Differentiating Buddhism from Hinduism

[aflatun]

Would anyone like to discuss the positive things there are in Buddhism in relation to Hinduism, things that are missing in Hinduism that the Buddha discovered or taught? I appreciate your help.

For a long time, in "India", "Buddhist" practice was nondifferentiated and non-seperated, conceptually, from proto-Hinduisms (like "Buddhist" sects of, for instance, Kaśmīri, Shaivism***). The Buddhism practiced in Indonesia, at Borobudur, for instance, was likely a Buddhism in which one could not tell apart beneficent Hindu devāḥ from Buddhist celestial bodhisattvāḥ. "Proto-Hindu" and "Buddhist" (Vajrayāna) elements exist alongside eachother in SE Asia before the collapse of mainstream Buddhism there (I am thinking, particularly, of the large Indonesian Buddhist/Hindu societies that once existed). If you go onto DharmaWheel, you will occasionally hear argued a discourse that modern "Hinduism" is simply appropriated older Buddhism with new gods' names and a few deviations from "the teaching", but obviously this is only one perspective, that you will only hear some people arguing. That doesn't mean there isn't some degree of truth to it, though. For instance, it is well-documented that the Patañjaliyogasūtrāṇi (Yoga sutras) are indebted to the Buddhist world of literary discourse.

***see the Mahāyāna Mahākaruṇācitta Dhāraṇī ("Great Compassion Dhāraṇī"), generally sung as part of the morning service at Chinese Chan monasteries (or at least many, I am unused to how their liturgical manuals work), for an example of a ritual text from this period of heavy Hindu-Buddhist syncretism

This says nothing really, though, about the relations between Hinduism and Theravāda, or historical Sarvāstivāda, Sautrāntikāḥ, etc., because once one goes back far beyond the 8th/9th century, it gets increasingly and increasingly more difficult to pin down "what" "Hinduism" (or proto-Hinduism) actually "is/was". Does the specifgic ancient Brahmanical religion/"loose set of practices" attested to in EBTs count as "Hinduism" when it is not attested in a substantially similar way in non-EBT literature?

In light of your post I want to rephrase my answer, as answering "Would anyone like to please share the reasons why they are Buddhist instead of Advaitan (alla Shankara, who I admire)"

[Coëmgenu]

Would anyone like to discuss the positive things there are in Buddhism in relation to Hinduism, things that are missing in Hinduism that the Buddha discovered or taught? I appreciate your help.

For a long time, in "India", "Buddhist" practice was nondifferentiated and non-seperated, conceptually, from proto-Hinduisms (like "Buddhist" sects of, for instance, Kaśmīri, Shaivism***). The Buddhism practiced in Indonesia, at Borobudur, for instance, was likely a Buddhism in which one could not tell apart beneficent Hindu devāḥ from Buddhist celestial bodhisattvāḥ. "Proto-Hindu" and "Buddhist" (Vajrayāna) elements exist alongside eachother in SE Asia before the collapse of mainstream Buddhism there (I am thinking, particularly, of the large Indonesian Buddhist/Hindu societies that once existed). If you go onto DharmaWheel, you will occasionally hear argued a discourse that modern "Hinduism" is simply appropriated older Buddhism with new gods' names and a few deviations from "the teaching", but obviously this is only one perspective, that you will only hear some people arguing. That doesn't mean there isn't some degree of truth to it, though. For instance, it is well-documented that the Patañjaliyogasūtrāṇi (Yoga sutras) are indebted to the Buddhist world of literary discourse.

***see the Mahāyāna Mahākaruṇācitta Dhāraṇī ("Great Compassion Dhāraṇī"), generally sung as part of the morning service at Chinese Chan monasteries (or at least many, I am unused to how their liturgical manuals work), for an example of a ritual text from this period of heavy Hindu-Buddhist syncretism

This says nothing really, though, about the relations between Hinduism and Theravāda, or historical Sarvāstivāda, Sautrāntikāḥ, etc., because once one goes back far beyond the 8th/9th century, it gets increasingly and increasingly more difficult to pin down "what" "Hinduism" (or proto-Hinduism) actually "is/was". Does the specifgic ancient Brahmanical religion/"loose set of practices" attested to in EBTs count as "Hinduism" when it is not attested in a substantially similar way in non-EBT literature?

I'm sorry. What does the above say about why you prefer Buddhism to Hinduism?

It doesn't say much about it. It was a response to "Would anyone like to discuss the positive things there are in Buddhism in relation to Hinduism, things that are missing in Hinduism that the Buddha discovered or taught? I appreciate your help."

Contemporary Advaita Vedanta and contemporary Mahāyāna Buddhism are very similar, largely because of their shared history, which I would consider a positive thing. Non-Mahāyānists may have a different opinion. Contemporary Theravāda and contemporary Hinduism though, that is a bridge I would not know how to cross.

