Hindu Practice Vs Buddhist Practice

[No_Mind]

How similar is it to Buddhist practice (compare practice to practice .. do not go off topic and keep repeating ad nauseum DO and 4NT exists only in Buddhism .. yes I know and do not disagree ..)

I have the impression that both traditions involve a "seeing through" of personal experience. In Hinduism there is a deeper reality "beneath" the personal ( Atman/Brahman ), while in Buddhism there is Nibbana....

Perfect .. just what I have been trying to tell everyone for years and gotten accused of being a low life atman-peddler.

[SarathW]

Hi No-mind
You know very well that Hindu practice and Buddhist practice are substantially different.
For instance animal sacrifice and pray to god etc. (my understand is each Hindu has their own god or goddess)
Another point is the term Hinduism is a latter invention.
In your opinion what is the difference in Hinduism and Buddhism?

[Idappaccayata]

Hi No-mind
You know very well that Hindu practice and Buddhist practice are substantially different.
For instance animal sacrifice and pray to god etc. (my understand is each Hindu has their own god or goddess)
Another point is the term Hinduism is a latter invention.
In your opinion what is the difference in Hinduism and Buddhism?

This is quite obvious to anyone who takes a historical inquiry into the two. "Hinduism" as it's called nowadays absorbed any uses many Buddhist concepts in its later development. Many "Hindu" teachers, who are basically just non-dual teachers, have come from an Indian background and teach fundamental Buddhist concepts through a Hindu lens. One of the most prominent being Shankara, who at his time was denounced by many Hindus for teaching Buddhism. The only thing Hinduism has in common with Buddhism, are the concepts that it borrowed from Buddhism in its later development.

I don't really understand why so many people try to conflate the two now. Typically it seems to be the westerners who hold the view that "all paths lead up the mountain", and don't actually study any religion, or cultural Hindus who cherish their cultural (which is understandable) but have interest in Buddhist teachings.

[Idappaccayata]

How similar is it to Buddhist practice (compare practice to practice .. do not go off topic and keep repeating ad nauseum DO and 4NT exists only in Buddhism .. yes I know and do not disagree ..)

I have the impression that both traditions involve a "seeing through" of personal experience. In Hinduism there is a deeper reality "beneath" the personal ( Atman/Brahman ), while in Buddhism there is Nibbana....

Perfect .. just what I have been trying to tell everyone for years and gotten accused of being a low life atman-peddler.

Nibbana is outside. Something different entirely, while Brahman remains in the realm of conditioned samsara. This is the difference. The Buddha didn't deny the brahma realm, but it doesn't end suffereing. This is why he was called "a teacher of gods and men".

The goal of Hinduism is a step on the path in Buddhism. Albeit a very high one, but not the final goal. Nibbana and atman are not the same thing. This is the main philosophy the Buddha spoke against, obviously.

[No_Mind]

I have the impression that both traditions involve a "seeing through" of personal experience. In Hinduism there is a deeper reality "beneath" the personal ( Atman/Brahman ), while in Buddhism there is Nibbana....

Perfect .. just what I have been trying to tell everyone for years and gotten accused of being a low life atman-peddler.

Nibbana is outside. Something different entirely, while Brahman remains in the realm of conditioned samsara. This is the difference. The Buddha didn't deny the brahma realm, but it doesn't end suffereing. This is why he was called "a teacher of gods and men".

The goal of Hinduism is a step on the path in Buddhism. Albeit a very high one, but not the final goal. Nibbana and atman are not the same thing. This is the main philosophy the Buddha spoke against, obviously.

Buddha spoke of Brahma not Brahman .. there is a substantial difference .. and obviously Nibbana and atman are not same thing .. I think you were trying to say Nibbana and Moksha are not the same thing .. please unconfuse yourself first

This is a thread about the practice in both faiths not about Buddhism holds which view and Hinduism holds which one ..

Football and Rugby are different except both are played on a field with goalposts .. but the players may want to compare their training schedules .. that is what I tried to do .. practice of Buddhism vs Hinduism .. not goals and doctrines of Buddhism vs Hinduism

As time goes by I find it takes me 200 words to write a question and another 2,000 words to describe what it means since most do not care to at all try and understand what the question means ..

Forgive me for being slightly short tempered .. but ..

Hi No-mind
You know very well that Hindu practice and Buddhist practice are substantially different.
For instance animal sacrifice and pray to god etc. (my understand is each Hindu has their own god or goddess)
Another point is the term Hinduism is a latter invention.
In your opinion what is the difference in Hinduism and Buddhism?

