Buddhism and Hinduism

Hinduism and Buddhism have common origins in the culture of Ancient India. Buddhism arose in the eastern Ganges culture of northern India during the "second urbanisation" around 500 BCE. Hinduism developed out of the ancient Vedic religion, adopting numerous practices and ideas from other Indian traditions over time (in what has been called the Hindu synthesis). Both religions have many shared beliefs and practices, but also pronounced differences that have led to much debate.

Both share belief in karma and rebirth (or reincarnation), they both accept the idea of spiritual liberation ( moksha, nirvana) from the cycle of reincarnation and they both promote similar religious practices (such as dhyana, samadhi, mantra, and devotion). Both religions also share many deities (though their nature is understood differently), including Saraswati, Vishnu (Upulvan), Mahakala, Indra, Ganesh and Brahma.

However, Buddhism notably rejects fundamental Hindu doctrines such as atman (substantial self or soul), Brahman (a universal eternal source of everything) and the existence of a creator God ( Ishvara). Instead, Buddhism teaches not-self (anatman) and dependent arising as fundamental metaphysical theories. Buddhism also rejects the scriptural authority of the Vedas (and other Hindu texts) and rejects Vedic teachings regarding ritual, caste and sacrifice.

Shared features and similarities

Yoga scholar Stephen Cope argues that Buddhism and Hindu traditions like Patanjali's Yoga (a system which is very influential on modern Hinduism) are strikingly similar in numerous key ways, having shared a long period of interchange up to about 500 CE.

The following chart compares these two basic religious systems:

Shared terms and teachings

Buddhism and Hinduism share numerous terms and ideas. Examples include: dharma, karma, samadhi, samsara, dhyana, jñana, klesha, nirodha, samskāra, brahmin, brahmacarya, nirvana.

Indian Buddhists and Hindus also used the Sanskrit language as a religious and scholarly language. Sanskrit terminology remains important for both Buddhists and Hindus.

The Buddha used numerous religious terms which are also used in Hinduism, though he often used them in different and novel ways. Many terms which Buddhism shares with Hinduism carry a different meaning in the Buddhist tradition. For example, in the '' Samaññaphala Sutta,'' the Buddha is depicted presenting a notion of th
"three knowledges" (''tevijja'')
– a term also used in the Vedic tradition to describe knowledge of the Vedas – as being not texts, but things that he had experienced. The true "three knowledges" are said to be constituted by the process of achieving enlightenment, which is what the Buddha is said to have achieved in the three watches of the night of his enlightenment.

Karma, rebirth, and samsara

Karma is a central part of Hindu and Buddhist teachings. Karma is a word meaning ''action'' or ''activity'' and often implies its subsequent ''results'' (also called karma-phala, "the fruits of action"). Karma theory is commonly applied to the ethical realm of cause and effect in both Buddhism and Hinduism. In Buddhism and in Hinduism, a person's words, thoughts and actions form the basis for good and bad karma. Good deeds (good karmas) lead to good karmic results (Sanskrit: ''karma-phala'', the fruits of karma) which can include the circumstances of one's future reincarnation. Likewise, evil actions might result in negative karmic consequences.

Thus, the Indian idea of karma is also closely associated with the idea of reincarnation or rebirth. One's karmas in previous lives affect one's present existence, and one's actions in this life will lead to effects in the next life. Both Buddhism and Hinduism accept that living beings are constantly cycling through different bodies and realms of existence, in a repetitive process called '' saṃsāra'' (literally "the wandering")."Karma" in: John Bowker (1997), The Concise Oxford Dictionary of World Religions, Oxford University Press.James Lochtefeld (2002), The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Hinduism, Rosen Publishing, New York, , pp 351–352

Dharma

Dharma ( Sanskrit, Devanagari: धर्म or Pāli ''Dhamma'') is an Indic term common to all Indian religions. Dharma can mean nature, natural law, reality, teaching, religion or duty, and with respect to its significance for spirituality and religion might be considered the way of the higher truths. A Hindu appellation for Hinduism itself is ''Sanātana Dharma'', which translates as "the eternal dharma." Similarly, Buddha Dharma is a common way that Buddhists refer to Buddhism.

In Hinduism, Dharma can refer generally to religious duty or universal order (similar to rta), and also mean social order, right conduct, or simply virtue. In Buddhism, Dharma can mean the true nature of things or the natural law that the Buddha discovered. It can also refer to the teachings of the Buddha, which explain and reveal this nature.

Asceticism and monasticism

Both Buddhism and some forms of Hinduism emphasize the importance of monasticism. In Buddhism, the monastic sangha plays a central role in teaching and passing down the Buddha's Dharma. Monasticism is also seen as an ideal way of life for cultivating the qualities that lead to awakening. In certain sects of Hinduism, the life of the renouncer ( sannyasa) is also very important.

