Buddhism vs. Hinduism

Buddhism
Hinduism

Hinduism is about understanding Brahma or existence from within their own Atman, roughly soul, whereas Buddhism is about finding the Anatman or not soul. In Hinduism, attaining the highest life is a process of removing the bodily distractions from life, allowing one to eventually understand the Brahma nature within. In Buddhism, one follows a disciplined life to moved through and understand that nothing in ourselves is ‘me’ such that we dispel the very illusion of existence. In so doing one realizes Nirvana.

In Dr Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan's words,"Buddhism, in its origin at least is an offshoot of Hinduism."

Comparison chart

Buddhism

Buddhism

Hinduism

Hinduism
Place of origin Nepal, India Indian Subcontinent
Place of worship Monasteries, nunneries, pagodas and temples. Temple (Mandir)
Practices Practices of the Threefold Training: Morality, Concentration, and Wisdom. Meditation, Yoga, contemplation, yagna (communal worship), offerings in the temple.
Life after death Until one has not attained Nirvana, he or she will be reborn into any of the 31 planes of existence over and over again, due to his/her karma. A constant cycle of reincarnation until enlightenment is reached.
Principle This life is suffering, and the only way to escape from this suffering is to dispel one's cravings and ignorance by practising the Eightfold Path. To follow dharma, i.e. eternal laws
Clergy Monks and Nuns, who unitedly and exactly follow the teachings of the Buddha under the name 'Sangha'. No official clergy. Gurus, Yogis, Rishis, Brahmins, Pundits, priests, priestesses, monks, and nuns.
Use of statues and pictures Common Common
Literal Meaning Buddhists mean those who follow the teachings of the Buddha The followers of Vedas are called as Arya, noble person. Arya is not a dynasty, ethnicity or race. Anyone who follows the teachings of Vedas is considered Arya.
Concept of God A God or gods have always been rejected wholly by Theravada Buddhists. Their only refuges are the three jewels: The Buddha, The Dhamma, and The Sangha. God is in everything and everything is God.
Belief The Buddha was the teacher to show us the four noble truths and the eightfold path (the path to nirvana or the way to enlightenment). Diverse beliefs depending on sects.
Belief of God Buddhism does not believe in a Creator God. Many gods, but realize that they all come from Atman.
Definition Teachings of the Buddha The word Hindu has geographical significance and was used originally for those people who lived beyond the river Sindhu or the region watered by the river Indus. Hindus themselves, call their religion "Sanatana Dharma, " meaning "Eternal Law."
Angels No angels accepted. The concept of angels does not apply in Hinduism. Some mythological stories include rishis, who sometimes serve as the messengers of God.
View of Oriental religions Knows that any other religions cannot lead to the nirvana, but never condemns them. Buddhism and Jainism were considered atheistic religions by traditional Hindu schools. Buddhists do not consider Buddha an avatar of Vishnu and believe that Hindu priests made that claim to stem the spread of Buddhism, which threatened Hinduism.
About Following the teachings of the Buddha Devotion to the various gods & goddesses of Hinduism.
Religious Law The Buddha's teachings, the Dharma. Dharma shastras
Means of salvation Buddhism has nothing to do with "salvation". The only goal in Buddhism is to attain Nirvana. To do this, we should let go of our desires, cravings and attachments, and try to dispel our ignorance Reaching enlightenment by the Path of Knowledge, the Path of devotion, or the Path of Good Deeds.
Founder Gautama Buddha (born as Prince Siddhartha) Not credited to a particular founder.
Day of worship Instead of worshipping, Buddhists pay obeisance to the Buddha, the Dharma and the Sangha. Orthodox schools prescribe three prayer times a day: at dawn, noon and dusk.
Goal of religion To attain enlightenment and be released from the cycle of rebirth and death, thus attaining Nirvana. To break the cycle of birth, death and reincarnation, and attain salvation.
Status of women No gender bias in Buddhism. In the Discourse related to householders, named 'Tein-gala-wada', certain duties and obligations were mentioned and applied to specific gender i.e. duties of a husband to a wife and vice versa, by the Buddha. Women can become priestesses or nuns.
Scriptures Tripitaka - a vast volume of 3 main sections: the Discourses, the Discipline and the Absolute Doctrine - which appeared only after the death of the Buddha, thanks to the monks who collected all the teachings of the Buddha. Vedas, Upanishad, Puranas, Gita. Smrti and Sruti are oral scriptures.
Time of origin 2,500 years ago, circa 563 B.C.E. (Before Common Era) circa 3000 B.C.E
Human Nature Ordinary human beings possess greed, anger, delusion, igorance, cravings, etc. and they were compared by the Buddha as 'the fools' and 'the blind'. (Ordinary human beings mean those who haven't walked or are not walking the Eightfold Path.) Depends on sects.
Authority of Dalai Lama Merely belonging to Tibetan Buddhism and has no relevance to Theravada Buddhism. N/A.
Prophets No prophets accepted in Theravada Buddhism. No prophets in religion, but Rishis would be considered equivalent to prophets in Vedic times. Avataras of Vedic God are different from human reincarnations, but would be considered equivalent to Christian idea of God in flesh.
View of the Buddha Founder of Buddhism or the Four Noble Truths Some Hindu sects claim Buddha was an avatar of Vishnu. Others believe he was a holy man.
Original Language(s) Original language is Magada, language used during the lifetime of the Buddha, which is the universal language (understood all over the universe) Sanskrit
Goal of Philosophy Buddhism is not a philosophy. It is the practical teachings of the Buddha and its goal is 'nirvana'. Salvation, freedom from the cycle of birth and reincarnation.
Views on the afterlife Cycle of rebirth and death in 31 realms, as determined by karma. Good karma can lead one to be reborn into any of the 26 realms of happiness. Evil karma will lead one to be reborn into any of the four nether realms of suffering. A constant cycle of reincarnation until enlightenment is reached after which moksha is attained.
Promised Holy one. Meitreya Kalki, the 10'th avatar of Vishnu.
Marriage Seen as a social convention and mainly a personal and individual concern, not a religious duty. Advice in the Discourses are on how to maintain a happy and harmonious marriage. Faithfulness and monogamy was encouraged. Man may marry one woman. However, kings in mythology often married more than one woman.
Names of God Brahma, Avalokitesvara Brahman
Use of statues, images Statues are commonly used as symbolic reminders while paying obeisance to the Buddha. Common.
Views on other religion Buddhism does not condemn any of other religions . Believe all religions have some truth in them.
God's role in salvation No God or gods. Salvation is not related to Buddhism at all. The Buddha also told us to depend on our own to attain nirvana (by practising the Threefold Training or the Eightfold Path). Beliefs vary by sect. Upanishads (scripture) say God chooses who gets salvation. Salvation is attained via good deeds and righteousness (following the "dharma" and avoiding sin)
Followers Buddhists Hindus.
Geographical distribution and predominance Theradava Buddhist countries, Myanmar, Laos, Thailand, Cambodia and Sri Lanka are the places of predominance of Buddhism. The Noble Truths are presently best heard in Myanmar only. Mainly in India.
Rites Generally common. Some Hindus believe in a "thread ceremony" for men.
View of other Dharmic religions Believes absolutely that any other ideas and concepts rather than the Buddha's teachings will never be true or perfect in this world. They believe that Buddhists, Jains, & Sikhs should reunite with Hinduism(which is the original Dharmic religion).
Population 300-450 Million, but Theravada Buddhists: 100-150 million 1 Billion.
Can atheists partake in this religion's practices? Yes. Yes.
Confessing sins Not a part of (Theravada) Buddhism. The Buddha told us that we should strive hard ourselves to dismiss the bad deeds we have already done (except for certain bad deeds, e.g., matricide, etc.) and also showed us the way to do so. Repentance for unintentional sins are prescribed, but intentional sins have to be repaid through karmic consequences.
sects Theravada, Mahayana and Vajrayana, and so on. Vaishnava, Shaivaya, & Shaktism.
Status of Vedas Gautama Buddha believed and preached that the Vedas were originally sacred texts that were corrupted by some Brahmins by introducing practices such as animal sacrifice. Vedas are generally regarded as sacred in Hinduism. Post-Vedic texts like the Gita are also revered.
Religion which atheists may still be adherents of Buddhists deny the existence of a God or gods. So Buddhism is not a religion, but the teachings of the Buddha. Charvakas and Sankyas are atheistic groups in Hinduism.
Views on other religions Buddhism sees no contradiction in following more than one religion. Some scriptures say the path they describe is the only path to God and salvation. Other scriptures are more philosophical than religious. Beliefs vary. Some believe that all spiritual paths lead to the same God.
View of other Abrahamic religions Being a Dharmic religion, Buddhism has no relative view of Abrahamic religions. Hinduism is a Dharmic religion, not an Abrahamic religion.
Use of statues Used often. Allowed
Belief of God Buddhists do not believe in a Creator God, but, do have non-creator deities. The deity often varies from sect to sect. Smarta/Monists sect believes Everything is God. There are monotheistic sects also.
Virtue on which religion is based upon Compassion Follow righteousness.
Place and Time of origin Approx. 2,500 years ago, Indian Subcontinent, beginning with the Vedic civilization circa 3000 BC

Video explaining the differences

This video tries to explain the concept of reincarnation in Hinduism and Buddhism.

Further Reading

For further reading, there are several books available on Amazon.com on Buddhism and Hinduism:

References

Share this comparison:

If you read this far, you should follow us on:

"Buddhism vs Hinduism." Diffen.com. Diffen LLC, n.d. Web. 20 Oct 2014. < http://www.diffen.com/difference/Buddhism_vs_Hinduism >

Stay informed Related Comparisons
Follow Diffen
Make Diffen Smarter.

Log in to edit comparisons or create new comparisons in your area of expertise!

Sign up »
Top 5 Comparisons Recently Compared

Comments: Buddhism vs Hinduism

Comments via Facebook

Anonymous comments (13)

March 22, 2013, 7:04pm

Hinduism/Sant Mat and Buddhism.
http://www.hinduwebsite.com/hinduism/h_buddhism.asp
As we are aware, these two faiths are very similar, mainly due to their routes in India. Although the two faiths are generally accused of having many differences. This is not true!! Buddhism and Hinduism/Sant Mat share exactly the same teachings. These are the so called, difference between the faiths;
Hinduism is not founded by any particular person. Buddhism was founded by the Buddha.
So, how does this create any major difference in the teachings of the faiths? Besides, as you will discover the Gautama Buddha, never created Buddhism. The Buddhist faith just grows out of Hinduism.
Hinduism believes in the efficacy and supremacy of the Vedic texts. The Buddhist do not believe in these texts or any Hindu scripture. (unlike the Christians adopting the Torah as the Old Testament)
Well the Buddha, the Buddhist scriptures or no other Bodhisattva, has ever denied the existence of the Vedas or Vedic texts. The Buddha just said “Oh all those un wise priest, in the temples who read those scriptures. They know nothing about their religion.” Although Swami Ramakrishna (a Hindu Saint) even said; “Many good sayings are to be found in holy books, but merely reading them will not make one religious.” This is clearly obvious, as many of the priests during the time, preformed animal sacrifice, which was opposed in the Gita!!!! Plus everything in the Buddhist texts is technically the same as that in the Vedic texts, as you will see!! Even in the Jakatales Lord Rama and Lord Krishna plus their stories appear.
Hindus believe in the Atman, a concept closely related to a primordial soul, or God. Buddhism teaches that the belief in the Atman is the prime consequence of ignorance, which is itself the cause of all misery and the foundation of samsāra (the cycle of rebirth).
Buddhism acknowledge the existence of some gods and goddesses of Hindu pantheon, but give them a rather subordinate status.
Well Buddhism is accused of not including a God or a Soul/Atman concept. Not so!
Buddhism, due to its strong beliefs that the Lord is emptiness, is considered to deny any existence of the God and the Atman/Soul, as well as the idea of Moksha and the soul reuniting with Brahman. Rubbish!! Of course, there is a God and Soul inBuddhism, as we explained Brahman/Atman(as the Atman is a part of God or Brahman), is nothing!! Plus the soul, experiences nothing when reunited with Brahman(as Brahman is nothing), so the Buddhist Nirvana and Hindu Moksha are united!! I mean Heaven, Such Khand, Brahman and Nirvana are all the same, as all faiths lead to the same god!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!






Read this;
Was Buddha An Atheist?

By Sant Sevi Ji Paramahans Maharaj
The Harmony of All Religions: Santmat
[[[[[Copyright 2007, All Rights Reserved]]]]]
From the Chapter on Buddhism:



All the theistic religions of the world recognize the existence of God. The Divine Being is referred to by various names due to different languages: Brahman (Hindu), God (Christianity), Allah (Islam), Buddha (Buddhism), Tao (Taoism), Yahweh (Judaism), and Ahur Mazd (Zoroastrianism). We can say that a religion with a belief in God is a theistic religion. Religions which do not have a belief in God would be called atheistic.

Upon careful consideration, we can see that there are in fact two types of atheism: entirely atheistic and partially atheistic. The Belief Systems which do not have a belief in the existence of either God or soul are considered to be entirely atheistic. Those which do have a belief in the soul but not in Godare considered partially atheistic.

In modern times some scholars have interpreted the Buddha’s silence on the issue of the existence of God as atheistic. In their opinion, Buddharefused to answer any questions regarding the existence of the Divine Reality and the Soul (Atman or Jivatman), and therefore they have concluded that Buddha was an atheist.

However, in my opinion these kinds of conclusions demonstrate limited knowledge and ignorance about the essence of the Buddhist texts. In fact, Buddhist literature contains multiple references to the soul (atta or atman), the Lord (Natha), and the maker of the body. Examples can be found even in the fairly short book Dhammapada, where Buddha elaborates on Soul or self (atta): "The atman is the lord of atman. What else could be the Lord? When the individual self jiivatman) is well subdued, a man finds the Lord (Natha) who is difficult to fathom" (Dhammapada 12/4).

Some scholars have interpreted the word ’lord’ in this verse as if it literally means ’lordship’. However, even a cursory examination of the words in Pali, the original language of these texts, yields the true meaning. In Pali the word ’lord’ is in the second case accusative, and therefore it would best be translated as ’to the lord’. The noted Buddhist scholar Bhikshu Rahul Sankrityayan has explained this in his rendering of this verse of the Dhammapada:

"A man is the lord of himself Who else then could be
the lord? If the self is wholly disciplined then he is able
to attain a lord who is difficult to be attained."

Buddha addresses the creator of the body:

"Oh maker of the house I have seen you."
(Jaravaggo)

"Impermanence" of Buddhism and "Maya" of the Vedic Dharma

In the Vedanta literature, the Upanishads, and in the literature of the saints, this physical world is said to comprise both name and form, and is referred to as maya. It is understood to be illusory and not real, to be ever changing, and dependent upon a higher reality In the Chandogya Upanishad, Brhidarnyaka Upanishad, Mundaka Upanishad, and Prashna Upanishad it is repeatedly stated that the nature of the world is transitory, destructible, and not real. Therefore, we must seek for that essence which is constant, true and unchanging by transcending these realms of name and form.

The world of name and form is also described as avidya (ignorance) in the Katha and Mundaka Upanishads. In the Shvetashvatara Upanishad, the world is also described as illusory maya. The Upanishads also explain that:

"The soul (atman), which is beyond name and form,
is brimming with joy and tranquility. In its Turiyatita
form (the fifth state -- a state of cosmic consciousness;
a state of unity with the source),
atman is beyond good and evil" (Teja bindu Upanishad).

Lord Buddha says:

"A mendicant is one who has no attachment to the world of name and form. He is one who does not grieve for what is not real (asat, the ever changing reality). This is the true mendicant. (Dhammapada, Bhikkhuvaggo)."

In the Ramcharitmanasa Saint Tulsida says:

"Name and form are the two obstructions to God."

All of these references from the Upanishads and the texts of the saints, show agreement with the words of the Buddha, not difference.

Ineffable Divine and Silence

One person may say the true form of God is Nameless (transcending any human definition), a second person may say the true form of God is Soundless (nihshabda; beyond sound), and yet a third may keep silence in regard to the nature of the Divine. Is it logical to simply label the one who keeps silence an atheist? The wise person should reflect on this matter. If you say that the Divine Reality is nameless and then proceed to describe Him, are you not contradicting yourself! How can you describe something which is nameless? In thinking about this example, one might well conclude that the third person, who was silent when describing God, was actually closer to the nameless description of God.

Keeping silence in answer to the question of the nature of the Divine, is also found in the Upanishads. A prime example of this is found in the famous discourse between Sage Vashishta and Shri Ram in the Yoga Vashistha. Shri Rama had queried Guru Vasistha about the nature of Atman and Brahman (the Supreme Reality). In response the Guru remained silent. Ram repeated the question. Guru Vasistha remained silent. Shri Rama asked a third time, and still the great sage remained mute. With joined palms Ram asked his teacher Vasistha: "Reverend Sir! Are you displeased with me and therefore not answering my question, since you always assist me in understanding?" Guru Vasistha replied: "My dear son! I am not displeased with you. I have been answering the question which you have posed. The answer to your question is only given in silence, since the Divine is ineffable, unmanifest, and beyond the senses. How could I describe the nature of the reality which transcends the senses through these very sense organs (speech)?" The point here is that if we were to call the Buddha an atheist when he is silent on the question of the nature of the Divine, as some people have, then logically we must also call Guru Vasistha an atheist when he is silent in answer to the same question.

Shunya and Transcendent Reality

Some scholars have discounted the Buddha’s teachings, claiming that he is promulgating a belief in "emptiness" or "nothingness." These scholars have concluded that the Buddha, does not believe in a Higher Reality (God). Therefore, they argue, his philosophy should be considered as nihilistic. According to their reasoning, it would follow that those who teach about "emptiness" or "nothingness" (shunya) [the transcendent form of Ultimate Reality is also referred to as shunya] cannot be theistic. However, teachings about shunyata (emptiness) are not only found in Buddhist literature, but are also prominent in the writings of many of the saints. Here are some examples:

Gorakh Nath Ji says:

"It (God) is neither existent nor non-existent (shunya),
its nature is beyond the reach of senses and thought."

Sant Kabir Sahab says:

"Meditation on the Formless (shunya)
is enjoyed by all knowers of Truth."

Guru Nanak Dev Ji says:

"In the thought-less state of Samadhi (sunna, emptiness),
neither maya (illusion) nor the web of mind exist.
Only the gracious God exists."

Paltu Sahab says:

"Staying in solitude and
meditate on emptiness (shunya)."

Saint Dadu Dayal Ji says:

"That Ultimate Reality is beyond the
dual categories of qualified and unqualified,
it is Emptiness which transcends emptiness (shunya)."

Saint Charan Das says:

"When the soul is absorbed on the
peak (highest inner realm) of emptiness,
then it experiences rapture."

This emptiness is also known as ether (akasha) or void (avakasha). In the Ramcharitamanasa, Goswami Tulsi Das Ji invokes Lord Shiva:

"I invoke the name of Shiva--Lord Shiva,
who dwells in the space of infinite knowledge (akasha)"

There are discussions about shunya in the Tantra Shastra and the Jnanasankalnii Tantra, where it says,

"Meditation is not meditation
unless the mind is united
with Shunya".

Maharishi Mehi says:

"Consciousness that is traveling beyond sunna (void)
and mahasunna (the great void) traverses the realm
of bhanvar gupha (the whirling cave). There it
experiences the sound of Truth (sat), which
is the Original Sound. This Sound embodies the essence
of the spiritual preceptor. 0 Practitioner! Hold on to that
sound and become one with that True Sound."

In the Upanishads there are multiple references to Emptiness or Space (shunya). In the fourth Brahmana of the Mandala Brahmanopanishad it is said:

"There are five kinds of celestial Shunya (ether)
which are increasingly more subtle: akasham,
parakasham, Mahakasham, Suryakasham and
Parmakasham. The infinite light permeates all
of these akasham, but the Parmakasham is
ineffable and is brimming with infinite bliss.
It is the essential element."

When one considers all these descriptions of Shunya (emptiness or void), the question arises whether the composers of the Upanishads and the saints were atheists. The unequivocal response is, of course, that they are not atheists. How then could one logically consider the Buddha to be an atheist? The Buddha regularly speaks of both nirvana and Shunya in almost identical terminology, and yet he is accused of atheism solely on the basis of his silence on this question about the nature of God.

-- Sant Sevi Ji Maharaj




Sant Sevi Ji Paramahans Maharaj

Hinduism accepts the Buddha as an avatar of Vishnu, one of the gods of the Hindu trinity. The Buddhists do not accept any Hindu god either as equivalent or superior to the Buddha. In Buddhism, the Hindu gods are relegated to different roles but they are not more important the the Buddhas.
Buddhism believes in Bodhisattvas. Hinduism does not believe in them.
Well as we have just explained Nirvana, is the state were one is ONE with Brahman or God or VISHNU (where he experiences emptiness)!! In Buddhism and Hinduism, when a Soul achieves Enlightenment, it enters the realm of Nirvana or in other words reunites with God or VISHNU!! So therefore, through Buddhism and Hinduism the Buddha is considered to an AVATAR OF VISHNU!! Plus this proves that Hindu gods/Goddess, were just normal Bodhisattvas!! A Bodhisattva, Satguru, Sant, Saint and Avatar are technically the same thing. An Enlightened and Realized Soul, whose purpose is, too guide other Souls to their own Enlightenment/Moksha.
The Buddhists consider the world as suffering and regard ending suffering as the chief aim of human life. The Hindus consider that there are four chief aims (arthas) in life which every being should pursue. They are dharma (religious duty), artha (wealth or material possessions), kama (desires and passions) and moksha (salvation.)
Well the four Hindu arm chiefs, are technically the same as the One Buddhist arm chief. According to a Satsang of our Satguru, from a Sant Mat/Hindu tradition, during our Human Life we must gain hold of dharma and Moksha, and destroy Karma and Artha. Even according to Buddhism, Karma and Artha are the products causing one to suffer.
Hindus also believe in the four stages of life (each cycle of 25 years having a role to play.) This is not followed in Buddhism. People can participate any time depending upon their spiritual advancement, not their age.
Again the four stages of life and the Casting System, have been confused throughout Hinduism in the ages. The four stages of life, just show the stages of life which one is more able to achieve Enlightenment and less able to achieve Enlightenment.


Look, at this picture. It shows all the differenment stages to God and all the different people at each stage. The original meaning behind the casting system, was this! An untouchable, was an atheist, or not very religious plus maya like person. A Brahmin, is someone, who is enlightened and at one with Brahman. A warrior, is someone, who is fighting the evil of the maya to achieve enlightenment. A Vaisya, is someone, seeking a Satguru or trying to impress his Satguru. The casting system, was never meant to be confused,with names in society nor discriminate against anyone. This is all a misunderstanding of the Satguru's message!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! All Sants/Satgurus, therefore oppose the modern and incorrect casting system of India!! Guru Nanak, Kabir Sahib, Ramanada and the Geatuma Buddha, are famous, for there battles against the modern casting system!!



The social body
The social body and its components are likened to the human form.
Society is compared to a body with the brahmanas as the head, kshatriyas as the arms, vaishyas as the belly (or thighs) and the shudras as the legs
Social functions are determined according to this analogy. For example, the brahmanas are the eyes and mouth of society. They provide a spiritual vision for society and teach people accordingly. Just as the arms are raised to defend the body, the kshatriya's main duty is to protect society. The vaishya's main duty is material nourishment, and the shudra supports all other sections of society.
The ashrams are sometimes related to the same metaphor, with the successive stages of student life, household life, retirement and renunciation represented by the legs, belly, arms and head respectively.


Buddhists organize themselves into a monastic Order (Sangha) and the monks live in groups. Hinduism is basically an individualistic religion.
Certain Hindu groups follow this rule.
Refuge in the Buddha, the Sangha and Dharma are the three cardinal requirements on the eightfold path. Hinduism offers many choices to its followers on the path of self-realization.
Hinduism, may offer many paths to self-realization, but they all include require refuge in the; the Buddha (Satguru), Sangha (spiritual community) and Dharma (religious duty.)
Although both religions believe in karma and rebirth, they differ in the manner in which they operate and impact the existence of individual beings.
Above, I have explained the how Buddhism does describe an Atman/Soul concept through a Non Self/Emptiness concept, used a lot in Vedic Hinduism.

Source of these so-called differences;

http://www.japanese-buddhism.com/hinduism.html



These prinples are true about Buddhism, Hinduism and Sant Mat;

Both Hinduism and Buddhism teaches that the true nature of the world is illusion and that karma is what is keeping men tied to this world and the cycle of births and deaths.
Buddha taught that desire is the main cause of suffering and removal of desire results in the cessation of suffering.
Some of the Hindu texts such as the Upanishads (Isa) and the Bhagavadgita state that by accomplishing an action due to desire and attachment we are lead to bondage and suffering. On the contrary, if we accomplish an action without selfish desire, we are closer to liberation from the karmic cycle.
Both religions believe in the concept of karma and the reincarnation of souls.
Both preach compassion and non violence towards all living beings.
Both believe in the existence of several hells and heavens or higher and lower worlds.
Both believe in the existence of gods or deities on different planes.
Both believe in certain spiritual practices like meditation, concentration, cultivation of certain mood of ecstasy and the channeling of these emotional energies that is induced by the maturing of devotion.
Both believe in detachment, renunciation of worldly riches as a prerequisite to enter to spiritual life. Both consider desire as the chief cause of suffering.
Buddhism and Hinduism have their own versions of Tantra.
Both originated and evolved on the Indian soil. The founder of Buddhism was a Hindu who became the Buddha.


The Gautama Buddha, Krishna and Lord Rama plus all the other Hindu Sages were all Satgurus/Saints (Enlightened and God/Vishnu realized souls.)
They all came to save other Souls from this evil Maya/Samsara of life and death, plus enlighten other Souls.
They considered the quality of God to be of emptiness.
They all believed God was always incarnated down on earth in the form of a Satguru/Sant/Saint/Bodhisattva/Buddha.
They all believed in the; Soul/Atman, reincarnation, Maya/illusion of life concept, ONE GOD, the Vedic time scale, the Dharmic concepts of Suffering and religion.

— 92.✗.✗.206
1

March 19, 2013, 9:56am

In Theravada Buddhism, there are neither priests nor priestesses. Instead there are only monk and nuns. Monks and nuns are never allowed to marry; for monks, there are altogether 227 disciplines (collectively known as Vinaya) which were laid down by Buddha.

— 122.✗.✗.116
0

May 10, 2014, 6:01pm

All are same but the most inportant things is we don't want to do any bad karma on other people or other living things

— 115.✗.✗.54
-1

April 28, 2014, 4:12am

It helped me in my homework to

— 66.✗.✗.27
-1

April 15, 2014, 1:39am

thank you ! it really helped me on my homework

— 66.✗.✗.221
-1

April 18, 2013, 9:21am

Salvation is not relevant to Buddhism and therefore, there is no means of salvation in Buddhism. The only way to Nirvana is to follow the Eightfold Path and to try to dispel cravings, ignorance, greed, delusion, anger and so on.

— 122.✗.✗.99
-1

March 28, 2013, 2:17pm

Hindus are not polytheistic. All of the gods are different forms of Brahma, who has no one form. Get it right.

— 72.✗.✗.2
-1

March 19, 2013, 11:59am

Buddha said that there are altogether 14 levels of hell including the principal purgatories and minor hells.

— 122.✗.✗.116
-1

March 19, 2013, 9:40am

- The three main practices (aka. the threefold training) laid down by Buddha are ethics, concentration and wisdom (insight).
- The table states that there are several hells. According to Buddhist scriptures, 'hell' is one of the four nether worlds or regions. Hell, in Buddhism, refers to the place where sinners are punished in afterlife. To be more definite, 'hell' is believed to consist of three main categories. One of them is principal purgatories and it consists of altogether eight levels. There are altogether 14 hells including them. And these are not imaginary but one of the teachings of Buddha.
- According to Buddhism, 'rebirth' would be more appropriate than 'reincarnation'. 'Reincarnation' is considered to deal with a new body and the unchanged soul (i.e., the soul from one's last life) while 'rebirth' may deal with a new body, a new soul and a new life.

— 122.✗.✗.116
-1

December 12, 2013, 4:19am

Interesting facts!

— 108.✗.✗.21
-3

April 30, 2012, 2:25pm

Seems to be one pf the more accurate websites. Most of the ones I find are sodden with errors.

