Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
What is the Buddhist view of Hinduism ?
Namaste.
I was just wondering what the Buddhist view of Hinduism is ? Im a new Hindu convert so to speak and ive noticed that there are a lot of similarities in ideas, language , practice between Hinduism and Buddists..
How do Buddhists view Hinduism and what is the general view of all the Hindu deities etc ??
Im asking because although im Hindu Im very interested in Buddhism as thats what began my interest in Hinduism..
Theres a Buddhist temple near me that id like to go to alongside my Hindu one and id like to incorporate some aspects of Buddhism, especially meditation into my daily Hindu practice but im worried that if i go to a buddhist temple as a Hindu it will offend people there or I wont be allowed ??
Thank you for any insight you can give ...
Namaste
I was just wondering what the Buddhist view of Hinduism is ? Im a new Hindu convert so to speak and ive noticed that there are a lot of similarities in ideas, language , practice between Hinduism and Buddists..
How do Buddhists view Hinduism and what is the general view of all the Hindu deities etc ??
Im asking because although im Hindu Im very interested in Buddhism as thats what began my interest in Hinduism..
Theres a Buddhist temple near me that id like to go to alongside my Hindu one and id like to incorporate some aspects of Buddhism, especially meditation into my daily Hindu practice but im worried that if i go to a buddhist temple as a Hindu it will offend people there or I wont be allowed ??
Thank you for any insight you can give ...
Namaste
0
Comments
Hindus see Buddha as a God.
Buddhism (including the Buddha) does not.
Hinduism is Hinduism, and Buddhism is Buddhism. There really isn't very much to say apart from that.
Except we're very happy for you if you're happy in your Hinduism, just as we're very happy for the Christian who is happy in their Christianity.
~nomad
http://www.religioustolerance.org/curr_war.htm
as you can see sometimes the two are in conflict, however that one was mainly political. generally hindus and budhist get along way better than other religions.
It will pretty much depend upon the Buddhist or Hindu in question. If either is dogmatic, insecure, prejudiced or touting a political agenda, then there'll be trouble.
If not, then both can get along fine and can actually be of benefit to the other.
Those similarities are not accidental. Over the millenia there has been constant cross-fertilization. Hinduism is really a misnomer-- there are many distinct religions and philosophies that comprise modern Hinduism. The various approaches of advaita vedanta are very similar to buddhist philosophy. Undoubtedly, Adi Shankara was profoundly influenced by buddhist philosophy. Hindu tantra shares many deities and ritual details with Vajrayana buddhism. In the Kaula sampradaya, we find Matsyendranath and Goraknath who were of course also counted among the 84 Mahasiddhas. Within the Dashamahavidyas we find "Mahacina Tara" which of course is a buddhist devata. The Dzogchen teachings have much in common with what has come to be known as Kashmir Shaivism. Avalokiteshvara is rather obviously closely related to Pashupati.... the list goes on.
In general, I have found buddhists to be quite condescending and dismissive of Hinduism-- particularly western buddhists that lack any real experience or understanding of Hindu tradition and philosophy.
To be sure, most Hindus have a view of deities that is essentialist at best and completely dualistic at worst. Only very few understand their deities in the context of advaita realization. This view of the deity is contrary to the buddhist teachings on selflessness of persons and phenomena (though frankly, many buddhists aren't much better in the way that they understand buddhas and meditational deities).
I have practiced both for over 20 years now. I feel enriched by both traditions and wouldn't give up either. The universe is a very big place. You can't tell me that only Shakyamuni Buddha understood what had to be understood and that his dharma is the only dharma that leads to realization. That smacks of the same sort of conceit as people who think that Jesus Christ is the only saviour in the history of the universe. Preposterous on the face of it.
I would strongly suggest that if you want to practice both, you practice them separately and distinctly. They each have their own contexts, traditions and lineages. Keep separate shrines, separate malas and don't mix things up. The kind of porridge that some New Agers make of the spiritual traditions they encounter just ensures that they perpetuate their ignorance.
Engage with your guru or gurus from whatever traditions, buddhist or hindu and let them be the arbiters of what you practice. Show them the courtesy of practicing as they have taught without trying to innovate by mixing the two. If your goal is liberation and service to others, you really can't go wrong and all genuinely spiritual people will welcome your company.