Cosmology and deities

file:Vishnu idol in Seema Malaka.jpg, Vishnu (Upulvan) statue in Seema Malaka, Seema Malaka Buddhist temple, Colombo

Buddhist cosmology and Hindu cosmology share many similarities, Both cosmologies are cyclical and both accept that the universe goes through constant cycles of growth and destruction. Both traditions also accept that there are many different realms or worlds (lokas) other than the human realm. These include various hell realms and celestial deva realms.

Buddhism and Hinduism share some of the same deities, including:

* Saraswati (known as Benzaiten in Japan),
* Vishnu (known as Upulvan in Sri Lanka),
* Mahākāla (a form of Shiva in Hinduism) is seen as a form of Avalokiteśvara in Mahayana Buddhism
* Indra, Vedic storm god which is widely depicted in Buddhist scriptures
* Ganesh (more widely known as Ganapati in Buddhism)
* Brahma (seen as a protective figure in Buddhism, see: Brahma in Buddhism)
* Lakshmi (in Japanese Buddhism she is known as Kishijoten)
* Tara is an important Buddhist deity in Tibetan Buddhism. In Hinduism, Tara Devi is one of the ten Mahavidyas.

The Buddhist text '' Mahamayuri Tantra,'' written during 1–3rd centuries CE, mentions various deities (such as Maheshvara) throughout South Asia, and invokes them for the protection of the Buddhadharma. It also mentions a large number of Vedic rishis.

According to the biography of the Buddha, before taking his last birth on earth as Gautama, the Buddha was a Mahapurusha (great being) named Shvetaketu, dwelling in the Tushita heaven (home of the contented gods). After attaining enlightenment on earth, there is to be no more rebirth for the Buddha. Before leaving the Tushita realm to take birth on earth, he designated Maitreya to take his place there. Maitreya will come to earth as the next Buddha, instead of him coming back again. Krishna was a past life of Sariputra, a chief disciple of the Buddha.

Liberation

Both Buddhism and Hinduism teach a similar goal of liberation or spiritual enlightenment from the cycle of rebirths ( samsara). Both religions accept that the escape from the cycle of rebirths or samsara is the highest goal of the spiritual life. In both religions, this liberation is considered the complete end of rebirth or reincarnation. In Hinduism, this liberation may be called moksha, nirvana, or kaivalya; and in Buddhism it may be called vimoksha (Pali: vimokha), nirvana (Pali: nibbana) or bodhi (awakening). Both Hinduism and Buddhism use the term ''Nirvana'' (or Nibbana in Pali language) for spiritual liberation, which literally means 'blowing out' or 'quenching'. The term is pre-Buddhist, but its etymology is not essentially conclusive for finding out its exact meaning as the highest goal of early Buddhism.

Both religions also venerate the liberated beings who have attain the goal of spiritual liberation. Buddhism calls liberated beings either arhats or Buddhas (awakened ones). In Hinduism, liberated beings are commonly called jivanmuktas, though the term nirvana is also used. The term "Buddha" is also used in some Hindu scriptures. In the ''Vayu Purana'' for example, the sage Daksha calls Lord Shiva a Buddha.

Similar practices

Ethics

Both Hinduism and Buddhism promote similar ethical systems. The virtue of non-harming (''ahimsa'') is a key virtue in both Hindu ethics and Buddhist ethics. Other important shared ethical principles include non-attachment (''vairagya'') or renunciation ('' nekkhamma'') and truthfulness (''satya'').

Yogic practice, Dhyana and Samadhi

There is a range of common terminology and common descriptions of the meditative states that are seen as the foundation of meditation practice in both Hindu Yoga and Buddhism. Many scholars have noted that the concepts of dhyana and samādhi - technical terms describing stages of meditative absorption – are common to meditative practices in both Hinduism and Buddhism. Most notable in this context is the relationship between the system of four Buddhist ''dhyana'' states (Pali: ''jhana'') and the ''samprajnata samadhi'' states of Classical Yoga. Also, many (Tibetan) Vajrayana practices of the generation stage and completion stage work with the chakras, inner energy channels (nadis) and kundalini, called tummo in Tibetan.

The practice of Yoga is intimately connected to the religious beliefs and practices of both Hinduism and Buddhism. However, there are distinct variations in the usage of yoga terminology in the two religions.

In Hinduism, the term "Yoga" commonly refers to the eight limbs of yoga as defined in the Yoga Sutras of Patanjali, written some time after 100 BCE, and means "yoking", with the idea that one's individual atman, or soul, would yoke or bind with the monistic entity that underlies everything ( brahman). Yoga defines a specific process: it has an emphasis on knowledge and practice. The most basic meaning of this Sanskrit term is with technique. The technique of the different forms of yoga is what makes the practice meaningful. Yoga is not an easy or simple practice, viyoga is what is described as simple. Yoga is difficult in the fact of displaying the faith and meaning of Hinduism. Many Hindus tend to pick and choose between the five forms of yoga because of the way they live their life and how they want to practice it in the form they are most connected to.