— 67.✗.✗.102
-3

October 15, 2013, 6:52pm

Hinduism/Sant Mat and Buddhism. http://www.hinduwebsite.com/hinduism/h_buddhism.asp As we are aware, these two faiths are very similar, mainly due to their routes in India. Although the two faiths are generally accused of having many differences. This is not true!! Buddhism and Hinduism/Sant Mat share exactly the same teachings. These are the so called, difference between the faiths; Hinduism is not founded by any particular person. Buddhism was founded by the Buddha. So, how does this create any major difference in the teachings of the faiths? Besides, as you will discover the Gautama Buddha, never created Buddhism. The Buddhist faith just grows out of Hinduism. Hinduism believes in the efficacy and supremacy of the Vedic texts. The Buddhist do not believe in these texts or any Hindu scripture. (unlike the Christians adopting the Torah as the Old Testament) Well the Buddha, the Buddhist scriptures or no other Bodhisattva, has ever denied the existence of the Vedas or Vedic texts. The Buddha just said “Oh all those un wise priest, in the temples who read those scriptures. They know nothing about their religion.” Although Swami Ramakrishna (a Hindu Saint) even said; “Many good sayings are to be found in holy books, but merely reading them will not make one religious.” This is clearly obvious, as many of the priests during the time, preformed animal sacrifice, which was opposed in the Gita!!!! Plus everything in the Buddhist texts is technically the same as that in the Vedic texts, as you will see!! Even in the Jakatales Lord Rama and Lord Krishna plus their stories appear. Hindus believe in the Atman, a concept closely related to a primordial soul, or God. Buddhism teaches that the belief in the Atman is the prime consequence of ignorance, which is itself the cause of all misery and the foundation of samsāra (the cycle of rebirth). Buddhism acknowledge the existence of some gods and goddesses of Hindu pantheon, but give them a rather subordinate status. Well Buddhism is accused of not including a God or a Soul/Atman concept. Not so! Buddhism, due to its strong beliefs that the Lord is emptiness, is considered to deny any existence of the God and the Atman/Soul, as well as the idea of Moksha and the soul reuniting with Brahman. Rubbish!! Of course, there is a God and Soul inBuddhism, as we explained Brahman/Atman(as the Atman is a part of God or Brahman), is nothing!! Plus the soul, experiences nothing when reunited with Brahman(as Brahman is nothing), so the Buddhist Nirvana and Hindu Moksha are united!! I mean Heaven, Such Khand, Brahman and Nirvana are all the same, as all faiths lead to the same god!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Read this; Was Buddha An Atheist? By Sant Sevi Ji Paramahans Maharaj The Harmony of All Religions: Santmat [[[[[Copyright 2007, All Rights Reserved]]]]] From the Chapter on Buddhism: All the theistic religions of the world recognize the existence of God. The Divine Being is referred to by various names due to different languages: Brahman (Hindu), God (Christianity), Allah (Islam), Buddha (Buddhism), Tao (Taoism), Yahweh (Judaism), and Ahur Mazd (Zoroastrianism). We can say that a religion with a belief in God is a theistic religion. Religions which do not have a belief in God would be called atheistic. Upon careful consideration, we can see that there are in fact two types of atheism: entirely atheistic and partially atheistic. The Belief Systems which do not have a belief in the existence of either God or soul are considered to be entirely atheistic. Those which do have a belief in the soul but not in Godare considered partially atheistic. In modern times some scholars have interpreted the Buddha’s silence on the issue of the existence of God as atheistic. In their opinion, Buddharefused to answer any questions regarding the existence of the Divine Reality and the Soul (Atman or Jivatman), and therefore they have concluded that Buddha was an atheist. However, in my opinion these kinds of conclusions demonstrate limited knowledge and ignorance about the essence of the Buddhist texts. In fact, Buddhist literature contains multiple references to the soul (atta or atman), the Lord (Natha), and the maker of the body. Examples can be found even in the fairly short book Dhammapada, where Buddha elaborates on Soul or self (atta): "The atman is the lord of atman. What else could be the Lord? When the individual self jiivatman) is well subdued, a man finds the Lord (Natha) who is difficult to fathom" (Dhammapada 12/4). Some scholars have interpreted the word ’lord’ in this verse as if it literally means ’lordship’. However, even a cursory examination of the words in Pali, the original language of these texts, yields the true meaning. In Pali the word ’lord’ is in the second case accusative, and therefore it would best be translated as ’to the lord’. The noted Buddhist scholar Bhikshu Rahul Sankrityayan has explained this in his rendering of this verse of the Dhammapada: "A man is the lord of himself Who else then could be the lord? If the self is wholly disciplined then he is able to attain a lord who is difficult to be attained." Buddha addresses the creator of the body: "Oh maker of the house I have seen you." (Jaravaggo) "Impermanence" of Buddhism and "Maya" of the Vedic Dharma In the Vedanta literature, the Upanishads, and in the literature of the saints, this physical world is said to comprise both name and form, and is referred to as maya. It is understood to be illusory and not real, to be ever changing, and dependent upon a higher reality In the Chandogya Upanishad, Brhidarnyaka Upanishad, Mundaka Upanishad, and Prashna Upanishad it is repeatedly stated that the nature of the world is transitory, destructible, and not real. Therefore, we must seek for that essence which is constant, true and unchanging by transcending these realms of name and form. The world of name and form is also described as avidya (ignorance) in the Katha and Mundaka Upanishads. In the Shvetashvatara Upanishad, the world is also described as illusory maya. The Upanishads also explain that: "The soul (atman), which is beyond name and form, is brimming with joy and tranquility. In its Turiyatita form (the fifth state -- a state of cosmic consciousness; a state of unity with the source), atman is beyond good and evil" (Teja bindu Upanishad). Lord Buddha says: "A mendicant is one who has no attachment to the world of name and form. He is one who does not grieve for what is not real (asat, the ever changing reality). This is the true mendicant. (Dhammapada, Bhikkhuvaggo)." In the Ramcharitmanasa Saint Tulsida says: "Name and form are the two obstructions to God." All of these references from the Upanishads and the texts of the saints, show agreement with the words of the Buddha, not difference. Ineffable Divine and Silence One person may say the true form of God is Nameless (transcending any human definition), a second person may say the true form of God is Soundless (nihshabda; beyond sound), and yet a third may keep silence in regard to the nature of the Divine. Is it logical to simply label the one who keeps silence an atheist? The wise person should reflect on this matter. If you say that the Divine Reality is nameless and then proceed to describe Him, are you not contradicting yourself! How can you describe something which is nameless? In thinking about this example, one might well conclude that the third person, who was silent when describing God, was actually closer to the nameless description of God. Keeping silence in answer to the question of the nature of the Divine, is also found in the Upanishads. A prime example of this is found in the famous discourse between Sage Vashishta and Shri Ram in the Yoga Vashistha. Shri Rama had queried Guru Vasistha about the nature of Atman and Brahman (the Supreme Reality). In response the Guru remained silent. Ram repeated the question. Guru Vasistha remained silent. Shri Rama asked a third time, and still the great sage remained mute. With joined palms Ram asked his teacher Vasistha: "Reverend Sir! Are you displeased with me and therefore not answering my question, since you always assist me in understanding?" Guru Vasistha replied: "My dear son! I am not displeased with you. I have been answering the question which you have posed. The answer to your question is only given in silence, since the Divine is ineffable, unmanifest, and beyond the senses. How could I describe the nature of the reality which transcends the senses through these very sense organs (speech)?" The point here is that if we were to call the Buddha an atheist when he is silent on the question of the nature of the Divine, as some people have, then logically we must also call Guru Vasistha an atheist when he is silent in answer to the same question. Shunya and Transcendent Reality Some scholars have discounted the Buddha’s teachings, claiming that he is promulgating a belief in "emptiness" or "nothingness." These scholars have concluded that the Buddha, does not believe in a Higher Reality (God). Therefore, they argue, his philosophy should be considered as nihilistic. According to their reasoning, it would follow that those who teach about "emptiness" or "nothingness" (shunya) [the transcendent form of Ultimate Reality is also referred to as shunya] cannot be theistic. However, teachings about shunyata (emptiness) are not only found in Buddhist literature, but are also prominent in the writings of many of the saints. Here are some examples: Gorakh Nath Ji says: "It (God) is neither existent nor non-existent (shunya), its nature is beyond the reach of senses and thought." Sant Kabir Sahab says: "Meditation on the Formless (shunya) is enjoyed by all knowers of Truth." Guru Nanak Dev Ji says: "In the thought-less state of Samadhi (sunna, emptiness), neither maya (illusion) nor the web of mind exist. Only the gracious God exists." Paltu Sahab says: "Staying in solitude and meditate on emptiness (shunya)." Saint Dadu Dayal Ji says: "That Ultimate Reality is beyond the dual categories of qualified and unqualified, it is Emptiness which transcends emptiness (shunya)." Saint Charan Das says: "When the soul is absorbed on the peak (highest inner realm) of emptiness, then it experiences rapture." This emptiness is also known as ether (akasha) or void (avakasha). In the Ramcharitamanasa, Goswami Tulsi Das Ji invokes Lord Shiva: "I invoke the name of Shiva--Lord Shiva, who dwells in the space of infinite knowledge (akasha)" There are discussions about shunya in the Tantra Shastra and the Jnanasankalnii Tantra, where it says, "Meditation is not meditation unless the mind is united with Shunya". Maharishi Mehi says: "Consciousness that is traveling beyond sunna (void) and mahasunna (the great void) traverses the realm of bhanvar gupha (the whirling cave). There it experiences the sound of Truth (sat), which is the Original Sound. This Sound embodies the essence of the spiritual preceptor. 0 Practitioner! Hold on to that sound and become one with that True Sound." In the Upanishads there are multiple references to Emptiness or Space (shunya). In the fourth Brahmana of the Mandala Brahmanopanishad it is said: "There are five kinds of celestial Shunya (ether) which are increasingly more subtle: akasham, parakasham, Mahakasham, Suryakasham and Parmakasham. The infinite light permeates all of these akasham, but the Parmakasham is ineffable and is brimming with infinite bliss. It is the essential element." When one considers all these descriptions of Shunya (emptiness or void), the question arises whether the composers of the Upanishads and the saints were atheists. The unequivocal response is, of course, that they are not atheists. How then could one logically consider the Buddha to be an atheist? The Buddha regularly speaks of both nirvana and Shunya in almost identical terminology, and yet he is accused of atheism solely on the basis of his silence on this question about the nature of God. -- Sant Sevi Ji Maharaj Sant Sevi Ji Paramahans Maharaj Hinduism accepts the Buddha as an avatar of Vishnu, one of the gods of the Hindu trinity. The Buddhists do not accept any Hindu god either as equivalent or superior to the Buddha. In Buddhism, the Hindu gods are relegated to different roles but they are not more important the the Buddhas. Buddhism believes in Bodhisattvas. Hinduism does not believe in them. Well as we have just explained Nirvana, is the state were one is ONE with Brahman or God or VISHNU (where he experiences emptiness)!! In Buddhism and Hinduism, when a Soul achieves Enlightenment, it enters the realm of Nirvana or in other words reunites with God or VISHNU!! So therefore, through Buddhism and Hinduism the Buddha is considered to an AVATAR OF VISHNU!! Plus this proves that Hindu gods/Goddess, were just normal Bodhisattvas!! A Bodhisattva, Satguru, Sant, Saint and Avatar are technically the same thing. An Enlightened and Realized Soul, whose purpose is, too guide other Souls to their own Enlightenment/Moksha. The Buddhists consider the world as suffering and regard ending suffering as the chief aim of human life. The Hindus consider that there are four chief aims (arthas) in life which every being should pursue. They are dharma (religious duty), artha (wealth or material possessions), kama (desires and passions) and moksha (salvation.) Well the four Hindu arm chiefs, are technically the same as the One Buddhist arm chief. According to a Satsang of our Satguru, from a Sant Mat/Hindu tradition, during our Human Life we must gain hold of dharma and Moksha, and destroy Karma and Artha. Even according to Buddhism, Karma and Artha are the products causing one to suffer. Hindus also believe in the four stages of life (each cycle of 25 years having a role to play.) This is not followed in Buddhism. People can participate any time depending upon their spiritual advancement, not their age. Again the four stages of life and the Casting System, have been confused throughout Hinduism in the ages. The four stages of life, just show the stages of life which one is more able to achieve Enlightenment and less able to achieve Enlightenment. Look, at this picture. It shows all the differenment stages to God and all the different people at each stage. The original meaning behind the casting system, was this! An untouchable, was an atheist, or not very religious plus maya like person. A Brahmin, is someone, who is enlightened and at one with Brahman. A warrior, is someone, who is fighting the evil of the maya to achieve enlightenment. A Vaisya, is someone, seeking a Satguru or trying to impress his Satguru. The casting system, was never meant to be confused,with names in society nor discriminate against anyone. This is all a misunderstanding of the Satguru's message!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! All Sants/Satgurus, therefore oppose the modern and incorrect casting system of India!! Guru Nanak, Kabir Sahib, Ramanada and the Geatuma Buddha, are famous, for there battles against the modern casting system!! The social body The social body and its components are likened to the human form. Society is compared to a body with the brahmanas as the head, kshatriyas as the arms, vaishyas as the belly (or thighs) and the shudras as the legs Social functions are determined according to this analogy. For example, the brahmanas are the eyes and mouth of society. They provide a spiritual vision for society and teach people accordingly. Just as the arms are raised to defend the body, the kshatriya's main duty is to protect society. The vaishya's main duty is material nourishment, and the shudra supports all other sections of society. The ashrams are sometimes related to the same metaphor, with the successive stages of student life, household life, retirement and renunciation represented by the legs, belly, arms and head respectively. Buddhists organize themselves into a monastic Order (Sangha) and the monks live in groups. Hinduism is basically an individualistic religion. Certain Hindu groups follow this rule. Refuge in the Buddha, the Sangha and Dharma are the three cardinal requirements on the eightfold path. Hinduism offers many choices to its followers on the path of self-realization. Hinduism, may offer many paths to self-realization, but they all include require refuge in the; the Buddha (Satguru), Sangha (spiritual community) and Dharma (religious duty.) Although both religions believe in karma and rebirth, they differ in the manner in which they operate and impact the existence of individual beings. Above, I have explained the how Buddhism does describe an Atman/Soul concept through a Non Self/Emptiness concept, used a lot in Vedic Hinduism. Source of these so-called differences; http://www.japanese-buddhism.com/hinduism.html These prinples are true about Buddhism, Hinduism and Sant Mat; Both Hinduism and Buddhism teaches that the true nature of the world is illusion and that karma is what is keeping men tied to this world and the cycle of births and deaths. Buddha taught that desire is the main cause of suffering and removal of desire results in the cessation of suffering. Some of the Hindu texts such as the Upanishads (Isa) and the Bhagavadgita state that by accomplishing an action due to desire and attachment we are lead to bondage and suffering. On the contrary, if we accomplish an action without selfish desire, we are closer to liberation from the karmic cycle. Both religions believe in the concept of karma and the reincarnation of souls. Both preach compassion and non violence towards all living beings. Both believe in the existence of several hells and heavens or higher and lower worlds. Both believe in the existence of gods or deities on different planes. Both believe in certain spiritual practices like meditation, concentration, cultivation of certain mood of ecstasy and the channeling of these emotional energies that is induced by the maturing of devotion. Both believe in detachment, renunciation of worldly riches as a prerequisite to enter to spiritual life. Both consider desire as the chief cause of suffering. Buddhism and Hinduism have their own versions of Tantra. Both originated and evolved on the Indian soil. The founder of Buddhism was a Hindu who became the Buddha. The Gautama Buddha, Krishna and Lord Rama plus all the other Hindu Sages were all Satgurus/Saints (Enlightened and God/Vishnu realized souls.) They all came to save other Souls from this evil Maya/Samsara of life and death, plus enlighten other Souls. They considered the quality of God to be of emptiness. They all believed God was always incarnated down on earth in the form of a Satguru/Sant/Saint/Bodhisattva/Buddha. They all believed in the; Soul/Atman, reincarnation, Maya/illusion of life concept, ONE GOD, the Vedic time scale, the Dharmic concepts of Suffering and religion Hinduism/Sant Mat and Buddhism. http://www.hinduwebsite.com/hinduism/h_buddhism.asp As we are aware, these two faiths are very similar, mainly due to their routes in India. Although the two faiths are generally accused of having many differences. This is not true!! Buddhism and Hinduism/Sant Mat share exactly the same teachings. These are the so called, difference between the faiths; Hinduism is not founded by any particular person. Buddhism was founded by the Buddha. So, how does this create any major difference in the teachings of the faiths? Besides, as you will discover the Gautama Buddha, never created Buddhism. The Buddhist faith just grows out of Hinduism. Hinduism believes in the efficacy and supremacy of the Vedic texts. The Buddhist do not believe in these texts or any Hindu scripture. (unlike the Christians adopting the Torah as the Old Testament) Well the Buddha, the Buddhist scriptures or no other Bodhisattva, has ever denied the existence of the Vedas or Vedic texts. The Buddha just said “Oh all those un wise priest, in the temples who read those scriptures. They know nothing about their religion.” Although Swami Ramakrishna (a Hindu Saint) even said; “Many good sayings are to be found in holy books, but merely reading them will not make one religious.” This is clearly obvious, as many of the priests during the time, preformed animal sacrifice, which was opposed in the Gita!!!! Plus everything in the Buddhist texts is technically the same as that in the Vedic texts, as you will see!! Even in the Jakatales Lord Rama and Lord Krishna plus their stories appear. Hindus believe in the Atman, a concept closely related to a primordial soul, or God. Buddhism teaches that the belief in the Atman is the prime consequence of ignorance, which is itself the cause of all misery and the foundation of samsāra (the cycle of rebirth). Buddhism acknowledge the existence of some gods and goddesses of Hindu pantheon, but give them a rather subordinate status. Well Buddhism is accused of not including a God or a Soul/Atman concept. Not so! Buddhism, due to its strong beliefs that the Lord is emptiness, is considered to deny any existence of the God and the Atman/Soul, as well as the idea of Moksha and the soul reuniting with Brahman. Rubbish!! Of course, there is a God and Soul inBuddhism, as we explained Brahman/Atman(as the Atman is a part of God or Brahman), is nothing!! Plus the soul, experiences nothing when reunited with Brahman(as Brahman is nothing), so the Buddhist Nirvana and Hindu Moksha are united!! I mean Heaven, Such Khand, Brahman and Nirvana are all the same, as all faiths lead to the same god!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Read this; Was Buddha An Atheist? By Sant Sevi Ji Paramahans Maharaj The Harmony of All Religions: Santmat [[[[[Copyright 2007, All Rights Reserved]]]]] From the Chapter on Buddhism: All the theistic religions of the world recognize the existence of God. The Divine Being is referred to by various names due to different languages: Brahman (Hindu), God (Christianity), Allah (Islam), Buddha (Buddhism), Tao (Taoism), Yahweh (Judaism), and Ahur Mazd (Zoroastrianism). We can say that a religion with a belief in God is a theistic religion. Religions which do not have a belief in God would be called atheistic. Upon careful consideration, we can see that there are in fact two types of atheism: entirely atheistic and partially atheistic. The Belief Systems which do not have a belief in the existence of either God or soul are considered to be entirely atheistic. Those which do have a belief in the soul but not in Godare considered partially atheistic. In modern times some scholars have interpreted the Buddha’s silence on the issue of the existence of God as atheistic. In their opinion, Buddharefused to answer any questions regarding the existence of the Divine Reality and the Soul (Atman or Jivatman), and therefore they have concluded that Buddha was an atheist. However, in my opinion these kinds of conclusions demonstrate limited knowledge and ignorance about the essence of the Buddhist texts. In fact, Buddhist literature contains multiple references to the soul (atta or atman), the Lord (Natha), and the maker of the body. Examples can be found even in the fairly short book Dhammapada, where Buddha elaborates on Soul or self (atta): "The atman is the lord of atman. What else could be the Lord? When the individual self jiivatman) is well subdued, a man finds the Lord (Natha) who is difficult to fathom" (Dhammapada 12/4). Some scholars have interpreted the word ’lord’ in this verse as if it literally means ’lordship’. However, even a cursory examination of the words in Pali, the original language of these texts, yields the true meaning. In Pali the word ’lord’ is in the second case accusative, and therefore it would best be translated as ’to the lord’. The noted Buddhist scholar Bhikshu Rahul Sankrityayan has explained this in his rendering of this verse of the Dhammapada: "A man is the lord of himself Who else then could be the lord? If the self is wholly disciplined then he is able to attain a lord who is difficult to be attained." Buddha addresses the creator of the body: "Oh maker of the house I have seen you." (Jaravaggo) "Impermanence" of Buddhism and "Maya" of the Vedic Dharma In the Vedanta literature, the Upanishads, and in the literature of the saints, this physical world is said to comprise both name and form, and is referred to as maya. It is understood to be illusory and not real, to be ever changing, and dependent upon a higher reality In the Chandogya Upanishad, Brhidarnyaka Upanishad, Mundaka Upanishad, and Prashna Upanishad it is repeatedly stated that the nature of the world is transitory, destructible, and not real. Therefore, we must seek for that essence which is constant, true and unchanging by transcending these realms of name and form. The world of name and form is also described as avidya (ignorance) in the Katha and Mundaka Upanishads. In the Shvetashvatara Upanishad, the world is also described as illusory maya. The Upanishads also explain that: "The soul (atman), which is beyond name and form, is brimming with joy and tranquility. In its Turiyatita form (the fifth state -- a state of cosmic consciousness; a state of unity with the source), atman is beyond good and evil" (Teja bindu Upanishad). Lord Buddha says: "A mendicant is one who has no attachment to the world of name and form. He is one who does not grieve for what is not real (asat, the ever changing reality). This is the true mendicant. (Dhammapada, Bhikkhuvaggo)." In the Ramcharitmanasa Saint Tulsida says: "Name and form are the two obstructions to God." All of these references from the Upanishads and the texts of the saints, show agreement with the words of the Buddha, not difference. Ineffable Divine and Silence One person may say the true form of God is Nameless (transcending any human definition), a second person may say the true form of God is Soundless (nihshabda; beyond sound), and yet a third may keep silence in regard to the nature of the Divine. Is it logical to simply label the one who keeps silence an atheist? The wise person should reflect on this matter. If you say that the Divine Reality is nameless and then proceed to describe Him, are you not contradicting yourself! How can you describe something which is nameless? In thinking about this example, one might well conclude that the third person, who was silent when describing God, was actually closer to the nameless description of God. Keeping silence in answer to the question of the nature of the Divine, is also found in the Upanishads. A prime example of this is found in the famous discourse between Sage Vashishta and Shri Ram in the Yoga Vashistha. Shri Rama had queried Guru Vasistha about the nature of Atman and Brahman (the Supreme Reality). In response the Guru remained silent. Ram repeated the question. Guru Vasistha remained silent. Shri Rama asked a third time, and still the great sage remained mute. With joined palms Ram asked his teacher Vasistha: "Reverend Sir! Are you displeased with me and therefore not answering my question, since you always assist me in understanding?" Guru Vasistha replied: "My dear son! I am not displeased with you. I have been answering the question which you have posed. The answer to your question is only given in silence, since the Divine is ineffable, unmanifest, and beyond the senses. How could I describe the nature of the reality which transcends the senses through these very sense organs (speech)?" The point here is that if we were to call the Buddha an atheist when he is silent on the question of the nature of the Divine, as some people have, then logically we must also call Guru Vasistha an atheist when he is silent in answer to the same question. Shunya and Transcendent Reality Some scholars have discounted the Buddha’s teachings, claiming that he is promulgating a belief in "emptiness" or "nothingness." These scholars have concluded that the Buddha, does not believe in a Higher Reality (God). Therefore, they argue, his philosophy should be considered as nihilistic. According to their reasoning, it would follow that those who teach about "emptiness" or "nothingness" (shunya) [the transcendent form of Ultimate Reality is also referred to as shunya] cannot be theistic. However, teachings about shunyata (emptiness) are not only found in Buddhist literature, but are also prominent in the writings of many of the saints. Here are some examples: Gorakh Nath Ji says: "It (God) is neither existent nor non-existent (shunya), its nature is beyond the reach of senses and thought." Sant Kabir Sahab says: "Meditation on the Formless (shunya) is enjoyed by all knowers of Truth." Guru Nanak Dev Ji says: "In the thought-less state of Samadhi (sunna, emptiness), neither maya (illusion) nor the web of mind exist. Only the gracious God exists." Paltu Sahab says: "Staying in solitude and meditate on emptiness (shunya)." Saint Dadu Dayal Ji says: "That Ultimate Reality is beyond the dual categories of qualified and unqualified, it is Emptiness which transcends emptiness (shunya)." Saint Charan Das says: "When the soul is absorbed on the peak (highest inner realm) of emptiness, then it experiences rapture." This emptiness is also known as ether (akasha) or void (avakasha). In the Ramcharitamanasa, Goswami Tulsi Das Ji invokes Lord Shiva: "I invoke the name of Shiva--Lord Shiva, who dwells in the space of infinite knowledge (akasha)" There are discussions about shunya in the Tantra Shastra and the Jnanasankalnii Tantra, where it says, "Meditation is not meditation unless the mind is united with Shunya". Maharishi Mehi says: "Consciousness that is traveling beyond sunna (void) and mahasunna (the great void) traverses the realm of bhanvar gupha (the whirling cave). There it experiences the sound of Truth (sat), which is the Original Sound. This Sound embodies the essence of the spiritual preceptor. 0 Practitioner! Hold on to that sound and become one with that True Sound." In the Upanishads there are multiple references to Emptiness or Space (shunya). In the fourth Brahmana of the Mandala Brahmanopanishad it is said: "There are five kinds of celestial Shunya (ether) which are increasingly more subtle: akasham, parakasham, Mahakasham, Suryakasham and Parmakasham. The infinite light permeates all of these akasham, but the Parmakasham is ineffable and is brimming with infinite bliss. It is the essential element." When one considers all these descriptions of Shunya (emptiness or void), the question arises whether the composers of the Upanishads and the saints were atheists. The unequivocal response is, of course, that they are not atheists. How then could one logically consider the Buddha to be an atheist? The Buddha regularly speaks of both nirvana and Shunya in almost identical terminology, and yet he is accused of atheism solely on the basis of his silence on this question about the nature of God. -- Sant Sevi Ji Maharaj Sant Sevi Ji Paramahans Maharaj Hinduism accepts the Buddha as an avatar of Vishnu, one of the gods of the Hindu trinity. The Buddhists do not accept any Hindu god either as equivalent or superior to the Buddha. In Buddhism, the Hindu gods are relegated to different roles but they are not more important the the Buddhas. Buddhism believes in Bodhisattvas. Hinduism does not believe in them. Well as we have just explained Nirvana, is the state were one is ONE with Brahman or God or VISHNU (where he experiences emptiness)!! In Buddhism and Hinduism, when a Soul achieves Enlightenment, it enters the realm of Nirvana or in other words reunites with God or VISHNU!! So therefore, through Buddhism and Hinduism the Buddha is considered to an AVATAR OF VISHNU!! Plus this proves that Hindu gods/Goddess, were just normal Bodhisattvas!! A Bodhisattva, Satguru, Sant, Saint and Avatar are technically the same thing. An Enlightened and Realized Soul, whose purpose is, too guide other Souls to their own Enlightenment/Moksha. The Buddhists consider the world as suffering and regard ending suffering as the chief aim of human life. The Hindus consider that there are four chief aims (arthas) in life which every being should pursue. They are dharma (religious duty), artha (wealth or material possessions), kama (desires and passions) and moksha (salvation.) Well the four Hindu arm chiefs, are technically the same as the One Buddhist arm chief. According to a Satsang of our Satguru, from a Sant Mat/Hindu tradition, during our Human Life we must gain hold of dharma and Moksha, and destroy Karma and Artha. Even according to Buddhism, Karma and Artha are the products causing one to suffer. Hindus also believe in the four stages of life (each cycle of 25 years having a role to play.) This is not followed in Buddhism. People can participate any time depending upon their spiritual advancement, not their age. Again the four stages of life and the Casting System, have been confused throughout Hinduism in the ages. The four stages of life, just show the stages of life which one is more able to achieve Enlightenment and less able to achieve Enlightenment. Look, at this picture. It shows all the differenment stages to God and all the different people at each stage. The original meaning behind the casting system, was this! An untouchable, was an atheist, or not very religious plus maya like person. A Brahmin, is someone, who is enlightened and at one with Brahman. A warrior, is someone, who is fighting the evil of the maya to achieve enlightenment. A Vaisya, is someone, seeking a Satguru or trying to impress his Satguru. The casting system, was never meant to be confused,with names in society nor discriminate against anyone. This is all a misunderstanding of the Satguru's message!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! All Sants/Satgurus, therefore oppose the modern and incorrect casting system of India!! Guru Nanak, Kabir Sahib, Ramanada and the Geatuma Buddha, are famous, for there battles against the modern casting system!! The social body The social body and its components are likened to the human form. Society is compared to a body with the brahmanas as the head, kshatriyas as the arms, vaishyas as the belly (or thighs) and the shudras as the legs Social functions are determined according to this analogy. For example, the brahmanas are the eyes and mouth of society. They provide a spiritual vision for society and teach people accordingly. Just as the arms are raised to defend the body, the kshatriya's main duty is to protect society. The vaishya's main duty is material nourishment, and the shudra supports all other sections of society. The ashrams are sometimes related to the same metaphor, with the successive stages of student life, household life, retirement and renunciation represented by the legs, belly, arms and head respectively. Buddhists organize themselves into a monastic Order (Sangha) and the monks live in groups. Hinduism is basically an individualistic religion. Certain Hindu groups follow this rule. Refuge in the Buddha, the Sangha and Dharma are the three cardinal requirements on the eightfold path. Hinduism offers many choices to its followers on the path of self-realization. Hinduism, may offer many paths to self-realization, but they all include require refuge in the; the Buddha (Satguru), Sangha (spiritual community) and Dharma (religious duty.) Although both religions believe in karma and rebirth, they differ in the manner in which they operate and impact the existence of individual beings. Above, I have explained the how Buddhism does describe an Atman/Soul concept through a Non Self/Emptiness concept, used a lot in Vedic Hinduism. Source of these so-called differences; http://www.japanese-buddhism.com/hinduism.html These prinples are true about Buddhism, Hinduism and Sant Mat; Both Hinduism and Buddhism teaches that the true nature of the world is illusion and that karma is what is keeping men tied to this world and the cycle of births and deaths. Buddha taught that desire is the main cause of suffering and removal of desire results in the cessation of suffering. Some of the Hindu texts such as the Upanishads (Isa) and the Bhagavadgita state that by accomplishing an action due to desire and attachment we are lead to bondage and suffering. On the contrary, if we accomplish an action without selfish desire, we are closer to liberation from the karmic cycle. Both religions believe in the concept of karma and the reincarnation of souls. Both preach compassion and non violence towards all living beings. Both believe in the existence of several hells and heavens or higher and lower worlds. Both believe in the existence of gods or deities on different planes. Both believe in certain spiritual practices like meditation, concentration, cultivation of certain mood of ecstasy and the channeling of these emotional energies that is induced by the maturing of devotion. Both believe in detachment, renunciation of worldly riches as a prerequisite to enter to spiritual life. Both consider desire as the chief cause of suffering. Buddhism and Hinduism have their own versions of Tantra. Both originated and evolved on the Indian soil. The founder of Buddhism was a Hindu who became the Buddha. The Gautama Buddha, Krishna and Lord Rama plus all the other Hindu Sages were all Satgurus/Saints (Enlightened and God/Vishnu realized souls.) They all came to save other Souls from this evil Maya/Samsara of life and death, plus enlighten other Souls. They considered the quality of God to be of emptiness. They all believed God was always incarnated down on earth in the form of a Satguru/Sant/Saint/Bodhisattva/Buddha. They all believed in the; Soul/Atman, reincarnation, Maya/illusion of life concept, ONE GOD, the Vedic time scale, the Dharmic concepts of Suffering and religion Hinduism/Sant Mat and Buddhism. http://www.hinduwebsite.com/hinduism/h_buddhism.asp As we are aware, these two faiths are very similar, mainly due to their routes in India. Although the two faiths are generally accused of having many differences. This is not true!! Buddhism and Hinduism/Sant Mat share exactly the same teachings. These are the so called, difference between the faiths; Hinduism is not founded by any particular person. Buddhism was founded by the Buddha. So, how does this create any major difference in the teachings of the faiths? Besides, as you will discover the Gautama Buddha, never created Buddhism. The Buddhist faith just grows out of Hinduism. Hinduism believes in the efficacy and supremacy of the Vedic texts. The Buddhist do not believe in these texts or any Hindu scripture. (unlike the Christians adopting the Torah as the Old Testament) Well the Buddha, the Buddhist scriptures or no other Bodhisattva, has ever denied the existence of the Vedas or Vedic texts. The Buddha just said “Oh all those un wise priest, in the temples who read those scriptures. They know nothing about their religion.” Although Swami Ramakrishna (a Hindu Saint) even said; “Many good sayings are to be found in holy books, but merely reading them will not make one religious.” This is clearly obvious, as many of the priests during the time, preformed animal sacrifice, which was opposed in the Gita!!!! Plus everything in the Buddhist texts is technically the same as that in the Vedic texts, as you will see!! Even in the Jakatales Lord Rama and Lord Krishna plus their stories appear. Hindus believe in the Atman, a concept closely related to a primordial soul, or God. Buddhism teaches that the belief in the Atman is the prime consequence of ignorance, which is itself the cause of all misery and the foundation of samsāra (the cycle of rebirth). Buddhism acknowledge the existence of some gods and goddesses of Hindu pantheon, but give them a rather subordinate status. Well Buddhism is accused of not including a God or a Soul/Atman concept. Not so! Buddhism, due to its strong beliefs that the Lord is emptiness, is considered to deny any existence of the God and the Atman/Soul, as well as the idea of Moksha and the soul reuniting with Brahman. Rubbish!! Of course, there is a God and Soul inBuddhism, as we explained Brahman/Atman(as the Atman is a part of God or Brahman), is nothing!! Plus the soul, experiences nothing when reunited with Brahman(as Brahman is nothing), so the Buddhist Nirvana and Hindu Moksha are united!! I mean Heaven, Such Khand, Brahman and Nirvana are all the same, as all faiths lead to the same god!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Read this; Was Buddha An Atheist? By Sant Sevi Ji Paramahans Maharaj The Harmony of All Religions: Santmat [[[[[Copyright 2007, All Rights Reserved]]]]] From the Chapter on Buddhism: All the theistic religions of the world recognize the existence of God. The Divine Being is referred to by various names due to different languages: Brahman (Hindu), God (Christianity), Allah (Islam), Buddha (Buddhism), Tao (Taoism), Yahweh (Judaism), and Ahur Mazd (Zoroastrianism). We can say that a religion with a belief in God is a theistic religion. Religions which do not have a belief in God would be called atheistic. Upon careful consideration, we can see that there are in fact two types of atheism: entirely atheistic and partially atheistic. The Belief Systems which do not have a belief in the existence of either God or soul are considered to be entirely atheistic. Those which do have a belief in the soul but not in Godare considered partially atheistic. In modern times some scholars have interpreted the Buddha’s silence on the issue of the existence of God as atheistic. In their opinion, Buddharefused to answer any questions regarding the existence of the Divine Reality and the Soul (Atman or Jivatman), and therefore they have concluded that Buddha was an atheist. However, in my opinion these kinds of conclusions demonstrate limited knowledge and ignorance about the essence of the Buddhist texts. In fact, Buddhist literature contains multiple references to the soul (atta or atman), the Lord (Natha), and the maker of the body. Examples can be found even in the fairly short book Dhammapada, where Buddha elaborates on Soul or self (atta): "The atman is the lord of atman. What else could be the Lord? When the individual self jiivatman) is well subdued, a man finds the Lord (Natha) who is difficult to fathom" (Dhammapada 12/4). Some scholars have interpreted the word ’lord’ in this verse as if it literally means ’lordship’. However, even a cursory examination of the words in Pali, the original language of these texts, yields the true meaning. In Pali the word ’lord’ is in the second case accusative, and therefore it would best be translated as ’to the lord’. The noted Buddhist scholar Bhikshu Rahul Sankrityayan has explained this in his rendering of this verse of the Dhammapada: "A man is the lord of himself Who else then could be the lord? If the self is wholly disciplined then he is able to attain a lord who is difficult to be attained." Buddha addresses the creator of the body: "Oh maker of the house I have seen you." (Jaravaggo) "Impermanence" of Buddhism and "Maya" of the Vedic Dharma In the Vedanta literature, the Upanishads, and in the literature of the saints, this physical world is said to comprise both name and form, and is referred to as maya. It is understood to be illusory and not real, to be ever changing, and dependent upon a higher reality In the Chandogya Upanishad, Brhidarnyaka Upanishad, Mundaka Upanishad, and Prashna Upanishad it is repeatedly stated that the nature of the world is transitory, destructible, and not real. Therefore, we must seek for that essence which is constant, true and unchanging by transcending these realms of name and form. The world of name and form is also described as avidya (ignorance) in the Katha and Mundaka Upanishads. In the Shvetashvatara Upanishad, the world is also described as illusory maya. The Upanishads also explain that: "The soul (atman), which is beyond name and form, is brimming with joy and tranquility. In its Turiyatita form (the fifth state -- a state of cosmic consciousness; a state of unity with the source), atman is beyond good and evil" (Teja bindu Upanishad). Lord Buddha says: "A mendicant is one who has no attachment to the world of name and form. He is one who does not grieve for what is not real (asat, the ever changing reality). This is the true mendicant. (Dhammapada, Bhikkhuvaggo)." In the Ramcharitmanasa Saint Tulsida says: "Name and form are the two obstructions to God." All of these references from the Upanishads and the texts of the saints, show agreement with the words of the Buddha, not difference. Ineffable Divine and Silence One person may say the true form of God is Nameless (transcending any human definition), a second person may say the true form of God is Soundless (nihshabda; beyond sound), and yet a third may keep silence in regard to the nature of the Divine. Is it logical to simply label the one who keeps silence an atheist? The wise person should reflect on this matter. If you say that the Divine Reality is nameless and then proceed to describe Him, are you not contradicting yourself! How can you describe something which is nameless? In thinking about this example, one might well conclude that the third person, who was silent when describing God, was actually closer to the nameless description of God. Keeping silence in answer to the question of the nature of the Divine, is also found in the Upanishads. A prime example of this is found in the famous discourse between Sage Vashishta and Shri Ram in the Yoga Vashistha. Shri Rama had queried Guru Vasistha about the nature of Atman and Brahman (the Supreme Reality). In response the Guru remained silent. Ram repeated the question. Guru Vasistha remained silent. Shri Rama asked a third time, and still the great sage remained mute. With joined palms Ram asked his teacher Vasistha: "Reverend Sir! Are you displeased with me and therefore not answering my question, since you always assist me in understanding?" Guru Vasistha replied: "My dear son! I am not displeased with you. I have been answering the question which you have posed. The answer to your question is only given in silence, since the Divine is ineffable, unmanifest, and beyond the senses. How could I describe the nature of the reality which transcends the senses through these very sense organs (speech)?" The point here is that if we were to call the Buddha an atheist when he is silent on the question of the nature of the Divine, as some people have, then logically we must also call Guru Vasistha an atheist when he is silent in answer to the same question. Shunya and Transcendent Reality Some scholars have discounted the Buddha’s teachings, claiming that he is promulgating a belief in "emptiness" or "nothingness." These scholars have concluded that the Buddha, does not believe in a Higher Reality (God). Therefore, they argue, his philosophy should be considered as nihilistic. According to their reasoning, it would follow that those who teach about "emptiness" or "nothingness" (shunya) [the transcendent form of Ultimate Reality is also referred to as shunya] cannot be theistic. However, teachings about shunyata (emptiness) are not only found in Buddhist literature, but are also prominent in the writings of many of the saints. Here are some examples: Gorakh Nath Ji says: "It (God) is neither existent nor non-existent (shunya), its nature is beyond the reach of senses and thought." Sant Kabir Sahab says: "Meditation on the Formless (shunya) is enjoyed by all knowers of Truth." Guru Nanak Dev Ji says: "In the thought-less state of Samadhi (sunna, emptiness), neither maya (illusion) nor the web of mind exist. Only the gracious God exists." Paltu Sahab says: "Staying in solitude and meditate on emptiness (shunya)." Saint Dadu Dayal Ji says: "That Ultimate Reality is beyond the dual categories of qualified and unqualified, it is Emptiness which transcends emptiness (shunya)." Saint Charan Das says: "When the soul is absorbed on the peak (highest inner realm) of emptiness, then it experiences rapture." This emptiness is also known as ether (akasha) or void (avakasha). In the Ramcharitamanasa, Goswami Tulsi Das Ji invokes Lord Shiva: "I invoke the name of Shiva--Lord Shiva, who dwells in the space of infinite knowledge (akasha)" There are discussions about shunya in the Tantra Shastra and the Jnanasankalnii Tantra, where it says, "Meditation is not meditation unless the mind is united with Shunya". Maharishi Mehi says: "Consciousness that is traveling beyond sunna (void) and mahasunna (the great void) traverses the realm of bhanvar gupha (the whirling cave). There it experiences the sound of Truth (sat), which is the Original Sound. This Sound embodies the essence of the spiritual preceptor. 0 Practitioner! Hold on to that sound and become one with that True Sound." In the Upanishads there are multiple references to Emptiness or Space (shunya). In the fourth Brahmana of the Mandala Brahmanopanishad it is said: "There are five kinds of celestial Shunya (ether) which are increasingly more subtle: akasham, parakasham, Mahakasham, Suryakasham and Parmakasham. The infinite light permeates all of these akasham, but the Parmakasham is ineffable and is brimming with infinite bliss. It is the essential element." When one considers all these descriptions of Shunya (emptiness or void), the question arises whether the composers of the Upanishads and the saints were atheists. The unequivocal response is, of course, that they are not atheists. How then could one logically consider the Buddha to be an atheist? The Buddha regularly speaks of both nirvana and Shunya in almost identical terminology, and yet he is accused of atheism solely on the basis of his silence on this question about the nature of God. -- Sant Sevi Ji Maharaj Sant Sevi Ji Paramahans Maharaj Hinduism accepts the Buddha as an avatar of Vishnu, one of the gods of the Hindu trinity. The Buddhists do not accept any Hindu god either as equivalent or superior to the Buddha. In Buddhism, the Hindu gods are relegated to different roles but they are not more important the the Buddhas. Buddhism believes in Bodhisattvas. Hinduism does not believe in them. Well as we have just explained Nirvana, is the state were one is ONE with Brahman or God or VISHNU (where he experiences emptiness)!! In Buddhism and Hinduism, when a Soul achieves Enlightenment, it enters the realm of Nirvana or in other words reunites with God or VISHNU!! So therefore, through Buddhism and Hinduism the Buddha is considered to an AVATAR OF VISHNU!! Plus this proves that Hindu gods/Goddess, were just normal Bodhisattvas!! A Bodhisattva, Satguru, Sant, Saint and Avatar are technically the same thing. An Enlightened and Realized Soul, whose purpose is, too guide other Souls to their own Enlightenment/Moksha. The Buddhists consider the world as suffering and regard ending suffering as the chief aim of human life. The Hindus consider that there are four chief aims (arthas) in life which every being should pursue. They are dharma (religious duty), artha (wealth or material possessions), kama (desires and passions) and moksha (salvation.) Well the four Hindu arm chiefs, are technically the same as the One Buddhist arm chief. According to a Satsang of our Satguru, from a Sant Mat/Hindu tradition, during our Human Life we must gain hold of dharma and Moksha, and destroy Karma and Artha. Even according to Buddhism, Karma and Artha are the products causing one to suffer. Hindus also believe in the four stages of life (each cycle of 25 years having a role to play.) This is not followed in Buddhism. People can participate any time depending upon their spiritual advancement, not their age. Again the four stages of life and the Casting System, have been confused throughout Hinduism in the ages. The four stages of life, just show the stages of life which one is more able to achieve Enlightenment and less able to achieve Enlightenment. Look, at this picture. It shows all the differenment stages to God and all the different people at each stage. The original meaning behind the casting system, was this! An untouchable, was an atheist, or not very religious plus maya like person. A Brahmin, is someone, who is enlightened and at one with Brahman. A warrior, is someone, who is fighting the evil of the maya to achieve enlightenment. A Vaisya, is someone, seeking a Satguru or trying to impress his Satguru. The casting system, was never meant to be confused,with names in society nor discriminate against anyone. This is all a misunderstanding of the Satguru's message!