[cappuccino]

Advaita says, be your self.

Buddha says, all phenomena aren't your self.

So logically Advaita is asking the impossible, the reason for its difficulty.

[Coëmgenu]

Advaita says, be your self.

Buddha says, all phenomena aren't your self.

So logically Advaita is asking the impossible, the reason for its difficulty.

IMO, if Advaita "maps" onto Mahāyāna Buddhism at all, it is:

Tathāgatagarbha = Ātman
Dharmakāya = Brahman

Consider Mahāvairocana, the Dharmakāya expediently personified, "Great Illumination", who in many Mahāyāna traditions emanates the appearances of myriad buddhas like the sun's rays that he is named for, "proceeding from the sun", if you will. In some esoteric traditions, all contact at the sense bases is conceptually understood to be contact with the universal body of Mahāvairocanabuddha, or contact with the neither defiled nor undefiled buddhafield of Mahāvairocanabuddha, which functions (IMO) as a loose parallel to Nibbāna in Theravāda.

Mahāvairocanabuddha is understood as a "ground of being" in some way, in as much as all contact at the sense bases may be understood to be predicated upon "him". Consider the maṇḍala of "Speech Mystery" from the Mahāvairocanābhisaṃbodhivikurvitādhiṣṭhānavaipulyasūtrendrarājanāmadharmaparyāya (varga XI), (try saying that 10 times fast, the shorter title is Mahāvairocanasūtra), in which Mahāvairocana abides above Hayagrīva, an avatar of Viṣṇu. Viṣṇu, in Hinduism, is a deity who functions much like Mahāvairocana in some ways, particularly related to contact at the sense bases.

But parallels between Theravāda specifically and "Hinduism" of X variety are still missing. A lot of people say that comparisons with sāṃkhya there are more fruitful.

[binocular]

Would anyone like to please share the reasons why they are Buddhist instead of Hindu?

Some sects of Hinduism, one has to be born into, one cannot convert to them.

[Santi253]

Also my Hindu friend says that you cannot convert to Hinduism, you can only be born into it.

That might not be true.

[Santi253]

Would anyone like to please share the reasons why they are Buddhist instead of Hindu? What are the main differences between Hinduism and Buddhism that attracted you to Buddhism instead?

I followed Advaita for a while.

After reading a biography of the Buddha, I became Buddhist, and never looked back.

What would you say are the benefits or positive things of Buddhism compared to Hinduism?

[Garrib]

I went to an ashram once, several years ago - did some yoga and meditation. Ate healthy food, smiling people, music in the evenings, quite fun and peaceful...I was listening to Mooji talks at that time to, and it made me feel better about life...like I was important and loved in some cosmic, eternal sense. but I was also reading Richard Dawkins and the other 'new athiests' and getting thr message that I was merely an evolutionary biological robot etc...apparently supposed to be amazing and fascinating but actually just depressing and nihilistic. Eventually I encountered the 4NT, during a period of despair, and it resonated with me in a way that no other religious or philosophical teaching ever had - now here is something that is actually true, I thought...eventually I came to believe that the Buddha actually was perfectly enlightened, and somehow I had been blessed to encounter the Dhamma...Never felt that way about Hinduism or anything else really, though I tried to get into it.

So, it wasnt as if I had looked into all religions to find the one that squared best with my preexisting beliefs and views, and that Buddhism barely won out over Hinduism...it was more like Buddhism found me when I really needed something, and it just struck me immediately as the real deal, although I had some work to do in terms of shifting my views so that they were in conformance with the Dhamma - and unfortunately, I still have a great deal of work to do in this area!

[Santi253]

Contemporary Advaita Vedanta and contemporary Mahāyāna Buddhism are very similar, largely because of their shared history, which I would consider a positive thing. Non-Mahāyānists may have a different opinion. Contemporary Theravāda and contemporary Hinduism though, that is a bridge I would not know how to cross.

I am sorry if I confused things. Are you Mahayana Buddhist or Hindu? I agree with you in the sense of preferring Mahayana to Theravada.

Where Mahayana Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta are not similar is rejection of the caste system, of a creator god, and the goal of attaining Buddhahood rather than Moksha. These are main reasons I chose Buddhism over Hinduism.

[CedarTree]

Advaita says, be your self.

Buddha says, all phenomena aren't your self.

So logically Advaita is asking the impossible, the reason for its difficulty.

IMO, if Advaita "maps" onto Mahāyāna Buddhism at all, it is:

Tathāgatagarbha = Ātman
Dharmakāya = Brahman

Consider Mahāvairocana, the Dharmakāya expediently personified, "Great Illumination", who in many Mahāyāna traditions emanates the appearances of myriad buddhas like the sun's rays that he is named for, "proceeding from the sun", if you will. In some esoteric traditions, all contact at the sense bases is conceptually understood to be contact with the universal body of Mahāvairocanabuddha, or contact with the neither defiled nor undefiled buddhafield of Mahāvairocanabuddha, which functions (IMO) as a loose parallel to Nibbāna in Theravāda.