In the Vajrayana Buddhism of Tibet, however, the term "Yoga" is simply used to refer to any type of spiritual practice; from the various types of tantra (like Kriyayoga or Charyayoga) to ' Deity yoga' and 'guru yoga'. In the early translation phase of the Sutrayana and Tantrayana from India, China and other regions to Tibet, along with the practice lineages of sadhana, codified in the Nyingmapa canon, the most subtle 'conveyance' (Sanskrit: yana) is Adi Yoga (Sanskrit). A contemporary scholar with a focus on Tibetan Buddhism, Robert Thurman writes that Patanjali was influenced by the success of the Buddhist monastic system to formulate his own matrix for the version of thought he considered orthodox.

Devotion

Both traditions also make use of devotional practice (bhakti). Devotion in Buddhism is mainly directed towards the Buddhas and bodhisattvas, but may also include some devas. Mindfulness of the Buddha is a widespread practice in all Buddhist traditions and includes chanting or reciting the names or mantras of Buddhas and bodhisattvas. The practice of remembering the devas (Pali: ''devanussati''), which might include visualizing them and remembering their qualities, is taught in numerous Buddhist sutras of the Pali Canon and is part of the ten recollections.

In Hinduism, bhakti yoga is focused on God ( Ishvara), whether understood as Vishnu, Shiva or Devi. This yoga includes listening to scripture, prayer, chanting, worship services ( puja) and other practices.

Mantra

A mantra (मन्त्र) is a religious syllable or poem, typically from the Sanskrit and Pali language. Their use varies according to the school and philosophy associated with the mantra. They are primarily used as spiritual conduits, words or vibrations that instill one-pointed concentration in the devotee. Other purposes have included religious ceremonies to accumulate wealth, avoid danger, or eliminate enemies. Mantras existed in the historical Vedic religion, Zoroastrianism and the Shramanic traditions, and thus they remain important in Buddhism and Jainism as well as other faiths of Indian origin such as Sikhism.

Rituals

Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhist traditions in East Asia and Tibet share several common rituals with Hinduism. Some examples include the homa ritual as well as prayers and food offerings for the ancestors and deceased (which was incorporated into the Ghost Festival in East Asian Buddhist traditions).

Similar symbolism

* Mudra: This is a symbolic hand-gesture expressing an emotion. Images of the Buddha almost always depict him performing some mudra.
* Dharma Chakra: The Dharma Chakra, which appears on the national flag of India and the flag of the Thai royal family, is a Buddhist symbol that is used by members of both religions.
* Tilak: Many Hindu devotees mark their heads with a tilak, which is interpreted as a third eye. A similar mark, the urna, is one of the characteristic physical characteristics of the Buddha.
* Swastikas are used in both traditions. It can be either clockwise or counter-clockwise and both are seen in Hinduism and Buddhism. The Buddha is sometimes depicted with a sauwastika on his chest or the palms of his hands.
* Mandalas
* Lotus flower

Differences

There are several key doctrinal and practical differences between the two religions.

Founders

The founders of Hinduism and Buddhism are both unlike most major religions. Hinduism has no single founder. Modern Hinduism grew out of the overlapping beliefs of diverse Indian religious groups over centuries of history. Buddhism however does have a single historical founder, Siddhartha Gautama, a Śramaṇa who became the Buddha.

Scriptures

Both traditions have their own canon of scripture and do not accept each other's scriptures as authoritative. Buddhism rejects the Vedas and other Hindu scripture as being authoritative. Instead, Buddhists generally accept the word of the Buddha (Buddhavacana) as being authoritative regarding religious matters.Bartley, Christopher (2015). ''An Introduction to Indian Philosophy, Hindu and Buddhist Ideas from Original Sources,'' p. 158. Bloomsbury Academic. Buddhists also reject the idea that the Vedas are eternal divine scriptures (either as uncreated or as created by a God), which are common Hindu beliefs defended in the Vedanta and Mimamsa philosophies. As such, the Buddhism tradition ignores the very foundation of Hindu brahmanical religion, the sruti.

Buddhist authors like Bhavaviveka and Saṅghabhadra argued that the Vedas were authored by ancient people who were spiritually and philosophically unqualified as well as being morally deficient. In his critique, Bhavaviveka actually draws on some passages found in the Hindu Samkhyakarika and in the work of Gaudapada, which holds that Vedic sacrifice is impure and of “mixed nature” (miśrībhāva). Bhavaviveka points to the presence of killing (found in various sacrifices), sexual promiscuity (in a Vedic ritual called Gosava) and use of alcohol (in a rite called Sautrāmaṇī) in the Vedas to argue that they were authored by evil people and compares them to the foreign scriptures of the "Magas" (i.e. the Persian Magi). Furthermore, in the ninth chapter of his '' Madhyamakahrdayakārikā'' (''Verses on the Heart of the Middle Way''), Bhavaviveka critiques the idea that bad karma can be removed through Vedic ritual, through devotion (bhakti) to the gods or by meditating on the gods and their mantras.