Hindu religious practice vs Buddhist religious practice are substantially different.

I am speaking of meditation and related factors .. sense control, types of hindrances, types of concentration ..

such as this sub-heading "Breaking the Alliance of Karma". I know Buddhists will not agree with it .. but just to see what rugby players do can't hurt .. can it?

http://www.swamij.com/yoga-sutras-21225.htm

a paragraph from it

A wise, discriminating person sees all worldly experiences as painful, because of reasoning that all these experiences lead to more consequences, anxiety, and deep habits (samskaras), as well as acting in opposition to the natural qualities. Because the worldly experiences are seen as painful, it is the pain, which is yet to come that is to be avoided and discarded.

The uniting of the seer (the subject, or experiencer) with the seen (the object, or that which is experienced) is the cause or connection to be avoided.

and another

In relationships, the mind becomes purified by cultivating feelings of friendliness towards those who are happy, compassion for those who are suffering, goodwill towards those who are virtuous, and indifference or neutrality towards those we perceive as wicked or evil.
(maitri karuna mudita upekshanam sukha duhka punya apunya vishayanam bhavanatah chitta prasadanam)

and another

When acting, speaking, or thinking against your values: The Yamas and Niyamas give superb suggestions for living and being. However, the most important suggestion is on what to do when you are not acting, speaking, or thinking in the way you know you want, when not following the suggestions by the Yamas and Niyamas. For example, you want to practice ahimsa, which is non-harming. But what do you actually do when you have angry emotions towards somebody else?

Remind yourself, "This is not useful": When you know that your actions, speech, or thoughts are not what you want, the suggestion is to repeatedly remind yourself that this anger (or other example) is going in the wrong direction, and will bring you nothing but unending misery. It can be as straightforward as silently repeating the words to yourself, "Mind, this is not useful; this is going to bring me nothing but more suffering, and lead me into greater ignorance of truth. Mind, you need to let go of this."

[Saengnapha]

I have the impression that both traditions involve a "seeing through" of personal experience. In Hinduism there is a deeper reality "beneath" the personal ( Atman/Brahman ), while in Buddhism there is Nibbana....

Perfect .. just what I have been trying to tell everyone for years and gotten accused of being a low life atman-peddler.

Nibbana is outside. Something different entirely, while Brahman remains in the realm of conditioned samsara. This is the difference. The Buddha didn't deny the brahma realm, but it doesn't end suffereing. This is why he was called "a teacher of gods and men".

The goal of Hinduism is a step on the path in Buddhism. Albeit a very high one, but not the final goal. Nibbana and atman are not the same thing. This is the main philosophy the Buddha spoke against, obviously.

If I understand correctly, Brahman is not the personal, it is the unconditioned which is said to be ineffable and beyond all descriptions. It seems the 'hangup' is with atman and the identification that takes place within the Vedantic tradition. Buddhism doesn't posit an atman, but it does posit nibbana, which is uncondtioned and ineffable, beyond words and all 'self' experience. Brahman is the same but it is explained as 'eternal'. Some Buddhists also explain nibbana as eternal. It seems it is just a way of describing something that cannot be grasped and the use of words confuses the whole issue. Buddhists did not invent nibbana. They also don't have any ownership of it. That also goes for Hindus/Vedantists.

[Idappaccayata]

Perfect .. just what I have been trying to tell everyone for years and gotten accused of being a low life atman-peddler.

Nibbana is outside. Something different entirely, while Brahman remains in the realm of conditioned samsara. This is the difference. The Buddha didn't deny the brahma realm, but it doesn't end suffereing. This is why he was called "a teacher of gods and men".

The goal of Hinduism is a step on the path in Buddhism. Albeit a very high one, but not the final goal. Nibbana and atman are not the same thing. This is the main philosophy the Buddha spoke against, obviously.

Buddha spoke of Brahma not Brahman .. there is a substantial difference .. and obviously Nibbana and atman are not same thing .. I think you were trying to say Nibbana and Moksha are not the same thing .. please unconfuse yourself first

This is a thread about the practice in both faiths not about Buddhism holds which view and Hinduism holds which one ..

Football and Rugby are different except both are played on a field with goalposts .. but the players may want to compare their training schedules .. that is what I tried to do .. practice of Buddhism vs Hinduism .. not goals and doctrines of Buddhism vs Hinduism

As time goes by I find it takes me 200 words to write a question and another 2,000 words to describe what it means since most do not care to at all try and understand what the question means ..

