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 are the major differences between Hinduism and Buddhism?
Lotus21
Indiana Explorer
Those of us who have good undersanding of the differences it would be wondeful to share.
Thank you.
Thank you.
0
Comments
You pray to gods for protection n blessing.
hinduism is also extremely varied bcos a guru can have unlimited power
to tell the followers what to do.
so you will see vast difference between followers of one guru n another.
I'm staying out of this one.
Which Hinduism? Which Buddhism? Both religions are old and divers.
And how do you want to approach what is a “major” difference? Is it about what ordinary people make of their religious practice, or what scholars think about it behind their desks?
My personal choice of answering this question is that in Buddhism a human being is the top of the hierarchy. It says the Buddha is a teacher of Gods; without exception.
So in my understanding of Buddhism it is a movement of human emancipation. We are not relying on any higher beings; we are not becoming higher beings; we are not re-united with our true divine nature.
As human beings we can penetrate what it means to exist in samsara and liberate ourselves from its chains. We have a practical path for that which has nothing to do with the supernatural or the divine.
But if you ask: what is it like after – as a human being – we broke the chains of samsara? Isn’t that Enlightened state magical or supernatural? Or if you ask: are God, the Self and Absolute Reality different or the same? I can’t tell you that. Can anybody? Religious language is a raft, a tool, a finger pointing at the moon.
At some point we have to see the moon and stop debating the correct understanding of the finger.
As a student of psychology (I am nearly done completely my bachelor's degree a university here in the United States) I have often encountered the explanation that it is the brain and the "mind" that give rise the the phenomenon known as consciousness and sense of self. However, as a student of Buddhism I am learning that the self doesn't exist, something which I am willing to accept, but then the same text, magazine article, etc. then goes on to discuss the mind in three or four sentences later leaving me dramatically confused. Can someone please clarify for me what the self is, what the mind is, as well as their respective differences? Also, since there is no self, what collects karma from existence to existence? If there is no self or identity or soul on which karma can have its effects, how can any sort of effect of karma happen?
Thanks and may all of you be closer to enlightenment!
Ethan
In short:
"self" = "atman" / "pudgala" / "purisa" / etc.
--> permanent, blissful, autonomous entity, totally unaffected by any conditioned phenomena
"mind" = "citta" / "manas" / "vijnana" / etc.
--> stream of momentarily arising and ceasing states of consciousness, thus not an entity, each of which is conditioned by sense organ, sense object and preceding mental states
Neither are material.
That's a brief overview, lot's of things to nit pick at, but otherwise it'll require a 1000 page monograph to make everyone happy.
You'll need to study up on "dependent origination" (pratitya-samutpada) to get into any depth to answer your questions.
~~ Huifeng
To the OP, if you really want a more objective answer, I'd suggest going to some source (perhaps Wikipedia) and taking a few minutes to simply read the entries.
Buddhism = negation of affirmed thing without affirming. So is, isn't, both, neither do not apply.
Hinduism= Another Union with God religion and the gods to which they refer remain in Samsara.
http://newbuddhist.com/discussion/15449/subtle-points-in-hinduism-which-have-been-overlooked
Hinduism is not just about Gods, it has a far deeper meaning - if you do not believe it, read Shrimad Bhagwad Geeta - in it, whereever Krishna-Consciousness or Krishna-Land is referred, map it to Universal Consciousness (Parmatma) and Atma (or Jeevatma) is the splitted Consciousness from Universal Consciousness. The only problem with this is it cannot be proved in this material world as it is beyond the realm of materiality. Same like Nirvana cannot be proved in this material world as it is beyond the realm of materiality.
Buddha as far as I know never said "I am Buddha"... Simply that he was awake.
It's kind of like the Christian argument in a way. Some say Jesus was the only begotten son and others counter with "we are all God's children"... Krishna was said to be a manifestation of Vishnu who in turn is one third of Brahman. If this is true and Buddha is the next manifestation after Krishna, then we are all the many manifestations of Vishnu except that Brahman is only an aspect of us according to the wisdom of the Buddha.
I think that sounds right...
In Buddhism, the above is essentially true, except that there are no 'gods', only Bodhisattvas who come to help (Mahayana). In Therevada tradition, all is within ourselves. At the same time, meditation will also achieve the same goal of liberation, this time to the Buddhist heavenly abodes.