The Buddha is recorded as having criticized the Vedic Brahmanical religion in the ''Canki Sutta'' ( Majjhima Nikaya 95) as a lineage which blindly passes on scriptures without having true knowledge of things:

Suppose there were a file of blind men each in touch with the next: the first one does not see, the middle one does not see, and the last one does not see. So too, Bhāradvāja, in regard to their statement the brahmins seem to be like a file of blind men: the first one does not see, the middle one does not see, and the last one does not see. What do you think, Bhāradvāja, that being so, does not the faith of the brahmins turn out to be groundless?

The Indian Buddhist philosopher Dharmakīrti pithily expressed his disagreement with the religion of the Vedas as follows:

Accepting the authority of the Vedas, believing in individual agency, hoping for merit from bathing, taking pride in caste, undertaking rites for the removal of evils: these are the five signs of stupidity, the destruction of intelligence.

Meanwhile, most Hindus see the Vedas as divinely revealed scriptures, either authorless and eternal or as created by Ishvara. Many Hindus also hold the Vedas to be a key scriptural authority ('' Śāstra pramāṇam''). In Hinduism, religious philosophies are often classified either as astika (orthodox) or nastika (unorthodox), that is, philosophies that either affirm or reject the authorities of the Vedas. According to this tradition, Buddhism is a nastika school.

Due to the Buddhist rejection of the Vedas (and the Vedic varṇāśrama - 'caste and life stage' teaching), many Hindu sources see Buddhists as heretics (pāṣaṇḍa/pākhaṇḍa) and a sign of the dark age, the Kali Yuga. For example, the ''Bhāgavata Purāṇa,'' an extremely influential Hindu Puranic source, considers Buddhists (as well Jains) to be "pāṣaṇḍas" (heretics, impostors).

Likewise, as noted by Klaus K. Klostermaier, the '' Viṣṇu Purāṇa'', an ancient and authoritative Purana, "presents the Buddha as a heretic and a seducer of people, one of many forms of the māyā-moha (delusive power) of Viṣṇu and recommends complete shunning of Buddhists in order to prevent pollution and punishment."

Metaphysics

Karma

According to Richard Gombrich, Karma in Buddhism carries a significantly different meaning than pre-Buddhist conceptions of karma. For Buddhists, karma is mainly a mental process which is founded on an individual's intention (''cetanā''). The Buddha equated karma with the psychological impulse or intent behind the action (whether that action is bodily, verbal or mental). Thus, in Buddhism, one's intention has an ethical force that can affect one in the future (in this life or the next).

Meanwhile, according to the most influential school of Hindu philosophy, the Vedanta school, the effects of karma (karma-phala, i.e. the "fruits" of karma) are controlled by God (Isvara). Vedanta argues that without God, one cannot account for the workings of karma.Francis X Clooney (1993), ''Theology After Vedanta: An Experiment in Comparative Theology,'' State University of New York Press, , pages 68-71

Brahman

The old Upanishads largely consider Brahma (masculine gender, Brahmā in the nominative case, henceforth "Brahmā") to be a personal god (deva), and Brahman (neuter gender, Brahma in the nominative case, henceforth "Brahman") to be the impersonal world principle.Hajime Nakamura (1989), ''A History of Early Vedānta Philosophy: Part One'', Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1990 (Reprint), p. 136. They do not strictly distinguish between the two, however. The old Upanishads ascribe these characteristics to Brahmā: first, he has light and luster as his marks; second, he is invisible; third, he is unknowable, and it is impossible to know his nature; fourth, he is omniscient. The old Upanishads ascribe these characteristics to Brahman as well.

In the Buddhist texts, there are many Brahmā devas. There they form a class of superhuman beings, and rebirth into the realm of Brahmās is possible by pursuing Buddhist practices.

In the Pāli scriptures, the neuter Brahman does not appear (though the word ''brahma'' is standardly used in compound words to mean "best", or "supreme"), however ideas are mentioned as held by various Brahmins in connection with Brahmā that match exactly with the concept of Brahman in the Upanishads. Brahmins who appear in the Tevijja-suttanta of the Digha Nikaya regard "union with Brahmā" as liberation, and earnestly seek it. In that text, Brahmins of the time are reported to assert: "Truly every Brahmin versed in the three Vedas has said thus: 'We shall expound the path for the sake of union with that which we do not know and do not see. This is the correct path. This path is the truth, and leads to liberation. If one practices it, he shall be able to enter into association with Brahmā." The early Upanishads frequently expound "association with Brahmā", and "that which we do not know and do not see" matches exactly with the early Upanishadic Brahman.