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! All Sants/Satgurus, therefore oppose the modern and incorrect casting system of India!! Guru Nanak, Kabir Sahib, Ramanada and the Geatuma Buddha, are famous, for there battles against the modern casting system!! The social body The social body and its components are likened to the human form. Society is compared to a body with the brahmanas as the head, kshatriyas as the arms, vaishyas as the belly (or thighs) and the shudras as the legs Social functions are determined according to this analogy. For example, the brahmanas are the eyes and mouth of society. They provide a spiritual vision for society and teach people accordingly. Just as the arms are raised to defend the body, the kshatriya's main duty is to protect society. The vaishya's main duty is material nourishment, and the shudra supports all other sections of society. The ashrams are sometimes related to the same metaphor, with the successive stages of student life, household life, retirement and renunciation represented by the legs, belly, arms and head respectively. Buddhists organize themselves into a monastic Order (Sangha) and the monks live in groups. Hinduism is basically an individualistic religion. Certain Hindu groups follow this rule. Refuge in the Buddha, the Sangha and Dharma are the three cardinal requirements on the eightfold path. Hinduism offers many choices to its followers on the path of self-realization. Hinduism, may offer many paths to self-realization, but they all include require refuge in the; the Buddha (Satguru), Sangha (spiritual community) and Dharma (religious duty.) Although both religions believe in karma and rebirth, they differ in the manner in which they operate and impact the existence of individual beings. Above, I have explained the how Buddhism does describe an Atman/Soul concept through a Non Self/Emptiness concept, used a lot in Vedic Hinduism. Source of these so-called differences; http://www.japanese-buddhism.com/hinduism.html These prinples are true about Buddhism, Hinduism and Sant Mat; Both Hinduism and Buddhism teaches that the true nature of the world is illusion and that karma is what is keeping men tied to this world and the cycle of births and deaths. Buddha taught that desire is the main cause of suffering and removal of desire results in the cessation of suffering. Some of the Hindu texts such as the Upanishads (Isa) and the Bhagavadgita state that by accomplishing an action due to desire and attachment we are lead to bondage and suffering. On the contrary, if we accomplish an action without selfish desire, we are closer to liberation from the karmic cycle. Both religions believe in the concept of karma and the reincarnation of souls. Both preach compassion and non violence towards all living beings. Both believe in the existence of several hells and heavens or higher and lower worlds. Both believe in the existence of gods or deities on different planes. Both believe in certain spiritual practices like meditation, concentration, cultivation of certain mood of ecstasy and the channeling of these emotional energies that is induced by the maturing of devotion. Both believe in detachment, renunciation of worldly riches as a prerequisite to enter to spiritual life. Both consider desire as the chief cause of suffering. Buddhism and Hinduism have their own versions of Tantra. Both originated and evolved on the Indian soil. The founder of Buddhism was a Hindu who became the Buddha. The Gautama Buddha, Krishna and Lord Rama plus all the other Hindu Sages were all Satgurus/Saints (Enlightened and God/Vishnu realized souls.) They all came to save other Souls from this evil Maya/Samsara of life and death, plus enlighten other Souls. They considered the quality of God to be of emptiness. They all believed God was always incarnated down on earth in the form of a Satguru/Sant/Saint/Bodhisattva/Buddha. They all believed in the; Soul/Atman, reincarnation, Maya/illusion of life concept, ONE GOD, the Vedic time scale, the Dharmic concepts of Suffering and religion Hinduism/Sant Mat and Buddhism. http://www.hinduwebsite.com/hinduism/h_buddhism.asp As we are aware, these two faiths are very similar, mainly due to their routes in India. Although the two faiths are generally accused of having many differences. This is not true!! Buddhism and Hinduism/Sant Mat share exactly the same teachings. These are the so called, difference between the faiths; Hinduism is not founded by any particular person. Buddhism was founded by the Buddha. So, how does this create any major difference in the teachings of the faiths? Besides, as you will discover the Gautama Buddha, never created Buddhism. The Buddhist faith just grows out of Hinduism. Hinduism believes in the efficacy and supremacy of the Vedic texts. The Buddhist do not believe in these texts or any Hindu scripture. (unlike the Christians adopting the Torah as the Old Testament) Well the Buddha, the Buddhist scriptures or no other Bodhisattva, has ever denied the existence of the Vedas or Vedic texts. The Buddha just said “Oh all those un wise priest, in the temples who read those scriptures. They know nothing about their religion.” Although Swami Ramakrishna (a Hindu Saint) even said; “Many good sayings are to be found in holy books, but merely reading them will not make one religious.” This is clearly obvious, as many of the priests during the time, preformed animal sacrifice, which was opposed in the Gita!!!! Plus everything in the Buddhist texts is technically the same as that in the Vedic texts, as you will see!! Even in the Jakatales Lord Rama and Lord Krishna plus their stories appear. Hindus believe in the Atman, a concept closely related to a primordial soul, or God. Buddhism teaches that the belief in the Atman is the prime consequence of ignorance, which is itself the cause of all misery and the foundation of samsāra (the cycle of rebirth). Buddhism acknowledge the existence of some gods and goddesses of Hindu pantheon, but give them a rather subordinate status. Well Buddhism is accused of not including a God or a Soul/Atman concept. Not so! Buddhism, due to its strong beliefs that the Lord is emptiness, is considered to deny any existence of the God and the Atman/Soul, as well as the idea of Moksha and the soul reuniting with Brahman. Rubbish!! Of course, there is a God and Soul inBuddhism, as we explained Brahman/Atman(as the Atman is a part of God or Brahman), is nothing!! Plus the soul, experiences nothing when reunited with Brahman(as Brahman is nothing), so the Buddhist Nirvana and Hindu Moksha are united!! I mean Heaven, Such Khand, Brahman and Nirvana are all the same, as all faiths lead to the same god!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Read this; Was Buddha An Atheist? By Sant Sevi Ji Paramahans Maharaj The Harmony of All Religions: Santmat [[[[[Copyright 2007, All Rights Reserved]]]]] From the Chapter on Buddhism: All the theistic religions of the world recognize the existence of God. The Divine Being is referred to by various names due to different languages: Brahman (Hindu), God (Christianity), Allah (Islam), Buddha (Buddhism), Tao (Taoism), Yahweh (Judaism), and Ahur Mazd (Zoroastrianism). We can say that a religion with a belief in God is a theistic religion. Religions which do not have a belief in God would be called atheistic. Upon careful consideration, we can see that there are in fact two types of atheism: entirely atheistic and partially atheistic. The Belief Systems which do not have a belief in the existence of either God or soul are considered to be entirely atheistic. Those which do have a belief in the soul but not in Godare considered partially atheistic. In modern times some scholars have interpreted the Buddha’s silence on the issue of the existence of God as atheistic. In their opinion, Buddharefused to answer any questions regarding the existence of the Divine Reality and the Soul (Atman or Jivatman), and therefore they have concluded that Buddha was an atheist. However, in my opinion these kinds of conclusions demonstrate limited knowledge and ignorance about the essence of the Buddhist texts. In fact, Buddhist literature contains multiple references to the soul (atta or atman), the Lord (Natha), and the maker of the body. Examples can be found even in the fairly short book Dhammapada, where Buddha elaborates on Soul or self (atta): "The atman is the lord of atman. What else could be the Lord? When the individual self jiivatman) is well subdued, a man finds the Lord (Natha) who is difficult to fathom" (Dhammapada 12/4). Some scholars have interpreted the word ’lord’ in this verse as if it literally means ’lordship’. However, even a cursory examination of the words in Pali, the original language of these texts, yields the true meaning. In Pali the word ’lord’ is in the second case accusative, and therefore it would best be translated as ’to the lord’. The noted Buddhist scholar Bhikshu Rahul Sankrityayan has explained this in his rendering of this verse of the Dhammapada: "A man is the lord of himself Who else then could be the lord? If the self is wholly disciplined then he is able to attain a lord who is difficult to be attained." Buddha addresses the creator of the body: "Oh maker of the house I have seen you." (Jaravaggo) "Impermanence" of Buddhism and "Maya" of the Vedic Dharma In the Vedanta literature, the Upanishads, and in the literature of the saints, this physical world is said to comprise both name and form, and is referred to as maya. It is understood to be illusory and not real, to be ever changing, and dependent upon a higher reality In the Chandogya Upanishad, Brhidarnyaka Upanishad, Mundaka Upanishad, and Prashna Upanishad it is repeatedly stated that the nature of the world is transitory, destructible, and not real. Therefore, we must seek for that essence which is constant, true and unchanging by transcending these realms of name and form. The world of name and form is also described as avidya (ignorance) in the Katha and Mundaka Upanishads. In the Shvetashvatara Upanishad, the world is also described as illusory maya. The Upanishads also explain that: "The soul (atman), which is beyond name and form, is brimming with joy and tranquility. In its Turiyatita form (the fifth state -- a state of cosmic consciousness; a state of unity with the source), atman is beyond good and evil" (Teja bindu Upanishad). Lord Buddha says: "A mendicant is one who has no attachment to the world of name and form. He is one who does not grieve for what is not real (asat, the ever changing reality). This is the true mendicant. (Dhammapada, Bhikkhuvaggo)." In the Ramcharitmanasa Saint Tulsida says: "Name and form are the two obstructions to God." All of these references from the Upanishads and the texts of the saints, show agreement with the words of the Buddha, not difference. Ineffable Divine and Silence One person may say the true form of God is Nameless (transcending any human definition), a second person may say the true form of God is Soundless (nihshabda; beyond sound), and yet a third may keep silence in regard to the nature of the Divine. Is it logical to simply label the one who keeps silence an atheist? The wise person should reflect on this matter. If you say that the Divine Reality is nameless and then proceed to describe Him, are you not contradicting yourself! How can you describe something which is nameless? In thinking about this example, one might well conclude that the third person, who was silent when describing God, was actually closer to the nameless description of God. Keeping silence in answer to the question of the nature of the Divine, is also found in the Upanishads. A prime example of this is found in the famous discourse between Sage Vashishta and Shri Ram in the Yoga Vashistha. Shri Rama had queried Guru Vasistha about the nature of Atman and Brahman (the Supreme Reality). In response the Guru remained silent. Ram repeated the question. Guru Vasistha remained silent. Shri Rama asked a third time, and still the great sage remained mute. With joined palms Ram asked his teacher Vasistha: "Reverend Sir! Are you displeased with me and therefore not answering my question, since you always assist me in understanding?" Guru Vasistha replied: "My dear son! I am not displeased with you. I have been answering the question which you have posed. The answer to your question is only given in silence, since the Divine is ineffable, unmanifest, and beyond the senses. How could I describe the nature of the reality which transcends the senses through these very sense organs (speech)?" The point here is that if we were to call the Buddha an atheist when he is silent on the question of the nature of the Divine, as some people have, then logically we must also call Guru Vasistha an atheist when he is silent in answer to the same question. Shunya and Transcendent Reality Some scholars have discounted the Buddha’s teachings, claiming that he is promulgating a belief in "emptiness" or "nothingness." These scholars have concluded that the Buddha, does not believe in a Higher Reality (God). Therefore, they argue, his philosophy should be considered as nihilistic. According to their reasoning, it would follow that those who teach about "emptiness" or "nothingness" (shunya) [the transcendent form of Ultimate Reality is also referred to as shunya] cannot be theistic. However, teachings about shunyata (emptiness) are not only found in Buddhist literature, but are also prominent in the writings of many of the saints. Here are some examples: Gorakh Nath Ji says: "It (God) is neither existent nor non-existent (shunya), its nature is beyond the reach of senses and thought." Sant Kabir Sahab says: "Meditation on the Formless (shunya) is enjoyed by all knowers of Truth." Guru Nanak Dev Ji says: "In the thought-less state of Samadhi (sunna, emptiness), neither maya (illusion) nor the web of mind exist. Only the gracious God exists." Paltu Sahab says: "Staying in solitude and meditate on emptiness (shunya)." Saint Dadu Dayal Ji says: "That Ultimate Reality is beyond the dual categories of qualified and unqualified, it is Emptiness which transcends emptiness (shunya)." Saint Charan Das says: "When the soul is absorbed on the peak (highest inner realm) of emptiness, then it experiences rapture." This emptiness is also known as ether (akasha) or void (avakasha). In the Ramcharitamanasa, Goswami Tulsi Das Ji invokes Lord Shiva: "I invoke the name of Shiva--Lord Shiva, who dwells in the space of infinite knowledge (akasha)" There are discussions about shunya in the Tantra Shastra and the Jnanasankalnii Tantra, where it says, "Meditation is not meditation unless the mind is united with Shunya". Maharishi Mehi says: "Consciousness that is traveling beyond sunna (void) and mahasunna (the great void) traverses the realm of bhanvar gupha (the whirling cave). There it experiences the sound of Truth (sat), which is the Original Sound. This Sound embodies the essence of the spiritual preceptor. 0 Practitioner! Hold on to that sound and become one with that True Sound." In the Upanishads there are multiple references to Emptiness or Space (shunya). In the fourth Brahmana of the Mandala Brahmanopanishad it is said: "There are five kinds of celestial Shunya (ether) which are increasingly more subtle: akasham, parakasham, Mahakasham, Suryakasham and Parmakasham. The infinite light permeates all of these akasham, but the Parmakasham is ineffable and is brimming with infinite bliss. It is the essential element." When one considers all these descriptions of Shunya (emptiness or void), the question arises whether the composers of the Upanishads and the saints were atheists. The unequivocal response is, of course, that they are not atheists. How then could one logically consider the Buddha to be an atheist? The Buddha regularly speaks of both nirvana and Shunya in almost identical terminology, and yet he is accused of atheism solely on the basis of his silence on this question about the nature of God. -- Sant Sevi Ji Maharaj Sant Sevi Ji Paramahans Maharaj Hinduism accepts the Buddha as an avatar of Vishnu, one of the gods of the Hindu trinity. The Buddhists do not accept any Hindu god either as equivalent or superior to the Buddha. In Buddhism, the Hindu gods are relegated to different roles but they are not more important the the Buddhas. Buddhism believes in Bodhisattvas. Hinduism does not believe in them. Well as we have just explained Nirvana, is the state were one is ONE with Brahman or God or VISHNU (where he experiences emptiness)!! In Buddhism and Hinduism, when a Soul achieves Enlightenment, it enters the realm of Nirvana or in other words reunites with God or VISHNU!! So therefore, through Buddhism and Hinduism the Buddha is considered to an AVATAR OF VISHNU!! Plus this proves that Hindu gods/Goddess, were just normal Bodhisattvas!! A Bodhisattva, Satguru, Sant, Saint and Avatar are technically the same thing. An Enlightened and Realized Soul, whose purpose is, too guide other Souls to their own Enlightenment/Moksha. The Buddhists consider the world as suffering and regard ending suffering as the chief aim of human life. The Hindus consider that there are four chief aims (arthas) in life which every being should pursue. They are dharma (religious duty), artha (wealth or material possessions), kama (desires and passions) and moksha (salvation.) Well the four Hindu arm chiefs, are technically the same as the One Buddhist arm chief. According to a Satsang of our Satguru, from a Sant Mat/Hindu tradition, during our Human Life we must gain hold of dharma and Moksha, and destroy Karma and Artha. Even according to Buddhism, Karma and Artha are the products causing one to suffer. Hindus also believe in the four stages of life (each cycle of 25 years having a role to play.) This is not followed in Buddhism. People can participate any time depending upon their spiritual advancement, not their age. Again the four stages of life and the Casting System, have been confused throughout Hinduism in the ages. The four stages of life, just show the stages of life which one is more able to achieve Enlightenment and less able to achieve Enlightenment. Look, at this picture. It shows all the differenment stages to God and all the different people at each stage. The original meaning behind the casting system, was this! An untouchable, was an atheist, or not very religious plus maya like person. A Brahmin, is someone, who is enlightened and at one with Brahman. A warrior, is someone, who is fighting the evil of the maya to achieve enlightenment. A Vaisya, is someone, seeking a Satguru or trying to impress his Satguru. The casting system, was never meant to be confused,with names in society nor discriminate against anyone. This is all a misunderstanding of the Satguru's message!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! All Sants/Satgurus, therefore oppose the modern and incorrect casting system of India!! Guru Nanak, Kabir Sahib, Ramanada and the Geatuma Buddha, are famous, for there battles against the modern casting system!! The social body The social body and its components are likened to the human form. Society is compared to a body with the brahmanas as the head, kshatriyas as the arms, vaishyas as the belly (or thighs) and the shudras as the legs Social functions are determined according to this analogy. For example, the brahmanas are the eyes and mouth of society. They provide a spiritual vision for society and teach people accordingly. Just as the arms are raised to defend the body, the kshatriya's main duty is to protect society. The vaishya's main duty is material nourishment, and the shudra supports all other sections of society. The ashrams are sometimes related to the same metaphor, with the successive stages of student life, household life, retirement and renunciation represented by the legs, belly, arms and head respectively. Buddhists organize themselves into a monastic Order (Sangha) and the monks live in groups. Hinduism is basically an individualistic religion. Certain Hindu groups follow this rule. Refuge in the Buddha, the Sangha and Dharma are the three cardinal requirements on the eightfold path. Hinduism offers many choices to its followers on the path of self-realization. Hinduism, may offer many paths to self-realization, but they all include require refuge in the; the Buddha (Satguru), Sangha (spiritual community) and Dharma (religious duty.) Although both religions believe in karma and rebirth, they differ in the manner in which they operate and impact the existence of individual beings. Above, I have explained the how Buddhism does describe an Atman/Soul concept through a Non Self/Emptiness concept, used a lot in Vedic Hinduism. Source of these so-called differences; http://www.japanese-buddhism.com/hinduism.html These prinples are true about Buddhism, Hinduism and Sant Mat; Both Hinduism and Buddhism teaches that the true nature of the world is illusion and that karma is what is keeping men tied to this world and the cycle of births and deaths. Buddha taught that desire is the main cause of suffering and removal of desire results in the cessation of suffering. Some of the Hindu texts such as the Upanishads (Isa) and the Bhagavadgita state that by accomplishing an action due to desire and attachment we are lead to bondage and suffering. On the contrary, if we accomplish an action without selfish desire, we are closer to liberation from the karmic cycle. Both religions believe in the concept of karma and the reincarnation of souls. Both preach compassion and non violence towards all living beings. Both believe in the existence of several hells and heavens or higher and lower worlds. Both believe in the existence of gods or deities on different planes. Both believe in certain spiritual practices like meditation, concentration, cultivation of certain mood of ecstasy and the channeling of these emotional energies that is induced by the maturing of devotion. Both believe in detachment, renunciation of worldly riches as a prerequisite to enter to spiritual life. Both consider desire as the chief cause of suffering. Buddhism and Hinduism have their own versions of Tantra. Both originated and evolved on the Indian soil. The founder of Buddhism was a Hindu who became the Buddha. The Gautama Buddha, Krishna and Lord Rama plus all the other Hindu Sages were all Satgurus/Saints (Enlightened and God/Vishnu realized souls.) They all came to save other Souls from this evil Maya/Samsara of life and death, plus enlighten other Souls. They considered the quality of God to be of emptiness. They all believed God was always incarnated down on earth in the form of a Satguru/Sant/Saint/Bodhisattva/Buddha. They all believed in the; Soul/Atman, reincarnation, Maya/illusion of life concept, ONE GOD, the Vedic time scale, the Dharmic concepts of Suffering and religion Hinduism/Sant Mat and Buddhism. http://www.hinduwebsite.com/hinduism/h_buddhism.asp As we are aware, these two faiths are very similar, mainly due to their routes in India. Although the two faiths are generally accused of having many differences. This is not true!! Buddhism and Hinduism/Sant Mat share exactly the same teachings. These are the so called, difference between the faiths; Hinduism is not founded by any particular person. Buddhism was founded by the Buddha. So, how does this create any major difference in the teachings of the faiths? Besides, as you will discover the Gautama Buddha, never created Buddhism. The Buddhist faith just grows out of Hinduism. Hinduism believes in the efficacy and supremacy of the Vedic texts. The Buddhist do not believe in these texts or any Hindu scripture. (unlike the Christians adopting the Torah as the Old Testament) Well the Buddha, the Buddhist scriptures or no other Bodhisattva, has ever denied the existence of the Vedas or Vedic texts. The Buddha just said “Oh all those un wise priest, in the temples who read those scriptures. They know nothing about their religion.” Although Swami Ramakrishna (a Hindu Saint) even said; “Many good sayings are to be found in holy books, but merely reading them will not make one religious.” This is clearly obvious, as many of the priests during the time, preformed animal sacrifice, which was opposed in the Gita!!!! Plus everything in the Buddhist texts is technically the same as that in the Vedic texts, as you will see!! Even in the Jakatales Lord Rama and Lord Krishna plus their stories appear. Hindus believe in the Atman, a concept closely related to a primordial soul, or God. Buddhism teaches that the belief in the Atman is the prime consequence of ignorance, which is itself the cause of all misery and the foundation of samsāra (the cycle of rebirth). Buddhism acknowledge the existence of some gods and goddesses of Hindu pantheon, but give them a rather subordinate status. Well Buddhism is accused of not including a God or a Soul/Atman concept. Not so! Buddhism, due to its strong beliefs that the Lord is emptiness, is considered to deny any existence of the God and the Atman/Soul, as well as the idea of Moksha and the soul reuniting with Brahman. Rubbish!! Of course, there is a God and Soul inBuddhism, as we explained Brahman/Atman(as the Atman is a part of God or Brahman), is nothing!! Plus the soul, experiences nothing when reunited with Brahman(as Brahman is nothing), so the Buddhist Nirvana and Hindu Moksha are united!! I mean Heaven, Such Khand, Brahman and Nirvana are all the same, as all faiths lead to the same god!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Read this; Was Buddha An Atheist? By Sant Sevi Ji Paramahans Maharaj The Harmony of All Religions: Santmat [[[[[Copyright 2007, All Rights Reserved]]]]] From the Chapter on Buddhism: All the theistic religions of the world recognize the existence of God. The Divine Being is referred to by various names due to different languages: Brahman (Hindu), God (Christianity), Allah (Islam), Buddha (Buddhism), Tao (Taoism), Yahweh (Judaism), and Ahur Mazd (Zoroastrianism). We can say that a religion with a belief in God is a theistic religion. Religions which do not have a belief in God would be called atheistic. Upon careful consideration, we can see that there are in fact two types of atheism: entirely atheistic and partially atheistic. The Belief Systems which do not have a belief in the existence of either God or soul are considered to be entirely atheistic. Those which do have a belief in the soul but not in Godare considered partially atheistic. In modern times some scholars have interpreted the Buddha’s silence on the issue of the existence of God as atheistic. In their opinion, Buddharefused to answer any questions regarding the existence of the Divine Reality and the Soul (Atman or Jivatman), and therefore they have concluded that Buddha was an atheist. However, in my opinion these kinds of conclusions demonstrate limited knowledge and ignorance about the essence of the Buddhist texts. In fact, Buddhist literature contains multiple references to the soul (atta or atman), the Lord (Natha), and the maker of the body. Examples can be found even in the fairly short book Dhammapada, where Buddha elaborates on Soul or self (atta): "The atman is the lord of atman. What else could be the Lord? When the individual self jiivatman) is well subdued, a man finds the Lord (Natha) who is difficult to fathom" (Dhammapada 12/4). Some scholars have interpreted the word ’lord’ in this verse as if it literally means ’lordship’. However, even a cursory examination of the words in Pali, the original language of these texts, yields the true meaning. In Pali the word ’lord’ is in the second case accusative, and therefore it would best be translated as ’to the lord’. The noted Buddhist scholar Bhikshu Rahul Sankrityayan has explained this in his rendering of this verse of the Dhammapada: "A man is the lord of himself Who else then could be the lord? If the self is wholly disciplined then he is able to attain a lord who is difficult to be attained." Buddha addresses the creator of the body: "Oh maker of the house I have seen you." (Jaravaggo) "Impermanence" of Buddhism and "Maya" of the Vedic Dharma In the Vedanta literature, the Upanishads, and in the literature of the saints, this physical world is said to comprise both name and form, and is referred to as maya. It is understood to be illusory and not real, to be ever changing, and dependent upon a higher reality In the Chandogya Upanishad, Brhidarnyaka Upanishad, Mundaka Upanishad, and Prashna Upanishad it is repeatedly stated that the nature of the world is transitory, destructible, and not real. Therefore, we must seek for that essence which is constant, true and unchanging by transcending these realms of name and form. The world of name and form is also described as avidya (ignorance) in the Katha and Mundaka Upanishads. In the Shvetashvatara Upanishad, the world is also described as illusory maya. The Upanishads also explain that: "The soul (atman), which is beyond name and form, is brimming with joy and tranquility. In its Turiyatita form (the fifth state -- a state of cosmic consciousness; a state of unity with the source), atman is beyond good and evil" (Teja bindu Upanishad). Lord Buddha says: "A mendicant is one who has no attachment to the world of name and form. He is one who does not grieve for what is not real (asat, the ever changing reality). This is the true mendicant. (Dhammapada, Bhikkhuvaggo)." In the Ramcharitmanasa Saint Tulsida says: "Name and form are the two obstructions to God." All of these references from the Upanishads and the texts of the saints, show agreement with the words of the Buddha, not difference. Ineffable Divine and Silence One person may say the true form of God is Nameless (transcending any human definition), a second person may say the true form of God is Soundless (nihshabda; beyond sound), and yet a third may keep silence in regard to the nature of the Divine. Is it logical to simply label the one who keeps silence an atheist? The wise person should reflect on this matter. If you say that the Divine Reality is nameless and then proceed to describe Him, are you not contradicting yourself! How can you describe something which is nameless? In thinking about this example, one might well conclude that the third person, who was silent when describing God, was actually closer to the nameless description of God. Keeping silence in answer to the question of the nature of the Divine, is also found in the Upanishads. A prime example of this is found in the famous discourse between Sage Vashishta and Shri Ram in the Yoga Vashistha. Shri Rama had queried Guru Vasistha about the nature of Atman and Brahman (the Supreme Reality). In response the Guru remained silent. Ram repeated the question. Guru Vasistha remained silent. Shri Rama asked a third time, and still the great sage remained mute. With joined palms Ram asked his teacher Vasistha: "Reverend Sir! Are you displeased with me and therefore not answering my question, since you always assist me in understanding?" Guru Vasistha replied: "My dear son! I am not displeased with you. I have been answering the question which you have posed. The answer to your question is only given in silence, since the Divine is ineffable, unmanifest, and beyond the senses. How could I describe the nature of the reality which transcends the senses through these very sense organs (speech)?" The point here is that if we were to call the Buddha an atheist when he is silent on the question of the nature of the Divine, as some people have, then logically we must also call Guru Vasistha an atheist when he is silent in answer to the same question. Shunya and Transcendent Reality Some scholars have discounted the Buddha’s teachings, claiming that he is promulgating a belief in "emptiness" or "nothingness." These scholars have concluded that the Buddha, does not believe in a Higher Reality (God). Therefore, they argue, his philosophy should be considered as nihilistic. According to their reasoning, it would follow that those who teach about "emptiness" or "nothingness" (shunya) [the transcendent form of Ultimate Reality is also referred to as shunya] cannot be theistic. However, teachings about shunyata (emptiness) are not only found in Buddhist literature, but are also prominent in the writings of many of the saints. Here are some examples: Gorakh Nath Ji says: "It (God) is neither existent nor non-existent (shunya), its nature is beyond the reach of senses and thought." Sant Kabir Sahab says: "Meditation on the Formless (shunya) is enjoyed by all knowers of Truth." Guru Nanak Dev Ji says: "In the thought-less state of Samadhi (sunna, emptiness), neither maya (illusion) nor the web of mind exist. Only the gracious God exists." Paltu Sahab says: "Staying in solitude and meditate on emptiness (shunya)." Saint Dadu Dayal Ji says: "That Ultimate Reality is beyond the dual categories of qualified and unqualified, it is Emptiness which transcends emptiness (shunya)." Saint Charan Das says: "When the soul is absorbed on the peak (highest inner realm) of emptiness, then it experiences rapture." This emptiness is also known as ether (akasha) or void (avakasha). In the Ramcharitamanasa, Goswami Tulsi Das Ji invokes Lord Shiva: "I invoke the name of Shiva--Lord Shiva, who dwells in the space of infinite knowledge (akasha)" There are discussions about shunya in the Tantra Shastra and the Jnanasankalnii Tantra, where it says, "Meditation is not meditation unless the mind is united with Shunya". Maharishi Mehi says: "Consciousness that is traveling beyond sunna (void) and mahasunna (the great void) traverses the realm of bhanvar gupha (the whirling cave). There it experiences the sound of Truth (sat), which is the Original Sound. This Sound embodies the essence of the spiritual preceptor. 0 Practitioner! Hold on to that sound and become one with that True Sound." In the Upanishads there are multiple references to Emptiness or Space (shunya). In the fourth Brahmana of the Mandala Brahmanopanishad it is said: "There are five kinds of celestial Shunya (ether) which are increasingly more subtle: akasham, parakasham, Mahakasham, Suryakasham and Parmakasham. The infinite light permeates all of these akasham, but the Parmakasham is ineffable and is brimming with infinite bliss. It is the essential element." When one considers all these descriptions of Shunya (emptiness or void), the question arises whether the composers of the Upanishads and the saints were atheists. The unequivocal response is, of course, that they are not atheists. How then could one logically consider the Buddha to be an atheist? The Buddha regularly speaks of both nirvana and Shunya in almost identical terminology, and yet he is accused of atheism solely on the basis of his silence on this question about the nature of God. -- Sant Sevi Ji Maharaj Sant Sevi Ji Paramahans Maharaj Hinduism accepts the Buddha as an avatar of Vishnu, one of the gods of the Hindu trinity. The Buddhists do not accept any Hindu god either as equivalent or superior to the Buddha. In Buddhism, the Hindu gods are relegated to different roles but they are not more important the the Buddhas. Buddhism believes in Bodhisattvas. Hinduism does not believe in them. Well as we have just explained Nirvana, is the state were one is ONE with Brahman or God or VISHNU (where he experiences emptiness)!! In Buddhism and Hinduism, when a Soul achieves Enlightenment, it enters the realm of Nirvana or in other words reunites with God or VISHNU!! So therefore, through Buddhism and Hinduism the Buddha is considered to an AVATAR OF VISHNU!! Plus this proves that Hindu gods/Goddess, were just normal Bodhisattvas!! A Bodhisattva, Satguru, Sant, Saint and Avatar are technically the same thing. An Enlightened and Realized Soul, whose purpose is, too guide other Souls to their own Enlightenment/Moksha. The Buddhists consider the world as suffering and regard ending suffering as the chief aim of human life. The Hindus consider that there are four chief aims (arthas) in life which every being should pursue. They are dharma (religious duty), artha (wealth or material possessions), kama (desires and passions) and moksha (salvation.) Well the four Hindu arm chiefs, are technically the same as the One Buddhist arm chief. According to a Satsang of our Satguru, from a Sant Mat/Hindu tradition, during our Human Life we must gain hold of dharma and Moksha, and destroy Karma and Artha. Even according to Buddhism, Karma and Artha are the products causing one to suffer. Hindus also believe in the four stages of life (each cycle of 25 years having a role to play.) This is not followed in Buddhism. People can participate any time depending upon their spiritual advancement, not their age. Again the four stages of life and the Casting System, have been confused throughout Hinduism in the ages. The four stages of life, just show the stages of life which one is more able to achieve Enlightenment and less able to achieve Enlightenment. Look, at this picture. It shows all the differenment stages to God and all the different people at each stage. The original meaning behind the casting system, was this! An untouchable, was an atheist, or not very religious plus maya like person. A Brahmin, is someone, who is enlightened and at one with Brahman. A warrior, is someone, who is fighting the evil of the maya to achieve enlightenment. A Vaisya, is someone, seeking a Satguru or trying to impress his Satguru. The casting system, was never meant to be confused,with names in society nor discriminate against anyone. This is all a misunderstanding of the Satguru's message!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! All Sants/Satgurus, therefore oppose the modern and incorrect casting system of India!! Guru Nanak, Kabir Sahib, Ramanada and the Geatuma Buddha, are famous, for there battles against the modern casting system!! The social body The social body and its components are likened to the human form. Society is compared to a body with the brahmanas as the head, kshatriyas as the arms, vaishyas as the belly (or thighs) and the shudras as the legs Social functions are determined according to this analogy. For example, the brahmanas are the eyes and mouth of society. They provide a spiritual vision for society and teach people accordingly. Just as the arms are raised to defend the body, the kshatriya's main duty is to protect society. The vaishya's main duty is material nourishment, and the shudra supports all other sections of society. The ashrams are sometimes related to the same metaphor, with the successive stages of student life, household life, retirement and renunciation represented by the legs, belly, arms and head respectively. Buddhists organize themselves into a monastic Order (Sangha) and the monks live in groups. Hinduism is basically an individualistic religion. Certain Hindu groups follow this rule. Refuge in the Buddha, the Sangha and Dharma are the three cardinal requirements on the eightfold path. Hinduism offers many choices to its followers on the path of self-realization. Hinduism, may offer many paths to self-realization, but they all include require refuge in the; the Buddha (Satguru), Sangha (spiritual community) and Dharma (religious duty.) Although both religions believe in karma and rebirth, they differ in the manner in which they operate and impact the existence of individual beings. Above, I have explained the how Buddhism does describe an Atman/Soul concept through a Non Self/Emptiness concept, used a lot in Vedic Hinduism. Source of these so-called differences; http://www.japanese-buddhism.com/hinduism.html These prinples are true about Buddhism, Hinduism and Sant Mat; Both Hinduism and Buddhism teaches that the true nature of the world is illusion and that karma is what is keeping men tied to this world and the cycle of births and deaths. Buddha taught that desire is the main cause of suffering and removal of desire results in the cessation of suffering. Some of the Hindu texts such as the Upanishads (Isa) and the Bhagavadgita state that by accomplishing an action due to desire and attachment we are lead to bondage and suffering. On the contrary, if we accomplish an action without selfish desire, we are closer to liberation from the karmic cycle. Both religions believe in the concept of karma and the reincarnation of souls. Both preach compassion and non violence towards all living beings. Both believe in the existence of several hells and heavens or higher and lower worlds. Both believe in the existence of gods or deities on different planes. Both believe in certain spiritual practices like meditation, concentration, cultivation of certain mood of ecstasy and the channeling of these emotional energies that is induced by the maturing of devotion. Both believe in detachment, renunciation of worldly riches as a prerequisite to enter to spiritual life. Both consider desire as the chief cause of suffering. Buddhism and Hinduism have their own versions of Tantra. Both originated and evolved on the Indian soil. The founder of Buddhism was a Hindu who became the Buddha. The Gautama Buddha, Krishna and Lord Rama plus all the other Hindu Sages were all Satgurus/Saints (Enlightened and God/Vishnu realized souls.) They all came to save other Souls from this evil Maya/Samsara of life and death, plus enlighten other Souls. They considered the quality of God to be of emptiness. They all believed God was always incarnated down on earth in the form of a Satguru/Sant/Saint/Bodhisattva/Buddha. They all believed in the; Soul/Atman, reincarnation, Maya/illusion of life concept, ONE GOD, the Vedic time scale, the Dharmic concepts of Suffering and religion
Hinduism/Sant Mat and Buddhism. http://www.hinduwebsite.com/hinduism/h_buddhism.asp As we are aware, these two faiths are very similar, mainly due to their routes in India. Although the two faiths are generally accused of having many differences. This is not true!! Buddhism and Hinduism/Sant Mat share exactly the same teachings. These are the so called, difference between the faiths; Hinduism is not founded by any particular person. Buddhism was founded by the Buddha. So, how does this create any major difference in the teachings of the faiths? Besides, as you will discover the Gautama Buddha, never created Buddhism. The Buddhist faith just grows out of Hinduism. Hinduism believes in the efficacy and supremacy of the Vedic texts. The Buddhist do not believe in these texts or any Hindu scripture. (unlike the Christians adopting the Torah as the Old Testament) Well the Buddha, the Buddhist scriptures or no other Bodhisattva, has ever denied the existence of the Vedas or Vedic texts. The Buddha just said “Oh all those un wise priest, in the temples who read those scriptures. They know nothing about their religion.” Although Swami Ramakrishna (a Hindu Saint) even said; “Many good sayings are to be found in holy books, but merely reading them will not make one religious.” This is clearly obvious, as many of the priests during the time, preformed animal sacrifice, which was opposed in the Gita!!!! Plus everything in the Buddhist texts is technically the same as that in the Vedic texts, as you will see!! Even in the Jakatales Lord Rama and Lord Krishna plus their stories appear. Hindus believe in the Atman, a concept closely related to a primordial soul, or God. Buddhism teaches that the belief in the Atman is the prime consequence of ignorance, which is itself the cause of all misery and the foundation of samsāra (the cycle of rebirth). Buddhism acknowledge the existence of some gods and goddesses of Hindu pantheon, but give them a rather subordinate status. Well Buddhism is accused of not including a God or a Soul/Atman concept. Not so! Buddhism, due to its strong beliefs that the Lord is emptiness, is considered to deny any existence of the God and the Atman/Soul, as well as the idea of Moksha and the soul reuniting with Brahman. Rubbish!! Of course, there is a God and Soul inBuddhism, as we explained Brahman/Atman(as the Atman is a part of God or Brahman), is nothing!! Plus the soul, experiences nothing when reunited with Brahman(as Brahman is nothing), so the Buddhist Nirvana and Hindu Moksha are united!! I mean Heaven, Such Khand, Brahman and Nirvana are all the same, as all faiths lead to the same god!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Read this; Was Buddha An Atheist? By Sant Sevi Ji Paramahans Maharaj The Harmony of All Religions: Santmat [[[[[Copyright 2007, All Rights Reserved]]]]] From the Chapter on Buddhism: All the theistic religions of the world recognize the existence of God. The Divine Being is referred to by various names due to different languages: Brahman (Hindu), God (Christianity), Allah (Islam), Buddha (Buddhism), Tao (Taoism), Yahweh (Judaism), and Ahur Mazd (Zoroastrianism). We can say that a religion with a belief in God is a theistic religion. Religions which do not have a belief in God would be called atheistic. Upon careful consideration, we can see that there are in fact two types of atheism: entirely atheistic and partially atheistic. The Belief Systems which do not have a belief in the existence of either God or soul are considered to be entirely atheistic. Those which do have a belief in the soul but not in Godare considered partially atheistic. In modern times some scholars have interpreted the Buddha’s silence on the issue of the existence of God as atheistic. In their opinion, Buddharefused to answer any questions regarding the existence of the Divine Reality and the Soul (Atman or Jivatman), and therefore they have concluded that Buddha was an atheist. However, in my opinion these kinds of conclusions demonstrate limited knowledge and ignorance about the essence of the Buddhist texts. In fact, Buddhist literature contains multiple references to the soul (atta or atman), the Lord (Natha), and the maker of the body. Examples can be found even in the fairly short book Dhammapada, where Buddha elaborates on Soul or self (atta): "The atman is the lord of atman. What else could be the Lord? When the individual self jiivatman) is well subdued, a man finds the Lord (Natha) who is difficult to fathom" (Dhammapada 12/4). Some scholars have interpreted the word ’lord’ in this verse as if it literally means ’lordship’. However, even a cursory examination of the words in Pali, the original language of these texts, yields the true meaning. In Pali the word ’lord’ is in the second case accusative, and therefore it would best be translated as ’to the lord’. The noted Buddhist scholar Bhikshu Rahul Sankrityayan has explained this in his rendering of this verse of the Dhammapada: "A man is the lord of himself Who else then could be the lord? If the self is wholly disciplined then he is able to attain a lord who is difficult to be attained." Buddha addresses the creator of the body: "Oh maker of the house I have seen you." (Jaravaggo) "Impermanence" of Buddhism and "Maya" of the Vedic Dharma In the Vedanta literature, the Upanishads, and in the literature of the saints, this physical world is said to comprise both name and form, and is referred to as maya. It is understood to be illusory and not real, to be ever changing, and dependent upon a higher reality In the Chandogya Upanishad, Brhidarnyaka Upanishad, Mundaka Upanishad, and Prashna Upanishad it is repeatedly stated that the nature of the world is transitory, destructible, and not real. Therefore, we must seek for that essence which is constant, true and unchanging by transcending these realms of name and form. The world of name and form is also described as avidya (ignorance) in the Katha and Mundaka Upanishads. In the Shvetashvatara Upanishad, the world is also described as illusory maya. The Upanishads also explain that: "The soul (atman), which is beyond name and form, is brimming with joy and tranquility. In its Turiyatita form (the fifth state -- a state of cosmic consciousness; a state of unity with the source), atman is beyond good and evil" (Teja bindu Upanishad). Lord Buddha says: "A mendicant is one who has no attachment to the world of name and form. He is one who does not grieve for what is not real (asat, the ever changing reality). This is the true mendicant. (Dhammapada, Bhikkhuvaggo)." In the Ramcharitmanasa Saint Tulsida says: "Name and form are the two obstructions to God." All of these references from the Upanishads and the texts of the saints, show agreement with the words of the Buddha, not difference. Ineffable Divine and Silence One person may say the true form of God is Nameless (transcending any human definition), a second person may say the true form of God is Soundless (nihshabda; beyond sound), and yet a third may keep silence in regard to the nature of the Divine. Is it logical to simply label the one who keeps silence an atheist? The wise person should reflect on this matter. If you say that the Divine Reality is nameless and then proceed to describe Him, are you not contradicting yourself! How can you describe something which is nameless? In thinking about this example, one might well conclude that the third person, who was silent when describing God, was actually closer to the nameless description of God. Keeping silence in answer to the question of the nature of the Divine, is also found in the Upanishads. A prime example of this is found in the famous discourse between Sage Vashishta and Shri Ram in the Yoga Vashistha. Shri Rama had queried Guru Vasistha about the nature of Atman and Brahman (the Supreme Reality). In response the Guru remained silent. Ram repeated the question. Guru Vasistha remained silent. Shri Rama asked a third time, and still the great sage remained mute. With joined palms Ram asked his teacher Vasistha: "Reverend Sir! Are you displeased with me and therefore not answering my question, since you always assist me in understanding?" Guru Vasistha replied: "My dear son! I am not displeased with you. I have been answering the question which you have posed. The answer to your question is only given in silence, since the Divine is ineffable, unmanifest, and beyond the senses. How could I describe the nature of the reality which transcends the senses through these very sense organs (speech)?" The point here is that if we were to call the Buddha an atheist when he is silent on the question of the nature of the Divine, as some people have, then logically we must also call Guru Vasistha an atheist when he is silent in answer to the same question. Shunya and Transcendent Reality Some scholars have discounted the Buddha’s teachings, claiming that he is promulgating a belief in "emptiness" or "nothingness." These scholars have concluded that the Buddha, does not believe in a Higher Reality (God). Therefore, they argue, his philosophy should be considered as nihilistic. According to their reasoning, it would follow that those who teach about "emptiness" or "nothingness" (shunya) [the transcendent form of Ultimate Reality is also referred to as shunya] cannot be theistic. However, teachings about shunyata (emptiness) are not only found in Buddhist literature, but are also prominent in the writings of many of the saints. Here are some examples: Gorakh Nath Ji says: "It (God) is neither existent nor non-existent (shunya), its nature is beyond the reach of senses and thought." Sant Kabir Sahab says: "Meditation on the Formless (shunya) is enjoyed by all knowers of Truth." Guru Nanak Dev Ji says: "In the thought-less state of Samadhi (sunna, emptiness), neither maya (illusion) nor the web of mind exist. Only the gracious God exists." Paltu Sahab says: "Staying in solitude and meditate on emptiness (shunya)." Saint Dadu Dayal Ji says: "That Ultimate Reality is beyond the dual categories of qualified and unqualified, it is Emptiness which transcends emptiness (shunya)." Saint Charan Das says: "When the soul is absorbed on the peak (highest inner realm) of emptiness, then it experiences rapture." This emptiness is also known as ether (akasha) or void (avakasha). In the Ramcharitamanasa, Goswami Tulsi Das Ji invokes Lord Shiva: "I invoke the name of Shiva--Lord Shiva, who dwells in the space of infinite knowledge (akasha)" There are discussions about shunya in the Tantra Shastra and the Jnanasankalnii Tantra, where it says, "Meditation is not meditation unless the mind is united with Shunya". Maharishi Mehi says: "Consciousness that is traveling beyond sunna (void) and mahasunna (the great void) traverses the realm of bhanvar gupha (the whirling cave). There it experiences the sound of Truth (sat), which is the Original Sound. This Sound embodies the essence of the spiritual preceptor. 