In a nutshell.....
..."All the major religions in the world, Hinduism, Christianity, Taoism etc, propagates that their followers will reach their respective heavens, by praying religiously (?), have faith and follow the required practices. The respective gods will help answer their prayers and bring them to their heavenly abodes once this life is over..... yes!? "
Well, no actually. Some people do think this, but all the major religions have a large membership who do not wait for gods to grant their wishes, and who aim higher.
Rob Burbea in Realizing the Nature of Mind:
"One time the Buddha went to a group of monks and he basically told them not to see Awareness as The Source of all things. So this sense of there being a vast awareness and everything just appears out of that and disappears back into it, beautiful as that is, he told them that’s actually not a skillful way of viewing reality. And that is a very interesting sutta, because it’s one of the only suttas where at the end it doesn’t say the monks rejoiced in his words.
This group of monks didn’t want to hear that. They were quite happy with that level of insight, lovely as it was, and it said the monks did not rejoice in the Buddha’s words. (laughter) And similarly, one runs into this as a teacher, I have to say. This level is so attractive, it has so much of the flavor of something ultimate, that often times people are unbudgeable there."
And as Vajrahridaya pointed out:
"One reason within it's philosophy descriptive of reality is...
We as Buddhists don't make real something eternal that stands on it's own, so we don't see the cosmos the same way as monism (one-ism) does. Which is why we don't consider a monist ideation of the liberated state as actually signifying "liberation." We see that a monist is still binding to a concept, a vast ego... an identity even if beyond concept or words, is still a limitation to the liberated experience of a Buddha. We see that even the liberated state is relative, though everlasting due to the everlasting realization of inter-dependent-co-emergence. We don't see any state of consciousness or realization as being one with a source of absolutely everything. We see the liberated consciousness as just the source of our own experience, even though we ourselves are also relative to everything else. The subtle difference is a difference to be considered, because it actually leads to an entirely different realization and thus cannot be equated with a monist (one-ist) view of the cosmos at all which we consider a bound view and not equal to the liberated view.
Also... there is the concept of the creative matrix in Buddhism and this matrix is without limit and is infinite. But it's not an eternal self standing infinite. It's an infinitude of mutually dependent finites... or "infinite finites" that persist eternally without beginning or end and without a source due to mutual, interpersonal causation you could say.
It's not that a Buddhist does not directly experience a unifying field of perception beyond being a perceiver that is perceiving... but, the Buddhist does not equate this even subconsciously, deep within the experiential platform of consciousness, with a source of all being. It's merely a non-substantial unity of interconnectivity, not a vast and infinite oneness that is the subject of all objects. That would not be considered liberation from the perspective of a Buddha. That would merely be a very subtle, but delusional identification with an experience that originates dependent upon seeing through phenomena, where the consciousness expands past perceived limitations. Even this consciousness that experiences this sense of connection with everything, beyond everything is also considered a phenomena and is empty of inherent, independent reality. Yet persists for as long as the realization persists, which for a Buddha is without beginning nor end.
This subtle difference is an important difference that makes Buddhism transcendent of monism, or "there is only" one-ism.
Because of this, it is a philosophy that see's through itself completely without remainder. Thus a Buddha is considered a "thus gone one" or a Tathagata.
Take care and have a wonderful night/day!!"
&
this whole talk:
http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2009/07/realizing-nature-of-mind.html
To be honest with you I have found many individuals who have realized the nature of mind as luminosity, oneness, source, spacious being, nothingness, etc.
What realization they lack is of two fold emptiness, which is basically the pinnacle of Buddhism. In Zen finding the mind is finding the Ox and it only marks a stage on the path towards abiding as the ox and then dropping both the ox and man.
There is some overlap between experiential accounts in Hinduism and Buddhism but when it comes down to the nitty gritty they are completely different realizations. Not saying one is better than another as they can complement each other.
Just some thoughts. Not just some thoughts but rather thoughts I've been having for the last two years. Lmao.
As I wrote just now to someone else in another place:
"Jackson, Shentong interpretation of Mahayana is just a minority. We cannot use Shentong to become the 'representative view' of Mahayana. There is no representative view in fact, since Mahayana and Vajrayana is simply a collection of many varying views, teachings, and practices, albeit guided by certain fundamental principles such as 'Buddhahood' and 'Bodhicitta' but even then there are varying interpretations to what this means."