In the earliest Upanishad, the ''Brihadaranyaka Upanishad'', the Absolute, which came to be referred to as Brahman, is referred to as "the imperishable". The Pāli scriptures present a "pernicious view" that is set up as an absolute principle corresponding to Brahman: "O Bhikkhus! At that time Baka, the Brahmā, produced the following pernicious view: 'It is permanent. It is eternal. It is always existent. It is independent existence. It has the dharma of non-perishing. Truly it is not born, does not become old, does not die, does not disappear, and is not born again. Furthermore, no liberation superior to it exists elsewhere." The principle expounded here corresponds to the concept of Brahman laid out in the Upanishads. According to this text the Buddha criticized this notion: "Truly the Baka Brahmā is covered with unwisdom."

Gautama Buddha confined himself to what is empirically given. This empiricism is based broadly on both ordinary sense experience and extrasensory perception enabled by high degrees of mental concentration.

Ātman

Ātman is a Sanskrit word that means 'self'. A major departure from Hindu and Jain philosophy is the Buddhist rejection of a permanent, self-existent soul (Ātman) in favour of anicca or impermanence.

In Hindu philosophy, especially in the Vedanta school of Hinduism, Ātman is the first principle, the ''true'' self of an individual beyond identification with phenomena, the essence of an individual. Yajnavalkya (c. 9th century BCE), in the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, uses the word to indicate that in which everything exists, which is of the highest value, which permeates everything, which is the essence of all, bliss and beyond description. While, older Upanishads such as the Brihadaranyaka, mention several times that the self is described as ''Neti neti or not this – not this'',

Post Buddhist Upanishads, like the Maitri Upanishad, define Ātman as only the defiled individual self, rather than the universal self.Peter Harvey, The Selfless Mind. Curzon Press, 1995, page 34. Taittiriya Upanishad defines Ātman or the self as consisting of five sheaths (kosha): the bodily self consisting of the essence of food (annamaya kosha), the vital breath (pranamaya kosha), the mind or will (manomaya kosha), the intellect or capacity to know (vijnanamaya kosha) and bliss (anandamaya kosha). Knowledge or realization of the Ātman is seen as essential to attain salvation (liberation):

Schools of Indian philosophy, such as Advaita (non-dualism) see Ātman within each living entity as being fully identical with Brahman – the Principle, whereas other schools such as Dvaita (dualism) differentiate between the individual atma in living beings, and the Supreme atma (Paramatma) as being at least partially separate beings. Unlike Advaita, Samkhya holds blissfullness of Ātman as merely figurative. However, both Samkhya and Advaita consider the ego (asmita, ahamkara) rather than the Ātman to be the cause of pleasure and pain. Later Advaitic text Pañcadaśī classifies the degrees of Ātman under three headings: Gauna or secondary (anything other than the personality that an individual identifies with), Mithya or false (bodily personality) and Mukhya or primary (the real self).

The concept of Ātman was rejected by the Buddha. Terms like anatman (not-self) and shunyata (voidness) are at the core of all Buddhist traditions. The permanent transcendence of the belief in the separate existence of the self is integral to the enlightenment of an Arhat. The Buddha criticized conceiving theories even of a unitary soul or identity immanent in all things as unskillful. In fact, according to the Buddha's statement in Khandha Samyutta 47, all thoughts about self are necessarily, whether the thinker is aware of it or not, thoughts about the five aggregates or one of them.

Despite the rejection of Ātman by Buddhists there were similarities between certain concepts in Buddhism and Ātman. The Upanishadic "self" shares certain characteristics with nibbana; both are permanent, beyond suffering, and unconditioned. Buddhist mysticism is also of a different sort from that found in systems revolving around the concept of a "god" or "self":

However, the Buddha shunned any attempt to see the spiritual goal in terms of "self" because in his framework, the craving for a permanent self is the very thing that keeps a person in the round of uncontrollable rebirth, preventing him or her from attaining nibbana. At the time of the Buddha some philosophers and meditators posited a ''root'': an abstract principle all things emanated from and that was immanent in all things. When asked about this, instead of following this pattern of thinking, the Buddha attacks it at its very root: the notion of a principle in the abstract, superimposed on experience. In contrast, a person in training should look for a different kind of "root" — the root of dukkha experienced in the present. According to one Buddhist scholar, theories of this sort have most often originated among meditators who label a particular meditative experience as the ultimate goal, and identify with it in a subtle way.

