not to be thought of as the
little water drop losing itself into an ocean. Rather, you should think that
the little rain drop has expanded to become the entire ocean. This is his
explanation of what happens to the jnani.
In Buddhism, a person who experiences nirvana is also freed from the
law of Karma. However, after this person dies no new individual comes into
existence thus reducing suffering in the Samsara. The Buddhist position, the
loss of individuality, seems to be similar to Sri Sankara's Advaita system.
5.Buddha considers both the Atman and the world as unreal. (Of course
Radhakrishnan does not accept that this is really Buddha's position. )
Nearly all Hindu sects accept that the Atman is divine and real but
there is difference about the reality of the world. The theistic Hindu systems
feel that the world is real while Sankara's Advaita considers it unreal. Sri
Ramakrishna has a more nuanced position. He considers the world to be real but
explains the Theistic Vedanta and the Advaita position as follows. According
to Sri Ramakrishna, a devotee wants to think of the glories of God and thus
has to keep a separation from God and thus world is naturally real to him. The
Jnani wants to completely merge with God and thus looses all individuality in
Nirvikalpa Samadhi. In that state there is no I and thus no you and thus no
world. However, you can not keep yourself at such a high state and your
consciousness has to come down. Then you see the world again. Thus Sri
Ramakrishna says that the Advaita position is a philosophical position. He
says that there is a higher state than a jnani which he calls Vijnani. A
Vijnani is one who sees (even when he is not in Samadhi) that God has become
the world and then the world seems to be very real to him. Thus in Sri
Ramakrishna's view the Theistic schools and Advaita Vedanta are describing the
experience of persons of different bent of mind. The theistic schools are
describing the experience of the devotees. The Advaita school is describing
the experience of the Jnani. Although they are mutually exclusive they are
both correct.
I discussed the Hindu position to such details for the following
reason. May be, Buddha took the position of Extreme Jnani. He was probably
describing the experience of Nirvana where there is complete loss of
individuality. That is why he may be saying that both the Atman and the world
are unreal (there is no I nor you nor the world in that state). Other wise I
think that the Unreality of the Atman is the most fundamental difference
between Buddha and Sanatan Dharma.
6. Buddha thinks that only monks can achieve nirvana. Hindus believe
that while it is easier for monks to achieve Samadhi, it is possible for
householders can experience Samadhi.
You may consult Swami Prabhavananda's "The Spiritual Heritage of
India". You may also read through Radhakrishnan's "Indian Philosophy".
However, as I have already pointed out Radhakrishnan does not accept the
orthodox Buddhist position that Buddha does not accept the concept of Atman.
I hope this helps.
Regards
Pradip