"Jackson, the Mahayana Sutras are just as varied as the 'views, teachings and practices of those traditions' that I talked about. For every sutra that you quote which supports a 'Self', I can also produce another Mahayana sutra which repudiates a Self, including the notion of Tathagatagarbha as a Self. The Lankavatara sutra for example has one good example of such.
In the Mahayana it is said that there is 'provisional' and 'definitive' teachings. I do not see those 'Self' teachings as 'definitive' teachings. I see that it was taught under certain circumstances for a specific audience for a reason.
Lastly, Mahayana Sutras are written out of visions (e.g. of sambhogakaya) of latter masters many hundred years after the Buddha's passing, they are not the actual historical words of Buddha. So if there are statements that contradict the Buddha's words in the Pali canon, I would not necessarily and immediately choose to believe in the Mahayana over the Pali suttas. I personally find the Pali canon to be very clear in itself. This is especially so after refining my insights and experiences and going through all the phases (e.g. the Thusness seven stages). That is one point to take note of..."
Also in the topic in my forum 'Are Mahayana Sutras Taught by Buddha?' http://sgforums.com/forums/1728/topics/378306 - Venerable Hui-Feng wrote a very nice piece on this matter too.
As our own insights and experience develope, we will be able to discern for ourselves better. Our appreciation of certain teachings changes accordingly.
..........
In 2006, Loppon Namdrol commented on taking a literal Self-view out of Tathagatagarbha teachings:
Were the Buddha to teach such a doctrine, it might be so. However, in the Nirvana sutra is states quite plainly the following:
That is called ‘Buddha-nature’ because all sentient beings are to be unsurpassedly, perfectly, completely enlightened at a future time. Because afflictions exist in all sentient beings at present, because of that, the thirty two perfect marks and the eighty excellent exemplary signs do not exist”.
Here, the Nirvana sutra clearly and precisely states that buddha-svabhaava, the "nature of a Buddha" refers not to an actual nature but a potential. Why, it continues:
"Child of the lineage, I have said that ‘curd exists in milk’, because curd is produced from milk, it is called ‘curd’.
Child of lineage, at the time of milk, there is no curd, also there is no butter, ghee or ma.n.da, because the curd arises from milk with the conditions of heat, impurities, etc., milk is said to have the ‘curd-nature’."
So one must be quite careful not to make an error. The Lanka states unequivocably that the tathagatagarbha doctrine is merely a device to lead those who grasp at a true self the inner meaning of the Dharma, non-arising, the two selflessnesses and so on, and explains the meaning of the literal examples some people constantly err about:
"Similarly, that tathaagatagarbha taught in the suutras spoken by the Bhagavan, since the completely pure luminous clear nature is completely pure from the beginning, possessing the thirty two marks, the Bhagavan said it exists inside of the bodies of sentient beings.
When the Bhagavan described that– like an extremely valuable jewel thoroughly wrapped in a soiled cloth, is thoroughly wrapped by cloth of the aggregates, aayatanas and elements, becoming impure by the conceptuality of the thorough conceptuality suppressed by the passion, anger and ignorance – as permanent, stable and eternal, how is the Bhagavan’s teaching this as the tathaagatagarbha is not similar with as the assertion of self of the non-Buddhists?
Bhagavan, the non-Buddhists make assertion a Self as “A permanent creator, without qualities, pervasive and imperishable”.
The Bhagavan replied:
“Mahaamati, my teaching of tathaagatagarbha is not equivalent with the assertion of the Self of the non-Buddhists.
Mahaamati, the Tathaagata, Arhat, Samyak Sambuddhas, having demonstrated the meaning of the words "emptiness, reality limit, nirvana, non-arisen, signless", etc. as tathaagatagarbha for the purpose of the immature complete forsaking the perishable abodes, demonstrate the expertiential range of the non-appearing abode of complete non-conceptuality by demonstrating the door of tathaagatagarbha.
Mahaamati, a self should not be perceived as real by Bodhisattva Mahaasattvas enlightened in the future or presently.
Mahaamati, for example, a potter, makes one mass of atoms of clay into various kinds containers from his hands, craft, a stick, thread and effort.