Adi Shankara in his works refuted the Buddhist arguments against Ātman. He suggested that a self-evident conscious agent would avoid infinite regress, since there would be no necessity to posit another agent who would know this. He further argued that a cognizer beyond cognition could be easily demonstrated from the diversity in self existence of the witness and the notion. Furthermore, Shankara thought that no doubts could be raised about the Self, for the act of doubting implies at the very least the existence of the doubter. Vidyaranya, another Advaita Vedantic philosopher, expresses this argument as:

Cosmic self

The Buddha denies the existence of the cosmic self, as conceived in the Upanishadic tradition, in th
Alagaddupama Sutta
( M I 135–136). Possibly the most famous Upanishadic dictum is ''tat tvam asi'', "thou art that." Transposed into first person, the Pali version is ''eso ‘ham asmi'', "I am this." This is said in several suttas to be false. The full statement declared to be incorrect is "This is mine, I am this, this is my self/essence." This is often rejected as a wrong view. The Alagaduppama Sutta rejects this and other obvious echoes of surviving Upanishadic statements as well (these are not mentioned as such in the commentaries, and seem not to have been noticed until modern times). Moreover, the passage denies that one’s self is the same as the world and that one will become the world self at death.Richard Francis Gombrich, How Buddhism began: the conditioned genesis of the early teachings Continuum International Publishing Group, 1996, p. 39.

The Buddha tells the monks that people worry about something that is non-existent externally
''bahiddhaa asati'')
and non-existent internally (''ajjhattam asati''); he is referring respectively to the soul/essence of the world and of the individual. A similar rejection of "internal" self and "external" self occurs at AN II 212. Both are referring to the Upanishads. The most basic presupposition of early Brahminic cosmology is the identification of man and the cosmos (instances of this occur at TU II.1 and Mbh XII.195), and liberation for the yogin was thought to only occur at death, with the adept's union with brahman (as at Mbh XII.192.22). The Buddha's rejection of these theories is therefore one instance of the Buddha's attack on the whole enterprise of Upanishadic ontology.

Theology

Buddhism does not accept the Hindu theory of a creator deity ( Ishwara).Harvey, Peter (2019). ''"Buddhism and Monotheism",'' p. 1. Cambridge University Press. While Buddhism inherited some practices and ideas from the previous Indian yogic traditions, its understanding is different than that of Hindu teachings (such as those found in the ''Bhagavad Gita''). This is because, in Buddhism, Nirvana is not attained through bhakti (devotion) to God nor is it attained through a yogic unity with Brahman/God.

In the early Buddhist texts, the Buddha does not provide specific arguments against the existence of God, instead he focuses on the ethical issues that arise from this belief. The Buddha mostly ignored the idea of a God as being irrelevant to his teachings. However, he addresses the idea in a few passages. According to Narada Thera, the Buddha saw the idea of a creator God as problematic and as possibly leading to a kind of fatalism or ethical nihilism that leaves all ethical concerns to a God. In another passage, the Buddha argues that if a Supreme creator exists, the suffering experienced by certain beings would mean that this creator is evil.

The Buddha did not deny the existence of the gods (devas) of the Vedic pantheon, but rather argued that these devas, who may be in a more exalted state than humans, are still nevertheless trapped in the same cycle of suffering as other beings and are not necessarily worthy of veneration and worship. According to Buddhism, the Hindu gods like Brahma and Indra do exist. However, these gods are considered to be mortal (even though they have very long lives) and thus as being subject to rebirth.Harvey, Peter (2019). ''"Buddhism and Monotheism",'' p. 1. Cambridge University Press.Kapstein, Matthew T. ''The Buddhist Refusal of Theism,'' Diogenes 2005; 52; 61. Buddhist cosmology recognizes various levels and types of devas and of other Buddhist deities, but none of these gods is considered the creator of the world or of the human race.

Later Buddhist philosophers such as Nagarjuna, Vasubandhu, and Xuanzang did write more extensive critiques of the Hindu idea of God.Hayes, Richard P.
"Principled Atheism in the Buddhist Scholastic Tradition"
''Journal of Indian Philosophy'', 16:1 (1988:Mar.) pg 11-15.Westerhoff, Jan. “Creation in Buddhism” in Oliver, Simon. ''The Oxford Handbook of Creation'', Oxford University Press, Oxford, forthcoming

Vajrayana Buddhism contains the idea of the Adi-Buddha ("First Buddha"), which some have compared to God concepts from Vedanta. However, modern Tibetan Buddhist masters like the Dalai Lama and Namkhai Norbu have written that this Adi-Buddha concept is not a God but a symbol for the Dharmakaya or "basis" (ghzi) in Dzogchen thought.

Caste

In the early Buddhist texts, the Buddha critiques the Brahmanical religion and social system on certain key points.

The Buddha disagreed with the caste (''jāti'') distinctions made in the Brahmanical religion,K.N. Upadhaya, ''The Impact of Early Buddhism on Hindu Thought.'' Philosophy East and West Vol.18(1968) pp.163-173, accessed at http://ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-PHIL/ew27039.htm . by offering ordination to all regardless of caste. In regards to the social system ('' varna''), although Buddha did not try to dismantle this system, he spoke out against Brahmin supremacism and the notion of any ''varna'' being superior or inferior to another. Thus, the Buddha also critiqued the idea that brahmins were somehow superior or inherently pure due to their bloodline.Tola, Fernando. Dragonetti, Carmen (2009). ''"Brahamanism and Buddhism: Two Antithetic Conceptions of Society in Ancient India."'' The ''Vasetthasutta'' argues that the main difference among humans are their actions and occupations, not their bloodline.