Mahāvairocanabuddha is understood as a "ground of being" in some way, in as much as all contact at the sense bases may be understood to be predicated upon "him". Consider the maṇḍala of "Speech Mystery" from the Mahāvairocanābhisaṃbodhivikurvitādhiṣṭhānavaipulyasūtrendrarājanāmadharmaparyāya (varga XI), (try saying that 10 times fast, the shorter title is Mahāvairocanasūtra), in which Mahāvairocana abides above Hayagrīva, an avatar of Viṣṇu. Viṣṇu, in Hinduism, is a deity who functions much like Mahāvairocana in some ways, particularly related to contact at the sense bases.

But parallels between Theravāda specifically and "Hinduism" of X variety are still missing. A lot of people say that comparisons with sāṃkhya there are more fruitful.

I wish you would post more, you are absolutely excellent.

[Coëmgenu]

Contemporary Advaita Vedanta and contemporary Mahāyāna Buddhism are very similar, largely because of their shared history, which I would consider a positive thing. Non-Mahāyānists may have a different opinion. Contemporary Theravāda and contemporary Hinduism though, that is a bridge I would not know how to cross.

I am sorry if I confused things. Are you Mahayana Buddhist or Hindu? I agree with you in the sense of preferring Mahayana to Theravada.

Where Mahayana Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta are not similar is rejection of the caste system, of a creator god, and the goal of attaining Buddhahood rather than Moksha. These are main reasons I chose Buddhism over Hinduism.

If Mahāyāna "rejects" caste, why didn't Indian Mahāyāna Buddhism reject castes? Why are there still castes in Tibet? Caste is a cultural feature of Indian (and some other places that don't get press for it) society. Even religions like Christianity, which do not have "caste" within them naturally, "develop" castes when they go to India or a similar country with castes as a heavy hegemonic feature of society (the Saint Thomas Christians are an excellent example of this).

I am not a Hindu, no. But I would contend that Advaita Vedanta believes in a creator god any more than any given Buddhism, given that advaita is predicated on the "not-two-ness" (the meaning of "advaita") between ātman & brahman. I've never heard of a "creation myth" ex nihilo, in the style of Christianity, from Advaita Vedanta, usually they believe in a causeless and eternal universe, much like sāṃkhya or many Buddhisms. These are some creation theories from Advaita Vedanta, sṛṣtidṛṣṭivāda, ajātivāda, & dṛṣṭisṛṣtivāda, of these, only really the last one could be construed as "(mono)theistically influenced", mostly because it comes from the 16th century, and even dṛṣṭisṛṣtivāda upholds the central "advaita" non-duality between brahman & ātman, meaning that the predicating of reality upon brahman called by whichever name (Śiva, Viṣṇu, etc.) is not substantially different from treating citta/mind as the "source" of "the world" in Buddhism.

It (Advaita Vedanta) even has its own parallel teachings to anattā, generally referred to online as "neti, neti".

If you ask me, the ultimate emptiness of "brahman" & "ātman" is where Buddhism and Hinduism are different. I don't know if Hindu's would ever say that the ātman is empty. They probably would though. There is probably a "half-Buddhist" sūtra out there in Advaita Vedanta proclaiming the emptiness of brahman & ātman, much like there are Mahāyāna Buddhist sūtrāṇi identifying tathāgatagarbha with ātman. The two religions are completely intertwined, historically speaking, so separating them and differentiating them from eachother can be a tall order at times.

[Dharmic]

Someone mentioned Advaitin/Shankara, meaning the Advaita teacher Adi Shankara ?

(And also someone brought up caste. Many things in Hinduism are related to one's varna. I think people are born into the four varnas and rest I guess are out.....)

This book is long but if anyone is interested on Sannyasa and who is eligible for renunciation, they can go through the relevant chapter in History of Dharmasastra - Vol II - Part II(Pg.942)

In the book it is mentioned that Shankaracharya stated that only Brahmins are eligible to become renunciates.

[cappuccino]

What would you say are the benefits or positive things of Buddhism compared to Hinduism?

Buddhism is quickly understood by comparison.
And Buddhism has infinitely greater benefit. (Nirvāṇa)

Although Buddhism is ascetic by comparison.

[Santi253]

And Buddhism has infinitely greater benefit. (Nirvāṇa)

Isn't Nirvana (Moksha) a concept in Hinduism as well?

Although Buddhism is ascetic by comparison.

That depends on which sects of Buddhism or Hinduism one is talking about.

[cappuccino]

Isn't Nirvana (Moksha) a concept in Hinduism as well?

Self realization? A pure self. A self isn't found in Buddhism.