Mahaamati, similarly, although Tathaagatas avoid the nature of conceptual selflessness in dharmas, they also appropriately demonstrate tathaagatagarbha or demonstrate emptiness by various kinds [of demonstrations] possessing prajñaa and skillful means; like a potter, they demonstrate with various enumerations of words and letters. As such, because of that,
Mahaamati, the demonstration of Tathaagatagarbha is not similar with the Self demonstrated by the non-Buddhists.
Mahaamati, the Tathaagatas as such, in order to guide those grasping to assertions of the Self of the Non-Buddhists, will demonstrate tathaagatagarbha with the demonstration of tathaagatagarbha. How else will the sentient beings who have fallen into a conceptual view of a True Self, possess the thought to abide in the three liberations and quickly attain the complete manifestation of Buddha in unsurpassed perfect, complete enlightenment?"
Thus, the Lanka says:
All yaanas are included
in five dharmas, three natures,
eight consciousnesses,
and two selflessnesses
It does not add anything about a true self and so on.
If one accepts that tathaagatagarbha is the aalayavij~naana, and one must since it is identified as such, then one is accepting that it is conditioned and afflicted and evolves, thus the Lanka states:
Tathaagatagarbha, known as ‘the all-base consciousness’, is to be completely purified.
Mahaamati, if what is called the all-base consciousness were (37/a) not connected to the tathaagatagarbha, because the tathaagatagarbha would not be ‘the all-base consciousness’, although it would be not be engaged, it also would not evolve; Mahaamati, it is engaged by both the childish and Aaryas, that also evolves.
Because great yogins, the ones not abandoning effort, abide with blissful conduct in this at the time of personally knowing for themselves…the tathaagatagarbha-all basis consciousness is the sphere of the Tathaagatas; it is the object which also is the sphere of teachers, [those] of detailed and learned inclinations like you, and Bodhisattva Mahaasattvas of analytic intellect.
And:
Although tathaagatagarbha
possesses seven consciousnesses;
always engaged with dualistic apprehensions
[it] will evolve with thorough understanding.
If one accepts that the tathaagatagarbha is unconditioned and so on, and one must, since it is identified as such other sutras state:
"`Saariputra, the element of sentient beings denotes the word tathaagatagarbha.
`Saariputra, that word ‘tathaagatagarbha’ denotes Dharmakaaya.
And:
`Saariputra, because of that, also the element of sentient beings is not one thing and the Dharmakaaya another; the element of sentient beings itself is Dharmakaaya; Dharmakaaya itself is the element of sentient beings.
Then one cannot accept it as the aalayavij~naana-- or worse, one must somehow imagine that something conditioned somehow becomes conditioned.
Other sutras state that tathaagatagarbha is the citta, as the Angulimaala suutra does here:
"Although in the `Sraavakayaana it is shown as ‘mind’, the meaning of the teaching is ‘tathaagatagarbha’; whatever mind is naturally pure, that is called ‘tathaagatagarbha’.
So, one must understand that these sutras are provisional and definitive, each giving different accounts of the tathaagatagarbha for different students, but they are not defintive. Understood improperly, they lead one into a non-Buddhist extremes. Understood and explained properly, they lead those afraid of the profound Praj~naapaaramitaa to understanding it's sublime truth. In other words, the Buddha nature teaching is just a skillful means as the Nirvana sutra states
"Child of the lineage, buddha-nature is like this; although the ten powers and the four fearlessnesses, compassion, and the three foundations of mindfulness are the three aspects existing in sentient beings; [those] will be newly seen when defilements are thoroughly conquered. The possessors of perversion will newly attain the ten powers (44/B) and four fearlessness, great compassion and three foundations of mindfulness having thoroughly conquered perversion.
Because that is the purpose as such, I teach buddha-nature always exists in all sentient beings.
When one can compare and contrast all of these citations, and many more side by side, with the proper reading of the Uttataratantra, one will see the propositions about these doctrines by the Dark Zen fools and others of their ilk are dimmed like stars at noon.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/jootla/wheel414.html
Would an arahant say "I" or "mine"?
Other devas had more sophisticated queries. One deva, for example, asked the Buddha if an arahant could use words that refer to a self:
"Consummate with taints destroyed,
One who bears his final body,
Would he still say 'I speak'?
And would he say 'They speak to me'?"
