Hinduism and Buddhism

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

On my ClearVoid list Charles recently said:

 

"As for myself, I seem to be moving away from Buddhism towards its

mother, the Sanathana Dharma (i.e. Hinduism)."

 

This prompted me to try to describe what I see as the differences.

So I typed 'Buddhism and Hinduism' into Google, and the first return

was these notes from a professor:

 

http://www.wsu.edu/~wldciv/brians_syllabus/buddhind.html

 

Yet, I could disagree with much of what is said here.

 

For example, I am sure that modern progressive Hindus no longer think

that only Brahmins can attain liberation. Nor is merit or good karma

earned by following the 'dharma' or law of your caste. This is a red

herring, except perhaps in rural backwards parts of India.

 

Nor are modern Hindus bound by asceticism. In fact ancient Hindu

sages could also be kings living in luxury, such as King Janaka. The

key is to be 'detached' from the luxury. Buddhism advocates the same

detachment.

 

At first, it was true that Buddhism rejected Gods, in marked contrast

to Hinduism, but Buddha himself became a God again in the later

Mahayana Buddhism, especially in the Far East. Furthermore, the

Hindu view of Gods and Goddesses is not simplistic and literal. They

all realize that the 'God with form' is an illusory representation of

the ultimate God 'without form'.

 

I think that a much more important distinction between religions or

spiritual paths is between nondualistic and dualistic.

 

Nondualism can mean many things, which are interrelated.

 

Primarily, it means that the divine is not other than our inmost

consciousness, our true nature. God is not 'out there' to be

worshipped. This is the mystical message of the Upanishads, the

source of Hinduism, which predate Buddhism: Atman (spirit or soul) is

identical to Brahman (the divine ultimate reality and the true nature

of all things).

 

And a strong case can be made that Buddhism continues this spiritual

view, in that Enlightenment itself is nothing but realizing a higher

state of consciousness that is intrinsic to our nature as conscious

beings. Heaven is not 'out there' but is 'within us', the same as

the divine. Jesus also said this: 'The Kingdom of Heaven is within

you'.

 

At a deeper and even more mystical level, it also means that the

universe is not different from consciousness, which we have just seen

is identical to the Divine. Hence God, Consciousness and Reality are

ultimately all the same. The Upanishads say this clearly: Brahman

is 'Sat, Chit, Ananda' or 'Being, Consciousness and Bliss'. Since

Brahman is ultimate reality and the true nature of all things, and

since our own spirit or consciousness (Atman) is the same as Brahman,

this implies that everything is ultimately just an illusory

projection within the One Consciousness. Even different 'people' are

all ultimately the same, just as the waves are all parts of one ocean!

 

Advaita (the most advanced branch of Hinduism) clearly says this, but

it is also explicit in much of the later Mahayana Buddhism and

implicit in the more austere Early Buddhism. First the Buddha denied

the reality of the phenomenal ego (which seems like the central

reality to us). Later Mahayana Buddhism extended this to deny the

reality of objects, by famously calling them 'empty'. Emptiness is

the ultimate reality and true nature of things. But what is

'emptiness' but consciousness? Surely 'emptiness' is not nothing;

this would be absurd, since consciousness itself is simply

undeniable. Rather, emptiness means that the objects, which seem so

real and able to stand by themselves, are not other than illusory

projections within the Infinite Consciousness. Ego, which also seems

so distinct and able to stand by itself, shares the same fate as

objects. Both ego and objects are unreal. They both rise and fall

together, depending on our spiritual vision. There is only the

Divine Consciousness. To be enlightened is to realize this (even if

we use different concepts and terminology).

 

This may be difficult for us to understand, but it is how reality

appears to those who are spiritually realized. The great sages of

Hinduism and Buddhism arrived at this vision but expressed it in

slightly different language.

 

Nevertheless, there is a difference between Buddhism and *popular*

Hinduism. Buddhism has tended to retain the same abstract, mystical,

nondual view as Advaita and the Upanishads (though this statement

must be qualified when considering the popular forms of Buddhism in

Far Asia). Hinduism, by contrast, has retained its popularity with

the Indian masses by allowing colorful dualistic expressions of

divinity, such as a plethora of Gods, Goddesses and other sensual

manifestations of the divine suitable for devotion. Nondual

mysticism is a bit too much for most people! The path of devotion is

generally more accessible, and it has the added advantage of

appealing to the heart. Christianity also benefits from this.

 

However, both the nondual mystical approach, in which all merges into

the Infinite Consciousness, and the devotional approach, where God

(or Goddess) remains the sweetly desired but separate object of

devotion, are actually all interfused in the real spiritual practice

of real people. Nobody is purely one or the other. Differences in

temperament and spiritual development may incline different people in

different directions, but sufficiently pure devotion will lead to

transcendental mystical realization, and true mystical realization

has all the sweet bliss of devotion. The true sign of spiritual

maturity is the extent to which the divine is felt to be our own true

nature, and devotion can go there too, just as in marriage the man

and the woman unite in bliss.

 

So in a way Hinduism 'wins', because it has all the wisdom of

Buddhism, which it had even before Buddhism, as it was the very

source of Buddhist wisdom via the Upanishads. But Hinduism also

makes more concessions to popular sentiment, which is not only

spiritually generous but also politically wise! Buddhism, though,

has some advantages, due to its more abstract nature. The very

presence of Hindu Gods and Goddesses makes it hard to 'transplant'

Hinduism to other cultures, whereas Buddhism is much more flexible

and has spread all over the world.

 

In summary, don't worry which path to choose. Just be sincere about

whichever path you do choose, and go with your instincts, provided

these are pure. A pure heart can feel its way to the truth.

 

For a much more tedious discussion of nonduality in various Indian

traditions see

 

http://www.superprajna.com/Advaita/IndianNondualism.html

 

Hari Om!

Benjamin