Forgive me for being slightly short tempered .. but ..

Hi No-mind
You know very well that Hindu practice and Buddhist practice are substantially different.
For instance animal sacrifice and pray to god etc. (my understand is each Hindu has their own god or goddess)
Another point is the term Hinduism is a latter invention.
In your opinion what is the difference in Hinduism and Buddhism?

Hindu religious practice vs Buddhist religious practice are substantially different.

I am speaking of meditation and related factors .. sense control, types of hindrances, types of concentration ..

such as this sub-heading "Breaking the Alliance of Karma". I know Buddhists will not agree with it .. but just to see what rugby players do can't hurt .. can it?

http://www.swamij.com/yoga-sutras-21225.htm

a paragraph from it

A wise, discriminating person sees all worldly experiences as painful, because of reasoning that all these experiences lead to more consequences, anxiety, and deep habits (samskaras), as well as acting in opposition to the natural qualities. Because the worldly experiences are seen as painful, it is the pain, which is yet to come that is to be avoided and discarded.

The uniting of the seer (the subject, or experiencer) with the seen (the object, or that which is experienced) is the cause or connection to be avoided.

and another

In relationships, the mind becomes purified by cultivating feelings of friendliness towards those who are happy, compassion for those who are suffering, goodwill towards those who are virtuous, and indifference or neutrality towards those we perceive as wicked or evil.
(maitri karuna mudita upekshanam sukha duhka punya apunya vishayanam bhavanatah chitta prasadanam)

and another

When acting, speaking, or thinking against your values: The Yamas and Niyamas give superb suggestions for living and being. However, the most important suggestion is on what to do when you are not acting, speaking, or thinking in the way you know you want, when not following the suggestions by the Yamas and Niyamas. For example, you want to practice ahimsa, which is non-harming. But what do you actually do when you have angry emotions towards somebody else?

Remind yourself, "This is not useful": When you know that your actions, speech, or thoughts are not what you want, the suggestion is to repeatedly remind yourself that this anger (or other example) is going in the wrong direction, and will bring you nothing but unending misery. It can be as straightforward as silently repeating the words to yourself, "Mind, this is not useful; this is going to bring me nothing but more suffering, and lead me into greater ignorance of truth. Mind, you need to let go of this."

I think your intentions are misleading. What are you asking? Are you or the author really claiming that what you quoted is Hinduism? It's obviously recycled Buddhism. If you want to "compare the practices", why don't you start by sharing a practice that is actually Hindu?

[No_Mind]

I think your intentions are misleading. What are you asking? Are you or the author really claiming that what you quoted is Hinduism? It's obviously recycled Buddhism. If you want to "compare the practices", why don't you start by sharing a practice that is actually Hindu?

Uh .. it is Hindu Yoga Sutra of Patanjali .. as Hindu as it gets

[No_Mind]

If I understand correctly, Brahman is not the personal, it is the unconditioned which is said to be ineffable and beyond all descriptions. It seems the 'hangup' is with atman and the identification that takes place within the Vedantic tradition. Buddhism doesn't posit an atman, but it does posit nibbana, which is uncondtioned and ineffable, beyond words and all 'self' experience. Brahman is the same but it is explained as 'eternal'. Some Buddhists also explain nibbana as eternal. It seems it is just a way of describing something that cannot be grasped and the use of words confuses the whole issue. Buddhists did not invent nibbana. They also don't have any ownership of it. That also goes for Hindus/Vedantists.

Excellent my dear Sir. You are a Daniel come to judgement.

[Idappaccayata]

I think your intentions are misleading. What are you asking? Are you or the author really claiming that what you quoted is Hinduism? It's obviously recycled Buddhism. If you want to "compare the practices", why don't you start by sharing a practice that is actually Hindu?

Uh .. it is Hindu Yoga Sutra of Patanjali .. as Hindu as it gets

The Yoga Sūtras of Patañjali are 196 Indian sutras (aphorisms). The Yoga Sutras were compiled prior to 400 CE by Sage Patanjali, taking materials about yoga from older traditions.[1][2][3]

That doesn't make them original to Hinduism. Almost 1000 years after the Buddha. Saying Hinduism is too broad of a term. What tradition of Hinduism are you referring to?