This deva realized that arahantship means the end of rebirth and suffering by uprooting mental defilements; he knew that arahants have no belief in any self or soul. But he was puzzled to hear monks reputed to be arahants continuing to use such self-referential expressions.
The Buddha replied that an arahant might say "I" always aware of the merely pragmatic value of common terms:
"Skillful, knowing the world's parlance,
He uses such terms as mere expressions."
The deva, trying to grasp the Buddha's meaning, asked whether an arahant would use such expressions because he is still prone to conceit. The Buddha made it clear that the arahant has no delusions about his true nature. He has uprooted all notions of self and removed all traces of pride and conceit:
"No knots exist for one with conceit cast off;
For him all knots of conceit are consumed.
When the wise one has transcended the conceived
He might still say 'I speak,'
And he might say 'They speak to me.'
Skillful, knowing the world's parlance,
He uses such terms as mere expressions." (KS I, 21-22; SN 1:25)
Yeah,..... higher like what? Higher than their religions' respective heavens???
He was responding by saying that some people just wait for God or gods to take care of things. Other Christians and members of major religions are more independent and do their best and don't wait for God/gods to solve their problems or play them like chess pieces.
The Buddha is very clear on this, it seems to me, and it is made very clear in other religions. (Most obviously, for instance, in Kabbalism and advaita Hinduism). Gods are found in Samsara and are dependently-existent. Buddha advises us to aim higher. Indeed, he says that it is easier for us to aim higher than it is for the gods since we have more incentive. Heaven is the opposite of Hell, just another categorical distinction to be overcome on the path to liberation.
Regarding monism, which was mentioned. Hinduism is often called monism, and perhaps sometimes it is. But at its best, or where it is most nearly equivalent with Buddhism, it is nondualism, which is not monism. Monism is the opposite of dualism, just another conceptual categorical distinction to be overcome ...
the essence of Yoga is Self-Realization - which is the meeting of Shakti with Shiva. Shakti is the material aspect of Shiva. They are both one and the same. Shiva is not a God in the normal sense of God. Brahma and Vishnu originated from Shiva. Shiva is the sound AUM which exists in the entire universe. The latest development in quantum physics which is M-theory suggests that all atoms are composed of strings - which are nothing but vibrations, which is nothing but a mathematical equation.
as per Hindu mythology, initially there was only Shiva or Universal Consciousness. then this consciousness decided to manifest itself in the form of sound vibration, which is AUM sound. this sound manifested in the form of matter which is called Shakti or Prakriti - which created the universe. now quantum physics shows that all matter is composed of strings which are just vibrations.
Brahma and Vishnu were created from that original source of Consciousness - Shiva. the reason of creation of Brahma as a God was to create the universe and Vishnu as a God to run the universe. After the material world was created, the Universal Consciousness or Shiva splitted into multiple parts and got permeated in matter as indiviual Consciousness. The final objective of Yoga is the meeting of individual Consciousness to Universal Consciousness at the seventh chakra of Kundalini Awakening - which is the meeting of Shakti (or Prakriti) with Shiva (or Purusha or Universal Consciousness).
Yoga says Samsara exists because we cannot realize our true Self. The problem in realizing our true Self, which Yoga says is that the mind identifies itself with the thought patterns and take that thoughts to be self and so the true Self gets covered by the clouds of thoughts. Yoga says the root cause of Samsara is ignorance (avidya). this ignorance leads to ego or individuation. this leads to attachment and aversion.
The problem which i see in Hinduism is that there are many mythological texts in Hinduism for the many Gods and Goddesses and each text projects its God(for which that text is written) as being superior to all other Gods. But how the universe got created - i think this question is answered by taking Shiva as the root and it is also said that initially there was emptiness and just this Universal consciousness - Shiva. I do not find any text which says somebody created Shiva.
i raised this thread some time ago showing some subtle points in hinduism:
http://newbuddhist.com/discussion/15449/subtle-points-in-hinduism-which-have-been-overlooked
Now coming to various forms of Buddhism, like Tibetian Buddhism, what is referred to as Buddha-nature or Buddha-Consciousness - this is what is called Shiva in Hinduism.