Furthermore, the Buddha holds that there is one universal moral law (Dharma) that is valid for everybody. Thus, Buddhism rejects the idea of caste duty (''svadharma''), the idea that every person is assigned a fixed duty or law based on the caste they are born into.

While the caste system constitutes an assumed background to the stories told in Buddhist scriptures, the sutras do not attempt to justify or explain the system. According to the ''Aggañña Sutta'', all social classes or varnas arose naturally through sociological factors, they were not divinely ordained. In the ''Aggañña Sutta'', Buddha argues that good and bad deeds are found in all castes and that moral purity comes from one's own actions, not one's birth. Because of this, all castes including untouchables were welcome in the Buddhist order and when someone joined, they renounced all caste affiliation.

The meaning of brahmin

The Buddha defined the word " brahmin" as referring to a spiritually liberated person. This replaced a distinction based on birth with one based on spiritual attainment. The Buddha explains his use of the word ''brahmin'' in many places. In the Sutta Nipata (1.7, ''Vasala Sutta'', verse 12), the Buddha states: "not by birth is one an outcast; not by birth is one a brahmin. By deed one becomes an outcast, by deed one becomes a brahmin." An entire chapter of the '' Dhammapada'' is devoted to showing how a true brahmin in the Buddha's use of the word is one who is of totally pure mind, namely, an arahant. Similarly, early Buddhist scriptures define purity as determined by one's state of mind, and refer to anyone who behaves unethically, of whatever caste, as "rotting within", or "a rubbish heap of impurity". A defining of feature of the Buddha's teachings is self-sufficiency, so much so as to render the brahminical priesthood entirely redundant, since no mediation between oneself and the devas are needed in Buddhism.

However, some Hindu texts like the ''Bhagavad Gita'' also define brahmin (and other varnas) as a status based on personal qualities and actions. The ''Gita'' also does not mention birth as a factor in determining these. In that regard, the chapter on brahmins in the ''Dhammapada'' may be regarded as being entirely in tune with the definition of a brahmin in Chapter 18 of the ''Bhagavad Gita''. Both say that a "brahmin" is a person having certain qualities.

Religious practices

An illustration of an episode from the Krishna_gives_advice_on_the_Ashwatthama.html" ;"title="Mahabharata in which Krishna gives advice on the Ashwatthama">Vedic horse sacrifice to the Pandavas.
Early Buddhist texts are often critical of prevailing religious practices and social institutions. Therefore, the Buddhist tradition has always rejected the view that certain Vedic rituals are efficacious or good. It especially rejects animal sacrifice which is taught in the Vedas (such as the Vedic Horse Sacrifice).Kurfirtova, Marie Hana. 2017. Compassionate Sacrifice: The Buddhist Incorporation of Vedic Homa Rituals. Master's thesis, Harvard Extension School.

However, the Buddha did not reject all sacrifices. In the Aṅguttara Nikāya the Buddha states: “I do not praise all sacrifice, nor do I withhold praise from all sacrifice."

In the '' Sutta Pitaka'', the Buddha critiques certain Vedic sacrifices while praising non-violent action as follows:

The horse sacrifice, human sacrifice, sammāpāsa, vājapeyya, niraggaḷa: the grand sacrifices, fraught with violence, do not bring great fruit. The great seers of right conduct do not attend sacrifice where goats, rams, cattle, and various creatures are slain. But when they regularly offer by family custom, sacrifices free from violence, no goats, sheep and cattle, and various creatures are slain. That sacrifice of the great seers of right conduct attend. The wise person should offer this; this sacrifice is very fruitful. For one who makes such sacrifice, it is indeed better, never worse. Such a sacrifice is truly vast and deities too are pleased.

Animal sacrifice in Hinduism is still practiced in some minority sects of Hinduism.

The Buddha also rejected other Vedic practices and rituals, such as ritual bathing in rivers. In the ''Vatthasutta'' (MN 7), the Buddha states that bathing in rivers "can’t cleanse a cruel and criminal person from their bad deeds."

The '' Samaññaphala Sutta'' is another early Buddhist text which addresses and critiques numerous practices that were performed by brahmin priests or other Indian contemplatives at the time of the Buddha. Some of these practices include owning luxurious furniture and furnishings, wearing scents, cosmetics, jewelry and extensive decorations, talking about kings, armies, matters of state and gossiping. The text also rejects numerous ways of making a living that the Buddha held was not proper for a true ascetic such as: fortunetelling and forecasting the future, predicting eclipses, predicting the weather or disease, accounting, composing poetry, calculating auspicious dates, collecting debts, using spells against people, worshiping the sun, acting as an oracle, demonology, protection spells, fertility spells, ceremonial bathing, offering sacrificial fires, and administering various medicines and surgery.Walshe, Maurice (trans.) (1995). The Long Discourses of the Buddha: A Translation of the Digha Nikaya. Boston: Wisdom Publications. .