With love,
Kalidas
Interesting. I want to explore this a little more. First a quote from the Digha Nikaya (borrowed from Jason's post in "the true religion" thread:
"In any doctrine & discipline where the noble eightfold path is not found, no contemplative of the first... second... third... fourth order [stream-winner, once-returner, non-returner, or arahant] is found. But in any doctrine & discipline where the noble eightfold path is found, contemplatives of the first... second... third... fourth order are found. The noble eightfold path is found in this doctrine & discipline, and right here there are contemplatives of the first... second... third... fourth order" (DN 16)
As a Buddhist, I believe that statement. Whether the Buddha may have made that statement 2,500 years ago or not, may be in question, but what factors a religion requires to lead to relinquishment, are not left in doubt. The suttas clearly state again and again that all the Buddha taught was the 4 Noble Truths and the only way to complete awakening is via the Noble 8-fold Path to Perfection. No other religion contains this path and no other religion contains the 4 Noble Truths.
Does that mean that other religions are "wrong"? No, christianity is practiced by christians because they have a deep seated need for someone to save them. Thus belief in this system leads to their psychological comfort. Others have a need for a more strict relgion like Islam, or a more diverse religion like Hinduism. These relgions provide a need for each of these types of individuals. However, none of them contain the Noble Eightfold Path to Perfection and as such do not lead to cessation. But not all beings are ready for such a message, they're not ready to quiet down, to put the fire out, to cease. These other religions provide for people at different states of their development. Not wrong, not right, just required at that particular time in the person's travels through samsara.
But I do believe (and I keep using that word believe quite deliberately) that only a religion that contains the Noble Eightfold Path can lead to cessation. You can call that Buddhism (I don't think the Buddha ever did) or whatever you want. There were religions before the Buddha that contained the path and there will be religions after this Buddha's time is long forgotten when religions will arise that also contain the eightfold path. But currently in this world, at this time, only Buddhism contains the path that leads to cessation. Does that mean that it is the only "true" religion? Only if you want to follow the path that leads to cessation.
Kind Regards,
Vangelis
I think that this is just so. However, not all buddhists are seeking cessation. While I view this as a holy goal and have tremendous respect for those arhants that have attained in this way, it is not the goal of Vajrayana in general and Dzogchen in particular that start from the premise of the wisdom of Dharmadhatu: Nothing has arisen, nothing abides now, nothing needs to cease. We do of course practice the eightfold path of the Noble Ones, but prajna and samadhi are defined differently than in the nikayas.
Given those differences, there is much in common between buddhism and advaita vedanta. Sankara's formulation was not referred to by the Buddha, as it was a later development that was heavily influenced by buddhist ideas. If looked at dispassionately, there is very little difference between the Vedantic goal and that of Vajrayana dharma. I think that the Dzogchen teachings have some methods and approaches that are sublime-- that advaita does not have, but I do believe that there are vedantins that have attained the result. Realization is not created by the path but merely discovered or uncovered.
Moreover, realization is not something far away. It is our birthright. It is closer than our breath and the most obvious thing in the world. To assume that it is forever the domain of only one religious approach when religious approaches arise from conditions and Enlightenment is uncreated just makes no sense to me. I can respect relying on the words of Tathagatha, but in this case I believe that his words were of provisional significance.
Hi Namgyal,
Good post. I think it's worth bearing in mind that Dzogchen and Vajrayana are (according to some sources) also miles apart. As far as I have come to understand, the 'efforts' of HYT are also considered "provisional" by the adherents of Dzogchen.
jinzang, regarding the view of emptiness, would you posit this to be the Prasangika view, or do you have something else in mind?
Namaste
I don't know what intellectual view is sufficient to give rise to an authentic non-conceptual view of emptiness. I vaguely recall H.H. Dalai Lama discussing the question and saying even the Mind-Only view is sufficient. I also can't say if someone outside the Buddhist tradition can give rise to an authentic view.
How is it possible to pass what is already yours?
The practice view perhaps.
It's a question of perception.
You may not know you have a hair poking out of a mole on your back, but it's always been there.
It's just that you've simply either never been made aware of it, or you've never realised it was there.
See?
I'm definitely all for seeing
_/|\_
thanks.
As a guest on this forum, I'd advise you to cease being so strident, and act like a guest is expected to, in any sphere. With courtesy, respect and politeness.
Don't proselytise.
We don't do it to you, be so good as to cease doing it here.
Or go somewhere else.
Got it?
Buddhism - Idam Sati Ayam Bhavati (when This exists That arises)
HTH
The Buddha emphatically insisted he was neither.....