0 Practitioner! Hold on to that sound and become one with that True Sound." In the Upanishads there are multiple references to Emptiness or Space (shunya). In the fourth Brahmana of the Mandala Brahmanopanishad it is said: "There are five kinds of celestial Shunya (ether) which are increasingly more subtle: akasham, parakasham, Mahakasham, Suryakasham and Parmakasham. The infinite light permeates all of these akasham, but the Parmakasham is ineffable and is brimming with infinite bliss. It is the essential element." When one considers all these descriptions of Shunya (emptiness or void), the question arises whether the composers of the Upanishads and the saints were atheists. The unequivocal response is, of course, that they are not atheists. How then could one logically consider the Buddha to be an atheist? The Buddha regularly speaks of both nirvana and Shunya in almost identical terminology, and yet he is accused of atheism solely on the basis of his silence on this question about the nature of God. -- Sant Sevi Ji Maharaj Sant Sevi Ji Paramahans Maharaj Hinduism accepts the Buddha as an avatar of Vishnu, one of the gods of the Hindu trinity. The Buddhists do not accept any Hindu god either as equivalent or superior to the Buddha. In Buddhism, the Hindu gods are relegated to different roles but they are not more important the the Buddhas. Buddhism believes in Bodhisattvas. Hinduism does not believe in them. Well as we have just explained Nirvana, is the state were one is ONE with Brahman or God or VISHNU (where he experiences emptiness)!! In Buddhism and Hinduism, when a Soul achieves Enlightenment, it enters the realm of Nirvana or in other words reunites with God or VISHNU!! So therefore, through Buddhism and Hinduism the Buddha is considered to an AVATAR OF VISHNU!! Plus this proves that Hindu gods/Goddess, were just normal Bodhisattvas!! A Bodhisattva, Satguru, Sant, Saint and Avatar are technically the same thing. An Enlightened and Realized Soul, whose purpose is, too guide other Souls to their own Enlightenment/Moksha. The Buddhists consider the world as suffering and regard ending suffering as the chief aim of human life. The Hindus consider that there are four chief aims (arthas) in life which every being should pursue. They are dharma (religious duty), artha (wealth or material possessions), kama (desires and passions) and moksha (salvation.) Well the four Hindu arm chiefs, are technically the same as the One Buddhist arm chief. According to a Satsang of our Satguru, from a Sant Mat/Hindu tradition, during our Human Life we must gain hold of dharma and Moksha, and destroy Karma and Artha. Even according to Buddhism, Karma and Artha are the products causing one to suffer. Hindus also believe in the four stages of life (each cycle of 25 years having a role to play.) This is not followed in Buddhism. People can participate any time depending upon their spiritual advancement, not their age. Again the four stages of life and the Casting System, have been confused throughout Hinduism in the ages. The four stages of life, just show the stages of life which one is more able to achieve Enlightenment and less able to achieve Enlightenment. Look, at this picture. It shows all the differenment stages to God and all the different people at each stage. The original meaning behind the casting system, was this! An untouchable, was an atheist, or not very religious plus maya like person. A Brahmin, is someone, who is enlightened and at one with Brahman. A warrior, is someone, who is fighting the evil of the maya to achieve enlightenment. A Vaisya, is someone, seeking a Satguru or trying to impress his Satguru. The casting system, was never meant to be confused,with names in society nor discriminate against anyone. This is all a misunderstanding of the Satguru's message!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! All Sants/Satgurus, therefore oppose the modern and incorrect casting system of India!! Guru Nanak, Kabir Sahib, Ramanada and the Geatuma Buddha, are famous, for there battles against the modern casting system!! The social body The social body and its components are likened to the human form. Society is compared to a body with the brahmanas as the head, kshatriyas as the arms, vaishyas as the belly (or thighs) and the shudras as the legs Social functions are determined according to this analogy. For example, the brahmanas are the eyes and mouth of society. They provide a spiritual vision for society and teach people accordingly. Just as the arms are raised to defend the body, the kshatriya's main duty is to protect society. The vaishya's main duty is material nourishment, and the shudra supports all other sections of society. The ashrams are sometimes related to the same metaphor, with the successive stages of student life, household life, retirement and renunciation represented by the legs, belly, arms and head respectively. Buddhists organize themselves into a monastic Order (Sangha) and the monks live in groups. Hinduism is basically an individualistic religion. Certain Hindu groups follow this rule. Refuge in the Buddha, the Sangha and Dharma are the three cardinal requirements on the eightfold path. Hinduism offers many choices to its followers on the path of self-realization. Hinduism, may offer many paths to self-realization, but they all include require refuge in the; the Buddha (Satguru), Sangha (spiritual community) and Dharma (religious duty.) Although both religions believe in karma and rebirth, they differ in the manner in which they operate and impact the existence of individual beings. Above, I have explained the how Buddhism does describe an Atman/Soul concept through a Non Self/Emptiness concept, used a lot in Vedic Hinduism. Source of these so-called differences; http://www.japanese-buddhism.com/hinduism.html These prinples are true about Buddhism, Hinduism and Sant Mat; Both Hinduism and Buddhism teaches that the true nature of the world is illusion and that karma is what is keeping men tied to this world and the cycle of births and deaths. Buddha taught that desire is the main cause of suffering and removal of desire results in the cessation of suffering. Some of the Hindu texts such as the Upanishads (Isa) and the Bhagavadgita state that by accomplishing an action due to desire and attachment we are lead to bondage and suffering. On the contrary, if we accomplish an action without selfish desire, we are closer to liberation from the karmic cycle. Both religions believe in the concept of karma and the reincarnation of souls. Both preach compassion and non violence towards all living beings. Both believe in the existence of several hells and heavens or higher and lower worlds. Both believe in the existence of gods or deities on different planes. Both believe in certain spiritual practices like meditation, concentration, cultivation of certain mood of ecstasy and the channeling of these emotional energies that is induced by the maturing of devotion. Both believe in detachment, renunciation of worldly riches as a prerequisite to enter to spiritual life. Both consider desire as the chief cause of suffering. Buddhism and Hinduism have their own versions of Tantra. Both originated and evolved on the Indian soil. The founder of Buddhism was a Hindu who became the Buddha. The Gautama Buddha, Krishna and Lord Rama plus all the other Hindu Sages were all Satgurus/Saints (Enlightened and God/Vishnu realized souls.) They all came to save other Souls from this evil Maya/Samsara of life and death, plus enlighten other Souls. They considered the quality of God to be of emptiness. They all believed God was always incarnated down on earth in the form of a Satguru/Sant/Saint/Bodhisattva/Buddha. They all believed in the; Soul/Atman, reincarnation, Maya/illusion of life concept, ONE GOD, the Vedic time scale, the Dharmic concepts of Suffering and religion Hinduism/Sant Mat and Buddhism. http://www.hinduwebsite.com/hinduism/h_buddhism.asp As we are aware, these two faiths are very similar, mainly due to their routes in India. Although the two faiths are generally accused of having many differences. This is not true!! Buddhism and Hinduism/Sant Mat share exactly the same teachings. These are the so called, difference between the faiths; Hinduism is not founded by any particular person. Buddhism was founded by the Buddha. So, how does this create any major difference in the teachings of the faiths? Besides, as you will discover the Gautama Buddha, never created Buddhism. The Buddhist faith just grows out of Hinduism. Hinduism believes in the efficacy and supremacy of the Vedic texts. The Buddhist do not believe in these texts or any Hindu scripture. (unlike the Christians adopting the Torah as the Old Testament) Well the Buddha, the Buddhist scriptures or no other Bodhisattva, has ever denied the existence of the Vedas or Vedic texts. The Buddha just said “Oh all those un wise priest, in the temples who read those scriptures. They know nothing about their religion.” Although Swami Ramakrishna (a Hindu Saint) even said; “Many good sayings are to be found in holy books, but merely reading them will not make one religious.” This is clearly obvious, as many of the priests during the time, preformed animal sacrifice, which was opposed in the Gita!!!! Plus everything in the Buddhist texts is technically the same as that in the Vedic texts, as you will see!! Even in the Jakatales Lord Rama and Lord Krishna plus their stories appear. Hindus believe in the Atman, a concept closely related to a primordial soul, or God. Buddhism teaches that the belief in the Atman is the prime consequence of ignorance, which is itself the cause of all misery and the foundation of samsāra (the cycle of rebirth). Buddhism acknowledge the existence of some gods and goddesses of Hindu pantheon, but give them a rather subordinate status. Well Buddhism is accused of not including a God or a Soul/Atman concept. Not so! Buddhism, due to its strong beliefs that the Lord is emptiness, is considered to deny any existence of the God and the Atman/Soul, as well as the idea of Moksha and the soul reuniting with Brahman. Rubbish!! Of course, there is a God and Soul inBuddhism, as we explained Brahman/Atman(as the Atman is a part of God or Brahman), is nothing!! Plus the soul, experiences nothing when reunited with Brahman(as Brahman is nothing), so the Buddhist Nirvana and Hindu Moksha are united!! I mean Heaven, Such Khand, Brahman and Nirvana are all the same, as all faiths lead to the same god!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Read this; Was Buddha An Atheist? By Sant Sevi Ji Paramahans Maharaj The Harmony of All Religions: Santmat [[[[[Copyright 2007, All Rights Reserved]]]]] From the Chapter on Buddhism: All the theistic religions of the world recognize the existence of God. The Divine Being is referred to by various names due to different languages: Brahman (Hindu), God (Christianity), Allah (Islam), Buddha (Buddhism), Tao (Taoism), Yahweh (Judaism), and Ahur Mazd (Zoroastrianism). We can say that a religion with a belief in God is a theistic religion. Religions which do not have a belief in God would be called atheistic. Upon careful consideration, we can see that there are in fact two types of atheism: entirely atheistic and partially atheistic. The Belief Systems which do not have a belief in the existence of either God or soul are considered to be entirely atheistic. Those which do have a belief in the soul but not in Godare considered partially atheistic. In modern times some scholars have interpreted the Buddha’s silence on the issue of the existence of God as atheistic. In their opinion, Buddharefused to answer any questions regarding the existence of the Divine Reality and the Soul (Atman or Jivatman), and therefore they have concluded that Buddha was an atheist. However, in my opinion these kinds of conclusions demonstrate limited knowledge and ignorance about the essence of the Buddhist texts. In fact, Buddhist literature contains multiple references to the soul (atta or atman), the Lord (Natha), and the maker of the body. Examples can be found even in the fairly short book Dhammapada, where Buddha elaborates on Soul or self (atta): "The atman is the lord of atman. What else could be the Lord? When the individual self jiivatman) is well subdued, a man finds the Lord (Natha) who is difficult to fathom" (Dhammapada 12/4). Some scholars have interpreted the word ’lord’ in this verse as if it literally means ’lordship’. However, even a cursory examination of the words in Pali, the original language of these texts, yields the true meaning. In Pali the word ’lord’ is in the second case accusative, and therefore it would best be translated as ’to the lord’. The noted Buddhist scholar Bhikshu Rahul Sankrityayan has explained this in his rendering of this verse of the Dhammapada: "A man is the lord of himself Who else then could be the lord? If the self is wholly disciplined then he is able to attain a lord who is difficult to be attained." Buddha addresses the creator of the body: "Oh maker of the house I have seen you." (Jaravaggo) "Impermanence" of Buddhism and "Maya" of the Vedic Dharma In the Vedanta literature, the Upanishads, and in the literature of the saints, this physical world is said to comprise both name and form, and is referred to as maya. It is understood to be illusory and not real, to be ever changing, and dependent upon a higher reality In the Chandogya Upanishad, Brhidarnyaka Upanishad, Mundaka Upanishad, and Prashna Upanishad it is repeatedly stated that the nature of the world is transitory, destructible, and not real. Therefore, we must seek for that essence which is constant, true and unchanging by transcending these realms of name and form. The world of name and form is also described as avidya (ignorance) in the Katha and Mundaka Upanishads. In the Shvetashvatara Upanishad, the world is also described as illusory maya. The Upanishads also explain that: "The soul (atman), which is beyond name and form, is brimming with joy and tranquility. In its Turiyatita form (the fifth state -- a state of cosmic consciousness; a state of unity with the source), atman is beyond good and evil" (Teja bindu Upanishad). Lord Buddha says: "A mendicant is one who has no attachment to the world of name and form. He is one who does not grieve for what is not real (asat, the ever changing reality). This is the true mendicant. (Dhammapada, Bhikkhuvaggo)." In the Ramcharitmanasa Saint Tulsida says: "Name and form are the two obstructions to God." All of these references from the Upanishads and the texts of the saints, show agreement with the words of the Buddha, not difference. Ineffable Divine and Silence One person may say the true form of God is Nameless (transcending any human definition), a second person may say the true form of God is Soundless (nihshabda; beyond sound), and yet a third may keep silence in regard to the nature of the Divine. Is it logical to simply label the one who keeps silence an atheist? The wise person should reflect on this matter. If you say that the Divine Reality is nameless and then proceed to describe Him, are you not contradicting yourself! How can you describe something which is nameless? In thinking about this example, one might well conclude that the third person, who was silent when describing God, was actually closer to the nameless description of God. Keeping silence in answer to the question of the nature of the Divine, is also found in the Upanishads. A prime example of this is found in the famous discourse between Sage Vashishta and Shri Ram in the Yoga Vashistha. Shri Rama had queried Guru Vasistha about the nature of Atman and Brahman (the Supreme Reality). In response the Guru remained silent. Ram repeated the question. Guru Vasistha remained silent. Shri Rama asked a third time, and still the great sage remained mute. With joined palms Ram asked his teacher Vasistha: "Reverend Sir! Are you displeased with me and therefore not answering my question, since you always assist me in understanding?" Guru Vasistha replied: "My dear son! I am not displeased with you. I have been answering the question which you have posed. The answer to your question is only given in silence, since the Divine is ineffable, unmanifest, and beyond the senses. How could I describe the nature of the reality which transcends the senses through these very sense organs (speech)?" The point here is that if we were to call the Buddha an atheist when he is silent on the question of the nature of the Divine, as some people have, then logically we must also call Guru Vasistha an atheist when he is silent in answer to the same question. Shunya and Transcendent Reality Some scholars have discounted the Buddha’s teachings, claiming that he is promulgating a belief in "emptiness" or "nothingness." These scholars have concluded that the Buddha, does not believe in a Higher Reality (God). Therefore, they argue, his philosophy should be considered as nihilistic. According to their reasoning, it would follow that those who teach about "emptiness" or "nothingness" (shunya) [the transcendent form of Ultimate Reality is also referred to as shunya] cannot be theistic. However, teachings about shunyata (emptiness) are not only found in Buddhist literature, but are also prominent in the writings of many of the saints. Here are some examples: Gorakh Nath Ji says: "It (God) is neither existent nor non-existent (shunya), its nature is beyond the reach of senses and thought." Sant Kabir Sahab says: "Meditation on the Formless (shunya) is enjoyed by all knowers of Truth." Guru Nanak Dev Ji says: "In the thought-less state of Samadhi (sunna, emptiness), neither maya (illusion) nor the web of mind exist. Only the gracious God exists." Paltu Sahab says: "Staying in solitude and meditate on emptiness (shunya)." Saint Dadu Dayal Ji says: "That Ultimate Reality is beyond the dual categories of qualified and unqualified, it is Emptiness which transcends emptiness (shunya)." Saint Charan Das says: "When the soul is absorbed on the peak (highest inner realm) of emptiness, then it experiences rapture." This emptiness is also known as ether (akasha) or void (avakasha). In the Ramcharitamanasa, Goswami Tulsi Das Ji invokes Lord Shiva: "I invoke the name of Shiva--Lord Shiva, who dwells in the space of infinite knowledge (akasha)" There are discussions about shunya in the Tantra Shastra and the Jnanasankalnii Tantra, where it says, "Meditation is not meditation unless the mind is united with Shunya". Maharishi Mehi says: "Consciousness that is traveling beyond sunna (void) and mahasunna (the great void) traverses the realm of bhanvar gupha (the whirling cave). There it experiences the sound of Truth (sat), which is the Original Sound. This Sound embodies the essence of the spiritual preceptor. 0 Practitioner! Hold on to that sound and become one with that True Sound." In the Upanishads there are multiple references to Emptiness or Space (shunya). In the fourth Brahmana of the Mandala Brahmanopanishad it is said: "There are five kinds of celestial Shunya (ether) which are increasingly more subtle: akasham, parakasham, Mahakasham, Suryakasham and Parmakasham. The infinite light permeates all of these akasham, but the Parmakasham is ineffable and is brimming with infinite bliss. It is the essential element." When one considers all these descriptions of Shunya (emptiness or void), the question arises whether the composers of the Upanishads and the saints were atheists. The unequivocal response is, of course, that they are not atheists. How then could one logically consider the Buddha to be an atheist? The Buddha regularly speaks of both nirvana and Shunya in almost identical terminology, and yet he is accused of atheism solely on the basis of his silence on this question about the nature of God. -- Sant Sevi Ji Maharaj Sant Sevi Ji Paramahans Maharaj Hinduism accepts the Buddha as an avatar of Vishnu, one of the gods of the Hindu trinity. The Buddhists do not accept any Hindu god either as equivalent or superior to the Buddha. In Buddhism, the Hindu gods are relegated to different roles but they are not more important the the Buddhas. Buddhism believes in Bodhisattvas. Hinduism does not believe in them. Well as we have just explained Nirvana, is the state were one is ONE with Brahman or God or VISHNU (where he experiences emptiness)!! In Buddhism and Hinduism, when a Soul achieves Enlightenment, it enters the realm of Nirvana or in other words reunites with God or VISHNU!! So therefore, through Buddhism and Hinduism the Buddha is considered to an AVATAR OF VISHNU!! Plus this proves that Hindu gods/Goddess, were just normal Bodhisattvas!! A Bodhisattva, Satguru, Sant, Saint and Avatar are technically the same thing. An Enlightened and Realized Soul, whose purpose is, too guide other Souls to their own Enlightenment/Moksha. The Buddhists consider the world as suffering and regard ending suffering as the chief aim of human life. The Hindus consider that there are four chief aims (arthas) in life which every being should pursue. They are dharma (religious duty), artha (wealth or material possessions), kama (desires and passions) and moksha (salvation.) Well the four Hindu arm chiefs, are technically the same as the One Buddhist arm chief. According to a Satsang of our Satguru, from a Sant Mat/Hindu tradition, during our Human Life we must gain hold of dharma and Moksha, and destroy Karma and Artha. Even according to Buddhism, Karma and Artha are the products causing one to suffer. Hindus also believe in the four stages of life (each cycle of 25 years having a role to play.) This is not followed in Buddhism. People can participate any time depending upon their spiritual advancement, not their age. Again the four stages of life and the Casting System, have been confused throughout Hinduism in the ages. The four stages of life, just show the stages of life which one is more able to achieve Enlightenment and less able to achieve Enlightenment. Look, at this picture. It shows all the differenment stages to God and all the different people at each stage. The original meaning behind the casting system, was this! An untouchable, was an atheist, or not very religious plus maya like person. A Brahmin, is someone, who is enlightened and at one with Brahman. A warrior, is someone, who is fighting the evil of the maya to achieve enlightenment. A Vaisya, is someone, seeking a Satguru or trying to impress his Satguru. The casting system, was never meant to be confused,with names in society nor discriminate against anyone. This is all a misunderstanding of the Satguru's message!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! All Sants/Satgurus, therefore oppose the modern and incorrect casting system of India!! Guru Nanak, Kabir Sahib, Ramanada and the Geatuma Buddha, are famous, for there battles against the modern casting system!! The social body The social body and its components are likened to the human form. Society is compared to a body with the brahmanas as the head, kshatriyas as the arms, vaishyas as the belly (or thighs) and the shudras as the legs Social functions are determined according to this analogy. For example, the brahmanas are the eyes and mouth of society. They provide a spiritual vision for society and teach people accordingly. Just as the arms are raised to defend the body, the kshatriya's main duty is to protect society. The vaishya's main duty is material nourishment, and the shudra supports all other sections of society. The ashrams are sometimes related to the same metaphor, with the successive stages of student life, household life, retirement and renunciation represented by the legs, belly, arms and head respectively. Buddhists organize themselves into a monastic Order (Sangha) and the monks live in groups. Hinduism is basically an individualistic religion. Certain Hindu groups follow this rule. Refuge in the Buddha, the Sangha and Dharma are the three cardinal requirements on the eightfold path. Hinduism offers many choices to its followers on the path of self-realization. Hinduism, may offer many paths to self-realization, but they all include require refuge in the; the Buddha (Satguru), Sangha (spiritual community) and Dharma (religious duty.) Although both religions believe in karma and rebirth, they differ in the manner in which they operate and impact the existence of individual beings. Above, I have explained the how Buddhism does describe an Atman/Soul concept through a Non Self/Emptiness concept, used a lot in Vedic Hinduism. Source of these so-called differences; http://www.japanese-buddhism.com/hinduism.html These prinples are true about Buddhism, Hinduism and Sant Mat; Both Hinduism and Buddhism teaches that the true nature of the world is illusion and that karma is what is keeping men tied to this world and the cycle of births and deaths. Buddha taught that desire is the main cause of suffering and removal of desire results in the cessation of suffering. Some of the Hindu texts such as the Upanishads (Isa) and the Bhagavadgita state that by accomplishing an action due to desire and attachment we are lead to bondage and suffering. On the contrary, if we accomplish an action without selfish desire, we are closer to liberation from the karmic cycle. Both religions believe in the concept of karma and the reincarnation of souls. Both preach compassion and non violence towards all living beings. Both believe in the existence of several hells and heavens or higher and lower worlds. Both believe in the existence of gods or deities on different planes. Both believe in certain spiritual practices like meditation, concentration, cultivation of certain mood of ecstasy and the channeling of these emotional energies that is induced by the maturing of devotion. Both believe in detachment, renunciation of worldly riches as a prerequisite to enter to spiritual life. Both consider desire as the chief cause of suffering. Buddhism and Hinduism have their own versions of Tantra. Both originated and evolved on the Indian soil. The founder of Buddhism was a Hindu who became the Buddha. The Gautama Buddha, Krishna and Lord Rama plus all the other Hindu Sages were all Satgurus/Saints (Enlightened and God/Vishnu realized souls.) They all came to save other Souls from this evil Maya/Samsara of life and death, plus enlighten other Souls. They considered the quality of God to be of emptiness. They all believed God was always incarnated down on earth in the form of a Satguru/Sant/Saint/Bodhisattva/Buddha. They all believed in the; Soul/Atman, reincarnation, Maya/illusion of life concept, ONE GOD, the Vedic time scale, the Dharmic concepts of Suffering and religion Hinduism/Sant Mat and Buddhism. http://www.hinduwebsite.com/hinduism/h_buddhism.asp As we are aware, these two faiths are very similar, mainly due to their routes in India. Although the two faiths are generally accused of having many differences. This is not true!! Buddhism and Hinduism/Sant Mat share exactly the same teachings. These are the so called, difference between the faiths; Hinduism is not founded by any particular person. Buddhism was founded by the Buddha. So, how does this create any major difference in the teachings of the faiths? Besides, as you will discover the Gautama Buddha, never created Buddhism. The Buddhist faith just grows out of Hinduism. Hinduism believes in the efficacy and supremacy of the Vedic texts. The Buddhist do not believe in these texts or any Hindu scripture. (unlike the Christians adopting the Torah as the Old Testament) Well the Buddha, the Buddhist scriptures or no other Bodhisattva, has ever denied the existence of the Vedas or Vedic texts. The Buddha just said “Oh all those un wise priest, in the temples who read those scriptures. They know nothing about their religion.” Although Swami Ramakrishna (a Hindu Saint) even said; “Many good sayings are to be found in holy books, but merely reading them will not make one religious.” This is clearly obvious, as many of the priests during the time, preformed animal sacrifice, which was opposed in the Gita!!!! Plus everything in the Buddhist texts is technically the same as that in the Vedic texts, as you will see!! Even in the Jakatales Lord Rama and Lord Krishna plus their stories appear. Hindus believe in the Atman, a concept closely related to a primordial soul, or God. Buddhism teaches that the belief in the Atman is the prime consequence of ignorance, which is itself the cause of all misery and the foundation of samsāra (the cycle of rebirth). Buddhism acknowledge the existence of some gods and goddesses of Hindu pantheon, but give them a rather subordinate status. Well Buddhism is accused of not including a God or a Soul/Atman concept. Not so! Buddhism, due to its strong beliefs that the Lord is emptiness, is considered to deny any existence of the God and the Atman/Soul, as well as the idea of Moksha and the soul reuniting with Brahman. Rubbish!! Of course, there is a God and Soul inBuddhism, as we explained Brahman/Atman(as the Atman is a part of God or Brahman), is nothing!! Plus the soul, experiences nothing when reunited with Brahman(as Brahman is nothing), so the Buddhist Nirvana and Hindu Moksha are united!! I mean Heaven, Such Khand, Brahman and Nirvana are all the same, as all faiths lead to the same god!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Read this; Was Buddha An Atheist? By Sant Sevi Ji Paramahans Maharaj The Harmony of All Religions: Santmat [[[[[Copyright 2007, All Rights Reserved]]]]] From the Chapter on Buddhism: All the theistic religions of the world recognize the existence of God. The Divine Being is referred to by various names due to different languages: Brahman (Hindu), God (Christianity), Allah (Islam), Buddha (Buddhism), Tao (Taoism), Yahweh (Judaism), and Ahur Mazd (Zoroastrianism). We can say that a religion with a belief in God is a theistic religion. Religions which do not have a belief in God would be called atheistic. Upon careful consideration, we can see that there are in fact two types of atheism: entirely atheistic and partially atheistic. The Belief Systems which do not have a belief in the existence of either God or soul are considered to be entirely atheistic. Those which do have a belief in the soul but not in Godare considered partially atheistic. In modern times some scholars have interpreted the Buddha’s silence on the issue of the existence of God as atheistic. In their opinion, Buddharefused to answer any questions regarding the existence of the Divine Reality and the Soul (Atman or Jivatman), and therefore they have concluded that Buddha was an atheist. However, in my opinion these kinds of conclusions demonstrate limited knowledge and ignorance about the essence of the Buddhist texts. In fact, Buddhist literature contains multiple references to the soul (atta or atman), the Lord (Natha), and the maker of the body. Examples can be found even in the fairly short book Dhammapada, where Buddha elaborates on Soul or self (atta): "The atman is the lord of atman. What else could be the Lord? When the individual self jiivatman) is well subdued, a man finds the Lord (Natha) who is difficult to fathom" (Dhammapada 12/4). Some scholars have interpreted the word ’lord’ in this verse as if it literally means ’lordship’. However, even a cursory examination of the words in Pali, the original language of these texts, yields the true meaning. In Pali the word ’lord’ is in the second case accusative, and therefore it would best be translated as ’to the lord’. The noted Buddhist scholar Bhikshu Rahul Sankrityayan has explained this in his rendering of this verse of the Dhammapada: "A man is the lord of himself Who else then could be the lord? If the self is wholly disciplined then he is able to attain a lord who is difficult to be attained." Buddha addresses the creator of the body: "Oh maker of the house I have seen you." (Jaravaggo) "Impermanence" of Buddhism and "Maya" of the Vedic Dharma In the Vedanta literature, the Upanishads, and in the literature of the saints, this physical world is said to comprise both name and form, and is referred to as maya. It is understood to be illusory and not real, to be ever changing, and dependent upon a higher reality In the Chandogya Upanishad, Brhidarnyaka Upanishad, Mundaka Upanishad, and Prashna Upanishad it is repeatedly stated that the nature of the world is transitory, destructible, and not real. Therefore, we must seek for that essence which is constant, true and unchanging by transcending these realms of name and form. The world of name and form is also described as avidya (ignorance) in the Katha and Mundaka Upanishads. In the Shvetashvatara Upanishad, the world is also described as illusory maya. The Upanishads also explain that: "The soul (atman), which is beyond name and form, is brimming with joy and tranquility. In its Turiyatita form (the fifth state -- a state of cosmic consciousness; a state of unity with the source), atman is beyond good and evil" (Teja bindu Upanishad). Lord Buddha says: "A mendicant is one who has no attachment to the world of name and form. He is one who does not grieve for what is not real (asat, the ever changing reality). This is the true mendicant. (Dhammapada, Bhikkhuvaggo)." In the Ramcharitmanasa Saint Tulsida says: "Name and form are the two obstructions to God." All of these references from the Upanishads and the texts of the saints, show agreement with the words of the Buddha, not difference. Ineffable Divine and Silence One person may say the true form of God is Nameless (transcending any human definition), a second person may say the true form of God is Soundless (nihshabda; beyond sound), and yet a third may keep silence in regard to the nature of the Divine. Is it logical to simply label the one who keeps silence an atheist? The wise person should reflect on this matter. If you say that the Divine Reality is nameless and then proceed to describe Him, are you not contradicting yourself! How can you describe something which is nameless? In thinking about this example, one might well conclude that the third person, who was silent when describing God, was actually closer to the nameless description of God. Keeping silence in answer to the question of the nature of the Divine, is also found in the Upanishads. A prime example of this is found in the famous discourse between Sage Vashishta and Shri Ram in the Yoga Vashistha. Shri Rama had queried Guru Vasistha about the nature of Atman and Brahman (the Supreme Reality). In response the Guru remained silent. Ram repeated the question. Guru Vasistha remained silent. Shri Rama asked a third time, and still the great sage remained mute. With joined palms Ram asked his teacher Vasistha: "Reverend Sir! Are you displeased with me and therefore not answering my question, since you always assist me in understanding?" Guru Vasistha replied: "My dear son! I am not displeased with you. I have been answering the question which you have posed. The answer to your question is only given in silence, since the Divine is ineffable, unmanifest, and beyond the senses. How could I describe the nature of the reality which transcends the senses through these very sense organs (speech)?" The point here is that if we were to call the Buddha an atheist when he is silent on the question of the nature of the Divine, as some people have, then logically we must also call Guru Vasistha an atheist when he is silent in answer to the same question. Shunya and Transcendent Reality Some scholars have discounted the Buddha’s teachings, claiming that he is promulgating a belief in "emptiness" or "nothingness." These scholars have concluded that the Buddha, does not believe in a Higher Reality (God). Therefore, they argue, his philosophy should be considered as nihilistic. According to their reasoning, it would follow that those who teach about "emptiness" or "nothingness" (shunya) [the transcendent form of Ultimate Reality is also referred to as shunya] cannot be theistic. However, teachings about shunyata (emptiness) are not only found in Buddhist literature, but are also prominent in the writings of many of the saints. Here are some examples: Gorakh Nath Ji says: "It (God) is neither existent nor non-existent (shunya), its nature is beyond the reach of senses and thought." Sant Kabir Sahab says: "Meditation on the Formless (shunya) is enjoyed by all knowers of Truth." Guru Nanak Dev Ji says: "In the thought-less state of Samadhi (sunna, emptiness), neither maya (illusion) nor the web of mind exist. Only the gracious God exists." Paltu Sahab says: "Staying in solitude and meditate on emptiness (shunya)." Saint Dadu Dayal Ji says: "That Ultimate Reality is beyond the dual categories of qualified and unqualified, it is Emptiness which transcends emptiness (shunya)." Saint Charan Das says: "When the soul is absorbed on the peak (highest inner realm) of emptiness, then it experiences rapture." This emptiness is also known as ether (akasha) or void (avakasha). In the Ramcharitamanasa, Goswami Tulsi Das Ji invokes Lord Shiva: "I invoke the name of Shiva--Lord Shiva, who dwells in the space of infinite knowledge (akasha)" There are discussions about shunya in the Tantra Shastra and the Jnanasankalnii Tantra, where it says, "Meditation is not meditation unless the mind is united with Shunya". Maharishi Mehi says: "Consciousness that is traveling beyond sunna (void) and mahasunna (the great void) traverses the realm of bhanvar gupha (the whirling cave). There it experiences the sound of Truth (sat), which is the Original Sound. This Sound embodies the essence of the spiritual preceptor. 0 Practitioner! Hold on to that sound and become one with that True Sound." In the Upanishads there are multiple references to Emptiness or Space (shunya). In the fourth Brahmana of the Mandala Brahmanopanishad it is said: "There are five kinds of celestial Shunya (ether) which are increasingly more subtle: akasham, parakasham, Mahakasham, Suryakasham and Parmakasham. The infinite light permeates all of these akasham, but the Parmakasham is ineffable and is brimming with infinite bliss. It is the essential element." When one considers all these descriptions of Shunya (emptiness or void), the question arises whether the composers of the Upanishads and the saints were atheists. The unequivocal response is, of course, that they are not atheists. How then could one logically consider the Buddha to be an atheist? The Buddha regularly speaks of both nirvana and Shunya in almost identical terminology, and yet he is accused of atheism solely on the basis of his silence on this question about the nature of God. -- Sant Sevi Ji Maharaj Sant Sevi Ji Paramahans Maharaj Hinduism accepts the Buddha as an avatar of Vishnu, one of the gods of the Hindu trinity. The Buddhists do not accept any Hindu god either as equivalent or superior to the Buddha. In Buddhism, the Hindu gods are relegated to different roles but they are not more important the the Buddhas. Buddhism believes in Bodhisattvas. Hinduism does not believe in them. Well as we have just explained Nirvana, is the state were one is ONE with Brahman or God or VISHNU (where he experiences emptiness)!! In Buddhism and Hinduism, when a Soul achieves Enlightenment, it enters the realm of Nirvana or in other words reunites with God or VISHNU!! So therefore, through Buddhism and Hinduism the Buddha is considered to an AVATAR OF VISHNU!! Plus this proves that Hindu gods/Goddess, were just normal Bodhisattvas!! A Bodhisattva, Satguru, Sant, Saint and Avatar are technically the same thing. An Enlightened and Realized Soul, whose purpose is, too guide other Souls to their own Enlightenment/Moksha. The Buddhists consider the world as suffering and regard ending suffering as the chief aim of human life. The Hindus consider that there are four chief aims (arthas) in life which every being should pursue. They are dharma (religious duty), artha (wealth or material possessions), kama (desires and passions) and moksha (salvation.) Well the four Hindu arm chiefs, are technically the same as the One Buddhist arm chief. According to a Satsang of our Satguru, from a Sant Mat/Hindu tradition, during our Human Life we must gain hold of dharma and Moksha, and destroy Karma and Artha. Even according to Buddhism, Karma and Artha are the products causing one to suffer. Hindus also believe in the four stages of life (each cycle of 25 years having a role to play.) This is not followed in Buddhism. People can participate any time depending upon their spiritual advancement, not their age. Again the four stages of life and the Casting System, have been confused throughout Hinduism in the ages. The four stages of life, just show the stages of life which one is more able to achieve Enlightenment and less able to achieve Enlightenment. Look, at this picture. It shows all the differenment stages to God and all the different people at each stage. The original meaning behind the casting system, was this! An untouchable, was an atheist, or not very religious plus maya like person. A Brahmin, is someone, who is enlightened and at one with Brahman. A warrior, is someone, who is fighting the evil of the maya to achieve enlightenment. A Vaisya, is someone, seeking a Satguru or trying to impress his Satguru. The casting system, was never meant to be confused,with names in society nor discriminate against anyone. This is all a misunderstanding of the Satguru's message!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! All Sants/Satgurus, therefore oppose the modern and incorrect casting system of India!! Guru Nanak, Kabir Sahib, Ramanada and the Geatuma Buddha, are famous, for there battles against the modern casting system!! The social body The social body and its components are likened to the human form. Society is compared to a body with the brahmanas as the head, kshatriyas as the arms, vaishyas as the belly (or thighs) and the shudras as the legs Social functions are determined according to this analogy. For example, the brahmanas are the eyes and mouth of society. They provide a spiritual vision for society and teach people accordingly. Just as the arms are raised to defend the body, the kshatriya's main duty is to protect society. The vaishya's main duty is material nourishment, and the shudra supports all other sections of society. The ashrams are sometimes related to the same metaphor, with the successive stages of student life, household life, retirement and renunciation represented by the legs, belly, arms and head respectively. Buddhists organize themselves into a monastic Order (Sangha) and the monks live in groups. Hinduism is basically an individualistic religion. Certain Hindu groups follow this rule. Refuge in the Buddha, the Sangha and Dharma are the three cardinal requirements on the eightfold path. Hinduism offers many choices to its followers on the path of self-realization. Hinduism, may offer many paths to self-realization, but they all include require refuge in the; the Buddha (Satguru), Sangha (spiritual community) and Dharma (religious duty.) Although both religions believe in karma and rebirth, they differ in the manner in which they operate and impact the existence of individual beings. Above, I have explained the how Buddhism does describe an Atman/Soul concept through a Non Self/Emptiness concept, used a lot in Vedic Hinduism. Source of these so-called differences; http://www.japanese-buddhism.com/hinduism.html These prinples are true about Buddhism, Hinduism and Sant Mat; Both Hinduism and Buddhism teaches that the true nature of the world is illusion and that karma is what is keeping men tied to this world and the cycle of births and deaths. Buddha taught that desire is the main cause of suffering and removal of desire results in the cessation of suffering. Some of the Hindu texts such as the Upanishads (Isa) and the Bhagavadgita state that by accomplishing an action due to desire and attachment we are lead to bondage and suffering. On the contrary, if we accomplish an action without selfish desire, we are closer to liberation from the karmic cycle. Both religions believe in the concept of karma and the reincarnation of souls. Both preach compassion and non violence towards all living beings. Both believe in the existence of several hells and heavens or higher and lower worlds. Both believe in the existence of gods or deities on different planes. Both believe in certain spiritual practices like meditation, concentration, cultivation of certain mood of ecstasy and the channeling of these emotional energies that is induced by the maturing of devotion. Both believe in detachment, renunciation of worldly riches as a prerequisite to enter to spiritual life. Both consider desire as the chief cause of suffering. Buddhism and Hinduism have their own versions of Tantra. Both originated and evolved on the Indian soil. The founder of Buddhism was a Hindu who became the Buddha. The Gautama Buddha, Krishna and Lord Rama plus all the other Hindu Sages were all Satgurus/Saints (Enlightened and God/Vishnu realized souls.) They all came to save other Souls from this evil Maya/Samsara of life and death, plus enlighten other Souls. They considered the quality of God to be of emptiness. They all believed God was always incarnated down on earth in the form of a Satguru/Sant/Saint/Bodhisattva/Buddha. They all believed in the; Soul/Atman, reincarnation, Maya/illusion of life concept, ONE GOD, the Vedic time scale, the Dharmic concepts of Suffering and religion Hinduism/Sant Mat and Buddhism. http://www.hinduwebsite.com/hinduism/h_buddhism.asp As we are aware, these two faiths are very similar, mainly due to their routes in India. Although the two faiths are generally accused of having many differences. This is not true!! Buddhism and Hinduism/Sant Mat share exactly the same teachings. These are the so called, difference between the faiths; Hinduism is not founded by any particular person. Buddhism was founded by the Buddha. So, how does this create any major difference in the teachings of the faiths? Besides, as you will discover the Gautama Buddha, never created Buddhism. The Buddhist faith just grows out of Hinduism. Hinduism believes in the efficacy and supremacy of the Vedic texts. The Buddhist do not believe in these texts or any Hindu scripture. (unlike the Christians adopting the Torah as the Old Testament) Well the Buddha, the Buddhist scriptures or no other Bodhisattva, has ever denied the existence of the Vedas or Vedic texts. The Buddha just said “Oh all those un wise priest, in the temples who read those scriptures. They know nothing about their religion.” Although Swami Ramakrishna (a Hindu Saint) even said; “Many good sayings are to be found in holy books, but merely reading them will not make one religious.” This is clearly obvious, as many of the priests during the time, preformed animal sacrifice, which was opposed in the Gita!!!! Plus everything in the Buddhist texts is technically the same as that in the Vedic texts, as you will see!! Even in the Jakatales Lord Rama and Lord Krishna plus their stories appear. Hindus believe in the Atman, a concept closely related to a primordial soul, or God. Buddhism teaches that the belief in the Atman is the prime consequence of ignorance, which is itself the cause of all misery and the foundation of samsāra (the cycle of rebirth). Buddhism acknowledge the existence of some gods and goddesses of Hindu pantheon, but give them a rather subordinate status. Well Buddhism is accused of not including a God or a Soul/Atman concept. Not so! Buddhism, due to its strong beliefs that the Lord is emptiness, is considered to deny any existence of the God and the Atman/Soul, as well as the idea of Moksha and the soul reuniting with Brahman. Rubbish!! Of course, there is a God and Soul inBuddhism, as we explained Brahman/Atman(as the Atman is a part of God or Brahman), is nothing!! Plus the soul, experiences nothing when reunited with Brahman(as Brahman is nothing), so the Buddhist Nirvana and Hindu Moksha are united!! I mean Heaven, Such Khand, Brahman and Nirvana are all the same, as all faiths lead to the same god!