Buddhism and Hinduism

[Пламен]

1. Both believe in karma and its invisible retributive force (adrsta).
2. Both place seeds of karma in the intellect (Hindus call it Buddhi, Buddhists label it alaya-vijnana).
3. Both believe in reincarnation (Hindus with more vindication, Buddhists - with less reasons, because, as we know, in Buddhism, there is NO reincarnating Self, Atma).
4. Both regard the world as fleeting samsara, and both accept the eternal, pure, and unchangeable Principle (Paramatma or Dharma-kaya as the highest nature of Buddha).
5. Both deny the empirical stability and substantiality of the Ego. Ego is not our proper Self, or as Buddha says in Anatma-laksana-sutra (Anatta-lakkhana-sutta), rupa, vedana, etc. are not the Atman, because Atman is something different from them.
6. Both follow the way of non-violence.
7. Both have similar iconography, especially in their Tantric forms.
8. Both regard Avidya as the chief klesa and put jnana in high esteem.
9. Both confess the fourfold noble truth.
10. Both pursue the eightfold noble path.

As for the nirisvara-vada, not all Hindu systems accept the existence of God-Creator, Samkhya, for one, is as much atheistic as early Buddhism is.

[ADept]

Согласен. Однако практика показывает, что Знание (или Путь) и его Последователи - две разные вещи В том смысле, что современные буддисты (впрочем, как и индуисты, но мнее) несколько иначе отражают понимание избранного Пути. В следствие чего, некоторые пункты вообще бы не находили сходства. Допустим, за словом "реинкарнация" стоят настолько разные понятия, которые далеки от тождества, и многие буддисты (встречающиеся мне) вообще внятно сказать по этому поводу мало чего могут, и мне кажется, это как раз происходит по причине отсутствия адекватного определения вообще. Ну а главный пункт 8 - что может некоторые и понимают, что есть "chief klesa", но хоть убейте меня, НИ ОДИН мне не встречался, который бы "put jnana in HIGH esteem".
Пламен, что Вы думаете по этому поводу ?
---
P.S. А неплохо Вы 10 основ изложили, прям как 10 Заповедей у Христа ;-)

[Пламен]

I think you are right! :-)))

It is only Buddhologists that "put jnana in high esteem", not the average Buddhist. They hate philosophy because philosophy is conceptual thinking, and every conceptualization is the natural fiend of Enlightenment.

[ADept]

It is a pity. The Ancient Tradition (Wisdom) has lost almost..
---
But, let's hold a voting about "chief klesa" ? ;-)
It's very interesting to see results.

[Пламен]

You mean jnana would be racing for the "chief klesa"?

[ADept]

:-)))))))))))
I suppose, No) I guess..  -)))
But I think it's a good question to be voted, isn't it ? ;-)

[Пламен]

Here is the first real difference so far. Buddhism recognizes only two pramanas (pratyaksa and anumana, perception and inference), while the Hindu darsanas accept 3, four, five or even 6 instruments of valid knowledge. According to the Buddhists, sabda (Word) is not a valid instrument of cognition.

This, however, is a double-bladed knife. While refuting the Hindu agamas as inadequate source of knowledge, Buddhist apologets run into big trouble being forced to falsify also the Word of Buddha himself. And since there is a written Canon - Pali, two Tibetan and two Chinese, the anti-sabda zeal is finally reduced to nothing. Or, to be precise, it takes the following form: The Word of the Hindus and their scriptures are invalid means of knowledge, while the Word of Buddha and the root Buddhist scriptures are valid instrument of cognition by force of the Buddha authority.

Ergo, Buddhists also accept Sabda as a valid pramana, otherwise the text of, say, PPHS would not have been sanctified and altar-worshipped.

Next difference, please.

* * *
To illustrate the above "difference", Acarya Santaraksita relates the following anecdote. A husband comes back home earlier and catches his wife in adultery. The wife denies everything. The case is brought to the parishad. The husband: - I have seen them with my own eyes! - His wife: Oh, good people, look at this incredulous little husband of mine. What is more worth respecting? - The words of a virtuous woman, or the cripple perceptual evidence of an enfuriated male?