However, some of these practices which were commonly done by brahmins were eventually adopted by some Buddhists, giving rise to practices like Buddhist medicine, Buddhist magic, Buddhist poetry, Tibetan medicine, Tibetan astrology, weather-making and so on. Similarly, fire sacrifices (homa) were adopted by Vajrayana Buddhism in scriptures like the ''Mahavairocana sutra''.

Meditation

Meditation was an aspect of the practice of brahmanical and sramana yogis in the centuries preceding the Buddha. The Buddha built upon these ideas and developed new ideas regarding mediation and how it leads to liberation. Perhaps one original idea developed by the Buddha was that meditation and ethics also needed to be coupled with a "religious insight" ( prajñā).Dharmacarini Manishini, ''Western Buddhist Review.'' Accessed at

Early Buddhist texts are probably the earliest describing meditation states and methods. Early Buddhist texts also describe meditative practices and states that existed before the Buddha, as well as those first developed within Buddhism. A common set of four meditative states called jhanas (dhyanas) are widely discussed in Buddhist sutras. These states of meditative absorption and deep focus are seen as the key defining elements in Buddhist "right samadhi" (samma samdhi), the last part of the noble eightfold path.Bodhi, Bhikkhu (trans.) (2000). The Connected Discourses of the Buddha: A New Translation of the Samyutta Nikaya. Boston: Wisdom Publications. .

The first usage of the term samadhi is found in early Buddhist texts. Later Hindu texts like the Yoga sutras also use the term samadhi to mean a deeply focused state of mind. However, they also understand this as leading to knowledge of the self or purusha, while Buddhists see samadhi as leading to insight into impermanence and not-self instead.

While there is no convincing evidence for meditation in pre-Buddhist early Brahminic texts, Wynne argues that formless meditation originated in the Brahminic or Shramanic tradition, based on strong parallels between Upanishadic cosmological statements and the meditative goals of the two teachers of the Buddha as recorded in the early Buddhist texts.Alexander Wynne, The Origin of Buddhist Meditation. Routledge 2007, page 51. He mentions less likely possibilities as well. Having argued that the cosmological statements in the Upanishads also reflect a contemplative tradition, he argues that the Nasadiya Sukta contains evidence for a contemplative tradition, even as early as the late Rg Vedic period.

Two Upanishads written after the rise of Buddhism also contain full-fledged descriptions of yoga as a means to liberation.

Spiritual liberation

A Burmese depiction of the Buddha attaining awakening (''bodhi'').

Hindu theories of liberation are focused on a substantial unchanging self (atman) or on unity with God ( Ishvara), while Buddhist rejects both an unchanging self and a God, arguing that even consciousness ( vijñana) is in flux. In Hinduism, the ultimate goal is to realize the Self as the highest reality ( Brahman or Ishvara) or to serve God in his eternal realm (such as Vishnu's Vaikuntha or Krishna's Goloka). In the Buddha's system by contrast, one must train the mind in meditation (dhyana) and gain insight ( vipasyana) into the four noble truths_universal_consciousness_(_brahman)_which_is_seen_as_blissful_(ananda)_and_eternal_(anantam)._The_Buddha_rejected_this_view._Yet_he_was_still_influenced_by_Indian_ideas_of_liberation_and_thus_he_adopted_and_gave_new_meaning_to_Vedic_metaphors_for_liberation_(like_nirvana,_"becoming_cool",_"going_out").Alexander_Wynne,_''The_Origin_of_Buddhist_Meditation.''_Routledge_2007,_page_109._The_Buddha_taught_that_brahmanical_states_of_oneness_do_not_offer_a_decisive_and_permanent_end_to_suffering_either_during_life_or_after_death_and_he_also_argued_against_the_metaphysical_theories_that_were_at_their_foundation.Michael_Carrithers,_''The_Buddha,''_1983,_pp._41–42._Found_in_''Founders_of_Faith,''_Oxford_University_Press,_1986._These_theories_were_based_on_the_Upanishadic_idea_that_was_a_unity_between_the_personal_atman_and_the_universal_brahman._The_Buddha,_in_contrast,_argued_that_states_of_consciousness_are_caused_and_conditioned_by_a_yogi's_mental_states_and_meditative_techniques._Thus,_for_the_Buddha,_none_of_these_conditioned_states_of_yogic_consciousness_could_be_an_eternal_Self.

_Nonduality

Both_the_Buddha's_conception_of_the_liberated_person_and_the_goal_of_early_Brahminic_yoga_can_be_characterized_as_Nondualism.html" "title="Nondualism.html" "title="Four Noble Truths: BUDDHIST PHILOSOPHY Encycl ...