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Read this; Was Buddha An Atheist? By Sant Sevi Ji Paramahans Maharaj The Harmony of All Religions: Santmat [[[[[Copyright 2007, All Rights Reserved]]]]] From the Chapter on Buddhism: All the theistic religions of the world recognize the existence of God. The Divine Being is referred to by various names due to different languages: Brahman (Hindu), God (Christianity), Allah (Islam), Buddha (Buddhism), Tao (Taoism), Yahweh (Judaism), and Ahur Mazd (Zoroastrianism). We can say that a religion with a belief in God is a theistic religion. Religions which do not have a belief in God would be called atheistic. Upon careful consideration, we can see that there are in fact two types of atheism: entirely atheistic and partially atheistic. The Belief Systems which do not have a belief in the existence of either God or soul are considered to be entirely atheistic. Those which do have a belief in the soul but not in Godare considered partially atheistic. In modern times some scholars have interpreted the Buddha’s silence on the issue of the existence of God as atheistic. In their opinion, Buddharefused to answer any questions regarding the existence of the Divine Reality and the Soul (Atman or Jivatman), and therefore they have concluded that Buddha was an atheist. However, in my opinion these kinds of conclusions demonstrate limited knowledge and ignorance about the essence of the Buddhist texts. In fact, Buddhist literature contains multiple references to the soul (atta or atman), the Lord (Natha), and the maker of the body. Examples can be found even in the fairly short book Dhammapada, where Buddha elaborates on Soul or self (atta): "The atman is the lord of atman. What else could be the Lord? When the individual self jiivatman) is well subdued, a man finds the Lord (Natha) who is difficult to fathom" (Dhammapada 12/4). Some scholars have interpreted the word ’lord’ in this verse as if it literally means ’lordship’. However, even a cursory examination of the words in Pali, the original language of these texts, yields the true meaning. In Pali the word ’lord’ is in the second case accusative, and therefore it would best be translated as ’to the lord’. The noted Buddhist scholar Bhikshu Rahul Sankrityayan has explained this in his rendering of this verse of the Dhammapada: "A man is the lord of himself Who else then could be the lord? If the self is wholly disciplined then he is able to attain a lord who is difficult to be attained." Buddha addresses the creator of the body: "Oh maker of the house I have seen you." (Jaravaggo) "Impermanence" of Buddhism and "Maya" of the Vedic Dharma In the Vedanta literature, the Upanishads, and in the literature of the saints, this physical world is said to comprise both name and form, and is referred to as maya. It is understood to be illusory and not real, to be ever changing, and dependent upon a higher reality In the Chandogya Upanishad, Brhidarnyaka Upanishad, Mundaka Upanishad, and Prashna Upanishad it is repeatedly stated that the nature of the world is transitory, destructible, and not real. Therefore, we must seek for that essence which is constant, true and unchanging by transcending these realms of name and form. The world of name and form is also described as avidya (ignorance) in the Katha and Mundaka Upanishads. In the Shvetashvatara Upanishad, the world is also described as illusory maya. The Upanishads also explain that: "The soul (atman), which is beyond name and form, is brimming with joy and tranquility. In its Turiyatita form (the fifth state -- a state of cosmic consciousness; a state of unity with the source), atman is beyond good and evil" (Teja bindu Upanishad). Lord Buddha says: "A mendicant is one who has no attachment to the world of name and form. He is one who does not grieve for what is not real (asat, the ever changing reality). This is the true mendicant. (Dhammapada, Bhikkhuvaggo)." In the Ramcharitmanasa Saint Tulsida says: "Name and form are the two obstructions to God." All of these references from the Upanishads and the texts of the saints, show agreement with the words of the Buddha, not difference. Ineffable Divine and Silence One person may say the true form of God is Nameless (transcending any human definition), a second person may say the true form of God is Soundless (nihshabda; beyond sound), and yet a third may keep silence in regard to the nature of the Divine. Is it logical to simply label the one who keeps silence an atheist? The wise person should reflect on this matter. If you say that the Divine Reality is nameless and then proceed to describe Him, are you not contradicting yourself! How can you describe something which is nameless? In thinking about this example, one might well conclude that the third person, who was silent when describing God, was actually closer to the nameless description of God. Keeping silence in answer to the question of the nature of the Divine, is also found in the Upanishads. A prime example of this is found in the famous discourse between Sage Vashishta and Shri Ram in the Yoga Vashistha. Shri Rama had queried Guru Vasistha about the nature of Atman and Brahman (the Supreme Reality). In response the Guru remained silent. Ram repeated the question. Guru Vasistha remained silent. Shri Rama asked a third time, and still the great sage remained mute. With joined palms Ram asked his teacher Vasistha: "Reverend Sir! Are you displeased with me and therefore not answering my question, since you always assist me in understanding?" Guru Vasistha replied: "My dear son! I am not displeased with you. I have been answering the question which you have posed. The answer to your question is only given in silence, since the Divine is ineffable, unmanifest, and beyond the senses. How could I describe the nature of the reality which transcends the senses through these very sense organs (speech)?" The point here is that if we were to call the Buddha an atheist when he is silent on the question of the nature of the Divine, as some people have, then logically we must also call Guru Vasistha an atheist when he is silent in answer to the same question. Shunya and Transcendent Reality Some scholars have discounted the Buddha’s teachings, claiming that he is promulgating a belief in "emptiness" or "nothingness." These scholars have concluded that the Buddha, does not believe in a Higher Reality (God). Therefore, they argue, his philosophy should be considered as nihilistic. According to their reasoning, it would follow that those who teach about "emptiness" or "nothingness" (shunya) [the transcendent form of Ultimate Reality is also referred to as shunya] cannot be theistic. However, teachings about shunyata (emptiness) are not only found in Buddhist literature, but are also prominent in the writings of many of the saints. Here are some examples: Gorakh Nath Ji says: "It (God) is neither existent nor non-existent (shunya), its nature is beyond the reach of senses and thought." Sant Kabir Sahab says: "Meditation on the Formless (shunya) is enjoyed by all knowers of Truth." Guru Nanak Dev Ji says: "In the thought-less state of Samadhi (sunna, emptiness), neither maya (illusion) nor the web of mind exist. Only the gracious God exists." Paltu Sahab says: "Staying in solitude and meditate on emptiness (shunya)." Saint Dadu Dayal Ji says: "That Ultimate Reality is beyond the dual categories of qualified and unqualified, it is Emptiness which transcends emptiness (shunya)." Saint Charan Das says: "When the soul is absorbed on the peak (highest inner realm) of emptiness, then it experiences rapture." This emptiness is also known as ether (akasha) or void (avakasha). In the Ramcharitamanasa, Goswami Tulsi Das Ji invokes Lord Shiva: "I invoke the name of Shiva--Lord Shiva, who dwells in the space of infinite knowledge (akasha)" There are discussions about shunya in the Tantra Shastra and the Jnanasankalnii Tantra, where it says, "Meditation is not meditation unless the mind is united with Shunya". Maharishi Mehi says: "Consciousness that is traveling beyond sunna (void) and mahasunna (the great void) traverses the realm of bhanvar gupha (the whirling cave). There it experiences the sound of Truth (sat), which is the Original Sound. This Sound embodies the essence of the spiritual preceptor. 0 Practitioner! Hold on to that sound and become one with that True Sound." In the Upanishads there are multiple references to Emptiness or Space (shunya). In the fourth Brahmana of the Mandala Brahmanopanishad it is said: "There are five kinds of celestial Shunya (ether) which are increasingly more subtle: akasham, parakasham, Mahakasham, Suryakasham and Parmakasham. The infinite light permeates all of these akasham, but the Parmakasham is ineffable and is brimming with infinite bliss. It is the essential element." When one considers all these descriptions of Shunya (emptiness or void), the question arises whether the composers of the Upanishads and the saints were atheists. The unequivocal response is, of course, that they are not atheists. How then could one logically consider the Buddha to be an atheist? The Buddha regularly speaks of both nirvana and Shunya in almost identical terminology, and yet he is accused of atheism solely on the basis of his silence on this question about the nature of God. -- Sant Sevi Ji Maharaj Sant Sevi Ji Paramahans Maharaj Hinduism accepts the Buddha as an avatar of Vishnu, one of the gods of the Hindu trinity. The Buddhists do not accept any Hindu god either as equivalent or superior to the Buddha. In Buddhism, the Hindu gods are relegated to different roles but they are not more important the the Buddhas. Buddhism believes in Bodhisattvas. Hinduism does not believe in them. Well as we have just explained Nirvana, is the state were one is ONE with Brahman or God or VISHNU (where he experiences emptiness)!! In Buddhism and Hinduism, when a Soul achieves Enlightenment, it enters the realm of Nirvana or in other words reunites with God or VISHNU!! So therefore, through Buddhism and Hinduism the Buddha is considered to an AVATAR OF VISHNU!! Plus this proves that Hindu gods/Goddess, were just normal Bodhisattvas!! A Bodhisattva, Satguru, Sant, Saint and Avatar are technically the same thing. An Enlightened and Realized Soul, whose purpose is, too guide other Souls to their own Enlightenment/Moksha. The Buddhists consider the world as suffering and regard ending suffering as the chief aim of human life. The Hindus consider that there are four chief aims (arthas) in life which every being should pursue. They are dharma (religious duty), artha (wealth or material possessions), kama (desires and passions) and moksha (salvation.) Well the four Hindu arm chiefs, are technically the same as the One Buddhist arm chief. According to a Satsang of our Satguru, from a Sant Mat/Hindu tradition, during our Human Life we must gain hold of dharma and Moksha, and destroy Karma and Artha. Even according to Buddhism, Karma and Artha are the products causing one to suffer. Hindus also believe in the four stages of life (each cycle of 25 years having a role to play.) This is not followed in Buddhism. People can participate any time depending upon their spiritual advancement, not their age. Again the four stages of life and the Casting System, have been confused throughout Hinduism in the ages. The four stages of life, just show the stages of life which one is more able to achieve Enlightenment and less able to achieve Enlightenment. Look, at this picture. It shows all the differenment stages to God and all the different people at each stage. The original meaning behind the casting system, was this! An untouchable, was an atheist, or not very religious plus maya like person. A Brahmin, is someone, who is enlightened and at one with Brahman. A warrior, is someone, who is fighting the evil of the maya to achieve enlightenment. A Vaisya, is someone, seeking a Satguru or trying to impress his Satguru. The casting system, was never meant to be confused,with names in society nor discriminate against anyone. This is all a misunderstanding of the Satguru's message!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! All Sants/Satgurus, therefore oppose the modern and incorrect casting system of India!! Guru Nanak, Kabir Sahib, Ramanada and the Geatuma Buddha, are famous, for there battles against the modern casting system!! The social body The social body and its components are likened to the human form. Society is compared to a body with the brahmanas as the head, kshatriyas as the arms, vaishyas as the belly (or thighs) and the shudras as the legs Social functions are determined according to this analogy. For example, the brahmanas are the eyes and mouth of society. They provide a spiritual vision for society and teach people accordingly. Just as the arms are raised to defend the body, the kshatriya's main duty is to protect society. The vaishya's main duty is material nourishment, and the shudra supports all other sections of society. The ashrams are sometimes related to the same metaphor, with the successive stages of student life, household life, retirement and renunciation represented by the legs, belly, arms and head respectively. Buddhists organize themselves into a monastic Order (Sangha) and the monks live in groups. Hinduism is basically an individualistic religion. Certain Hindu groups follow this rule. Refuge in the Buddha, the Sangha and Dharma are the three cardinal requirements on the eightfold path. Hinduism offers many choices to its followers on the path of self-realization. Hinduism, may offer many paths to self-realization, but they all include require refuge in the; the Buddha (Satguru), Sangha (spiritual community) and Dharma (religious duty.) Although both religions believe in karma and rebirth, they differ in the manner in which they operate and impact the existence of individual beings. Above, I have explained the how Buddhism does describe an Atman/Soul concept through a Non Self/Emptiness concept, used a lot in Vedic Hinduism. Source of these so-called differences; http://www.japanese-buddhism.com/hinduism.html These prinples are true about Buddhism, Hinduism and Sant Mat; Both Hinduism and Buddhism teaches that the true nature of the world is illusion and that karma is what is keeping men tied to this world and the cycle of births and deaths. Buddha taught that desire is the main cause of suffering and removal of desire results in the cessation of suffering. Some of the Hindu texts such as the Upanishads (Isa) and the Bhagavadgita state that by accomplishing an action due to desire and attachment we are lead to bondage and suffering. On the contrary, if we accomplish an action without selfish desire, we are closer to liberation from the karmic cycle. Both religions believe in the concept of karma and the reincarnation of souls. Both preach compassion and non violence towards all living beings. Both believe in the existence of several hells and heavens or higher and lower worlds. Both believe in the existence of gods or deities on different planes. Both believe in certain spiritual practices like meditation, concentration, cultivation of certain mood of ecstasy and the channeling of these emotional energies that is induced by the maturing of devotion. Both believe in detachment, renunciation of worldly riches as a prerequisite to enter to spiritual life. Both consider desire as the chief cause of suffering. Buddhism and Hinduism have their own versions of Tantra. Both originated and evolved on the Indian soil. The founder of Buddhism was a Hindu who became the Buddha. The Gautama Buddha, Krishna and Lord Rama plus all the other Hindu Sages were all Satgurus/Saints (Enlightened and God/Vishnu realized souls.) They all came to save other Souls from this evil Maya/Samsara of life and death, plus enlighten other Souls. They considered the quality of God to be of emptiness. They all believed God was always incarnated down on earth in the form of a Satguru/Sant/Saint/Bodhisattva/Buddha. They all believed in the; Soul/Atman, reincarnation, Maya/illusion of life concept, ONE GOD, the Vedic time scale, the Dharmic concepts of Suffering and religion Hinduism/Sant Mat and Buddhism. http://www.hinduwebsite.com/hinduism/h_buddhism.asp As we are aware, these two faiths are very similar, mainly due to their routes in India. Although the two faiths are generally accused of having many differences. This is not true!! Buddhism and Hinduism/Sant Mat share exactly the same teachings. These are the so called, difference between the faiths; Hinduism is not founded by any particular person. Buddhism was founded by the Buddha. So, how does this create any major difference in the teachings of the faiths? Besides, as you will discover the Gautama Buddha, never created Buddhism. The Buddhist faith just grows out of Hinduism. Hinduism believes in the efficacy and supremacy of the Vedic texts. The Buddhist do not believe in these texts or any Hindu scripture. (unlike the Christians adopting the Torah as the Old Testament) Well the Buddha, the Buddhist scriptures or no other Bodhisattva, has ever denied the existence of the Vedas or Vedic texts. The Buddha just said “Oh all those un wise priest, in the temples who read those scriptures. They know nothing about their religion.” Although Swami Ramakrishna (a Hindu Saint) even said; “Many good sayings are to be found in holy books, but merely reading them will not make one religious.” This is clearly obvious, as many of the priests during the time, preformed animal sacrifice, which was opposed in the Gita!!!! Plus everything in the Buddhist texts is technically the same as that in the Vedic texts, as you will see!! Even in the Jakatales Lord Rama and Lord Krishna plus their stories appear. Hindus believe in the Atman, a concept closely related to a primordial soul, or God. Buddhism teaches that the belief in the Atman is the prime consequence of ignorance, which is itself the cause of all misery and the foundation of samsāra (the cycle of rebirth). Buddhism acknowledge the existence of some gods and goddesses of Hindu pantheon, but give them a rather subordinate status. Well Buddhism is accused of not including a God or a Soul/Atman concept. Not so! Buddhism, due to its strong beliefs that the Lord is emptiness, is considered to deny any existence of the God and the Atman/Soul, as well as the idea of Moksha and the soul reuniting with Brahman. Rubbish!! Of course, there is a God and Soul inBuddhism, as we explained Brahman/Atman(as the Atman is a part of God or Brahman), is nothing!! Plus the soul, experiences nothing when reunited with Brahman(as Brahman is nothing), so the Buddhist Nirvana and Hindu Moksha are united!! I mean Heaven, Such Khand, Brahman and Nirvana are all the same, as all faiths lead to the same god!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Read this; Was Buddha An Atheist? By Sant Sevi Ji Paramahans Maharaj The Harmony of All Religions: Santmat [[[[[Copyright 2007, All Rights Reserved]]]]] From the Chapter on Buddhism: All the theistic religions of the world recognize the existence of God. The Divine Being is referred to by various names due to different languages: Brahman (Hindu), God (Christianity), Allah (Islam), Buddha (Buddhism), Tao (Taoism), Yahweh (Judaism), and Ahur Mazd (Zoroastrianism). We can say that a religion with a belief in God is a theistic religion. Religions which do not have a belief in God would be called atheistic. Upon careful consideration, we can see that there are in fact two types of atheism: entirely atheistic and partially atheistic. The Belief Systems which do not have a belief in the existence of either God or soul are considered to be entirely atheistic. Those which do have a belief in the soul but not in Godare considered partially atheistic. In modern times some scholars have interpreted the Buddha’s silence on the issue of the existence of God as atheistic. In their opinion, Buddharefused to answer any questions regarding the existence of the Divine Reality and the Soul (Atman or Jivatman), and therefore they have concluded that Buddha was an atheist. However, in my opinion these kinds of conclusions demonstrate limited knowledge and ignorance about the essence of the Buddhist texts. In fact, Buddhist literature contains multiple references to the soul (atta or atman), the Lord (Natha), and the maker of the body. Examples can be found even in the fairly short book Dhammapada, where Buddha elaborates on Soul or self (atta): "The atman is the lord of atman. What else could be the Lord? When the individual self jiivatman) is well subdued, a man finds the Lord (Natha) who is difficult to fathom" (Dhammapada 12/4). Some scholars have interpreted the word ’lord’ in this verse as if it literally means ’lordship’. However, even a cursory examination of the words in Pali, the original language of these texts, yields the true meaning. In Pali the word ’lord’ is in the second case accusative, and therefore it would best be translated as ’to the lord’. The noted Buddhist scholar Bhikshu Rahul Sankrityayan has explained this in his rendering of this verse of the Dhammapada: "A man is the lord of himself Who else then could be the lord? If the self is wholly disciplined then he is able to attain a lord who is difficult to be attained." Buddha addresses the creator of the body: "Oh maker of the house I have seen you." (Jaravaggo) "Impermanence" of Buddhism and "Maya" of the Vedic Dharma In the Vedanta literature, the Upanishads, and in the literature of the saints, this physical world is said to comprise both name and form, and is referred to as maya. It is understood to be illusory and not real, to be ever changing, and dependent upon a higher reality In the Chandogya Upanishad, Brhidarnyaka Upanishad, Mundaka Upanishad, and Prashna Upanishad it is repeatedly stated that the nature of the world is transitory, destructible, and not real. Therefore, we must seek for that essence which is constant, true and unchanging by transcending these realms of name and form. The world of name and form is also described as avidya (ignorance) in the Katha and Mundaka Upanishads. In the Shvetashvatara Upanishad, the world is also described as illusory maya. The Upanishads also explain that: "The soul (atman), which is beyond name and form, is brimming with joy and tranquility. In its Turiyatita form (the fifth state -- a state of cosmic consciousness; a state of unity with the source), atman is beyond good and evil" (Teja bindu Upanishad). Lord Buddha says: "A mendicant is one who has no attachment to the world of name and form. He is one who does not grieve for what is not real (asat, the ever changing reality). This is the true mendicant. (Dhammapada, Bhikkhuvaggo)." In the Ramcharitmanasa Saint Tulsida says: "Name and form are the two obstructions to God." All of these references from the Upanishads and the texts of the saints, show agreement with the words of the Buddha, not difference. Ineffable Divine and Silence One person may say the true form of God is Nameless (transcending any human definition), a second person may say the true form of God is Soundless (nihshabda; beyond sound), and yet a third may keep silence in regard to the nature of the Divine. Is it logical to simply label the one who keeps silence an atheist? The wise person should reflect on this matter. If you say that the Divine Reality is nameless and then proceed to describe Him, are you not contradicting yourself! How can you describe something which is nameless? In thinking about this example, one might well conclude that the third person, who was silent when describing God, was actually closer to the nameless description of God. Keeping silence in answer to the question of the nature of the Divine, is also found in the Upanishads. A prime example of this is found in the famous discourse between Sage Vashishta and Shri Ram in the Yoga Vashistha. Shri Rama had queried Guru Vasistha about the nature of Atman and Brahman (the Supreme Reality). In response the Guru remained silent. Ram repeated the question. Guru Vasistha remained silent. Shri Rama asked a third time, and still the great sage remained mute. With joined palms Ram asked his teacher Vasistha: "Reverend Sir! Are you displeased with me and therefore not answering my question, since you always assist me in understanding?" Guru Vasistha replied: "My dear son! I am not displeased with you. I have been answering the question which you have posed. The answer to your question is only given in silence, since the Divine is ineffable, unmanifest, and beyond the senses. How could I describe the nature of the reality which transcends the senses through these very sense organs (speech)?" The point here is that if we were to call the Buddha an atheist when he is silent on the question of the nature of the Divine, as some people have, then logically we must also call Guru Vasistha an atheist when he is silent in answer to the same question. Shunya and Transcendent Reality Some scholars have discounted the Buddha’s teachings, claiming that he is promulgating a belief in "emptiness" or "nothingness." These scholars have concluded that the Buddha, does not believe in a Higher Reality (God). Therefore, they argue, his philosophy should be considered as nihilistic. According to their reasoning, it would follow that those who teach about "emptiness" or "nothingness" (shunya) [the transcendent form of Ultimate Reality is also referred to as shunya] cannot be theistic. However, teachings about shunyata (emptiness) are not only found in Buddhist literature, but are also prominent in the writings of many of the saints. Here are some examples: Gorakh Nath Ji says: "It (God) is neither existent nor non-existent (shunya), its nature is beyond the reach of senses and thought." Sant Kabir Sahab says: "Meditation on the Formless (shunya) is enjoyed by all knowers of Truth." Guru Nanak Dev Ji says: "In the thought-less state of Samadhi (sunna, emptiness), neither maya (illusion) nor the web of mind exist. Only the gracious God exists." Paltu Sahab says: "Staying in solitude and meditate on emptiness (shunya)." Saint Dadu Dayal Ji says: "That Ultimate Reality is beyond the dual categories of qualified and unqualified, it is Emptiness which transcends emptiness (shunya)." Saint Charan Das says: "When the soul is absorbed on the peak (highest inner realm) of emptiness, then it experiences rapture." This emptiness is also known as ether (akasha) or void (avakasha). In the Ramcharitamanasa, Goswami Tulsi Das Ji invokes Lord Shiva: "I invoke the name of Shiva--Lord Shiva, who dwells in the space of infinite knowledge (akasha)" There are discussions about shunya in the Tantra Shastra and the Jnanasankalnii Tantra, where it says, "Meditation is not meditation unless the mind is united with Shunya". Maharishi Mehi says: "Consciousness that is traveling beyond sunna (void) and mahasunna (the great void) traverses the realm of bhanvar gupha (the whirling cave). There it experiences the sound of Truth (sat), which is the Original Sound. This Sound embodies the essence of the spiritual preceptor. 0 Practitioner! Hold on to that sound and become one with that True Sound." In the Upanishads there are multiple references to Emptiness or Space (shunya). In the fourth Brahmana of the Mandala Brahmanopanishad it is said: "There are five kinds of celestial Shunya (ether) which are increasingly more subtle: akasham, parakasham, Mahakasham, Suryakasham and Parmakasham. The infinite light permeates all of these akasham, but the Parmakasham is ineffable and is brimming with infinite bliss. It is the essential element." When one considers all these descriptions of Shunya (emptiness or void), the question arises whether the composers of the Upanishads and the saints were atheists. The unequivocal response is, of course, that they are not atheists. How then could one logically consider the Buddha to be an atheist? The Buddha regularly speaks of both nirvana and Shunya in almost identical terminology, and yet he is accused of atheism solely on the basis of his silence on this question about the nature of God. -- Sant Sevi Ji Maharaj Sant Sevi Ji Paramahans Maharaj Hinduism accepts the Buddha as an avatar of Vishnu, one of the gods of the Hindu trinity. The Buddhists do not accept any Hindu god either as equivalent or superior to the Buddha. In Buddhism, the Hindu gods are relegated to different roles but they are not more important the the Buddhas. Buddhism believes in Bodhisattvas. Hinduism does not believe in them. Well as we have just explained Nirvana, is the state were one is ONE with Brahman or God or VISHNU (where he experiences emptiness)!! In Buddhism and Hinduism, when a Soul achieves Enlightenment, it enters the realm of Nirvana or in other words reunites with God or VISHNU!! So therefore, through Buddhism and Hinduism the Buddha is considered to an AVATAR OF VISHNU!! Plus this proves that Hindu gods/Goddess, were just normal Bodhisattvas!! A Bodhisattva, Satguru, Sant, Saint and Avatar are technically the same thing. An Enlightened and Realized Soul, whose purpose is, too guide other Souls to their own Enlightenment/Moksha. The Buddhists consider the world as suffering and regard ending suffering as the chief aim of human life. The Hindus consider that there are four chief aims (arthas) in life which every being should pursue. They are dharma (religious duty), artha (wealth or material possessions), kama (desires and passions) and moksha (salvation.) Well the four Hindu arm chiefs, are technically the same as the One Buddhist arm chief. According to a Satsang of our Satguru, from a Sant Mat/Hindu tradition, during our Human Life we must gain hold of dharma and Moksha, and destroy Karma and Artha. Even according to Buddhism, Karma and Artha are the products causing one to suffer. Hindus also believe in the four stages of life (each cycle of 25 years having a role to play.) This is not followed in Buddhism. People can participate any time depending upon their spiritual advancement, not their age. Again the four stages of life and the Casting System, have been confused throughout Hinduism in the ages. The four stages of life, just show the stages of life which one is more able to achieve Enlightenment and less able to achieve Enlightenment. Look, at this picture. It shows all the differenment stages to God and all the different people at each stage. The original meaning behind the casting system, was this! An untouchable, was an atheist, or not very religious plus maya like person. A Brahmin, is someone, who is enlightened and at one with Brahman. A warrior, is someone, who is fighting the evil of the maya to achieve enlightenment. A Vaisya, is someone, seeking a Satguru or trying to impress his Satguru. The casting system, was never meant to be confused,with names in society nor discriminate against anyone. This is all a misunderstanding of the Satguru's message!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! All Sants/Satgurus, therefore oppose the modern and incorrect casting system of India!! Guru Nanak, Kabir Sahib, Ramanada and the Geatuma Buddha, are famous, for there battles against the modern casting system!! The social body The social body and its components are likened to the human form. Society is compared to a body with the brahmanas as the head, kshatriyas as the arms, vaishyas as the belly (or thighs) and the shudras as the legs Social functions are determined according to this analogy. For example, the brahmanas are the eyes and mouth of society. They provide a spiritual vision for society and teach people accordingly. Just as the arms are raised to defend the body, the kshatriya's main duty is to protect society. The vaishya's main duty is material nourishment, and the shudra supports all other sections of society. The ashrams are sometimes related to the same metaphor, with the successive stages of student life, household life, retirement and renunciation represented by the legs, belly, arms and head respectively. Buddhists organize themselves into a monastic Order (Sangha) and the monks live in groups. Hinduism is basically an individualistic religion. Certain Hindu groups follow this rule. Refuge in the Buddha, the Sangha and Dharma are the three cardinal requirements on the eightfold path. Hinduism offers many choices to its followers on the path of self-realization. Hinduism, may offer many paths to self-realization, but they all include require refuge in the; the Buddha (Satguru), Sangha (spiritual community) and Dharma (religious duty.) Although both religions believe in karma and rebirth, they differ in the manner in which they operate and impact the existence of individual beings. Above, I have explained the how Buddhism does describe an Atman/Soul concept through a Non Self/Emptiness concept, used a lot in Vedic Hinduism. Source of these so-called differences; http://www.japanese-buddhism.com/hinduism.html These prinples are true about Buddhism, Hinduism and Sant Mat; Both Hinduism and Buddhism teaches that the true nature of the world is illusion and that karma is what is keeping men tied to this world and the cycle of births and deaths. Buddha taught that desire is the main cause of suffering and removal of desire results in the cessation of suffering. Some of the Hindu texts such as the Upanishads (Isa) and the Bhagavadgita state that by accomplishing an action due to desire and attachment we are lead to bondage and suffering. On the contrary, if we accomplish an action without selfish desire, we are closer to liberation from the karmic cycle. Both religions believe in the concept of karma and the reincarnation of souls. Both preach compassion and non violence towards all living beings. Both believe in the existence of several hells and heavens or higher and lower worlds. Both believe in the existence of gods or deities on different planes. Both believe in certain spiritual practices like meditation, concentration, cultivation of certain mood of ecstasy and the channeling of these emotional energies that is induced by the maturing of devotion. Both believe in detachment, renunciation of worldly riches as a prerequisite to enter to spiritual life. Both consider desire as the chief cause of suffering. Buddhism and Hinduism have their own versions of Tantra. Both originated and evolved on the Indian soil. The founder of Buddhism was a Hindu who became the Buddha. The Gautama Buddha, Krishna and Lord Rama plus all the other Hindu Sages were all Satgurus/Saints (Enlightened and God/Vishnu realized souls.) They all came to save other Souls from this evil Maya/Samsara of life and death, plus enlighten other Souls. They considered the quality of God to be of emptiness. They all believed God was always incarnated down on earth in the form of a Satguru/Sant/Saint/Bodhisattva/Buddha. They all believed in the; Soul/Atman, reincarnation, Maya/illusion of life concept, ONE GOD, the Vedic time scale, the Dharmic concepts of Suffering and religion
Hinduism/Sant Mat and Buddhism. http://www.hinduwebsite.com/hinduism/h_buddhism.asp As we are aware, these two faiths are very similar, mainly due to their routes in India. Although the two faiths are generally accused of having many differences. This is not true!! Buddhism and Hinduism/Sant Mat share exactly the same teachings. These are the so called, difference between the faiths; Hinduism is not founded by any particular person. Buddhism was founded by the Buddha. So, how does this create any major difference in the teachings of the faiths? Besides, as you will discover the Gautama Buddha, never created Buddhism. The Buddhist faith just grows out of Hinduism. Hinduism believes in the efficacy and supremacy of the Vedic texts. The Buddhist do not believe in these texts or any Hindu scripture. (unlike the Christians adopting the Torah as the Old Testament) Well the Buddha, the Buddhist scriptures or no other Bodhisattva, has ever denied the existence of the Vedas or Vedic texts. The Buddha just said “Oh all those un wise priest, in the temples who read those scriptures. They know nothing about their religion.” Although Swami Ramakrishna (a Hindu Saint) even said; “Many good sayings are to be found in holy books, but merely reading them will not make one religious.” This is clearly obvious, as many of the priests during the time, preformed animal sacrifice, which was opposed in the Gita!!!! Plus everything in the Buddhist texts is technically the same as that in the Vedic texts, as you will see!! Even in the Jakatales Lord Rama and Lord Krishna plus their stories appear. Hindus believe in the Atman, a concept closely related to a primordial soul, or God. Buddhism teaches that the belief in the Atman is the prime consequence of ignorance, which is itself the cause of all misery and the foundation of samsāra (the cycle of rebirth). Buddhism acknowledge the existence of some gods and goddesses of Hindu pantheon, but give them a rather subordinate status. Well Buddhism is accused of not including a God or a Soul/Atman concept. Not so! Buddhism, due to its strong beliefs that the Lord is emptiness, is considered to deny any existence of the God and the Atman/Soul, as well as the idea of Moksha and the soul reuniting with Brahman. Rubbish!! Of course, there is a God and Soul inBuddhism, as we explained Brahman/Atman(as the Atman is a part of God or Brahman), is nothing!! Plus the soul, experiences nothing when reunited with Brahman(as Brahman is nothing), so the Buddhist Nirvana and Hindu Moksha are united!! I mean Heaven, Such Khand, Brahman and Nirvana are all the same, as all faiths lead to the same god!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Read this; Was Buddha An Atheist? By Sant Sevi Ji Paramahans Maharaj The Harmony of All Religions: Santmat [[[[[Copyright 2007, All Rights Reserved]]]]] From the Chapter on Buddhism: All the theistic religions of the world recognize the existence of God. The Divine Being is referred to by various names due to different languages: Brahman (Hindu), God (Christianity), Allah (Islam), Buddha (Buddhism), Tao (Taoism), Yahweh (Judaism), and Ahur Mazd (Zoroastrianism). We can say that a religion with a belief in God is a theistic religion. Religions which do not have a belief in God would be called atheistic. Upon careful consideration, we can see that there are in fact two types of atheism: entirely atheistic and partially atheistic. The Belief Systems which do not have a belief in the existence of either God or soul are considered to be entirely atheistic. Those which do have a belief in the soul but not in Godare considered partially atheistic. In modern times some scholars have interpreted the Buddha’s silence on the issue of the existence of God as atheistic. In their opinion, Buddharefused to answer any questions regarding the existence of the Divine Reality and the Soul (Atman or Jivatman), and therefore they have concluded that Buddha was an atheist. However, in my opinion these kinds of conclusions demonstrate limited knowledge and ignorance about the essence of the Buddhist texts. In fact, Buddhist literature contains multiple references to the soul (atta or atman), the Lord (Natha), and the maker of the body. Examples can be found even in the fairly short book Dhammapada, where Buddha elaborates on Soul or self (atta): "The atman is the lord of atman. What else could be the Lord? When the individual self jiivatman) is well subdued, a man finds the Lord (Natha) who is difficult to fathom" (Dhammapada 12/4). Some scholars have interpreted the word ’lord’ in this verse as if it literally means ’lordship’. However, even a cursory examination of the words in Pali, the original language of these texts, yields the true meaning. In Pali the word ’lord’ is in the second case accusative, and therefore it would best be translated as ’to the lord’. The noted Buddhist scholar Bhikshu Rahul Sankrityayan has explained this in his rendering of this verse of the Dhammapada: "A man is the lord of himself Who else then could be the lord? If the self is wholly disciplined then he is able to attain a lord who is difficult to be attained." Buddha addresses the creator of the body: "Oh maker of the house I have seen you." (Jaravaggo) "Impermanence" of Buddhism and "Maya" of the Vedic Dharma In the Vedanta literature, the Upanishads, and in the literature of the saints, this physical world is said to comprise both name and form, and is referred to as maya. It is understood to be illusory and not real, to be ever changing, and dependent upon a higher reality In the Chandogya Upanishad, Brhidarnyaka Upanishad, Mundaka Upanishad, and Prashna Upanishad it is repeatedly stated that the nature of the world is transitory, destructible, and not real. Therefore, we must seek for that essence which is constant, true and unchanging by transcending these realms of name and form. The world of name and form is also described as avidya (ignorance) in the Katha and Mundaka Upanishads. In the Shvetashvatara Upanishad, the world is also described as illusory maya. The Upanishads also explain that: "The soul (atman), which is beyond name and form, is brimming with joy and tranquility. In its Turiyatita form (the fifth state -- a state of cosmic consciousness; a state of unity with the source), atman is beyond good and evil" (Teja bindu Upanishad). Lord Buddha says: "A mendicant is one who has no attachment to the world of name and form. He is one who does not grieve for what is not real (asat, the ever changing reality). This is the true mendicant. (Dhammapada, Bhikkhuvaggo)." In the Ramcharitmanasa Saint Tulsida says: "Name and form are the two obstructions to God." All of these references from the Upanishads and the texts of the saints, show agreement with the words of the Buddha, not difference. Ineffable Divine and Silence One person may say the true form of God is Nameless (transcending any human definition), a second person may say the true form of God is Soundless (nihshabda; beyond sound), and yet a third may keep silence in regard to the nature of the Divine. Is it logical to simply label the one who keeps silence an atheist? The wise person should reflect on this matter. If you say that the Divine Reality is nameless and then proceed to describe Him, are you not contradicting yourself! How can you describe something which is nameless? In thinking about this example, one might well conclude that the third person, who was silent when describing God, was actually closer to the nameless description of God. Keeping silence in answer to the question of the nature of the Divine, is also found in the Upanishads. A prime example of this is found in the famous discourse between Sage Vashishta and Shri Ram in the Yoga Vashistha. Shri Rama had queried Guru Vasistha about the nature of Atman and Brahman (the Supreme Reality). In response the Guru remained silent. Ram repeated the question. Guru Vasistha remained silent. Shri Rama asked a third time, and still the great sage remained mute. With joined palms Ram asked his teacher Vasistha: "Reverend Sir! Are you displeased with me and therefore not answering my question, since you always assist me in understanding?" Guru Vasistha replied: "My dear son! I am not displeased with you. I have been answering the question which you have posed. The answer to your question is only given in silence, since the Divine is ineffable, unmanifest, and beyond the senses. How could I describe the nature of the reality which transcends the senses through these very sense organs (speech)?" The point here is that if we were to call the Buddha an atheist when he is silent on the question of the nature of the Divine, as some people have, then logically we must also call Guru Vasistha an atheist when he is silent in answer to the same question. Shunya and Transcendent Reality Some scholars have discounted the Buddha’s teachings, claiming that he is promulgating a belief in "emptiness" or "nothingness." These scholars have concluded that the Buddha, does not believe in a Higher Reality (God). Therefore, they argue, his philosophy should be considered as nihilistic. According to their reasoning, it would follow that those who teach about "emptiness" or "nothingness" (shunya) [the transcendent form of Ultimate Reality is also referred to as shunya] cannot be theistic. However, teachings about shunyata (emptiness) are not only found in Buddhist literature, but are also prominent in the writings of many of the saints. Here are some examples: Gorakh Nath Ji says: "It (God) is neither existent nor non-existent (shunya), its nature is beyond the reach of senses and thought." Sant Kabir Sahab says: "Meditation on the Formless (shunya) is enjoyed by all knowers of Truth." Guru Nanak Dev Ji says: "In the thought-less state of Samadhi (sunna, emptiness), neither maya (illusion) nor the web of mind exist. Only the gracious God exists." Paltu Sahab says: "Staying in solitude and meditate on emptiness (shunya)." Saint Dadu Dayal Ji says: "That Ultimate Reality is beyond the dual categories of qualified and unqualified, it is Emptiness which transcends emptiness (shunya)." Saint Charan Das says: "When the soul is absorbed on the peak (highest inner realm) of emptiness, then it experiences rapture." This emptiness is also known as ether (akasha) or void (avakasha). In the Ramcharitamanasa, Goswami Tulsi Das Ji invokes Lord Shiva: "I invoke the name of Shiva--Lord Shiva, who dwells in the space of infinite knowledge (akasha)" There are discussions about shunya in the Tantra Shastra and the Jnanasankalnii Tantra, where it says, "Meditation is not meditation unless the mind is united with Shunya". Maharishi Mehi says: "Consciousness that is traveling beyond sunna (void) and mahasunna (the great void) traverses the realm of bhanvar gupha (the whirling cave). There it experiences the sound of Truth (sat), which is the Original Sound. This Sound embodies the essence of the spiritual preceptor. 0 Practitioner! Hold on to that sound and become one with that True Sound." In the Upanishads there are multiple references to Emptiness or Space (shunya). In the fourth Brahmana of the Mandala Brahmanopanishad it is said: "There are five kinds of celestial Shunya (ether) which are increasingly more subtle: akasham, parakasham, Mahakasham, Suryakasham and Parmakasham. The infinite light permeates all of these akasham, but the Parmakasham is ineffable and is brimming with infinite bliss. It is the essential element." When one considers all these descriptions of Shunya (emptiness or void), the question arises whether the composers of the Upanishads and the saints were atheists. The unequivocal response is, of course, that they are not atheists. How then could one logically consider the Buddha to be an atheist? The Buddha regularly speaks of both nirvana and Shunya in almost identical terminology, and yet he is accused of atheism solely on the basis of his silence on this question about the nature of God. -- Sant Sevi Ji Maharaj Sant Sevi Ji Paramahans Maharaj Hinduism accepts the Buddha as an avatar of Vishnu, one of the gods of the Hindu trinity. The Buddhists do not accept any Hindu god either as equivalent or superior to the Buddha. In Buddhism, the Hindu gods are relegated to different roles but they are not more important the the Buddhas. Buddhism believes in Bodhisattvas. Hinduism does not believe in them. Well as we have just explained Nirvana, is the state were one is ONE with Brahman or God or VISHNU (where he experiences emptiness)!! In Buddhism and Hinduism, when a Soul achieves Enlightenment, it enters the realm of Nirvana or in other words reunites with God or VISHNU!! So therefore, through Buddhism and Hinduism the Buddha is considered to an AVATAR OF VISHNU!! Plus this proves that Hindu gods/Goddess, were just normal Bodhisattvas!! A Bodhisattva, Satguru, Sant, Saint and Avatar are technically the same thing. An Enlightened and Realized Soul, whose purpose is, too guide other Souls to their own Enlightenment/Moksha. The Buddhists consider the world as suffering and regard ending suffering as the chief aim of human life. The Hindus consider that there are four chief aims (arthas) in life which every being should pursue. They are dharma (religious duty), artha (wealth or material possessions), kama (desires and passions) and moksha (salvation.) Well the four Hindu arm chiefs, are technically the same as the One Buddhist arm chief. According to a Satsang of our Satguru, from a Sant Mat/Hindu tradition, during our Human Life we must gain hold of dharma and Moksha, and destroy Karma and Artha. Even according to Buddhism, Karma and Artha are the products causing one to suffer. Hindus also believe in the four stages of life (each cycle of 25 years having a role to play.) This is not followed in Buddhism. People can participate any time depending upon their spiritual advancement, not their age. Again the four stages of life and the Casting System, have been confused throughout Hinduism in the ages. The four stages of life, just show the stages of life which one is more able to achieve Enlightenment and less able to achieve Enlightenment. Look, at this picture. It shows all the differenment stages to God and all the different people at each stage. The original meaning behind the casting system, was this! An untouchable, was an atheist, or not very religious plus maya like person. A Brahmin, is someone, who is enlightened and at one with Brahman. A warrior, is someone, who is fighting the evil of the maya to achieve enlightenment. A Vaisya, is someone, seeking a Satguru or trying to impress his Satguru. The casting system, was never meant to be confused,with names in society nor discriminate against anyone. This is all a misunderstanding of the Satguru's message!