The words are different but these are all conventions. Whether it is Nirvana or Self-Realization, it cannot be expressed in words, neither can any of these things be proved in material world as they are beyond the realm of material world.
i think it is better to leave all beliefs and try to find truth inside us. i read a Zen story indicating this thing - the story was - One day Mara, the Evil One, was travelling with his attendants. he saw a man doing walking meditation whose face was lit up on wonder. The man had just discovered something on the ground in front of him. Mara’s attendant asked what that was and Mara replied, “A piece of truth.” “Doesn’t this bother you when someone finds a piece of truth, O Evil One?” his attendant asked. “No,” Mara replied. “Right after this, they usually make a belief out of it.”
I see no reason to think that might change ( should the species survive ) in the next 2500 years.
Sir, if you want to know what the Buddha taught then I suggest that you go sit at the feet of a Buddhist teacher with an empty cup in your hand. Rather than attempting to fit Buddhadharma into a mold of your own making..
You seem to have made an error there @miscemisc1 first you said it isn't really what I said it was then went on to confirm what I said it was, okay so I was generic about it but your specifics have just reaffirmed it is another union with God religion.
Of course this is not to say that there is no virtue in such practices just that they are not skilful enough to actually accomplish Nirvana because of various wrong views.
whatever is referred to as Buddhahood or Buddha-nature which is said to be in all beings, that is nothing else but the purest form of Consciousness, which is Shiva in Hinduism, provided you know who Shiva really is. Shiva is not the God which is depicted as having snake around him and sitting in Samadhi position - that is just a depiction of beliefs of people based on mythological texts. If you study Yoga Sutras or about Kundalini or about Prakriti and Purusha, then you will get an idea of what Shiva actually is. Shiva is not a God outside in universe, but is inside us.
but these are just conventions or beliefs. The real truth can only be found by going inside us.
Hinduism is the merry go round.
Buddhism is jumping off the merry go round.
Buddhism btw has no concept analogous to " ego " which anyway is a western construct.
But I have no intention of debating this point by point . That had been done to death by monks and scholars and meditators from every Buddhist school who have pointed out repeatedly the attempt by Hindus to claim Buddhism is a kind of cultural imperialism.
But if you have a need to see things that way then nothing I can say will modify that...
My only interest here is to point out that the view of Buddhism as a subset of Hindudharma is not accepted by any Buddhist authority, and I point it out for the benefit of anyone confused or new.
http://www.swamij.com/yoga-sutras-20109.htm#2.6
I have visited dozens of temples in which people are worshiping statues. It is normal in Buddhism.
But what i have understood from Buddha's teachings are : Buddha discovered Anatta - a concept, which is not in Hinduism. He taught - all conditioned things are anicca(impermanent), dukkha(unsatisfactory) and anatta(not-self). He saw everything as dependently originated - as a process arising due to its causes arising and ceasing due to its causes ceasing - without any entity in and of itself.
The question which Buddha did not answered was - How the life got created for the first time in universe? i think he said in some sutta - he saw many previous lifes but was not able to find its beginning. But this information he said is not needed for ending of suffering, so he did not answered it. But Buddha did told the 4 noble truths of suffering, its cause, its cessation and the path leading to cessation of suffering. So Buddhism focusses on these 4 Noble truths and that all conditioned things are anicca(impermanent), dukkha(unsatisfactory) and anatta(not-self).
Hinduism answers the question - How life got created for the first time in universe? But the teachings of Hinduism for Self-Realization as said in Yoga Sutras, got subsided by the rituals of worship of idols of Gods and Goddess in the past many years. the spiritual path of Hinduism, i think, got limited to very few saints in the current world - if there are any - who truely follow this path of Self-Realization as said in Yoga Sutras. Hinduism lacked the importance on suffering aspect and the importance of how to end the suffering (though Yoga Sutras tell about suffering and its cause - but it is not focussed much ) - which Buddha clearly discovered and taught and mainly focussed on as it was important for human beings.
The other Hari Krishna we were talking about meditation and he said that the breath meditation could work after a long time, but that his mantra was a faster way. I said 'no I will only meditate on the breath'.
It seems likely to me that if the Buddha's teaching are true then he will not have been the only person to have discovered this. It is difficult to read the Upanishads and not see the same message as is found in the sutras, albeit in a less extended and organised form. But of course both religions have a cloud of unnecessary add-ons surrounding the basic teachings, animal sacrifice, a pantheon of god-metaphors etc., and these may make them seem different.
I'm not sure why Buddhists are sometimes so sensitive about this. It's like the 'not invented here' syndrome.