Hinduism is full of Gods, and Buddhism doesn't ascribe to a single one.
The entire Pali Sutta Pitaka is littered with references to Brahma, Indra, Surya, Candra and so forth although not exalted in the same way as how the Vedas do it.
And in other Buddhist Traditions, you will hear of other devatas like Vishnu, Mahesvara, Sarasvati, Lakhsmi, Ganga and so forth being accepted as worldly Dharma Protectors and in attendance for various Dharma Assemblies. These instances are found in many Dharanis and the Mahayana Sutra Pitaka references.
However, one clear and distinct agreement of all Buddhist Traditions are that they are beings still subject to the samsaric rounds like anyone of us and are not proper objects for refuge and ultimate reliance as compared to the Triple Gem.
Let's also not forget that the Buddha did taught on recollection of devas' virtues or devatānussati as part of the 10 Recollections.
I recall a Vaishnavaite friend of mine who said that perhaps the 'offense' the Buddhists have done to their devata is to make them subservient to the Buddha and Bodhisattvas to which I replied that similarly, they have assimilated the Buddha as one of Vishnu's 10 avatars (though this is debated and disagreed ferociously amongst themselves) and the Saivaite Brahmins who took over the Buddhist Maha Bodhi Shrine at Bodhgaya, India and were doing Saivaite pujas, an image of the Buddha modified into that of Mahesvara and banned Buddhists from visiting it but was wrest back from them by the courageous Sri Lankan, Anagarika Dharmapala (also known as Don David Hewavitarne) and restored it back to the management of the Maha Bodhi Society in 1949.
Personally, I would not simply jump on the popular ecumenistic bandwagon to summarise both sides in a simplistic manner but rather through a detailed study of both systems and in acknowledging and accepting the real differences only then can we do proper justice and fairness to both and see how we can work hand in hand with our Hindu brethren for the common good and weal of all sentient beings. Mutual trust and respect are perhaps the foundation for such efforts.
Just an opinion.....
I was specifically talking about the kind of Gods extant in Hinduism or Christianity.
The Gods in Buddhism are allegorical and representative, but they are not omnipotent omniscient or everlasting.
To clarify.
I beg to differ with your differing... lol for want of a better way of saying it.
Firstly, before I get into my differing, I would like to thank you for a well presented, thoughtfull and most informative post. You have raised information in it that I wasn't aware of so I've learnt something just by reading it.
Now back on topic. Let's compare the way that Buddhism views "gods" - an unfortunate English translation of the Pali deva.
1. According to the Pali suttas, there is no creator-god being to be found. There is no being that is responsible for all of creation. The concept of a creator-being is dealt with in the first sutta of the Digha Nikaya as a false view that arises in this world and is but one of the 62 types of wrong view that keep us firmly within samsara and its associated suffering. In stark contract to this, we have the monotheistic god(s) which are responsible for all of creation. I'm not sure whether the Brahma god-being of the Brahmins at the time of the Buddha was suposed to have been responsible for all of creation but I do seem to remember that he does create beings and that we are to reunite with him and the ultimate goal. Anyway, suffice it to say that it is a creator-being concept similar to the monotheistic religions. I'm also not sure whether the Hindu concept of Vishnu is supposed to be a creator-god-being. Maybe you can enlighten us on that.
2. These devas are impermanent beings. To see the permanent in the impermanent is yet another type of wrong view. So, whilst all the beings spoken about by the Buddha are impermanent, this is in direct contrast to the monotheistic god(s), the Brahmin's Brahma and the Hindu's Vishnu.and other gods. The concept of a god, particularly a creator-god-being is necessarily one of permanence. This is in direct contradiction with the fundamental laws that govern all of existence as espoused by the Buddha (and verified by modern science). In fact, if all conditioned things were not impermanent, then there would be no use for Buddhism, no goal of cessation and as easy "escape" from suffering.
3. There is no need for worship of these beings. In none of the Pali suttas has the Buddha advocated that worshipping any sentient being would be of any benefit to us. Just as the gods of all religions are not required to be worshipped, the Buddha never advocated worship for himself either. There is no point in this primitive behaviour as what would we worship or pray to? The impermanent physical being or the impermanent mind processes that the being generates? This again is in stark contrast to the monotheistic religions but I'm not sure how it related to how Hindus are supposed to relate to their gods.