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! All Sants/Satgurus, therefore oppose the modern and incorrect casting system of India!! Guru Nanak, Kabir Sahib, Ramanada and the Geatuma Buddha, are famous, for there battles against the modern casting system!! The social body The social body and its components are likened to the human form. Society is compared to a body with the brahmanas as the head, kshatriyas as the arms, vaishyas as the belly (or thighs) and the shudras as the legs Social functions are determined according to this analogy. For example, the brahmanas are the eyes and mouth of society. They provide a spiritual vision for society and teach people accordingly. Just as the arms are raised to defend the body, the kshatriya's main duty is to protect society. The vaishya's main duty is material nourishment, and the shudra supports all other sections of society. The ashrams are sometimes related to the same metaphor, with the successive stages of student life, household life, retirement and renunciation represented by the legs, belly, arms and head respectively. Buddhists organize themselves into a monastic Order (Sangha) and the monks live in groups. Hinduism is basically an individualistic religion. Certain Hindu groups follow this rule. Refuge in the Buddha, the Sangha and Dharma are the three cardinal requirements on the eightfold path. Hinduism offers many choices to its followers on the path of self-realization. Hinduism, may offer many paths to self-realization, but they all include require refuge in the; the Buddha (Satguru), Sangha (spiritual community) and Dharma (religious duty.) Although both religions believe in karma and rebirth, they differ in the manner in which they operate and impact the existence of individual beings. Above, I have explained the how Buddhism does describe an Atman/Soul concept through a Non Self/Emptiness concept, used a lot in Vedic Hinduism. Source of these so-called differences; http://www.japanese-buddhism.com/hinduism.html These prinples are true about Buddhism, Hinduism and Sant Mat; Both Hinduism and Buddhism teaches that the true nature of the world is illusion and that karma is what is keeping men tied to this world and the cycle of births and deaths. Buddha taught that desire is the main cause of suffering and removal of desire results in the cessation of suffering. Some of the Hindu texts such as the Upanishads (Isa) and the Bhagavadgita state that by accomplishing an action due to desire and attachment we are lead to bondage and suffering. On the contrary, if we accomplish an action without selfish desire, we are closer to liberation from the karmic cycle. Both religions believe in the concept of karma and the reincarnation of souls. Both preach compassion and non violence towards all living beings. Both believe in the existence of several hells and heavens or higher and lower worlds. Both believe in the existence of gods or deities on different planes. Both believe in certain spiritual practices like meditation, concentration, cultivation of certain mood of ecstasy and the channeling of these emotional energies that is induced by the maturing of devotion. Both believe in detachment, renunciation of worldly riches as a prerequisite to enter to spiritual life. Both consider desire as the chief cause of suffering. Buddhism and Hinduism have their own versions of Tantra. Both originated and evolved on the Indian soil. The founder of Buddhism was a Hindu who became the Buddha. The Gautama Buddha, Krishna and Lord Rama plus all the other Hindu Sages were all Satgurus/Saints (Enlightened and God/Vishnu realized souls.) They all came to save other Souls from this evil Maya/Samsara of life and death, plus enlighten other Souls. They considered the quality of God to be of emptiness. They all believed God was always incarnated down on earth in the form of a Satguru/Sant/Saint/Bodhisattva/Buddha. They all believed in the; Soul/Atman, reincarnation, Maya/illusion of life concept, ONE GOD, the Vedic time scale, the Dharmic concepts of Suffering and religion Hinduism/Sant Mat and Buddhism. http://www.hinduwebsite.com/hinduism/h_buddhism.asp As we are aware, these two faiths are very similar, mainly due to their routes in India. Although the two faiths are generally accused of having many differences. This is not true!! Buddhism and Hinduism/Sant Mat share exactly the same teachings. These are the so called, difference between the faiths; Hinduism is not founded by any particular person. Buddhism was founded by the Buddha. So, how does this create any major difference in the teachings of the faiths? Besides, as you will discover the Gautama Buddha, never created Buddhism. The Buddhist faith just grows out of Hinduism. Hinduism believes in the efficacy and supremacy of the Vedic texts. The Buddhist do not believe in these texts or any Hindu scripture. (unlike the Christians adopting the Torah as the Old Testament) Well the Buddha, the Buddhist scriptures or no other Bodhisattva, has ever denied the existence of the Vedas or Vedic texts. The Buddha just said “Oh all those un wise priest, in the temples who read those scriptures. They know nothing about their religion.” Although Swami Ramakrishna (a Hindu Saint) even said; “Many good sayings are to be found in holy books, but merely reading them will not make one religious.” This is clearly obvious, as many of the priests during the time, preformed animal sacrifice, which was opposed in the Gita!!!! Plus everything in the Buddhist texts is technically the same as that in the Vedic texts, as you will see!! Even in the Jakatales Lord Rama and Lord Krishna plus their stories appear. Hindus believe in the Atman, a concept closely related to a primordial soul, or God. Buddhism teaches that the belief in the Atman is the prime consequence of ignorance, which is itself the cause of all misery and the foundation of samsāra (the cycle of rebirth). Buddhism acknowledge the existence of some gods and goddesses of Hindu pantheon, but give them a rather subordinate status. Well Buddhism is accused of not including a God or a Soul/Atman concept. Not so! Buddhism, due to its strong beliefs that the Lord is emptiness, is considered to deny any existence of the God and the Atman/Soul, as well as the idea of Moksha and the soul reuniting with Brahman. Rubbish!! Of course, there is a God and Soul inBuddhism, as we explained Brahman/Atman(as the Atman is a part of God or Brahman), is nothing!! Plus the soul, experiences nothing when reunited with Brahman(as Brahman is nothing), so the Buddhist Nirvana and Hindu Moksha are united!! I mean Heaven, Such Khand, Brahman and Nirvana are all the same, as all faiths lead to the same god!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Read this; Was Buddha An Atheist? By Sant Sevi Ji Paramahans Maharaj The Harmony of All Religions: Santmat [[[[[Copyright 2007, All Rights Reserved]]]]] From the Chapter on Buddhism: All the theistic religions of the world recognize the existence of God. The Divine Being is referred to by various names due to different languages: Brahman (Hindu), God (Christianity), Allah (Islam), Buddha (Buddhism), Tao (Taoism), Yahweh (Judaism), and Ahur Mazd (Zoroastrianism). We can say that a religion with a belief in God is a theistic religion. Religions which do not have a belief in God would be called atheistic. Upon careful consideration, we can see that there are in fact two types of atheism: entirely atheistic and partially atheistic. The Belief Systems which do not have a belief in the existence of either God or soul are considered to be entirely atheistic. Those which do have a belief in the soul but not in Godare considered partially atheistic. In modern times some scholars have interpreted the Buddha’s silence on the issue of the existence of God as atheistic. In their opinion, Buddharefused to answer any questions regarding the existence of the Divine Reality and the Soul (Atman or Jivatman), and therefore they have concluded that Buddha was an atheist. However, in my opinion these kinds of conclusions demonstrate limited knowledge and ignorance about the essence of the Buddhist texts. In fact, Buddhist literature contains multiple references to the soul (atta or atman), the Lord (Natha), and the maker of the body. Examples can be found even in the fairly short book Dhammapada, where Buddha elaborates on Soul or self (atta): "The atman is the lord of atman. What else could be the Lord? When the individual self jiivatman) is well subdued, a man finds the Lord (Natha) who is difficult to fathom" (Dhammapada 12/4). Some scholars have interpreted the word ’lord’ in this verse as if it literally means ’lordship’. However, even a cursory examination of the words in Pali, the original language of these texts, yields the true meaning. In Pali the word ’lord’ is in the second case accusative, and therefore it would best be translated as ’to the lord’. The noted Buddhist scholar Bhikshu Rahul Sankrityayan has explained this in his rendering of this verse of the Dhammapada: "A man is the lord of himself Who else then could be the lord? If the self is wholly disciplined then he is able to attain a lord who is difficult to be attained." Buddha addresses the creator of the body: "Oh maker of the house I have seen you." (Jaravaggo) "Impermanence" of Buddhism and "Maya" of the Vedic Dharma In the Vedanta literature, the Upanishads, and in the literature of the saints, this physical world is said to comprise both name and form, and is referred to as maya. It is understood to be illusory and not real, to be ever changing, and dependent upon a higher reality In the Chandogya Upanishad, Brhidarnyaka Upanishad, Mundaka Upanishad, and Prashna Upanishad it is repeatedly stated that the nature of the world is transitory, destructible, and not real. Therefore, we must seek for that essence which is constant, true and unchanging by transcending these realms of name and form. The world of name and form is also described as avidya (ignorance) in the Katha and Mundaka Upanishads. In the Shvetashvatara Upanishad, the world is also described as illusory maya. The Upanishads also explain that: "The soul (atman), which is beyond name and form, is brimming with joy and tranquility. In its Turiyatita form (the fifth state -- a state of cosmic consciousness; a state of unity with the source), atman is beyond good and evil" (Teja bindu Upanishad). Lord Buddha says: "A mendicant is one who has no attachment to the world of name and form. He is one who does not grieve for what is not real (asat, the ever changing reality). This is the true mendicant. (Dhammapada, Bhikkhuvaggo)." In the Ramcharitmanasa Saint Tulsida says: "Name and form are the two obstructions to God." All of these references from the Upanishads and the texts of the saints, show agreement with the words of the Buddha, not difference. Ineffable Divine and Silence One person may say the true form of God is Nameless (transcending any human definition), a second person may say the true form of God is Soundless (nihshabda; beyond sound), and yet a third may keep silence in regard to the nature of the Divine. Is it logical to simply label the one who keeps silence an atheist? The wise person should reflect on this matter. If you say that the Divine Reality is nameless and then proceed to describe Him, are you not contradicting yourself! How can you describe something which is nameless? In thinking about this example, one might well conclude that the third person, who was silent when describing God, was actually closer to the nameless description of God. Keeping silence in answer to the question of the nature of the Divine, is also found in the Upanishads. A prime example of this is found in the famous discourse between Sage Vashishta and Shri Ram in the Yoga Vashistha. Shri Rama had queried Guru Vasistha about the nature of Atman and Brahman (the Supreme Reality). In response the Guru remained silent. Ram repeated the question. Guru Vasistha remained silent. Shri Rama asked a third time, and still the great sage remained mute. With joined palms Ram asked his teacher Vasistha: "Reverend Sir! Are you displeased with me and therefore not answering my question, since you always assist me in understanding?" Guru Vasistha replied: "My dear son! I am not displeased with you. I have been answering the question which you have posed. The answer to your question is only given in silence, since the Divine is ineffable, unmanifest, and beyond the senses. How could I describe the nature of the reality which transcends the senses through these very sense organs (speech)?" The point here is that if we were to call the Buddha an atheist when he is silent on the question of the nature of the Divine, as some people have, then logically we must also call Guru Vasistha an atheist when he is silent in answer to the same question. Shunya and Transcendent Reality Some scholars have discounted the Buddha’s teachings, claiming that he is promulgating a belief in "emptiness" or "nothingness." These scholars have concluded that the Buddha, does not believe in a Higher Reality (God). Therefore, they argue, his philosophy should be considered as nihilistic. According to their reasoning, it would follow that those who teach about "emptiness" or "nothingness" (shunya) [the transcendent form of Ultimate Reality is also referred to as shunya] cannot be theistic. However, teachings about shunyata (emptiness) are not only found in Buddhist literature, but are also prominent in the writings of many of the saints. Here are some examples: Gorakh Nath Ji says: "It (God) is neither existent nor non-existent (shunya), its nature is beyond the reach of senses and thought." Sant Kabir Sahab says: "Meditation on the Formless (shunya) is enjoyed by all knowers of Truth." Guru Nanak Dev Ji says: "In the thought-less state of Samadhi (sunna, emptiness), neither maya (illusion) nor the web of mind exist. Only the gracious God exists." Paltu Sahab says: "Staying in solitude and meditate on emptiness (shunya)." Saint Dadu Dayal Ji says: "That Ultimate Reality is beyond the dual categories of qualified and unqualified, it is Emptiness which transcends emptiness (shunya)." Saint Charan Das says: "When the soul is absorbed on the peak (highest inner realm) of emptiness, then it experiences rapture." This emptiness is also known as ether (akasha) or void (avakasha). In the Ramcharitamanasa, Goswami Tulsi Das Ji invokes Lord Shiva: "I invoke the name of Shiva--Lord Shiva, who dwells in the space of infinite knowledge (akasha)" There are discussions about shunya in the Tantra Shastra and the Jnanasankalnii Tantra, where it says, "Meditation is not meditation unless the mind is united with Shunya". Maharishi Mehi says: "Consciousness that is traveling beyond sunna (void) and mahasunna (the great void) traverses the realm of bhanvar gupha (the whirling cave). There it experiences the sound of Truth (sat), which is the Original Sound. This Sound embodies the essence of the spiritual preceptor. 0 Practitioner! Hold on to that sound and become one with that True Sound." In the Upanishads there are multiple references to Emptiness or Space (shunya). In the fourth Brahmana of the Mandala Brahmanopanishad it is said: "There are five kinds of celestial Shunya (ether) which are increasingly more subtle: akasham, parakasham, Mahakasham, Suryakasham and Parmakasham. The infinite light permeates all of these akasham, but the Parmakasham is ineffable and is brimming with infinite bliss. It is the essential element." When one considers all these descriptions of Shunya (emptiness or void), the question arises whether the composers of the Upanishads and the saints were atheists. The unequivocal response is, of course, that they are not atheists. How then could one logically consider the Buddha to be an atheist? The Buddha regularly speaks of both nirvana and Shunya in almost identical terminology, and yet he is accused of atheism solely on the basis of his silence on this question about the nature of God. -- Sant Sevi Ji Maharaj Sant Sevi Ji Paramahans Maharaj Hinduism accepts the Buddha as an avatar of Vishnu, one of the gods of the Hindu trinity. The Buddhists do not accept any Hindu god either as equivalent or superior to the Buddha. In Buddhism, the Hindu gods are relegated to different roles but they are not more important the the Buddhas. Buddhism believes in Bodhisattvas. Hinduism does not believe in them. Well as we have just explained Nirvana, is the state were one is ONE with Brahman or God or VISHNU (where he experiences emptiness)!! In Buddhism and Hinduism, when a Soul achieves Enlightenment, it enters the realm of Nirvana or in other words reunites with God or VISHNU!! So therefore, through Buddhism and Hinduism the Buddha is considered to an AVATAR OF VISHNU!! Plus this proves that Hindu gods/Goddess, were just normal Bodhisattvas!! A Bodhisattva, Satguru, Sant, Saint and Avatar are technically the same thing. An Enlightened and Realized Soul, whose purpose is, too guide other Souls to their own Enlightenment/Moksha. The Buddhists consider the world as suffering and regard ending suffering as the chief aim of human life. The Hindus consider that there are four chief aims (arthas) in life which every being should pursue. They are dharma (religious duty), artha (wealth or material possessions), kama (desires and passions) and moksha (salvation.) Well the four Hindu arm chiefs, are technically the same as the One Buddhist arm chief. According to a Satsang of our Satguru, from a Sant Mat/Hindu tradition, during our Human Life we must gain hold of dharma and Moksha, and destroy Karma and Artha. Even according to Buddhism, Karma and Artha are the products causing one to suffer. Hindus also believe in the four stages of life (each cycle of 25 years having a role to play.) This is not followed in Buddhism. People can participate any time depending upon their spiritual advancement, not their age. Again the four stages of life and the Casting System, have been confused throughout Hinduism in the ages. The four stages of life, just show the stages of life which one is more able to achieve Enlightenment and less able to achieve Enlightenment. Look, at this picture. It shows all the differenment stages to God and all the different people at each stage. The original meaning behind the casting system, was this! An untouchable, was an atheist, or not very religious plus maya like person. A Brahmin, is someone, who is enlightened and at one with Brahman. A warrior, is someone, who is fighting the evil of the maya to achieve enlightenment. A Vaisya, is someone, seeking a Satguru or trying to impress his Satguru. The casting system, was never meant to be confused,with names in society nor discriminate against anyone. This is all a misunderstanding of the Satguru's message!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! All Sants/Satgurus, therefore oppose the modern and incorrect casting system of India!! Guru Nanak, Kabir Sahib, Ramanada and the Geatuma Buddha, are famous, for there battles against the modern casting system!! The social body The social body and its components are likened to the human form. Society is compared to a body with the brahmanas as the head, kshatriyas as the arms, vaishyas as the belly (or thighs) and the shudras as the legs Social functions are determined according to this analogy. For example, the brahmanas are the eyes and mouth of society. They provide a spiritual vision for society and teach people accordingly. Just as the arms are raised to defend the body, the kshatriya's main duty is to protect society. The vaishya's main duty is material nourishment, and the shudra supports all other sections of society. The ashrams are sometimes related to the same metaphor, with the successive stages of student life, household life, retirement and renunciation represented by the legs, belly, arms and head respectively. Buddhists organize themselves into a monastic Order (Sangha) and the monks live in groups. Hinduism is basically an individualistic religion. Certain Hindu groups follow this rule. Refuge in the Buddha, the Sangha and Dharma are the three cardinal requirements on the eightfold path. Hinduism offers many choices to its followers on the path of self-realization. Hinduism, may offer many paths to self-realization, but they all include require refuge in the; the Buddha (Satguru), Sangha (spiritual community) and Dharma (religious duty.) Although both religions believe in karma and rebirth, they differ in the manner in which they operate and impact the existence of individual beings. Above, I have explained the how Buddhism does describe an Atman/Soul concept through a Non Self/Emptiness concept, used a lot in Vedic Hinduism. Source of these so-called differences; http://www.japanese-buddhism.com/hinduism.html These prinples are true about Buddhism, Hinduism and Sant Mat; Both Hinduism and Buddhism teaches that the true nature of the world is illusion and that karma is what is keeping men tied to this world and the cycle of births and deaths. Buddha taught that desire is the main cause of suffering and removal of desire results in the cessation of suffering. Some of the Hindu texts such as the Upanishads (Isa) and the Bhagavadgita state that by accomplishing an action due to desire and attachment we are lead to bondage and suffering. On the contrary, if we accomplish an action without selfish desire, we are closer to liberation from the karmic cycle. Both religions believe in the concept of karma and the reincarnation of souls. Both preach compassion and non violence towards all living beings. Both believe in the existence of several hells and heavens or higher and lower worlds. Both believe in the existence of gods or deities on different planes. Both believe in certain spiritual practices like meditation, concentration, cultivation of certain mood of ecstasy and the channeling of these emotional energies that is induced by the maturing of devotion. Both believe in detachment, renunciation of worldly riches as a prerequisite to enter to spiritual life. Both consider desire as the chief cause of suffering. Buddhism and Hinduism have their own versions of Tantra. Both originated and evolved on the Indian soil. The founder of Buddhism was a Hindu who became the Buddha. The Gautama Buddha, Krishna and Lord Rama plus all the other Hindu Sages were all Satgurus/Saints (Enlightened and God/Vishnu realized souls.) They all came to save other Souls from this evil Maya/Samsara of life and death, plus enlighten other Souls. They considered the quality of God to be of emptiness. They all believed God was always incarnated down on earth in the form of a Satguru/Sant/Saint/Bodhisattva/Buddha. They all believed in the; Soul/Atman, reincarnation, Maya/illusion of life concept, ONE GOD, the Vedic time scale, the Dharmic concepts of Suffering and religion Hinduism/Sant Mat and Buddhism. http://www.hinduwebsite.com/hinduism/h_buddhism.asp As we are aware, these two faiths are very similar, mainly due to their routes in India. Although the two faiths are generally accused of having many differences. This is not true!! Buddhism and Hinduism/Sant Mat share exactly the same teachings. These are the so called, difference between the faiths; Hinduism is not founded by any particular person. Buddhism was founded by the Buddha. So, how does this create any major difference in the teachings of the faiths? Besides, as you will discover the Gautama Buddha, never created Buddhism. The Buddhist faith just grows out of Hinduism. Hinduism believes in the efficacy and supremacy of the Vedic texts. The Buddhist do not believe in these texts or any Hindu scripture. (unlike the Christians adopting the Torah as the Old Testament) Well the Buddha, the Buddhist scriptures or no other Bodhisattva, has ever denied the existence of the Vedas or Vedic texts. The Buddha just said “Oh all those un wise priest, in the temples who read those scriptures. They know nothing about their religion.” Although Swami Ramakrishna (a Hindu Saint) even said; “Many good sayings are to be found in holy books, but merely reading them will not make one religious.” This is clearly obvious, as many of the priests during the time, preformed animal sacrifice, which was opposed in the Gita!!!! Plus everything in the Buddhist texts is technically the same as that in the Vedic texts, as you will see!! Even in the Jakatales Lord Rama and Lord Krishna plus their stories appear. Hindus believe in the Atman, a concept closely related to a primordial soul, or God. Buddhism teaches that the belief in the Atman is the prime consequence of ignorance, which is itself the cause of all misery and the foundation of samsāra (the cycle of rebirth). Buddhism acknowledge the existence of some gods and goddesses of Hindu pantheon, but give them a rather subordinate status. Well Buddhism is accused of not including a God or a Soul/Atman concept. Not so! Buddhism, due to its strong beliefs that the Lord is emptiness, is considered to deny any existence of the God and the Atman/Soul, as well as the idea of Moksha and the soul reuniting with Brahman. Rubbish!! Of course, there is a God and Soul inBuddhism, as we explained Brahman/Atman(as the Atman is a part of God or Brahman), is nothing!! Plus the soul, experiences nothing when reunited with Brahman(as Brahman is nothing), so the Buddhist Nirvana and Hindu Moksha are united!! I mean Heaven, Such Khand, Brahman and Nirvana are all the same, as all faiths lead to the same god!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Read this; Was Buddha An Atheist? By Sant Sevi Ji Paramahans Maharaj The Harmony of All Religions: Santmat [[[[[Copyright 2007, All Rights Reserved]]]]] From the Chapter on Buddhism: All the theistic religions of the world recognize the existence of God. The Divine Being is referred to by various names due to different languages: Brahman (Hindu), God (Christianity), Allah (Islam), Buddha (Buddhism), Tao (Taoism), Yahweh (Judaism), and Ahur Mazd (Zoroastrianism). We can say that a religion with a belief in God is a theistic religion. Religions which do not have a belief in God would be called atheistic. Upon careful consideration, we can see that there are in fact two types of atheism: entirely atheistic and partially atheistic. The Belief Systems which do not have a belief in the existence of either God or soul are considered to be entirely atheistic. Those which do have a belief in the soul but not in Godare considered partially atheistic. In modern times some scholars have interpreted the Buddha’s silence on the issue of the existence of God as atheistic. In their opinion, Buddharefused to answer any questions regarding the existence of the Divine Reality and the Soul (Atman or Jivatman), and therefore they have concluded that Buddha was an atheist. However, in my opinion these kinds of conclusions demonstrate limited knowledge and ignorance about the essence of the Buddhist texts. In fact, Buddhist literature contains multiple references to the soul (atta or atman), the Lord (Natha), and the maker of the body. Examples can be found even in the fairly short book Dhammapada, where Buddha elaborates on Soul or self (atta): "The atman is the lord of atman. What else could be the Lord? When the individual self jiivatman) is well subdued, a man finds the Lord (Natha) who is difficult to fathom" (Dhammapada 12/4). Some scholars have interpreted the word ’lord’ in this verse as if it literally means ’lordship’. However, even a cursory examination of the words in Pali, the original language of these texts, yields the true meaning. In Pali the word ’lord’ is in the second case accusative, and therefore it would best be translated as ’to the lord’. The noted Buddhist scholar Bhikshu Rahul Sankrityayan has explained this in his rendering of this verse of the Dhammapada: "A man is the lord of himself Who else then could be the lord? If the self is wholly disciplined then he is able to attain a lord who is difficult to be attained." Buddha addresses the creator of the body: "Oh maker of the house I have seen you." (Jaravaggo) "Impermanence" of Buddhism and "Maya" of the Vedic Dharma In the Vedanta literature, the Upanishads, and in the literature of the saints, this physical world is said to comprise both name and form, and is referred to as maya. It is understood to be illusory and not real, to be ever changing, and dependent upon a higher reality In the Chandogya Upanishad, Brhidarnyaka Upanishad, Mundaka Upanishad, and Prashna Upanishad it is repeatedly stated that the nature of the world is transitory, destructible, and not real. Therefore, we must seek for that essence which is constant, true and unchanging by transcending these realms of name and form. The world of name and form is also described as avidya (ignorance) in the Katha and Mundaka Upanishads. In the Shvetashvatara Upanishad, the world is also described as illusory maya. The Upanishads also explain that: "The soul (atman), which is beyond name and form, is brimming with joy and tranquility. In its Turiyatita form (the fifth state -- a state of cosmic consciousness; a state of unity with the source), atman is beyond good and evil" (Teja bindu Upanishad). Lord Buddha says: "A mendicant is one who has no attachment to the world of name and form. He is one who does not grieve for what is not real (asat, the ever changing reality). This is the true mendicant. (Dhammapada, Bhikkhuvaggo)." In the Ramcharitmanasa Saint Tulsida says: "Name and form are the two obstructions to God." All of these references from the Upanishads and the texts of the saints, show agreement with the words of the Buddha, not difference. Ineffable Divine and Silence One person may say the true form of God is Nameless (transcending any human definition), a second person may say the true form of God is Soundless (nihshabda; beyond sound), and yet a third may keep silence in regard to the nature of the Divine. Is it logical to simply label the one who keeps silence an atheist? The wise person should reflect on this matter. If you say that the Divine Reality is nameless and then proceed to describe Him, are you not contradicting yourself! How can you describe something which is nameless? In thinking about this example, one might well conclude that the third person, who was silent when describing God, was actually closer to the nameless description of God. Keeping silence in answer to the question of the nature of the Divine, is also found in the Upanishads. A prime example of this is found in the famous discourse between Sage Vashishta and Shri Ram in the Yoga Vashistha. Shri Rama had queried Guru Vasistha about the nature of Atman and Brahman (the Supreme Reality). In response the Guru remained silent. Ram repeated the question. Guru Vasistha remained silent. Shri Rama asked a third time, and still the great sage remained mute. With joined palms Ram asked his teacher Vasistha: "Reverend Sir! Are you displeased with me and therefore not answering my question, since you always assist me in understanding?" Guru Vasistha replied: "My dear son! I am not displeased with you. I have been answering the question which you have posed. The answer to your question is only given in silence, since the Divine is ineffable, unmanifest, and beyond the senses. How could I describe the nature of the reality which transcends the senses through these very sense organs (speech)?" The point here is that if we were to call the Buddha an atheist when he is silent on the question of the nature of the Divine, as some people have, then logically we must also call Guru Vasistha an atheist when he is silent in answer to the same question. Shunya and Transcendent Reality Some scholars have discounted the Buddha’s teachings, claiming that he is promulgating a belief in "emptiness" or "nothingness." These scholars have concluded that the Buddha, does not believe in a Higher Reality (God). Therefore, they argue, his philosophy should be considered as nihilistic. According to their reasoning, it would follow that those who teach about "emptiness" or "nothingness" (shunya) [the transcendent form of Ultimate Reality is also referred to as shunya] cannot be theistic. However, teachings about shunyata (emptiness) are not only found in Buddhist literature, but are also prominent in the writings of many of the saints. Here are some examples: Gorakh Nath Ji says: "It (God) is neither existent nor non-existent (shunya), its nature is beyond the reach of senses and thought." Sant Kabir Sahab says: "Meditation on the Formless (shunya) is enjoyed by all knowers of Truth." Guru Nanak Dev Ji says: "In the thought-less state of Samadhi (sunna, emptiness), neither maya (illusion) nor the web of mind exist. Only the gracious God exists." Paltu Sahab says: "Staying in solitude and meditate on emptiness (shunya)." Saint Dadu Dayal Ji says: "That Ultimate Reality is beyond the dual categories of qualified and unqualified, it is Emptiness which transcends emptiness (shunya)." Saint Charan Das says: "When the soul is absorbed on the peak (highest inner realm) of emptiness, then it experiences rapture." This emptiness is also known as ether (akasha) or void (avakasha). In the Ramcharitamanasa, Goswami Tulsi Das Ji invokes Lord Shiva: "I invoke the name of Shiva--Lord Shiva, who dwells in the space of infinite knowledge (akasha)" There are discussions about shunya in the Tantra Shastra and the Jnanasankalnii Tantra, where it says, "Meditation is not meditation unless the mind is united with Shunya". Maharishi Mehi says: "Consciousness that is traveling beyond sunna (void) and mahasunna (the great void) traverses the realm of bhanvar gupha (the whirling cave). There it experiences the sound of Truth (sat), which is the Original Sound. This Sound embodies the essence of the spiritual preceptor. 0 Practitioner! Hold on to that sound and become one with that True Sound." In the Upanishads there are multiple references to Emptiness or Space (shunya). In the fourth Brahmana of the Mandala Brahmanopanishad it is said: "There are five kinds of celestial Shunya (ether) which are increasingly more subtle: akasham, parakasham, Mahakasham, Suryakasham and Parmakasham. The infinite light permeates all of these akasham, but the Parmakasham is ineffable and is brimming with infinite bliss. It is the essential element." When one considers all these descriptions of Shunya (emptiness or void), the question arises whether the composers of the Upanishads and the saints were atheists. The unequivocal response is, of course, that they are not atheists. How then could one logically consider the Buddha to be an atheist? The Buddha regularly speaks of both nirvana and Shunya in almost identical terminology, and yet he is accused of atheism solely on the basis of his silence on this question about the nature of God. -- Sant Sevi Ji Maharaj Sant Sevi Ji Paramahans Maharaj Hinduism accepts the Buddha as an avatar of Vishnu, one of the gods of the Hindu trinity. The Buddhists do not accept any Hindu god either as equivalent or superior to the Buddha. In Buddhism, the Hindu gods are relegated to different roles but they are not more important the the Buddhas. Buddhism believes in Bodhisattvas. Hinduism does not believe in them. Well as we have just explained Nirvana, is the state were one is ONE with Brahman or God or VISHNU (where he experiences emptiness)!! In Buddhism and Hinduism, when a Soul achieves Enlightenment, it enters the realm of Nirvana or in other words reunites with God or VISHNU!! So therefore, through Buddhism and Hinduism the Buddha is considered to an AVATAR OF VISHNU!! Plus this proves that Hindu gods/Goddess, were just normal Bodhisattvas!! A Bodhisattva, Satguru, Sant, Saint and Avatar are technically the same thing. An Enlightened and Realized Soul, whose purpose is, too guide other Souls to their own Enlightenment/Moksha. The Buddhists consider the world as suffering and regard ending suffering as the chief aim of human life. The Hindus consider that there are four chief aims (arthas) in life which every being should pursue. They are dharma (religious duty), artha (wealth or material possessions), kama (desires and passions) and moksha (salvation.) Well the four Hindu arm chiefs, are technically the same as the One Buddhist arm chief. According to a Satsang of our Satguru, from a Sant Mat/Hindu tradition, during our Human Life we must gain hold of dharma and Moksha, and destroy Karma and Artha. Even according to Buddhism, Karma and Artha are the products causing one to suffer. Hindus also believe in the four stages of life (each cycle of 25 years having a role to play.) This is not followed in Buddhism. People can participate any time depending upon their spiritual advancement, not their age. Again the four stages of life and the Casting System, have been confused throughout Hinduism in the ages. The four stages of life, just show the stages of life which one is more able to achieve Enlightenment and less able to achieve Enlightenment. Look, at this picture. It shows all the differenment stages to God and all the different people at each stage. The original meaning behind the casting system, was this! An untouchable, was an atheist, or not very religious plus maya like person. A Brahmin, is someone, who is enlightened and at one with Brahman. A warrior, is someone, who is fighting the evil of the maya to achieve enlightenment. A Vaisya, is someone, seeking a Satguru or trying to impress his Satguru. The casting system, was never meant to be confused,with names in society nor discriminate against anyone. This is all a misunderstanding of the Satguru's message!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! All Sants/Satgurus, therefore oppose the modern and incorrect casting system of India!! Guru Nanak, Kabir Sahib, Ramanada and the Geatuma Buddha, are famous, for there battles against the modern casting system!! The social body The social body and its components are likened to the human form. Society is compared to a body with the brahmanas as the head, kshatriyas as the arms, vaishyas as the belly (or thighs) and the shudras as the legs Social functions are determined according to this analogy. For example, the brahmanas are the eyes and mouth of society. They provide a spiritual vision for society and teach people accordingly. Just as the arms are raised to defend the body, the kshatriya's main duty is to protect society. The vaishya's main duty is material nourishment, and the shudra supports all other sections of society. The ashrams are sometimes related to the same metaphor, with the successive stages of student life, household life, retirement and renunciation represented by the legs, belly, arms and head respectively. Buddhists organize themselves into a monastic Order (Sangha) and the monks live in groups. Hinduism is basically an individualistic religion. Certain Hindu groups follow this rule. Refuge in the Buddha, the Sangha and Dharma are the three cardinal requirements on the eightfold path. Hinduism offers many choices to its followers on the path of self-realization. Hinduism, may offer many paths to self-realization, but they all include require refuge in the; the Buddha (Satguru), Sangha (spiritual community) and Dharma (religious duty.) Although both religions believe in karma and rebirth, they differ in the manner in which they operate and impact the existence of individual beings. Above, I have explained the how Buddhism does describe an Atman/Soul concept through a Non Self/Emptiness concept, used a lot in Vedic Hinduism. Source of these so-called differences; http://www.japanese-buddhism.com/hinduism.html These prinples are true about Buddhism, Hinduism and Sant Mat; Both Hinduism and Buddhism teaches that the true nature of the world is illusion and that karma is what is keeping men tied to this world and the cycle of births and deaths. Buddha taught that desire is the main cause of suffering and removal of desire results in the cessation of suffering. Some of the Hindu texts such as the Upanishads (Isa) and the Bhagavadgita state that by accomplishing an action due to desire and attachment we are lead to bondage and suffering. On the contrary, if we accomplish an action without selfish desire, we are closer to liberation from the karmic cycle. Both religions believe in the concept of karma and the reincarnation of souls. Both preach compassion and non violence towards all living beings. Both believe in the existence of several hells and heavens or higher and lower worlds. Both believe in the existence of gods or deities on different planes. Both believe in certain spiritual practices like meditation, concentration, cultivation of certain mood of ecstasy and the channeling of these emotional energies that is induced by the maturing of devotion. Both believe in detachment, renunciation of worldly riches as a prerequisite to enter to spiritual life. Both consider desire as the chief cause of suffering. Buddhism and Hinduism have their own versions of Tantra. Both originated and evolved on the Indian soil. The founder of Buddhism was a Hindu who became the Buddha. The Gautama Buddha, Krishna and Lord Rama plus all the other Hindu Sages were all Satgurus/Saints (Enlightened and God/Vishnu realized souls.) They all came to save other Souls from this evil Maya/Samsara of life and death, plus enlighten other Souls. They considered the quality of God to be of emptiness. They all believed God was always incarnated down on earth in the form of a Satguru/Sant/Saint/Bodhisattva/Buddha. They all believed in the; Soul/Atman, reincarnation, Maya/illusion of life concept, ONE GOD, the Vedic time scale, the Dharmic concepts of Suffering and religion Hinduism/Sant Mat and Buddhism. http://www.hinduwebsite.com/hinduism/h_buddhism.asp As we are aware, these two faiths are very similar, mainly due to their routes in India. Although the two faiths are generally accused of having many differences. This is not true!! Buddhism and Hinduism/Sant Mat share exactly the same teachings. These are the so called, difference between the faiths; Hinduism is not founded by any particular person. Buddhism was founded by the Buddha. So, how does this create any major difference in the teachings of the faiths? Besides, as you will discover the Gautama Buddha, never created Buddhism. The Buddhist faith just grows out of Hinduism. Hinduism believes in the efficacy and supremacy of the Vedic texts. The Buddhist do not believe in these texts or any Hindu scripture. (unlike the Christians adopting the Torah as the Old Testament) Well the Buddha, the Buddhist scriptures or no other Bodhisattva, has ever denied the existence of the Vedas or Vedic texts. The Buddha just said “Oh all those un wise priest, in the temples who read those scriptures. They know nothing about their religion.” Although Swami Ramakrishna (a Hindu Saint) even said; “Many good sayings are to be found in holy books, but merely reading them will not make one religious.” This is clearly obvious, as many of the priests during the time, preformed animal sacrifice, which was opposed in the Gita!!!! Plus everything in the Buddhist texts is technically the same as that in the Vedic texts, as you will see!! Even in the Jakatales Lord Rama and Lord Krishna plus their stories appear. Hindus believe in the Atman, a concept closely related to a primordial soul, or God. Buddhism teaches that the belief in the Atman is the prime consequence of ignorance, which is itself the cause of all misery and the foundation of samsāra (the cycle of rebirth). Buddhism acknowledge the existence of some gods and goddesses of Hindu pantheon, but give them a rather subordinate status. Well Buddhism is accused of not including a God or a Soul/Atman concept. Not so! Buddhism, due to its strong beliefs that the Lord is emptiness, is considered to deny any existence of the God and the Atman/Soul, as well as the idea of Moksha and the soul reuniting with Brahman. Rubbish!! Of course, there is a God and Soul inBuddhism, as we explained Brahman/Atman(as the Atman is a part of God or Brahman), is nothing!! Plus the soul, experiences nothing when reunited with Brahman(as Brahman is nothing), so the Buddhist Nirvana and Hindu Moksha are united!! I mean Heaven, Such Khand, Brahman and Nirvana are all the same, as all faiths lead to the same god!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Read this; Was Buddha An Atheist? By Sant Sevi Ji Paramahans Maharaj The Harmony of All Religions: Santmat [[[[[Copyright 2007, All Rights Reserved]]]]] From the Chapter on Buddhism: All the theistic religions of the world recognize the existence of God. The Divine Being is referred to by various names due to different languages: Brahman (Hindu), God (Christianity), Allah (Islam), Buddha (Buddhism), Tao (Taoism), Yahweh (Judaism), and Ahur Mazd (Zoroastrianism). We can say that a religion with a belief in God is a theistic religion. Religions which do not have a belief in God would be called atheistic. Upon careful consideration, we can see that there are in fact two types of atheism: entirely atheistic and partially atheistic. The Belief Systems which do not have a belief in the existence of either God or soul are considered to be entirely atheistic. Those which do have a belief in the soul but not in Godare considered partially atheistic. In modern times some scholars have interpreted the Buddha’s silence on the issue of the existence of God as atheistic. In their opinion, Buddharefused to answer any questions regarding the existence of the Divine Reality and the Soul (Atman or Jivatman), and therefore they have concluded that Buddha was an atheist. However, in my opinion these kinds of conclusions demonstrate limited knowledge and ignorance about the essence of the Buddhist texts. In fact, Buddhist literature contains multiple references to the soul (atta or atman), the Lord (Natha), and the maker of the body. Examples can be found even in the fairly short book Dhammapada, where Buddha elaborates on Soul or self (atta): "The atman is the lord of atman. What else could be the Lord? When the individual self jiivatman) is well subdued, a man finds the Lord (Natha) who is difficult to fathom" (Dhammapada 12/4). Some scholars have interpreted the word ’lord’ in this verse as if it literally means ’lordship’. However, even a cursory examination of the words in Pali, the original language of these texts, yields the true meaning. In Pali the word ’lord’ is in the second case accusative, and therefore it would best be translated as ’to the lord’. The noted Buddhist scholar Bhikshu Rahul Sankrityayan has explained this in his rendering of this verse of the Dhammapada: "A man is the lord of himself Who else then could be the lord? If the self is wholly disciplined then he is able to attain a lord who is difficult to be attained." Buddha addresses the creator of the body: "Oh maker of the house I have seen you." (Jaravaggo) "Impermanence" of Buddhism and "Maya" of the Vedic Dharma In the Vedanta literature, the Upanishads, and in the literature of the saints, this physical world is said to comprise both name and form, and is referred to as maya. It is understood to be illusory and not real, to be ever changing, and dependent upon a higher reality In the Chandogya Upanishad, Brhidarnyaka Upanishad, Mundaka Upanishad, and Prashna Upanishad it is repeatedly stated that the nature of the world is transitory, destructible, and not real. Therefore, we must seek for that essence which is constant, true and unchanging by transcending these realms of name and form. The world of name and form is also described as avidya (ignorance) in the Katha and Mundaka Upanishads. In the Shvetashvatara Upanishad, the world is also described as illusory maya. The Upanishads also explain that: "The soul (atman), which is beyond name and form, is brimming with joy and tranquility. In its Turiyatita form (the fifth state -- a state of cosmic consciousness; a state of unity with the source), atman is beyond good and evil" (Teja bindu Upanishad). Lord Buddha says: "A mendicant is one who has no attachment to the world of name and form. He is one who does not grieve for what is not real (asat, the ever changing reality). This is the true mendicant. (Dhammapada, Bhikkhuvaggo)." In the Ramcharitmanasa Saint Tulsida says: "Name and form are the two obstructions to God." All of these references from the Upanishads and the texts of the saints, show agreement with the words of the Buddha, not difference. Ineffable Divine and Silence One person may say the true form of God is Nameless (transcending any human definition), a second person may say the true form of God is Soundless (nihshabda; beyond sound), and yet a third may keep silence in regard to the nature of the Divine. Is it logical to simply label the one who keeps silence an atheist? The wise person should reflect on this matter. If you say that the Divine Reality is nameless and then proceed to describe Him, are you not contradicting yourself! How can you describe something which is nameless? In thinking about this example, one might well conclude that the third person, who was silent when describing God, was actually closer to the nameless description of God. Keeping silence in answer to the question of the nature of the Divine, is also found in the Upanishads. A prime example of this is found in the famous discourse between Sage Vashishta and Shri Ram in the Yoga Vashistha. Shri Rama had queried Guru Vasistha about the nature of Atman and Brahman (the Supreme Reality). In response the Guru remained silent. Ram repeated the question. Guru Vasistha remained silent. Shri Rama asked a third time, and still the great sage remained mute. With joined palms Ram asked his teacher Vasistha: "Reverend Sir! Are you displeased with me and therefore not answering my question, since you always assist me in understanding?" Guru Vasistha replied: "My dear son! I am not displeased with you. I have been answering the question which you have posed. The answer to your question is only given in silence, since the Divine is ineffable, unmanifest, and beyond the senses. How could I describe the nature of the reality which transcends the senses through these very sense organs (speech)?" The point here is that if we were to call the Buddha an atheist when he is silent on the question of the nature of the Divine, as some people have, then logically we must also call Guru Vasistha an atheist when he is silent in answer to the same question. Shunya and Transcendent Reality Some scholars have discounted the Buddha’s teachings, claiming that he is promulgating a belief in "emptiness" or "nothingness." These scholars have concluded that the Buddha, does not believe in a Higher Reality (God). Therefore, they argue, his philosophy should be considered as nihilistic. According to their reasoning, it would follow that those who teach about "emptiness" or "nothingness" (shunya) [the transcendent form of Ultimate Reality is also referred to as shunya] cannot be theistic. However, teachings about shunyata (emptiness) are not only found in Buddhist literature, but are also prominent in the writings of many of the saints. Here are some examples: Gorakh Nath Ji says: "It (God) is neither existent nor non-existent (shunya), its nature is beyond the reach of senses and thought." Sant Kabir Sahab says: "Meditation on the Formless (shunya) is enjoyed by all knowers of Truth." Guru Nanak Dev Ji says: "In the thought-less state of Samadhi (sunna, emptiness), neither maya (illusion) nor the web of mind exist. Only the gracious God exists." Paltu Sahab says: "Staying in solitude and meditate on emptiness (shunya)." Saint Dadu Dayal Ji says: "That Ultimate Reality is beyond the dual categories of qualified and unqualified, it is Emptiness which transcends emptiness (shunya)." Saint Charan Das says: "When the soul is absorbed on the peak (highest inner realm) of emptiness, then it experiences rapture." This emptiness is also known as ether (akasha) or void (avakasha). In the Ramcharitamanasa, Goswami Tulsi Das Ji invokes Lord Shiva: "I invoke the name of Shiva--Lord Shiva, who dwells in the space of infinite knowledge (akasha)" There are discussions about shunya in the Tantra Shastra and the Jnanasankalnii Tantra, where it says, "Meditation is not meditation unless the mind is united with Shunya". Maharishi Mehi says: "Consciousness that is traveling beyond sunna (void) and mahasunna (the great void) traverses the realm of bhanvar gupha (the whirling cave). There it experiences the sound of Truth (sat), which is the Original Sound. This Sound embodies the essence of the spiritual preceptor. 