[No_Mind]

I think your intentions are misleading. What are you asking? Are you or the author really claiming that what you quoted is Hinduism? It's obviously recycled Buddhism. If you want to "compare the practices", why don't you start by sharing a practice that is actually Hindu?

Uh .. it is Hindu Yoga Sutra of Patanjali .. as Hindu as it gets

The Yoga Sūtras of Patañjali are 196 Indian sutras (aphorisms). The Yoga Sutras were compiled prior to 400 CE by Sage Patanjali, taking materials about yoga from older traditions.[1][2][3]

That doesn't make them original to Hinduism. Almost 1000 years after the Buddha. Saying Hinduism is too broad of a term. What tradition of Hinduism are you referring to?

Hinduism has no problem in saying that it took 4,000 years to evolve from 3,000 BCE to 1,000 CE (or even as late as 1500 CE). Unlike Buddhism the schools did not split up (Therevada, Tibetan Mahayana, Chan, Zen, Nichiren ..) .. but stayed together compared notes and moved on.

Today is a very important festival in most of India .. Maha Shiva Ratri .. no Hindu will have a problem with admitting the fact the proto-Shiva is found as Pashupati in Indus Valley seals (3,500 BCE) then as Rudra in Vedas (1,500 BCE) then as Shiva from 1,000 CE onwards .. does not matter .. end goal of worshipping Rudra or Shiva is same and that is enough ..

Patanjali is variously placed between 200 BCE and 400 CE.

I think next argument I see coming is that Patanjali was a prachanna Bauddha (stole Buddhist ideas) to which the reply would be as Saengnapha put it .. the ideas were floating around the subcontinent .. no one had a copyright .. no one has ownership .. how do you know Buddhism did not come from the same fountainhead of ideas as well .. and Hindus take Patanjali Yoga Sutra as development of Samkhya philosophy

Instead of arguing (Allah vs Yahweh type of never ending argument) is it not better to read both and take away what is constructive.

[Polar Bear]

I think there are obviously a lot of similar practices and I think a serious practicing buddhist could even use yoga, patanjali, and other non-buddhist shramanic practices and texts as a supplementary resource in cultivating sila, samadhi, and overcoming desire for sensory experiences/the material world. Not that the supplementary resources are necessary, but they are at least kinda cool. And many of the practices are so similar I'm not even going to bother comparing them, it would be tedious/I'm too lazy. I do like reading about them though so thanks for the post No_Mind.

[SarathW]

I think next argument I see coming is that Patanjali was a prachanna Bauddha (stole Buddhist ideas) to which the reply would be as Saengnapha put it .. the ideas were floating around the subcontinent .. no one had a copyright .. no one has ownership .. how do you know Buddhism did not come from the same fountainhead of ideas as well .. and Hindus take Patanjali Yoga Sutra as development of Samkhya philosophy

What I am interested to know is whether Hindu teaching in current form is the same as Buddhism.
ie: Are the teaching of Patanjali the same as Buddhist teaching.
If not what is the main difference.

[No_Mind]

I think there are obviously a lot of similar practices and I think a serious practicing buddhist could even use yoga, patanjali, and other non-buddhist shramanic practices and texts as a supplementary resource in cultivating sila, samadhi, and overcoming desire for sensory experiences/the material world. Not that the supplementary resources are necessary, but they are at least kinda cool. And many of the practices are so similar I'm not even going to bother comparing them, it would be tedious/I'm too lazy. I do like reading about them though so thanks for the post No_Mind.

"Kinda cool" .. the exact sentiment I wanted all of you to feel ..

[No_Mind]

I think next argument I see coming is that Patanjali was a prachanna Bauddha (stole Buddhist ideas) to which the reply would be as Saengnapha put it .. the ideas were floating around the subcontinent .. no one had a copyright .. no one has ownership .. how do you know Buddhism did not come from the same fountainhead of ideas as well .. and Hindus take Patanjali Yoga Sutra as development of Samkhya philosophy

What I am interested to know is whether Hindu teaching in current form is the same as Buddhism.
ie: Are the teaching of Patanjali the same as Buddhist teaching.
If not what is the main difference.

I am not going to talk of teachings Sarath .. this thread is about practice not teachings ..

Look at it this way .. some soccer players dropped in on a rugby match .. the point is not if rugby/soccer players are stronger or fitter or better or tougher .. but "hey pal how much cardio do you guys do .. uh we put in about 8 miles a day and another 30 minutes swimming for some of us"