4. The Buddha does indeed raise himself above the level of the "gods" or devas and rightly so. From the Buddhist persepective once the Buddha had attained nibbana, he was unique in all of existence in this respect. There was no other being like him. So having achieved such a lofty and difficult realisation, he was indeed worthy of praise above that of the gods who remained impermanent and firmly within samsara. So whilst the virtue of the devas was worthy of recollection, the Buddha's attainment was way beyond the samsaric state of the devas and therefore worthy of higher praise.
Well, they are the four disctinctions that I can see between Buddhism's view of "gods" and Hinduism's and/or the monotheistic view.
As for your comment federica that you only see the treatment or regard of gods and being the major difference between Buddhism and Hinduism, I would like to also raise the issue of nibbana itself. The final "goal" in each "religion" is starkly difference and is in fact the central difference. Or I should state that the central difference is the fact that suffering is front and centre in Buddhism but is a very minor part of Hinduism - having been pushed to the side by its overindulgence in its many gods/avatars.
Kind Regards,
Vangelis
How are you and your family? Hope all is well and happy
Agreed as per the Buddhist perspective. When my points were presented, it was attempting to look at these sentient beings known as 'devata' from a Buddhist lense rather than as how the Hindus regard them.
Let's also not forget that amongst the Hindus of today, even they differ as to what or how the devata is defined and seen as from the literal perspective to the Vedanta/Advaita perspectives. So, for some, they see it as 330 million gods and still others only see 1 and still yet others see none but only a 'Brahman Reality'. But it is my preference to keep with the Nikayan and non-Nikayan Buddhist sources.
As far as I have known on Maha Vishnu, from my interactions with Vaishnavaites and reading other Buddhist sources, they regard him as:
1. The 'Supremo' in the context as how the ancient Vedic proponents see the Brahma, in the capacity of an overlord of the entire cosmos and creator with the preserver status. But his role is not limited to this capacity and has been extended in other perspectives as well. His fame is mainly found in the 10 Avatars of which the 10th one as Kalki have yet to manifest.
2. And in many writings, he is seen as being both impersonal as well as a personalised deity with strong Bhakti styled proclamations. Only one Vaishnavaite I know has ever told me that they too acknowledge that there are the other 'beings' spoken of as having greater capacity and known to be formless, short of saying that their Maha Vishnu has been superceded by those 'beings'.
3. It was said that during the ancient days of the Vedic times, from a non-Vaishnava POV, Vishnu was mainly known as a minor deity known as Vasudeva, roughly translated as a constellation deity. The Brahma and Indra were in vogue and in charge then. As time passed on and cultural influences advanced, so did their pantheon. So now, you will read and hear of Vishnu taking over the roles of Brahma and Indra, where both are regarded with much disdain in fact and have been relegated to what Vasudeva was back then. I was told that in all of India, Brahma has only one major temple, in Pushkar and smaller ones scattered all over although his cult is popular in South East Asia, chiefly in Thailand alongside with Indra.
4. As far as Mahayana Buddhism is concerned, he is mentioned as a Dharma Protector in various Sutras and Dharanis. One example is in the Shurangama Dharani which is derived from the Shurangama Sutra which has one line mentioning him under his name as 'Narayana' and his consort, Lakhsmi. In one Buddhist iconography, you can see how Avalokitesvara Bodhisattva sits right at the top of Vishnu who is seated on a garuda as the 'Harihariharivahana Lokesvara'. See here: http://huntington.wmc.ohio-state.edu/public/index.cfm?fuseaction=showThisDetail&ObjectID=15000286
And as I have repeated in my earlier post, no Buddhist would seek refuge with them but again, it is not to confuse the common respect given to them, like with any other sentient being, with the refuge taken in the Triple Gem. This distinction is clear for those who understand the Buddha's Teaching.
What is known as 'primitive' to you is how some other humans express themselves in the best way known to them with regards to religious behaviour/conduct, hence such an appellation or condescending on how others conduct themselves may not be necessarily needed as much as how some with cursory glance at us Buddhists would describe the gesture of bowing before images of the Buddha as brazen idolatry.
Perhaps, understanding why they do what they do is one key to knowing them before reaching out/comparing them with the Dharma. After all, the Buddha reaches out to all according to their level. The Dharma is understood gradually by different levels of existence.
I recall how it took me some time to wean off my own entrenched indoctrination of Protestant and Catholic Christianity before I could see the truth of the Buddha Dharma. Time and self investigation does wonders...
Just another POV...
http://www.bps.lk/wheels_library/wheels_pdf/wh_150_151.pdf