0 Practitioner! Hold on to that sound and become one with that True Sound." In the Upanishads there are multiple references to Emptiness or Space (shunya). In the fourth Brahmana of the Mandala Brahmanopanishad it is said: "There are five kinds of celestial Shunya (ether) which are increasingly more subtle: akasham, parakasham, Mahakasham, Suryakasham and Parmakasham. The infinite light permeates all of these akasham, but the Parmakasham is ineffable and is brimming with infinite bliss. It is the essential element." When one considers all these descriptions of Shunya (emptiness or void), the question arises whether the composers of the Upanishads and the saints were atheists. The unequivocal response is, of course, that they are not atheists. How then could one logically consider the Buddha to be an atheist? The Buddha regularly speaks of both nirvana and Shunya in almost identical terminology, and yet he is accused of atheism solely on the basis of his silence on this question about the nature of God. -- Sant Sevi Ji Maharaj Sant Sevi Ji Paramahans Maharaj Hinduism accepts the Buddha as an avatar of Vishnu, one of the gods of the Hindu trinity. The Buddhists do not accept any Hindu god either as equivalent or superior to the Buddha. In Buddhism, the Hindu gods are relegated to different roles but they are not more important the the Buddhas. Buddhism believes in Bodhisattvas. Hinduism does not believe in them. Well as we have just explained Nirvana, is the state were one is ONE with Brahman or God or VISHNU (where he experiences emptiness)!! In Buddhism and Hinduism, when a Soul achieves Enlightenment, it enters the realm of Nirvana or in other words reunites with God or VISHNU!! So therefore, through Buddhism and Hinduism the Buddha is considered to an AVATAR OF VISHNU!! Plus this proves that Hindu gods/Goddess, were just normal Bodhisattvas!! A Bodhisattva, Satguru, Sant, Saint and Avatar are technically the same thing. An Enlightened and Realized Soul, whose purpose is, too guide other Souls to their own Enlightenment/Moksha. The Buddhists consider the world as suffering and regard ending suffering as the chief aim of human life. The Hindus consider that there are four chief aims (arthas) in life which every being should pursue. They are dharma (religious duty), artha (wealth or material possessions), kama (desires and passions) and moksha (salvation.) Well the four Hindu arm chiefs, are technically the same as the One Buddhist arm chief. According to a Satsang of our Satguru, from a Sant Mat/Hindu tradition, during our Human Life we must gain hold of dharma and Moksha, and destroy Karma and Artha. Even according to Buddhism, Karma and Artha are the products causing one to suffer. Hindus also believe in the four stages of life (each cycle of 25 years having a role to play.) This is not followed in Buddhism. People can participate any time depending upon their spiritual advancement, not their age. Again the four stages of life and the Casting System, have been confused throughout Hinduism in the ages. The four stages of life, just show the stages of life which one is more able to achieve Enlightenment and less able to achieve Enlightenment. Look, at this picture. It shows all the differenment stages to God and all the different people at each stage. The original meaning behind the casting system, was this! An untouchable, was an atheist, or not very religious plus maya like person. A Brahmin, is someone, who is enlightened and at one with Brahman. A warrior, is someone, who is fighting the evil of the maya to achieve enlightenment. A Vaisya, is someone, seeking a Satguru or trying to impress his Satguru. The casting system, was never meant to be confused,with names in society nor discriminate against anyone. This is all a misunderstanding of the Satguru's message!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! All Sants/Satgurus, therefore oppose the modern and incorrect casting system of India!! Guru Nanak, Kabir Sahib, Ramanada and the Geatuma Buddha, are famous, for there battles against the modern casting system!! The social body The social body and its components are likened to the human form. Society is compared to a body with the brahmanas as the head, kshatriyas as the arms, vaishyas as the belly (or thighs) and the shudras as the legs Social functions are determined according to this analogy. For example, the brahmanas are the eyes and mouth of society. They provide a spiritual vision for society and teach people accordingly. Just as the arms are raised to defend the body, the kshatriya's main duty is to protect society. The vaishya's main duty is material nourishment, and the shudra supports all other sections of society. The ashrams are sometimes related to the same metaphor, with the successive stages of student life, household life, retirement and renunciation represented by the legs, belly, arms and head respectively. Buddhists organize themselves into a monastic Order (Sangha) and the monks live in groups. Hinduism is basically an individualistic religion. Certain Hindu groups follow this rule. Refuge in the Buddha, the Sangha and Dharma are the three cardinal requirements on the eightfold path. Hinduism offers many choices to its followers on the path of self-realization. Hinduism, may offer many paths to self-realization, but they all include require refuge in the; the Buddha (Satguru), Sangha (spiritual community) and Dharma (religious duty.) Although both religions believe in karma and rebirth, they differ in the manner in which they operate and impact the existence of individual beings. Above, I have explained the how Buddhism does describe an Atman/Soul concept through a Non Self/Emptiness concept, used a lot in Vedic Hinduism. Source of these so-called differences; http://www.japanese-buddhism.com/hinduism.html These prinples are true about Buddhism, Hinduism and Sant Mat; Both Hinduism and Buddhism teaches that the true nature of the world is illusion and that karma is what is keeping men tied to this world and the cycle of births and deaths. Buddha taught that desire is the main cause of suffering and removal of desire results in the cessation of suffering. Some of the Hindu texts such as the Upanishads (Isa) and the Bhagavadgita state that by accomplishing an action due to desire and attachment we are lead to bondage and suffering. On the contrary, if we accomplish an action without selfish desire, we are closer to liberation from the karmic cycle. Both religions believe in the concept of karma and the reincarnation of souls. Both preach compassion and non violence towards all living beings. Both believe in the existence of several hells and heavens or higher and lower worlds. Both believe in the existence of gods or deities on different planes. Both believe in certain spiritual practices like meditation, concentration, cultivation of certain mood of ecstasy and the channeling of these emotional energies that is induced by the maturing of devotion. Both believe in detachment, renunciation of worldly riches as a prerequisite to enter to spiritual life. Both consider desire as the chief cause of suffering. Buddhism and Hinduism have their own versions of Tantra. Both originated and evolved on the Indian soil. The founder of Buddhism was a Hindu who became the Buddha. The Gautama Buddha, Krishna and Lord Rama plus all the other Hindu Sages were all Satgurus/Saints (Enlightened and God/Vishnu realized souls.) They all came to save other Souls from this evil Maya/Samsara of life and death, plus enlighten other Souls. They considered the quality of God to be of emptiness. They all believed God was always incarnated down on earth in the form of a Satguru/Sant/Saint/Bodhisattva/Buddha. They all believed in the; Soul/Atman, reincarnation, Maya/illusion of life concept, ONE GOD, the Vedic time scale, the Dharmic concepts of Suffering and religion Hinduism/Sant Mat and Buddhism. http://www.hinduwebsite.com/hinduism/h_buddhism.asp As we are aware, these two faiths are very similar, mainly due to their routes in India. Although the two faiths are generally accused of having many differences. This is not true!! Buddhism and Hinduism/Sant Mat share exactly the same teachings. These are the so called, difference between the faiths; Hinduism is not founded by any particular person. Buddhism was founded by the Buddha. So, how does this create any major difference in the teachings of the faiths? Besides, as you will discover the Gautama Buddha, never created Buddhism. The Buddhist faith just grows out of Hinduism. Hinduism believes in the efficacy and supremacy of the Vedic texts. The Buddhist do not believe in these texts or any Hindu scripture. (unlike the Christians adopting the Torah as the Old Testament) Well the Buddha, the Buddhist scriptures or no other Bodhisattva, has ever denied the existence of the Vedas or Vedic texts. The Buddha just said “Oh all those un wise priest, in the temples who read those scriptures. They know nothing about their religion.” Although Swami Ramakrishna (a Hindu Saint) even said; “Many good sayings are to be found in holy books, but merely reading them will not make one religious.” This is clearly obvious, as many of the priests during the time, preformed animal sacrifice, which was opposed in the Gita!!!! Plus everything in the Buddhist texts is technically the same as that in the Vedic texts, as you will see!! Even in the Jakatales Lord Rama and Lord Krishna plus their stories appear. Hindus believe in the Atman, a concept closely related to a primordial soul, or God. Buddhism teaches that the belief in the Atman is the prime consequence of ignorance, which is itself the cause of all misery and the foundation of samsāra (the cycle of rebirth). Buddhism acknowledge the existence of some gods and goddesses of Hindu pantheon, but give them a rather subordinate status. Well Buddhism is accused of not including a God or a Soul/Atman concept. Not so! Buddhism, due to its strong beliefs that the Lord is emptiness, is considered to deny any existence of the God and the Atman/Soul, as well as the idea of Moksha and the soul reuniting with Brahman. Rubbish!! Of course, there is a God and Soul inBuddhism, as we explained Brahman/Atman(as the Atman is a part of God or Brahman), is nothing!! Plus the soul, experiences nothing when reunited with Brahman(as Brahman is nothing), so the Buddhist Nirvana and Hindu Moksha are united!! I mean Heaven, Such Khand, Brahman and Nirvana are all the same, as all faiths lead to the same god!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Read this; Was Buddha An Atheist? By Sant Sevi Ji Paramahans Maharaj The Harmony of All Religions: Santmat [[[[[Copyright 2007, All Rights Reserved]]]]] From the Chapter on Buddhism: All the theistic religions of the world recognize the existence of God. The Divine Being is referred to by various names due to different languages: Brahman (Hindu), God (Christianity), Allah (Islam), Buddha (Buddhism), Tao (Taoism), Yahweh (Judaism), and Ahur Mazd (Zoroastrianism). We can say that a religion with a belief in God is a theistic religion. Religions which do not have a belief in God would be called atheistic. Upon careful consideration, we can see that there are in fact two types of atheism: entirely atheistic and partially atheistic. The Belief Systems which do not have a belief in the existence of either God or soul are considered to be entirely atheistic. Those which do have a belief in the soul but not in Godare considered partially atheistic. In modern times some scholars have interpreted the Buddha’s silence on the issue of the existence of God as atheistic. In their opinion, Buddharefused to answer any questions regarding the existence of the Divine Reality and the Soul (Atman or Jivatman), and therefore they have concluded that Buddha was an atheist. However, in my opinion these kinds of conclusions demonstrate limited knowledge and ignorance about the essence of the Buddhist texts. In fact, Buddhist literature contains multiple references to the soul (atta or atman), the Lord (Natha), and the maker of the body. Examples can be found even in the fairly short book Dhammapada, where Buddha elaborates on Soul or self (atta): "The atman is the lord of atman. What else could be the Lord? When the individual self jiivatman) is well subdued, a man finds the Lord (Natha) who is difficult to fathom" (Dhammapada 12/4). Some scholars have interpreted the word ’lord’ in this verse as if it literally means ’lordship’. However, even a cursory examination of the words in Pali, the original language of these texts, yields the true meaning. In Pali the word ’lord’ is in the second case accusative, and therefore it would best be translated as ’to the lord’. The noted Buddhist scholar Bhikshu Rahul Sankrityayan has explained this in his rendering of this verse of the Dhammapada: "A man is the lord of himself Who else then could be the lord? If the self is wholly disciplined then he is able to attain a lord who is difficult to be attained." Buddha addresses the creator of the body: "Oh maker of the house I have seen you." (Jaravaggo) "Impermanence" of Buddhism and "Maya" of the Vedic Dharma In the Vedanta literature, the Upanishads, and in the literature of the saints, this physical world is said to comprise both name and form, and is referred to as maya. It is understood to be illusory and not real, to be ever changing, and dependent upon a higher reality In the Chandogya Upanishad, Brhidarnyaka Upanishad, Mundaka Upanishad, and Prashna Upanishad it is repeatedly stated that the nature of the world is transitory, destructible, and not real. Therefore, we must seek for that essence which is constant, true and unchanging by transcending these realms of name and form. The world of name and form is also described as avidya (ignorance) in the Katha and Mundaka Upanishads. In the Shvetashvatara Upanishad, the world is also described as illusory maya. The Upanishads also explain that: "The soul (atman), which is beyond name and form, is brimming with joy and tranquility. In its Turiyatita form (the fifth state -- a state of cosmic consciousness; a state of unity with the source), atman is beyond good and evil" (Teja bindu Upanishad). Lord Buddha says: "A mendicant is one who has no attachment to the world of name and form. He is one who does not grieve for what is not real (asat, the ever changing reality). This is the true mendicant. (Dhammapada, Bhikkhuvaggo)." In the Ramcharitmanasa Saint Tulsida says: "Name and form are the two obstructions to God." All of these references from the Upanishads and the texts of the saints, show agreement with the words of the Buddha, not difference. Ineffable Divine and Silence One person may say the true form of God is Nameless (transcending any human definition), a second person may say the true form of God is Soundless (nihshabda; beyond sound), and yet a third may keep silence in regard to the nature of the Divine. Is it logical to simply label the one who keeps silence an atheist? The wise person should reflect on this matter. If you say that the Divine Reality is nameless and then proceed to describe Him, are you not contradicting yourself! How can you describe something which is nameless? In thinking about this example, one might well conclude that the third person, who was silent when describing God, was actually closer to the nameless description of God. Keeping silence in answer to the question of the nature of the Divine, is also found in the Upanishads. A prime example of this is found in the famous discourse between Sage Vashishta and Shri Ram in the Yoga Vashistha. Shri Rama had queried Guru Vasistha about the nature of Atman and Brahman (the Supreme Reality). In response the Guru remained silent. Ram repeated the question. Guru Vasistha remained silent. Shri Rama asked a third time, and still the great sage remained mute. With joined palms Ram asked his teacher Vasistha: "Reverend Sir! Are you displeased with me and therefore not answering my question, since you always assist me in understanding?" Guru Vasistha replied: "My dear son! I am not displeased with you. I have been answering the question which you have posed. The answer to your question is only given in silence, since the Divine is ineffable, unmanifest, and beyond the senses. How could I describe the nature of the reality which transcends the senses through these very sense organs (speech)?" The point here is that if we were to call the Buddha an atheist when he is silent on the question of the nature of the Divine, as some people have, then logically we must also call Guru Vasistha an atheist when he is silent in answer to the same question. Shunya and Transcendent Reality Some scholars have discounted the Buddha’s teachings, claiming that he is promulgating a belief in "emptiness" or "nothingness." These scholars have concluded that the Buddha, does not believe in a Higher Reality (God). Therefore, they argue, his philosophy should be considered as nihilistic. According to their reasoning, it would follow that those who teach about "emptiness" or "nothingness" (shunya) [the transcendent form of Ultimate Reality is also referred to as shunya] cannot be theistic. However, teachings about shunyata (emptiness) are not only found in Buddhist literature, but are also prominent in the writings of many of the saints. Here are some examples: Gorakh Nath Ji says: "It (God) is neither existent nor non-existent (shunya), its nature is beyond the reach of senses and thought." Sant Kabir Sahab says: "Meditation on the Formless (shunya) is enjoyed by all knowers of Truth." Guru Nanak Dev Ji says: "In the thought-less state of Samadhi (sunna, emptiness), neither maya (illusion) nor the web of mind exist. Only the gracious God exists." Paltu Sahab says: "Staying in solitude and meditate on emptiness (shunya)." Saint Dadu Dayal Ji says: "That Ultimate Reality is beyond the dual categories of qualified and unqualified, it is Emptiness which transcends emptiness (shunya)." Saint Charan Das says: "When the soul is absorbed on the peak (highest inner realm) of emptiness, then it experiences rapture." This emptiness is also known as ether (akasha) or void (avakasha). In the Ramcharitamanasa, Goswami Tulsi Das Ji invokes Lord Shiva: "I invoke the name of Shiva--Lord Shiva, who dwells in the space of infinite knowledge (akasha)" There are discussions about shunya in the Tantra Shastra and the Jnanasankalnii Tantra, where it says, "Meditation is not meditation unless the mind is united with Shunya". Maharishi Mehi says: "Consciousness that is traveling beyond sunna (void) and mahasunna (the great void) traverses the realm of bhanvar gupha (the whirling cave). There it experiences the sound of Truth (sat), which is the Original Sound. This Sound embodies the essence of the spiritual preceptor. 0 Practitioner! Hold on to that sound and become one with that True Sound." In the Upanishads there are multiple references to Emptiness or Space (shunya). In the fourth Brahmana of the Mandala Brahmanopanishad it is said: "There are five kinds of celestial Shunya (ether) which are increasingly more subtle: akasham, parakasham, Mahakasham, Suryakasham and Parmakasham. The infinite light permeates all of these akasham, but the Parmakasham is ineffable and is brimming with infinite bliss. It is the essential element." When one considers all these descriptions of Shunya (emptiness or void), the question arises whether the composers of the Upanishads and the saints were atheists. The unequivocal response is, of course, that they are not atheists. How then could one logically consider the Buddha to be an atheist? The Buddha regularly speaks of both nirvana and Shunya in almost identical terminology, and yet he is accused of atheism solely on the basis of his silence on this question about the nature of God. -- Sant Sevi Ji Maharaj Sant Sevi Ji Paramahans Maharaj Hinduism accepts the Buddha as an avatar of Vishnu, one of the gods of the Hindu trinity. The Buddhists do not accept any Hindu god either as equivalent or superior to the Buddha. In Buddhism, the Hindu gods are relegated to different roles but they are not more important the the Buddhas. Buddhism believes in Bodhisattvas. Hinduism does not believe in them. Well as we have just explained Nirvana, is the state were one is ONE with Brahman or God or VISHNU (where he experiences emptiness)!! In Buddhism and Hinduism, when a Soul achieves Enlightenment, it enters the realm of Nirvana or in other words reunites with God or VISHNU!! So therefore, through Buddhism and Hinduism the Buddha is considered to an AVATAR OF VISHNU!! Plus this proves that Hindu gods/Goddess, were just normal Bodhisattvas!! A Bodhisattva, Satguru, Sant, Saint and Avatar are technically the same thing. An Enlightened and Realized Soul, whose purpose is, too guide other Souls to their own Enlightenment/Moksha. The Buddhists consider the world as suffering and regard ending suffering as the chief aim of human life. The Hindus consider that there are four chief aims (arthas) in life which every being should pursue. They are dharma (religious duty), artha (wealth or material possessions), kama (desires and passions) and moksha (salvation.) Well the four Hindu arm chiefs, are technically the same as the One Buddhist arm chief. According to a Satsang of our Satguru, from a Sant Mat/Hindu tradition, during our Human Life we must gain hold of dharma and Moksha, and destroy Karma and Artha. Even according to Buddhism, Karma and Artha are the products causing one to suffer. Hindus also believe in the four stages of life (each cycle of 25 years having a role to play.) This is not followed in Buddhism. People can participate any time depending upon their spiritual advancement, not their age. Again the four stages of life and the Casting System, have been confused throughout Hinduism in the ages. The four stages of life, just show the stages of life which one is more able to achieve Enlightenment and less able to achieve Enlightenment. Look, at this picture. It shows all the differenment stages to God and all the different people at each stage. The original meaning behind the casting system, was this! An untouchable, was an atheist, or not very religious plus maya like person. A Brahmin, is someone, who is enlightened and at one with Brahman. A warrior, is someone, who is fighting the evil of the maya to achieve enlightenment. A Vaisya, is someone, seeking a Satguru or trying to impress his Satguru. The casting system, was never meant to be confused,with names in society nor discriminate against anyone. This is all a misunderstanding of the Satguru's message!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! All Sants/Satgurus, therefore oppose the modern and incorrect casting system of India!! Guru Nanak, Kabir Sahib, Ramanada and the Geatuma Buddha, are famous, for there battles against the modern casting system!! The social body The social body and its components are likened to the human form. Society is compared to a body with the brahmanas as the head, kshatriyas as the arms, vaishyas as the belly (or thighs) and the shudras as the legs Social functions are determined according to this analogy. For example, the brahmanas are the eyes and mouth of society. They provide a spiritual vision for society and teach people accordingly. Just as the arms are raised to defend the body, the kshatriya's main duty is to protect society. The vaishya's main duty is material nourishment, and the shudra supports all other sections of society. The ashrams are sometimes related to the same metaphor, with the successive stages of student life, household life, retirement and renunciation represented by the legs, belly, arms and head respectively. Buddhists organize themselves into a monastic Order (Sangha) and the monks live in groups. Hinduism is basically an individualistic religion. Certain Hindu groups follow this rule. Refuge in the Buddha, the Sangha and Dharma are the three cardinal requirements on the eightfold path. Hinduism offers many choices to its followers on the path of self-realization. Hinduism, may offer many paths to self-realization, but they all include require refuge in the; the Buddha (Satguru), Sangha (spiritual community) and Dharma (religious duty.) Although both religions believe in karma and rebirth, they differ in the manner in which they operate and impact the existence of individual beings. Above, I have explained the how Buddhism does describe an Atman/Soul concept through a Non Self/Emptiness concept, used a lot in Vedic Hinduism. Source of these so-called differences; http://www.japanese-buddhism.com/hinduism.html These prinples are true about Buddhism, Hinduism and Sant Mat; Both Hinduism and Buddhism teaches that the true nature of the world is illusion and that karma is what is keeping men tied to this world and the cycle of births and deaths. Buddha taught that desire is the main cause of suffering and removal of desire results in the cessation of suffering. Some of the Hindu texts such as the Upanishads (Isa) and the Bhagavadgita state that by accomplishing an action due to desire and attachment we are lead to bondage and suffering. On the contrary, if we accomplish an action without selfish desire, we are closer to liberation from the karmic cycle. Both religions believe in the concept of karma and the reincarnation of souls. Both preach compassion and non violence towards all living beings. Both believe in the existence of several hells and heavens or higher and lower worlds. Both believe in the existence of gods or deities on different planes. Both believe in certain spiritual practices like meditation, concentration, cultivation of certain mood of ecstasy and the channeling of these emotional energies that is induced by the maturing of devotion. Both believe in detachment, renunciation of worldly riches as a prerequisite to enter to spiritual life. Both consider desire as the chief cause of suffering. Buddhism and Hinduism have their own versions of Tantra. Both originated and evolved on the Indian soil. The founder of Buddhism was a Hindu who became the Buddha. The Gautama Buddha, Krishna and Lord Rama plus all the other Hindu Sages were all Satgurus/Saints (Enlightened and God/Vishnu realized souls.) They all came to save other Souls from this evil Maya/Samsara of life and death, plus enlighten other Souls. They considered the quality of God to be of emptiness. They all believed God was always incarnated down on earth in the form of a Satguru/Sant/Saint/Bodhisattva/Buddha. They all believed in the; Soul/Atman, reincarnation, Maya/illusion of life concept, ONE GOD, the Vedic time scale, the Dharmic concepts of Suffering and religion
Hinduism/Sant Mat and Buddhism. http://www.hinduwebsite.com/hinduism/h_buddhism.asp As we are aware, these two faiths are very similar, mainly due to their routes in India. Although the two faiths are generally accused of having many differences. This is not true!! Buddhism and Hinduism/Sant Mat share exactly the same teachings. These are the so called, difference between the faiths; Hinduism is not founded by any particular person. Buddhism was founded by the Buddha. So, how does this create any major difference in the teachings of the faiths? Besides, as you will discover the Gautama Buddha, never created Buddhism. The Buddhist faith just grows out of Hinduism. Hinduism believes in the efficacy and supremacy of the Vedic texts. The Buddhist do not believe in these texts or any Hindu scripture. (unlike the Christians adopting the Torah as the Old Testament) Well the Buddha, the Buddhist scriptures or no other Bodhisattva, has ever denied the existence of the Vedas or Vedic texts. The Buddha just said “Oh all those un wise priest, in the temples who read those scriptures. They know nothing about their religion.” Although Swami Ramakrishna (a Hindu Saint) even said; “Many good sayings are to be found in holy books, but merely reading them will not make one religious.” This is clearly obvious, as many of the priests during the time, preformed animal sacrifice, which was opposed in the Gita!!!! Plus everything in the Buddhist texts is technically the same as that in the Vedic texts, as you will see!! Even in the Jakatales Lord Rama and Lord Krishna plus their stories appear. Hindus believe in the Atman, a concept closely related to a primordial soul, or God. Buddhism teaches that the belief in the Atman is the prime consequence of ignorance, which is itself the cause of all misery and the foundation of samsāra (the cycle of rebirth). Buddhism acknowledge the existence of some gods and goddesses of Hindu pantheon, but give them a rather subordinate status. Well Buddhism is accused of not including a God or a Soul/Atman concept. Not so! Buddhism, due to its strong beliefs that the Lord is emptiness, is considered to deny any existence of the God and the Atman/Soul, as well as the idea of Moksha and the soul reuniting with Brahman. Rubbish!! Of course, there is a God and Soul inBuddhism, as we explained Brahman/Atman(as the Atman is a part of God or Brahman), is nothing!! Plus the soul, experiences nothing when reunited with Brahman(as Brahman is nothing), so the Buddhist Nirvana and Hindu Moksha are united!! I mean Heaven, Such Khand, Brahman and Nirvana are all the same, as all faiths lead to the same god!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Read this; Was Buddha An Atheist? By Sant Sevi Ji Paramahans Maharaj The Harmony of All Religions: Santmat [[[[[Copyright 2007, All Rights Reserved]]]]] From the Chapter on Buddhism: All the theistic religions of the world recognize the existence of God. The Divine Being is referred to by various names due to different languages: Brahman (Hindu), God (Christianity), Allah (Islam), Buddha (Buddhism), Tao (Taoism), Yahweh (Judaism), and Ahur Mazd (Zoroastrianism). We can say that a religion with a belief in God is a theistic religion. Religions which do not have a belief in God would be called atheistic. Upon careful consideration, we can see that there are in fact two types of atheism: entirely atheistic and partially atheistic. The Belief Systems which do not have a belief in the existence of either God or soul are considered to be entirely atheistic. Those which do have a belief in the soul but not in Godare considered partially atheistic. In modern times some scholars have interpreted the Buddha’s silence on the issue of the existence of God as atheistic. In their opinion, Buddharefused to answer any questions regarding the existence of the Divine Reality and the Soul (Atman or Jivatman), and therefore they have concluded that Buddha was an atheist. However, in my opinion these kinds of conclusions demonstrate limited knowledge and ignorance about the essence of the Buddhist texts. In fact, Buddhist literature contains multiple references to the soul (atta or atman), the Lord (Natha), and the maker of the body. Examples can be found even in the fairly short book Dhammapada, where Buddha elaborates on Soul or self (atta): "The atman is the lord of atman. What else could be the Lord? When the individual self jiivatman) is well subdued, a man finds the Lord (Natha) who is difficult to fathom" (Dhammapada 12/4). Some scholars have interpreted the word ’lord’ in this verse as if it literally means ’lordship’. However, even a cursory examination of the words in Pali, the original language of these texts, yields the true meaning. In Pali the word ’lord’ is in the second case accusative, and therefore it would best be translated as ’to the lord’. The noted Buddhist scholar Bhikshu Rahul Sankrityayan has explained this in his rendering of this verse of the Dhammapada: "A man is the lord of himself Who else then could be the lord? If the self is wholly disciplined then he is able to attain a lord who is difficult to be attained." Buddha addresses the creator of the body: "Oh maker of the house I have seen you." (Jaravaggo) "Impermanence" of Buddhism and "Maya" of the Vedic Dharma In the Vedanta literature, the Upanishads, and in the literature of the saints, this physical world is said to comprise both name and form, and is referred to as maya. It is understood to be illusory and not real, to be ever changing, and dependent upon a higher reality In the Chandogya Upanishad, Brhidarnyaka Upanishad, Mundaka Upanishad, and Prashna Upanishad it is repeatedly stated that the nature of the world is transitory, destructible, and not real. Therefore, we must seek for that essence which is constant, true and unchanging by transcending these realms of name and form. The world of name and form is also described as avidya (ignorance) in the Katha and Mundaka Upanishads. In the Shvetashvatara Upanishad, the world is also described as illusory maya. The Upanishads also explain that: "The soul (atman), which is beyond name and form, is brimming with joy and tranquility. In its Turiyatita form (the fifth state -- a state of cosmic consciousness; a state of unity with the source), atman is beyond good and evil" (Teja bindu Upanishad). Lord Buddha says: "A mendicant is one who has no attachment to the world of name and form. He is one who does not grieve for what is not real (asat, the ever changing reality). This is the true mendicant. (Dhammapada, Bhikkhuvaggo)." In the Ramcharitmanasa Saint Tulsida says: "Name and form are the two obstructions to God." All of these references from the Upanishads and the texts of the saints, show agreement with the words of the Buddha, not difference. Ineffable Divine and Silence One person may say the true form of God is Nameless (transcending any human definition), a second person may say the true form of God is Soundless (nihshabda; beyond sound), and yet a third may keep silence in regard to the nature of the Divine. Is it logical to simply label the one who keeps silence an atheist? The wise person should reflect on this matter. If you say that the Divine Reality is nameless and then proceed to describe Him, are you not contradicting yourself! How can you describe something which is nameless? In thinking about this example, one might well conclude that the third person, who was silent when describing God, was actually closer to the nameless description of God. Keeping silence in answer to the question of the nature of the Divine, is also found in the Upanishads. A prime example of this is found in the famous discourse between Sage Vashishta and Shri Ram in the Yoga Vashistha. Shri Rama had queried Guru Vasistha about the nature of Atman and Brahman (the Supreme Reality). In response the Guru remained silent. Ram repeated the question. Guru Vasistha remained silent. Shri Rama asked a third time, and still the great sage remained mute. With joined palms Ram asked his teacher Vasistha: "Reverend Sir! Are you displeased with me and therefore not answering my question, since you always assist me in understanding?" Guru Vasistha replied: "My dear son! I am not displeased with you. I have been answering the question which you have posed. The answer to your question is only given in silence, since the Divine is ineffable, unmanifest, and beyond the senses. How could I describe the nature of the reality which transcends the senses through these very sense organs (speech)?" The point here is that if we were to call the Buddha an atheist when he is silent on the question of the nature of the Divine, as some people have, then logically we must also call Guru Vasistha an atheist when he is silent in answer to the same question. Shunya and Transcendent Reality Some scholars have discounted the Buddha’s teachings, claiming that he is promulgating a belief in "emptiness" or "nothingness." These scholars have concluded that the Buddha, does not believe in a Higher Reality (God). Therefore, they argue, his philosophy should be considered as nihilistic. According to their reasoning, it would follow that those who teach about "emptiness" or "nothingness" (shunya) [the transcendent form of Ultimate Reality is also referred to as shunya] cannot be theistic. However, teachings about shunyata (emptiness) are not only found in Buddhist literature, but are also prominent in the writings of many of the saints. Here are some examples: Gorakh Nath Ji says: "It (God) is neither existent nor non-existent (shunya), its nature is beyond the reach of senses and thought." Sant Kabir Sahab says: "Meditation on the Formless (shunya) is enjoyed by all knowers of Truth." Guru Nanak Dev Ji says: "In the thought-less state of Samadhi (sunna, emptiness), neither maya (illusion) nor the web of mind exist. Only the gracious God exists." Paltu Sahab says: "Staying in solitude and meditate on emptiness (shunya)." Saint Dadu Dayal Ji says: "That Ultimate Reality is beyond the dual categories of qualified and unqualified, it is Emptiness which transcends emptiness (shunya)." Saint Charan Das says: "When the soul is absorbed on the peak (highest inner realm) of emptiness, then it experiences rapture." This emptiness is also known as ether (akasha) or void (avakasha). In the Ramcharitamanasa, Goswami Tulsi Das Ji invokes Lord Shiva: "I invoke the name of Shiva--Lord Shiva, who dwells in the space of infinite knowledge (akasha)" There are discussions about shunya in the Tantra Shastra and the Jnanasankalnii Tantra, where it says, "Meditation is not meditation unless the mind is united with Shunya". Maharishi Mehi says: "Consciousness that is traveling beyond sunna (void) and mahasunna (the great void) traverses the realm of bhanvar gupha (the whirling cave). There it experiences the sound of Truth (sat), which is the Original Sound. This Sound embodies the essence of the spiritual preceptor. 0 Practitioner! Hold on to that sound and become one with that True Sound." In the Upanishads there are multiple references to Emptiness or Space (shunya). In the fourth Brahmana of the Mandala Brahmanopanishad it is said: "There are five kinds of celestial Shunya (ether) which are increasingly more subtle: akasham, parakasham, Mahakasham, Suryakasham and Parmakasham. The infinite light permeates all of these akasham, but the Parmakasham is ineffable and is brimming with infinite bliss. It is the essential element." When one considers all these descriptions of Shunya (emptiness or void), the question arises whether the composers of the Upanishads and the saints were atheists. The unequivocal response is, of course, that they are not atheists. How then could one logically consider the Buddha to be an atheist? The Buddha regularly speaks of both nirvana and Shunya in almost identical terminology, and yet he is accused of atheism solely on the basis of his silence on this question about the nature of God. -- Sant Sevi Ji Maharaj Sant Sevi Ji Paramahans Maharaj Hinduism accepts the Buddha as an avatar of Vishnu, one of the gods of the Hindu trinity. The Buddhists do not accept any Hindu god either as equivalent or superior to the Buddha. In Buddhism, the Hindu gods are relegated to different roles but they are not more important the the Buddhas. Buddhism believes in Bodhisattvas. Hinduism does not believe in them. Well as we have just explained Nirvana, is the state were one is ONE with Brahman or God or VISHNU (where he experiences emptiness)!! In Buddhism and Hinduism, when a Soul achieves Enlightenment, it enters the realm of Nirvana or in other words reunites with God or VISHNU!! So therefore, through Buddhism and Hinduism the Buddha is considered to an AVATAR OF VISHNU!! Plus this proves that Hindu gods/Goddess, were just normal Bodhisattvas!! A Bodhisattva, Satguru, Sant, Saint and Avatar are technically the same thing. An Enlightened and Realized Soul, whose purpose is, too guide other Souls to their own Enlightenment/Moksha. The Buddhists consider the world as suffering and regard ending suffering as the chief aim of human life. The Hindus consider that there are four chief aims (arthas) in life which every being should pursue. They are dharma (religious duty), artha (wealth or material possessions), kama (desires and passions) and moksha (salvation.) Well the four Hindu arm chiefs, are technically the same as the One Buddhist arm chief. According to a Satsang of our Satguru, from a Sant Mat/Hindu tradition, during our Human Life we must gain hold of dharma and Moksha, and destroy Karma and Artha. Even according to Buddhism, Karma and Artha are the products causing one to suffer. Hindus also believe in the four stages of life (each cycle of 25 years having a role to play.) This is not followed in Buddhism. People can participate any time depending upon their spiritual advancement, not their age. Again the four stages of life and the Casting System, have been confused throughout Hinduism in the ages. The four stages of life, just show the stages of life which one is more able to achieve Enlightenment and less able to achieve Enlightenment. Look, at this picture. It shows all the differenment stages to God and all the different people at each stage. The original meaning behind the casting system, was this! An untouchable, was an atheist, or not very religious plus maya like person. A Brahmin, is someone, who is enlightened and at one with Brahman. A warrior, is someone, who is fighting the evil of the maya to achieve enlightenment. A Vaisya, is someone, seeking a Satguru or trying to impress his Satguru. The casting system, was never meant to be confused,with names in society nor discriminate against anyone. This is all a misunderstanding of the Satguru's message!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! All Sants/Satgurus, therefore oppose the modern and incorrect casting system of India!! Guru Nanak, Kabir Sahib, Ramanada and the Geatuma Buddha, are famous, for there battles against the modern casting system!! The social body The social body and its components are likened to the human form. Society is compared to a body with the brahmanas as the head, kshatriyas as the arms, vaishyas as the belly (or thighs) and the shudras as the legs Social functions are determined according to this analogy. For example, the brahmanas are the eyes and mouth of society. They provide a spiritual vision for society and teach people accordingly. Just as the arms are raised to defend the body, the kshatriya's main duty is to protect society. The vaishya's main duty is material nourishment, and the shudra supports all other sections of society. The ashrams are sometimes related to the same metaphor, with the successive stages of student life, household life, retirement and renunciation represented by the legs, belly, arms and head respectively. Buddhists organize themselves into a monastic Order (Sangha) and the monks live in groups. Hinduism is basically an individualistic religion. Certain Hindu groups follow this rule. Refuge in the Buddha, the Sangha and Dharma are the three cardinal requirements on the eightfold path. Hinduism offers many choices to its followers on the path of self-realization. Hinduism, may offer many paths to self-realization, but they all include require refuge in the; the Buddha (Satguru), Sangha (spiritual community) and Dharma (religious duty.) Although both religions believe in karma and rebirth, they differ in the manner in which they operate and impact the existence of individual beings. Above, I have explained the how Buddhism does describe an Atman/Soul concept through a Non Self/Emptiness concept, used a lot in Vedic Hinduism. Source of these so-called differences; http://www.japanese-buddhism.com/hinduism.html These prinples are true about Buddhism, Hinduism and Sant Mat; Both Hinduism and Buddhism teaches that the true nature of the world is illusion and that karma is what is keeping men tied to this world and the cycle of births and deaths. Buddha taught that desire is the main cause of suffering and removal of desire results in the cessation of suffering. Some of the Hindu texts such as the Upanishads (Isa) and the Bhagavadgita state that by accomplishing an action due to desire and attachment we are lead to bondage and suffering. On the contrary, if we accomplish an action without selfish desire, we are closer to liberation from the karmic cycle. Both religions believe in the concept of karma and the reincarnation of souls. Both preach compassion and non violence towards all living beings. Both believe in the existence of several hells and heavens or higher and lower worlds. Both believe in the existence of gods or deities on different planes. Both believe in certain spiritual practices like meditation, concentration, cultivation of certain mood of ecstasy and the channeling of these emotional energies that is induced by the maturing of devotion. Both believe in detachment, renunciation of worldly riches as a prerequisite to enter to spiritual life. Both consider desire as the chief cause of suffering. Buddhism and Hinduism have their own versions of Tantra. Both originated and evolved on the Indian soil. The founder of Buddhism was a Hindu who became the Buddha. The Gautama Buddha, Krishna and Lord Rama plus all the other Hindu Sages were all Satgurus/Saints (Enlightened and God/Vishnu realized souls.) They all came to save other Souls from this evil Maya/Samsara of life and death, plus enlighten other Souls. They considered the quality of God to be of emptiness. They all believed God was always incarnated down on earth in the form of a Satguru/Sant/Saint/Bodhisattva/Buddha. They all believed in the; Soul/Atman, reincarnation, Maya/illusion of life concept, ONE GOD, the Vedic time scale, the Dharmic concepts of Suffering and religion Hinduism/Sant Mat and Buddhism. http://www.hinduwebsite.com/hinduism/h_buddhism.asp As we are aware, these two faiths are very similar, mainly due to their routes in India. Although the two faiths are generally accused of having many differences. This is not true!! Buddhism and Hinduism/Sant Mat share exactly the same teachings. These are the so called, difference between the faiths; Hinduism is not founded by any particular person. Buddhism was founded by the Buddha. So, how does this create any major difference in the teachings of the faiths? Besides, as you will discover the Gautama Buddha, never created Buddhism. The Buddhist faith just grows out of Hinduism. Hinduism believes in the efficacy and supremacy of the Vedic texts. The Buddhist do not believe in these texts or any Hindu scripture. (unlike the Christians adopting the Torah as the Old Testament) Well the Buddha, the Buddhist scriptures or no other Bodhisattva, has ever denied the existence of the Vedas or Vedic texts. The Buddha just said “Oh all those un wise priest, in the temples who read those scriptures. They know nothing about their religion.” Although Swami Ramakrishna (a Hindu Saint) even said; “Many good sayings are to be found in holy books, but merely reading them will not make one religious.” This is clearly obvious, as many of the priests during the time, preformed animal sacrifice, which was opposed in the Gita!!!! Plus everything in the Buddhist texts is technically the same as that in the Vedic texts, as you will see!! Even in the Jakatales Lord Rama and Lord Krishna plus their stories appear. Hindus believe in the Atman, a concept closely related to a primordial soul, or God. Buddhism teaches that the belief in the Atman is the prime consequence of ignorance, which is itself the cause of all misery and the foundation of samsāra (the cycle of rebirth). Buddhism acknowledge the existence of some gods and goddesses of Hindu pantheon, but give them a rather subordinate status. Well Buddhism is accused of not including a God or a Soul/Atman concept. Not so! Buddhism, due to its strong beliefs that the Lord is emptiness, is considered to deny any existence of the God and the Atman/Soul, as well as the idea of Moksha and the soul reuniting with Brahman. Rubbish!! Of course, there is a God and Soul inBuddhism, as we explained Brahman/Atman(as the Atman is a part of God or Brahman), is nothing!! Plus the soul, experiences nothing when reunited with Brahman(as Brahman is nothing), so the Buddhist Nirvana and Hindu Moksha are united!! I mean Heaven, Such Khand, Brahman and Nirvana are all the same, as all faiths lead to the same god!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Read this; Was Buddha An Atheist? By Sant Sevi Ji Paramahans Maharaj The Harmony of All Religions: Santmat [[[[[Copyright 2007, All Rights Reserved]]]]] From the Chapter on Buddhism: All the theistic religions of the world recognize the existence of God. The Divine Being is referred to by various names due to different languages: Brahman (Hindu), God (Christianity), Allah (Islam), Buddha (Buddhism), Tao (Taoism), Yahweh (Judaism), and Ahur Mazd (Zoroastrianism). We can say that a religion with a belief in God is a theistic religion. Religions which do not have a belief in God would be called atheistic. Upon careful consideration, we can see that there are in fact two types of atheism: entirely atheistic and partially atheistic. The Belief Systems which do not have a belief in the existence of either God or soul are considered to be entirely atheistic. Those which do have a belief in the soul but not in Godare considered partially atheistic. In modern times some scholars have interpreted the Buddha’s silence on the issue of the existence of God as atheistic. In their opinion, Buddharefused to answer any questions regarding the existence of the Divine Reality and the Soul (Atman or Jivatman), and therefore they have concluded that Buddha was an atheist. However, in my opinion these kinds of conclusions demonstrate limited knowledge and ignorance about the essence of the Buddhist texts. In fact, Buddhist literature contains multiple references to the soul (atta or atman), the Lord (Natha), and the maker of the body. Examples can be found even in the fairly short book Dhammapada, where Buddha elaborates on Soul or self (atta): "The atman is the lord of atman. What else could be the Lord? When the individual self jiivatman) is well subdued, a man finds the Lord (Natha) who is difficult to fathom" (Dhammapada 12/4). Some scholars have interpreted the word ’lord’ in this verse as if it literally means ’lordship’. However, even a cursory examination of the words in Pali, the original language of these texts, yields the true meaning. In Pali the word ’lord’ is in the second case accusative, and therefore it would best be translated as ’to the lord’. The noted Buddhist scholar Bhikshu Rahul Sankrityayan has explained this in his rendering of this verse of the Dhammapada: "A man is the lord of himself Who else then could be the lord? If the self is wholly disciplined then he is able to attain a lord who is difficult to be attained." Buddha addresses the creator of the body: "Oh maker of the house I have seen you." (Jaravaggo) "Impermanence" of Buddhism and "Maya" of the Vedic Dharma In the Vedanta literature, the Upanishads, and in the literature of the saints, this physical world is said to comprise both name and form, and is referred to as maya. It is understood to be illusory and not real, to be ever changing, and dependent upon a higher reality In the Chandogya Upanishad, Brhidarnyaka Upanishad, Mundaka Upanishad, and Prashna Upanishad it is repeatedly stated that the nature of the world is transitory, destructible, and not real. Therefore, we must seek for that essence which is constant, true and unchanging by transcending these realms of name and form. The world of name and form is also described as avidya (ignorance) in the Katha and Mundaka Upanishads. In the Shvetashvatara Upanishad, the world is also described as illusory maya. The Upanishads also explain that: "The soul (atman), which is beyond name and form, is brimming with joy and tranquility. In its Turiyatita form (the fifth state -- a state of cosmic consciousness; a state of unity with the source), atman is beyond good and evil" (Teja bindu Upanishad). Lord Buddha says: "A mendicant is one who has no attachment to the world of name and form. He is one who does not grieve for what is not real (asat, the ever changing reality). This is the true mendicant. (Dhammapada, Bhikkhuvaggo)." In the Ramcharitmanasa Saint Tulsida says: "Name and form are the two obstructions to God." All of these references from the Upanishads and the texts of the saints, show agreement with the words of the Buddha, not difference. Ineffable Divine and Silence One person may say the true form of God is Nameless (transcending any human definition), a second person may say the true form of God is Soundless (nihshabda; beyond sound), and yet a third may keep silence in regard to the nature of the Divine. Is it logical to simply label the one who keeps silence an atheist? The wise person should reflect on this matter. If you say that the Divine Reality is nameless and then proceed to describe Him, are you not contradicting yourself! How can you describe something which is nameless? In thinking about this example, one might well conclude that the third person, who was silent when describing God, was actually closer to the nameless description of God. Keeping silence in answer to the question of the nature of the Divine, is also found in the Upanishads. A prime example of this is found in the famous discourse between Sage Vashishta and Shri Ram in the Yoga Vashistha. Shri Rama had queried Guru Vasistha about the nature of Atman and Brahman (the Supreme Reality). In response the Guru remained silent. Ram repeated the question. Guru Vasistha remained silent. Shri Rama asked a third time, and still the great sage remained mute. With joined palms Ram asked his teacher Vasistha: "Reverend Sir! Are you displeased with me and therefore not answering my question, since you always assist me in understanding?" Guru Vasistha replied: "My dear son! I am not displeased with you. I have been answering the question which you have posed. The answer to your question is only given in silence, since the Divine is ineffable, unmanifest, and beyond the senses. How could I describe the nature of the reality which transcends the senses through these very sense organs (speech)?" The point here is that if we were to call the Buddha an atheist when he is silent on the question of the nature of the Divine, as some people have, then logically we must also call Guru Vasistha an atheist when he is silent in answer to the same question. Shunya and Transcendent Reality Some scholars have discounted the Buddha’s teachings, claiming that he is promulgating a belief in "emptiness" or "nothingness." These scholars have concluded that the Buddha, does not believe in a Higher Reality (God). Therefore, they argue, his philosophy should be considered as nihilistic. According to their reasoning, it would follow that those who teach about "emptiness" or "nothingness" (shunya) [the transcendent form of Ultimate Reality is also referred to as shunya] cannot be theistic. However, teachings about shunyata (emptiness) are not only found in Buddhist literature, but are also prominent in the writings of many of the saints. Here are some examples: Gorakh Nath Ji says: "It (God) is neither existent nor non-existent (shunya), its nature is beyond the reach of senses and thought." Sant Kabir Sahab says: "Meditation on the Formless (shunya) is enjoyed by all knowers of Truth." Guru Nanak Dev Ji says: "In the thought-less state of Samadhi (sunna, emptiness), neither maya (illusion) nor the web of mind exist. Only the gracious God exists." Paltu Sahab says: "Staying in solitude and meditate on emptiness (shunya)." Saint Dadu Dayal Ji says: "That Ultimate Reality is beyond the dual categories of qualified and unqualified, it is Emptiness which transcends emptiness (shunya)." Saint Charan Das says: "When the soul is absorbed on the peak (highest inner realm) of emptiness, then it experiences rapture." This emptiness is also known as ether (akasha) or void (avakasha). In the Ramcharitamanasa, Goswami Tulsi Das Ji invokes Lord Shiva: "I invoke the name of Shiva--Lord Shiva, who dwells in the space of infinite knowledge (akasha)" There are discussions about shunya in the Tantra Shastra and the Jnanasankalnii Tantra, where it says, "Meditation is not meditation unless the mind is united with Shunya". Maharishi Mehi says: "Consciousness that is traveling beyond sunna (void) and mahasunna (the great void) traverses the realm of bhanvar gupha (the whirling cave). There it experiences the sound of Truth (sat), which is the Original Sound. This Sound embodies the essence of the spiritual preceptor. 0 Practitioner! Hold on to that sound and become one with that True Sound." In the Upanishads there are multiple references to Emptiness or Space (shunya). In the fourth Brahmana of the Mandala Brahmanopanishad it is said: "There are five kinds of celestial Shunya (ether) which are increasingly more subtle: akasham, parakasham, Mahakasham, Suryakasham and Parmakasham. The infinite light permeates all of these akasham, but the Parmakasham is ineffable and is brimming with infinite bliss. It is the essential element." When one considers all these descriptions of Shunya (emptiness or void), the question arises whether the composers of the Upanishads and the saints were atheists. The unequivocal response is, of course, that they are not atheists. How then could one logically consider the Buddha to be an atheist? The Buddha regularly speaks of both nirvana and Shunya in almost identical terminology, and yet he is accused of atheism solely on the basis of his silence on this question about the nature of God. -- Sant Sevi Ji Maharaj Sant Sevi Ji Paramahans Maharaj Hinduism accepts the Buddha as an avatar of Vishnu, one of the gods of the Hindu trinity. The Buddhists do not accept any Hindu god either as equivalent or superior to the Buddha. In Buddhism, the Hindu gods are relegated to different roles but they are not more important the the Buddhas. Buddhism believes in Bodhisattvas. Hinduism does not believe in them. Well as we have just explained Nirvana, is the state were one is ONE with Brahman or God or VISHNU (where he experiences emptiness)!! In Buddhism and Hinduism, when a Soul achieves Enlightenment, it enters the realm of Nirvana or in other words reunites with God or VISHNU!! So therefore, through Buddhism and Hinduism the Buddha is considered to an AVATAR OF VISHNU!! Plus this proves that Hindu gods/Goddess, were just normal Bodhisattvas!! A Bodhisattva, Satguru, Sant, Saint and Avatar are technically the same thing. An Enlightened and Realized Soul, whose purpose is, too guide other Souls to their own Enlightenment/Moksha. The Buddhists consider the world as suffering and regard ending suffering as the chief aim of human life. The Hindus consider that there are four chief aims (arthas) in life which every being should pursue. They are dharma (religious duty), artha (wealth or material possessions), kama (desires and passions) and moksha (salvation.) Well the four Hindu arm chiefs, are technically the same as the One Buddhist arm chief. According to a Satsang of our Satguru, from a Sant Mat/Hindu tradition, during our Human Life we must gain hold of dharma and Moksha, and destroy Karma and Artha. Even according to Buddhism, Karma and Artha are the products causing one to suffer. Hindus also believe in the four stages of life (each cycle of 25 years having a role to play.) This is not followed in Buddhism. People can participate any time depending upon their spiritual advancement, not their age. Again the four stages of life and the Casting System, have been confused throughout Hinduism in the ages. The four stages of life, just show the stages of life which one is more able to achieve Enlightenment and less able to achieve Enlightenment. Look, at this picture. It shows all the differenment stages to God and all the different people at each stage. The original meaning behind the casting system, was this! An untouchable, was an atheist, or not very religious plus maya like person. A Brahmin, is someone, who is enlightened and at one with Brahman. A warrior, is someone, who is fighting the evil of the maya to achieve enlightenment. A Vaisya, is someone, seeking a Satguru or trying to impress his Satguru. The casting system, was never meant to be confused,with names in society nor discriminate against anyone. This is all a misunderstanding of the Satguru's message!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! All Sants/Satgurus, therefore oppose the modern and incorrect casting system of India!! Guru Nanak, Kabir Sahib, Ramanada and the Geatuma Buddha, are famous, for there battles against the modern casting system!! The social body The social body and its components are likened to the human form. Society is compared to a body with the brahmanas as the head, kshatriyas as the arms, vaishyas as the belly (or thighs) and the shudras as the legs Social functions are determined according to this analogy. For example, the brahmanas are the eyes and mouth of society. They provide a spiritual vision for society and teach people accordingly. Just as the arms are raised to defend the body, the kshatriya's main duty is to protect society. The vaishya's main duty is material nourishment, and the shudra supports all other sections of society. The ashrams are sometimes related to the same metaphor, with the successive stages of student life, household life, retirement and renunciation represented by the legs, belly, arms and head respectively. Buddhists organize themselves into a monastic Order (Sangha) and the monks live in groups. Hinduism is basically an individualistic religion. Certain Hindu groups follow this rule. Refuge in the Buddha, the Sangha and Dharma are the three cardinal requirements on the eightfold path. Hinduism offers many choices to its followers on the path of self-realization. Hinduism, may offer many paths to self-realization, but they all include require refuge in the; the Buddha (Satguru), Sangha (spiritual community) and Dharma (religious duty.) Although both religions believe in karma and rebirth, they differ in the manner in which they operate and impact the existence of individual beings. Above, I have explained the how Buddhism does describe an Atman/Soul concept through a Non Self/Emptiness concept, used a lot in Vedic Hinduism. Source of these so-called differences; http://www.japanese-buddhism.com/hinduism.html These prinples are true about Buddhism, Hinduism and Sant Mat; Both Hinduism and Buddhism teaches that the true nature of the world is illusion and that karma is what is keeping men tied to this world and the cycle of births and deaths. Buddha taught that desire is the main cause of suffering and removal of desire results in the cessation of suffering. Some of the Hindu texts such as the Upanishads (Isa) and the Bhagavadgita state that by accomplishing an action due to desire and attachment we are lead to bondage and suffering. On the contrary, if we accomplish an action without selfish desire, we are closer to liberation from the karmic cycle. Both religions believe in the concept of karma and the reincarnation of souls. Both preach compassion and non violence towards all living beings. Both believe in the existence of several hells and heavens or higher and lower worlds. Both believe in the existence of gods or deities on different planes. Both believe in certain spiritual practices like meditation, concentration, cultivation of certain mood of ecstasy and the channeling of these emotional energies that is induced by the maturing of devotion. Both believe in detachment, renunciation of worldly riches as a prerequisite to enter to spiritual life. Both consider desire as the chief cause of suffering. Buddhism and Hinduism have their own versions of Tantra. Both originated and evolved on the Indian soil. The founder of Buddhism was a Hindu who became the Buddha. The Gautama Buddha, Krishna and Lord Rama plus all the other Hindu Sages were all Satgurus/Saints (Enlightened and God/Vishnu realized souls.) They all came to save other Souls from this evil Maya/Samsara of life and death, plus enlighten other Souls. They considered the quality of God to be of emptiness. They all believed God was always incarnated down on earth in the form of a Satguru/Sant/Saint/Bodhisattva/Buddha. They all believed in the; Soul/Atman, reincarnation, Maya/illusion of life concept, ONE GOD, the Vedic time scale, the Dharmic concepts of Suffering and religion Hinduism/Sant Mat and Buddhism. http://www.hinduwebsite.com/hinduism/h_buddhism.asp As we are aware, these two faiths are very similar, mainly due to their routes in India. Although the two faiths are generally accused of having many differences. This is not true!! Buddhism and Hinduism/Sant Mat share exactly the same teachings. These are the so called, difference between the faiths; Hinduism is not founded by any particular person. Buddhism was founded by the Buddha. So, how does this create any major difference in the teachings of the faiths? Besides, as you will discover the Gautama Buddha, never created Buddhism. The Buddhist faith just grows out of Hinduism. Hinduism believes in the efficacy and supremacy of the Vedic texts. The Buddhist do not believe in these texts or any Hindu scripture. (unlike the Christians adopting the Torah as the Old Testament) Well the Buddha, the Buddhist scriptures or no other Bodhisattva, has ever denied the existence of the Vedas or Vedic texts. The Buddha just said “Oh all those un wise priest, in the temples who read those scriptures. They know nothing about their religion.” Although Swami Ramakrishna (a Hindu Saint) even said; “Many good sayings are to be found in holy books, but merely reading them will not make one religious.” This is clearly obvious, as many of the priests during the time, preformed animal sacrifice, which was opposed in the Gita!!!! Plus everything in the Buddhist texts is technically the same as that in the Vedic texts, as you will see!! Even in the Jakatales Lord Rama and Lord Krishna plus their stories appear. Hindus believe in the Atman, a concept closely related to a primordial soul, or God. Buddhism teaches that the belief in the Atman is the prime consequence of ignorance, which is itself the cause of all misery and the foundation of samsāra (the cycle of rebirth). Buddhism acknowledge the existence of some gods and goddesses of Hindu pantheon, but give them a rather subordinate status. Well Buddhism is accused of not including a God or a Soul/Atman concept. Not so! Buddhism, due to its strong beliefs that the Lord is emptiness, is considered to deny any existence of the God and the Atman/Soul, as well as the idea of Moksha and the soul reuniting with Brahman. Rubbish!! Of course, there is a God and Soul inBuddhism, as we explained Brahman/Atman(as the Atman is a part of God or Brahman), is nothing!! Plus the soul, experiences nothing when reunited with Brahman(as Brahman is nothing), so the Buddhist Nirvana and Hindu Moksha are united!! I mean Heaven, Such Khand, Brahman and Nirvana are all the same, as all faiths lead to the same god!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Read this; Was Buddha An Atheist? By Sant Sevi Ji Paramahans Maharaj The Harmony of All Religions: Santmat [[[[[Copyright 2007, All Rights Reserved]]]]] From the Chapter on Buddhism: All the theistic religions of the world recognize the existence of God. The Divine Being is referred to by various names due to different languages: Brahman (Hindu), God (Christianity), Allah (Islam), Buddha (Buddhism), Tao (Taoism), Yahweh (Judaism), and Ahur Mazd (Zoroastrianism). We can say that a religion with a belief in God is a theistic religion. Religions which do not have a belief in God would be called atheistic. Upon careful consideration, we can see that there are in fact two types of atheism: entirely atheistic and partially atheistic. The Belief Systems which do not have a belief in the existence of either God or soul are considered to be entirely atheistic. Those which do have a belief in the soul but not in Godare considered partially atheistic. In modern times some scholars have interpreted the Buddha’s silence on the issue of the existence of God as atheistic. In their opinion, Buddharefused to answer any questions regarding the existence of the Divine Reality and the Soul (Atman or Jivatman), and therefore they have concluded that Buddha was an atheist. However, in my opinion these kinds of conclusions demonstrate limited knowledge and ignorance about the essence of the Buddhist texts. In fact, Buddhist literature contains multiple references to the soul (atta or atman), the Lord (Natha), and the maker of the body. Examples can be found even in the fairly short book Dhammapada, where Buddha elaborates on Soul or self (atta): "The atman is the lord of atman. What else could be the Lord? When the individual self jiivatman) is well subdued, a man finds the Lord (Natha) who is difficult to fathom" (Dhammapada 12/4). Some scholars have interpreted the word ’lord’ in this verse as if it literally means ’lordship’. However, even a cursory examination of the words in Pali, the original language of these texts, yields the true meaning. In Pali the word ’lord’ is in the second case accusative, and therefore it would best be translated as ’to the lord’. The noted Buddhist scholar Bhikshu Rahul Sankrityayan has explained this in his rendering of this verse of the Dhammapada: "A man is the lord of himself Who else then could be the lord? If the self is wholly disciplined then he is able to attain a lord who is difficult to be attained." Buddha addresses the creator of the body: "Oh maker of the house I have seen you." (Jaravaggo) "Impermanence" of Buddhism and "Maya" of the Vedic Dharma In the Vedanta literature, the Upanishads, and in the literature of the saints, this physical world is said to comprise both name and form, and is referred to as maya. It is understood to be illusory and not real, to be ever changing, and dependent upon a higher reality In the Chandogya Upanishad, Brhidarnyaka Upanishad, Mundaka Upanishad, and Prashna Upanishad it is repeatedly stated that the nature of the world is transitory, destructible, and not real. Therefore, we must seek for that essence which is constant, true and unchanging by transcending these realms of name and form. The world of name and form is also described as avidya (ignorance) in the Katha and Mundaka Upanishads. In the Shvetashvatara Upanishad, the world is also described as illusory maya. The Upanishads also explain that: "The soul (atman), which is beyond name and form, is brimming with joy and tranquility. In its Turiyatita form (the fifth state -- a state of cosmic consciousness; a state of unity with the source), atman is beyond good and evil" (Teja bindu Upanishad). Lord Buddha says: "A mendicant is one who has no attachment to the world of name and form. He is one who does not grieve for what is not real (asat, the ever changing reality). This is the true mendicant. (Dhammapada, Bhikkhuvaggo)." In the Ramcharitmanasa Saint Tulsida says: "Name and form are the two obstructions to God." All of these references from the Upanishads and the texts of the saints, show agreement with the words of the Buddha, not difference. Ineffable Divine and Silence One person may say the true form of God is Nameless (transcending any human definition), a second person may say the true form of God is Soundless (nihshabda; beyond sound), and yet a third may keep silence in regard to the nature of the Divine. Is it logical to simply label the one who keeps silence an atheist? The wise person should reflect on this matter. If you say that the Divine Reality is nameless and then proceed to describe Him, are you not contradicting yourself! How can you describe something which is nameless? In thinking about this example, one might well conclude that the third person, who was silent when describing God, was actually closer to the nameless description of God. Keeping silence in answer to the question of the nature of the Divine, is also found in the Upanishads. A prime example of this is found in the famous discourse between Sage Vashishta and Shri Ram in the Yoga Vashistha. Shri Rama had queried Guru Vasistha about the nature of Atman and Brahman (the Supreme Reality). In response the Guru remained silent. Ram repeated the question. Guru Vasistha remained silent. Shri Rama asked a third time, and still the great sage remained mute. With joined palms Ram asked his teacher Vasistha: "Reverend Sir! Are you displeased with me and therefore not answering my question, since you always assist me in understanding?" Guru Vasistha replied: "My dear son! I am not displeased with you. I have been answering the question which you have posed. The answer to your question is only given in silence, since the Divine is ineffable, unmanifest, and beyond the senses. How could I describe the nature of the reality which transcends the senses through these very sense organs (speech)?" The point here is that if we were to call the Buddha an atheist when he is silent on the question of the nature of the Divine, as some people have, then logically we must also call Guru Vasistha an atheist when he is silent in answer to the same question. Shunya and Transcendent Reality Some scholars have discounted the Buddha’s teachings, claiming that he is promulgating a belief in "emptiness" or "nothingness." These scholars have concluded that the Buddha, does not believe in a Higher Reality (God). Therefore, they argue, his philosophy should be considered as nihilistic. According to their reasoning, it would follow that those who teach about "emptiness" or "nothingness" (shunya) [the transcendent form of Ultimate Reality is also referred to as shunya] cannot be theistic. However, teachings about shunyata (emptiness) are not only found in Buddhist literature, but are also prominent in the writings of many of the saints. Here are some examples: Gorakh Nath Ji says: "It (God) is neither existent nor non-existent (shunya), its nature is beyond the reach of senses and thought." Sant Kabir Sahab says: "Meditation on the Formless (shunya) is enjoyed by all knowers of Truth." Guru Nanak Dev Ji says: "In the thought-less state of Samadhi (sunna, emptiness), neither maya (illusion) nor the web of mind exist. Only the gracious God exists." Paltu Sahab says: "Staying in solitude and meditate on emptiness (shunya)." Saint Dadu Dayal Ji says: "That Ultimate Reality is beyond the dual categories of qualified and unqualified, it is Emptiness which transcends emptiness (shunya)." Saint Charan Das says: "When the soul is absorbed on the peak (highest inner realm) of emptiness, then it experiences rapture." This emptiness is also known as ether (akasha) or void (avakasha). In the Ramcharitamanasa, Goswami Tulsi Das Ji invokes Lord Shiva: "I invoke the name of Shiva--Lord Shiva, who dwells in the space of infinite knowledge (akasha)" There are discussions about shunya in the Tantra Shastra and the Jnanasankalnii Tantra, where it says, "Meditation is not meditation unless the mind is united with Shunya". Maharishi Mehi says: "Consciousness that is traveling beyond sunna (void) and mahasunna (the great void) traverses the realm of bhanvar gupha (the whirling cave). There it experiences the sound of Truth (sat), which is the Original Sound. This Sound embodies the essence of the spiritual preceptor. 0 Practitioner! Hold on to that sound and become one with that True Sound." In the Upanishads there are multiple references to Emptiness or Space (shunya). In the fourth Brahmana of the Mandala Brahmanopanishad it is said: "There are five kinds of celestial Shunya (ether) which are increasingly more subtle: akasham, parakasham, Mahakasham, Suryakasham and Parmakasham. The infinite light permeates all of these akasham, but the Parmakasham is ineffable and is brimming with infinite bliss. It is the essential element." When one considers all these descriptions of Shunya (emptiness or void), the question arises whether the composers of the Upanishads and the saints were atheists. The unequivocal response is, of course, that they are not atheists. How then could one logically consider the Buddha to be an atheist? The Buddha regularly speaks of both nirvana and Shunya in almost identical terminology, and yet he is accused of atheism solely on the basis of his silence on this question about the nature of God. -- Sant Sevi Ji Maharaj Sant Sevi Ji Paramahans Maharaj Hinduism accepts the Buddha as an avatar of Vishnu, one of the gods of the Hindu trinity. The Buddhists do not accept any Hindu god either as equivalent or superior to the Buddha. In Buddhism, the Hindu gods are relegated to different roles but they are not more important the the Buddhas. Buddhism believes in Bodhisattvas. Hinduism does not believe in them. Well as we have just explained Nirvana, is the state were one is ONE with Brahman or God or VISHNU (where he experiences emptiness)!! In Buddhism and Hinduism, when a Soul achieves Enlightenment, it enters the realm of Nirvana or in other words reunites with God or VISHNU!! So therefore, through Buddhism and Hinduism the Buddha is considered to an AVATAR OF VISHNU!! Plus this proves that Hindu gods/Goddess, were just normal Bodhisattvas!! A Bodhisattva, Satguru, Sant, Saint and Avatar are technically the same thing. An Enlightened and Realized Soul, whose purpose is, too guide other Souls to their own Enlightenment/Moksha. The Buddhists consider the world as suffering and regard ending suffering as the chief aim of human life. The Hindus consider that there are four chief aims (arthas) in life which every being should pursue. They are dharma (religious duty), artha (wealth or material possessions), kama (desires and passions) and moksha (salvation.) Well the four Hindu arm chiefs, are technically the same as the One Buddhist arm chief. According to a Satsang of our Satguru, from a Sant Mat/Hindu tradition, during our Human Life we must gain hold of dharma and Moksha, and destroy Karma and Artha. Even according to Buddhism, Karma and Artha are the products causing one to suffer. Hindus also believe in the four stages of life (each cycle of 25 years having a role to play.) This is not followed in Buddhism. People can participate any time depending upon their spiritual advancement, not their age. Again the four stages of life and the Casting System, have been confused throughout Hinduism in the ages. The four stages of life, just show the stages of life which one is more able to achieve Enlightenment and less able to achieve Enlightenment. Look, at this picture. It shows all the differenment stages to God and all the different people at each stage. The original meaning behind the casting system, was this! An untouchable, was an atheist, or not very religious plus maya like person. A Brahmin, is someone, who is enlightened and at one with Brahman. A warrior, is someone, who is fighting the evil of the maya to achieve enlightenment. A Vaisya, is someone, seeking a Satguru or trying to impress his Satguru. The casting system, was never meant to be confused,with names in society nor discriminate against anyone. This is all a misunderstanding of the Satguru's message!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! All Sants/Satgurus, therefore oppose the modern and incorrect casting system of India!! Guru Nanak, Kabir Sahib, Ramanada and the Geatuma Buddha, are famous, for there battles against the modern casting system!! The social body The social body and its components are likened to the human form. Society is compared to a body with the brahmanas as the head, kshatriyas as the arms, vaishyas as the belly (or thighs) and the shudras as the legs Social functions are determined according to this analogy. For example, the brahmanas are the eyes and mouth of society. They provide a spiritual vision for society and teach people accordingly. Just as the arms are raised to defend the body, the kshatriya's main duty is to protect society. The vaishya's main duty is material nourishment, and the shudra supports all other sections of society. The ashrams are sometimes related to the same metaphor, with the successive stages of student life, household life, retirement and renunciation represented by the legs, belly, arms and head respectively. Buddhists organize themselves into a monastic Order (Sangha) and the monks live in groups. Hinduism is basically an individualistic religion. Certain Hindu groups follow this rule. Refuge in the Buddha, the Sangha and Dharma are the three cardinal requirements on the eightfold path. Hinduism offers many choices to its followers on the path of self-realization. Hinduism, may offer many paths to self-realization, but they all include require refuge in the; the Buddha (Satguru), Sangha (spiritual community) and Dharma (religious duty.) Although both religions believe in karma and rebirth, they differ in the manner in which they operate and impact the existence of individual beings. Above, I have explained the how Buddhism does describe an Atman/Soul concept through a Non Self/Emptiness concept, used a lot in Vedic Hinduism. Source of these so-called differences; http://www.japanese-buddhism.com/hinduism.html These prinples are true about Buddhism, Hinduism and Sant Mat; Both Hinduism and Buddhism teaches that the true nature of the world is illusion and that karma is what is keeping men tied to this world and the cycle of births and deaths. Buddha taught that desire is the main cause of suffering and removal of desire results in the cessation of suffering. Some of the Hindu texts such as the Upanishads (Isa) and the Bhagavadgita state that by accomplishing an action due to desire and attachment we are lead to bondage and suffering. On the contrary, if we accomplish an action without selfish desire, we are closer to liberation from the karmic cycle. Both religions believe in the concept of karma and the reincarnation of souls. Both preach compassion and non violence towards all living beings. Both believe in the existence of several hells and heavens or higher and lower worlds. Both believe in the existence of gods or deities on different planes. Both believe in certain spiritual practices like meditation, concentration, cultivation of certain mood of ecstasy and the channeling of these emotional energies that is induced by the maturing of devotion. Both believe in detachment, renunciation of worldly riches as a prerequisite to enter to spiritual life. Both consider desire as the chief cause of suffering. Buddhism and Hinduism have their own versions of Tantra. Both originated and evolved on the Indian soil. The founder of Buddhism was a Hindu who became the Buddha. The Gautama Buddha, Krishna and Lord Rama plus all the other Hindu Sages were all Satgurus/Saints (Enlightened and God/Vishnu realized souls.) They all came to save other Souls from this evil Maya/Samsara of life and death, plus enlighten other Souls. They considered the quality of God to be of emptiness. They all believed God was always incarnated down on earth in the form of a Satguru/Sant/Saint/Bodhisattva/Buddha. They all believed in the; Soul/Atman, reincarnation, Maya/illusion of life concept, ONE GOD, the Vedic time scale, the Dharmic concepts of Suffering and religion Hinduism/Sant Mat and Buddhism. http://www.hinduwebsite.com/hinduism/h_buddhism.asp As we are aware, these two faiths are very similar, mainly due to their routes in India. Although the two faiths are generally accused of having many differences. This is not true!! Buddhism and Hinduism/Sant Mat share exactly the same teachings. These are the so called, difference between the faiths; Hinduism is not founded by any particular person. Buddhism was founded by the Buddha. So, how does this create any major difference in the teachings of the faiths? Besides, as you will discover the Gautama Buddha, never created Buddhism. The Buddhist faith just grows out of Hinduism. Hinduism believes in the efficacy and supremacy of the Vedic texts. The Buddhist do not believe in these texts or any Hindu scripture. (unlike the Christians adopting the Torah as the Old Testament) Well the Buddha, the Buddhist scriptures or no other Bodhisattva, has ever denied the existence of the Vedas or Vedic texts. The Buddha just said “Oh all those un wise priest, in the temples who read those scriptures. They know nothing about their religion.” Although Swami Ramakrishna (a Hindu Saint) even said; “Many good sayings are to be found in holy books, but merely reading them will not make one religious.” This is clearly obvious, as many of the priests during the time, preformed animal sacrifice, which was opposed in the Gita!!!! Plus everything in the Buddhist texts is technically the same as that in the Vedic texts, as you will see!! Even in the Jakatales Lord Rama and Lord Krishna plus their stories appear. Hindus believe in the Atman, a concept closely related to a primordial soul, or God. Buddhism teaches that the belief in the Atman is the prime consequence of ignorance, which is itself the cause of all misery and the foundation of samsāra (the cycle of rebirth). Buddhism acknowledge the existence of some gods and goddesses of Hindu pantheon, but give them a rather subordinate status. Well Buddhism is accused of not including a God or a Soul/Atman concept. Not so! Buddhism, due to its strong beliefs that the Lord is emptiness, is considered to deny any existence of the God and the Atman/Soul, as well as the idea of Moksha and the soul reuniting with Brahman. Rubbish!! Of course, there is a God and Soul inBuddhism, as we explained Brahman/Atman(as the Atman is a part of God or Brahman), is nothing!! Plus the soul, experiences nothing when reunited with Brahman(as Brahman is nothing), so the Buddhist Nirvana and Hindu Moksha are united!! I mean Heaven, Such Khand, Brahman and Nirvana are all the same, as all faiths lead to the same god!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Read this; Was Buddha An Atheist? By Sant Sevi Ji Paramahans Maharaj The Harmony of All Religions: Santmat [[[[[Copyright 2007, All Rights Reserved]]]]] From the Chapter on Buddhism: All the theistic religions of the world recognize the existence of God. The Divine Being is referred to by various names due to different languages: Brahman (Hindu), God (Christianity), Allah (Islam), Buddha (Buddhism), Tao (Taoism), Yahweh (Judaism), and Ahur Mazd (Zoroastrianism). We can say that a religion with a belief in God is a theistic religion. Religions which do not have a belief in God would be called atheistic. Upon careful consideration, we can see that there are in fact two types of atheism: entirely atheistic and partially atheistic. The Belief Systems which do not have a belief in the existence of either God or soul are considered to be entirely atheistic. Those which do have a belief in the soul but not in Godare considered partially atheistic. In modern times some scholars have interpreted the Buddha’s silence on the issue of the existence of God as atheistic. In their opinion, Buddharefused to answer any questions regarding the existence of the Divine Reality and the Soul (Atman or Jivatman), and therefore they have concluded that Buddha was an atheist. However, in my opinion these kinds of conclusions demonstrate limited knowledge and ignorance about the essence of the Buddhist texts. In fact, Buddhist literature contains multiple references to the soul (atta or atman), the Lord (Natha), and the maker of the body. Examples can be found even in the fairly short book Dhammapada, where Buddha elaborates on Soul or self (atta): "The atman is the lord of atman. What else could be the Lord? When the individual self jiivatman) is well subdued, a man finds the Lord (Natha) who is difficult to fathom" (Dhammapada 12/4). Some scholars have interpreted the word ’lord’ in this verse as if it literally means ’lordship’. However, even a cursory examination of the words in Pali, the original language of these texts, yields the true meaning. In Pali the word ’lord’ is in the second case accusative, and therefore it would best be translated as ’to the lord’. The noted Buddhist scholar Bhikshu Rahul Sankrityayan has explained this in his rendering of this verse of the Dhammapada: "A man is the lord of himself Who else then could be the lord? If the self is wholly disciplined then he is able to attain a lord who is difficult to be attained." Buddha addresses the creator of the body: "Oh maker of the house I have seen you." (Jaravaggo) "Impermanence" of Buddhism and "Maya" of the Vedic Dharma In the Vedanta literature, the Upanishads, and in the literature of the saints, this physical world is said to comprise both name and form, and is referred to as maya. It is understood to be illusory and not real, to be ever changing, and dependent upon a higher reality In the Chandogya Upanishad, Brhidarnyaka Upanishad, Mundaka Upanishad, and Prashna Upanishad it is repeatedly stated that the nature of the world is transitory, destructible, and not real. Therefore, we must seek for that essence which is constant, true and unchanging by transcending these realms of name and form. The world of name and form is also described as avidya (ignorance) in the Katha and Mundaka Upanishads. In the Shvetashvatara Upanishad, the world is also described as illusory maya. The Upanishads also explain that: "The soul (atman), which is beyond name and form, is brimming with joy and tranquility. In its Turiyatita form (the fifth state -- a state of cosmic consciousness; a state of unity with the source), atman is beyond good and evil" (Teja bindu Upanishad). Lord Buddha says: "A mendicant is one who has no attachment to the world of name and form. He is one who does not grieve for what is not real (asat, the ever changing reality). This is the true mendicant. (Dhammapada, Bhikkhuvaggo)." In the Ramcharitmanasa Saint Tulsida says: "Name and form are the two obstructions to God." All of these references from the Upanishads and the texts of the saints, show agreement with the words of the Buddha, not difference. Ineffable Divine and Silence One person may say the true form of God is Nameless (transcending any human definition), a second person may say the true form of God is Soundless (nihshabda; beyond sound), and yet a third may keep silence in regard to the nature of the Divine. Is it logical to simply label the one who keeps silence an atheist? The wise person should reflect on this matter. If you say that the Divine Reality is nameless and then proceed to describe Him, are you not contradicting yourself! How can you describe something which is nameless? In thinking about this example, one might well conclude that the third person, who was silent when describing God, was actually closer to the nameless description of God. Keeping silence in answer to the question of the nature of the Divine, is also found in the Upanishads. A prime example of this is found in the famous discourse between Sage Vashishta and Shri Ram in the Yoga Vashistha. Shri Rama had queried Guru Vasistha about the nature of Atman and Brahman (the Supreme Reality). In response the Guru remained silent. Ram repeated the question. Guru Vasistha remained silent. Shri Rama asked a third time, and still the great sage remained mute. With joined palms Ram asked his teacher Vasistha: "Reverend Sir! Are you displeased with me and therefore not answering my question, since you always assist me in understanding?" Guru Vasistha replied: "My dear son! I am not displeased with you. I have been answering the question which you have posed. The answer to your question is only given in silence, since the Divine is ineffable, unmanifest, and beyond the senses. How could I describe the nature of the reality which transcends the senses through these very sense organs (speech)?" The point here is that if we were to call the Buddha an atheist when he is silent on the question of the nature of the Divine, as some people have, then logically we must also call Guru Vasistha an atheist when he is silent in answer to the same question. Shunya and Transcendent Reality Some scholars have discounted the Buddha’s teachings, claiming that he is promulgating a belief in "emptiness" or "nothingness." These scholars have concluded that the Buddha, does not believe in a Higher Reality (God). Therefore, they argue, his philosophy should be considered as nihilistic. According to their reasoning, it would follow that those who teach about "emptiness" or "nothingness" (shunya) [the transcendent form of Ultimate Reality is also referred to as shunya] cannot be theistic. However, teachings about shunyata (emptiness) are not only found in Buddhist literature, but are also prominent in the writings of many of the saints. Here are some examples: Gorakh Nath Ji says: "It (God) is neither existent nor non-existent (shunya), its nature is beyond the reach of senses and thought." Sant Kabir Sahab says: "Meditation on the Formless (shunya) is enjoyed by all knowers of Truth." Guru Nanak Dev Ji says: "In the thought-less state of Samadhi (sunna, emptiness), neither maya (illusion) nor the web of mind exist. Only the gracious God exists." Paltu Sahab says: "Staying in solitude and meditate on emptiness (shunya)." Saint Dadu Dayal Ji says: "That Ultimate Reality is beyond the dual categories of qualified and unqualified, it is Emptiness which transcends emptiness (shunya)." Saint Charan Das says: "When the soul is absorbed on the peak (highest inner realm) of emptiness, then it experiences rapture." This emptiness is also known as ether (akasha) or void (avakasha). In the Ramcharitamanasa, Goswami Tulsi Das Ji invokes Lord Shiva: "I invoke the name of Shiva--Lord Shiva, who dwells in the space of infinite knowledge (akasha)" There are discussions about shunya in the Tantra Shastra and the Jnanasankalnii Tantra, where it says, "Meditation is not meditation unless the mind is united with Shunya". Maharishi Mehi says: "Consciousness that is traveling beyond sunna (void) and mahasunna (the great void) traverses the realm of bhanvar gupha (the whirling cave). There it experiences the sound of Truth (sat), which is the Original Sound. This Sound embodies the essence of the spiritual preceptor. 0 Practitioner! Hold on to that sound and become one with that True Sound." In the Upanishads there are multiple references to Emptiness or Space (shunya). In the fourth Brahmana of the Mandala Brahmanopanishad it is said: "There are five kinds of celestial Shunya (ether) which are increasingly more subtle: akasham, parakasham, Mahakasham, Suryakasham and Parmakasham. The infinite light permeates all of these akasham, but the Parmakasham is ineffable and is brimming with infinite bliss. It is the essential element." When one considers all these descriptions of Shunya (emptiness or void), the question arises whether the composers of the Upanishads and the saints were atheists. The unequivocal response is, of course, that they are not atheists. How then could one logically consider the Buddha to be an atheist? The Buddha regularly speaks of both nirvana and Shunya in almost identical terminology, and yet he is accused of atheism solely on the basis of his silence on this question about the nature of God. -- Sant Sevi Ji Maharaj Sant Sevi Ji Paramahans Maharaj Hinduism accepts the Buddha as an avatar of Vishnu, one of the gods of the Hindu trinity. The Buddhists do not accept any Hindu god either as equivalent or superior to the Buddha. In Buddhism, the Hindu gods are relegated to different roles but they are not more important the the Buddhas. Buddhism believes in Bodhisattvas. Hinduism does not believe in them. Well as we have just explained Nirvana, is the state were one is ONE with Brahman or God or VISHNU (where he experiences emptiness)!! In Buddhism and Hinduism, when a Soul achieves Enlightenment, it enters the realm of Nirvana or in other words reunites with God or VISHNU!! So therefore, through Buddhism and Hinduism the Buddha is considered to an AVATAR OF VISHNU!! Plus this proves that Hindu gods/Goddess, were just normal Bodhisattvas!! A Bodhisattva, Satguru, Sant, Saint and Avatar are technically the same thing. An Enlightened and Realized Soul, whose purpose is, too guide other Souls to their own Enlightenment/Moksha. The Buddhists consider the world as suffering and regard ending suffering as the chief aim of human life. The Hindus consider that there are four chief aims (arthas) in life which every being should pursue. They are dharma (religious duty), artha (wealth or material possessions), kama (desires and passions) and moksha (salvation.) Well the four Hindu arm chiefs, are technically the same as the One Buddhist arm chief. According to a Satsang of our Satguru, from a Sant Mat/Hindu tradition, during our Human Life we must gain hold of dharma and Moksha, and destroy Karma and Artha. Even according to Buddhism, Karma and Artha are the products causing one to suffer. Hindus also believe in the four stages of life (each cycle of 25 years having a role to play.) This is not followed in Buddhism. People can participate any time depending upon their spiritual advancement, not their age. Again the four stages of life and the Casting System, have been confused throughout Hinduism in the ages. The four stages of life, just show the stages of life which one is more able to achieve Enlightenment and less able to achieve Enlightenment. Look, at this picture. It shows all the differenment stages to God and all the different people at each stage. The original meaning behind the casting system, was this! An untouchable, was an atheist, or not very religious plus maya like person. A Brahmin, is someone, who is enlightened and at one with Brahman. A warrior, is someone, who is fighting the evil of the maya to achieve enlightenment. A Vaisya, is someone, seeking a Satguru or trying to impress his Satguru. The casting system, was never meant to be confused,with names in society nor discriminate against anyone. This is all a misunderstanding of the Satguru's message!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! All Sants/Satgurus, therefore oppose the modern and incorrect casting system of India!! Guru Nanak, Kabir Sahib, Ramanada and the Geatuma Buddha, are famous, for there battles against the modern casting system!! The social body The social body and its components are likened to the human form. Society is compared to a body with the brahmanas as the head, kshatriyas as the arms, vaishyas as the belly (or thighs) and the shudras as the legs Social functions are determined according to this analogy. For example, the brahmanas are the eyes and mouth of society. They provide a spiritual vision for society and teach people accordingly. Just as the arms are raised to defend the body, the kshatriya's main duty is to protect society. The vaishya's main duty is material nourishment, and the shudra supports all other sections of society. The ashrams are sometimes related to the same metaphor, with the successive stages of student life, household life, retirement and renunciation represented by the legs, belly, arms and head respectively. Buddhists organize themselves into a monastic Order (Sangha) and the monks live in groups. Hinduism is basically an individualistic religion. Certain Hindu groups follow this rule. Refuge in the Buddha, the Sangha and Dharma are the three cardinal requirements on the eightfold path. Hinduism offers many choices to its followers on the path of self-realization. Hinduism, may offer many paths to self-realization, but they all include require refuge in the; the Buddha (Satguru), Sangha (spiritual community) and Dharma (religious duty.) Although both religions believe in karma and rebirth, they differ in the manner in which they operate and impact the existence of individual beings. Above, I have explained the how Buddhism does describe an Atman/Soul concept through a Non Self/Emptiness concept, used a lot in Vedic Hinduism. Source of these so-called differences; http://www.japanese-buddhism.com/hinduism.html These prinples are true about Buddhism, Hinduism and Sant Mat; Both Hinduism and Buddhism teaches that the true nature of the world is illusion and that karma is what is keeping men tied to this world and the cycle of births and deaths. Buddha taught that desire is the main cause of suffering and removal of desire results in the cessation of suffering. Some of the Hindu texts such as the Upanishads (Isa) and the Bhagavadgita state that by accomplishing an action due to desire and attachment we are lead to bondage and suffering. On the contrary, if we accomplish an action without selfish desire, we are closer to liberation from the karmic cycle. Both religions believe in the concept of karma and the reincarnation of souls. Both preach compassion and non violence towards all living beings. Both believe in the existence of several hells and heavens or higher and lower worlds. Both believe in the existence of gods or deities on different planes. Both believe in certain spiritual practices like meditation, concentration, cultivation of certain mood of ecstasy and the channeling of these emotional energies that is induced by the maturing of devotion. Both believe in detachment, renunciation of worldly riches as a prerequisite to enter to spiritual life. Both consider desire as the chief cause of suffering. Buddhism and Hinduism have their own versions of Tantra. Both originated and evolved on the Indian soil. The founder of Buddhism was a Hindu who became the Buddha. The Gautama Buddha, Krishna and Lord Rama plus all the other Hindu Sages were all Satgurus/Saints (Enlightened and God/Vishnu realized souls.) They all came to save other Souls from this evil Maya/Samsara of life and death, plus enlighten other Souls. They considered the quality of God to be of emptiness. They all believed God was always incarnated down on earth in the form of a Satguru/Sant/Saint/Bodhisattva/Buddha. They all believed in the; Soul/Atman, reincarnation, Maya/illusion of life concept, ONE GOD, the Vedic time scale, the Dharmic concepts of Suffering and religion Hinduism/Sant Mat and Buddhism. http://www.hinduwebsite.com/hinduism/h_buddhism.asp As we are aware, these two faiths are very similar, mainly due to their routes in India. Although the two faiths are generally accused of having many differences. This is not true!! Buddhism and Hinduism/Sant Mat share exactly the same teachings. These are the so called, difference between the faiths; Hinduism is not founded by any particular person. Buddhism was founded by the Buddha. So, how does this create any major difference in the teachings of the faiths? Besides, as you will discover the Gautama Buddha, never created Buddhism. The Buddhist faith just grows out of Hinduism. Hinduism believes in the efficacy and supremacy of the Vedic texts. The Buddhist do not believe in these texts or any Hindu scripture. (unlike the Christians adopting the Torah as the Old Testament) Well the Buddha, the Buddhist scriptures or no other Bodhisattva, has ever denied the existence of the Vedas or Vedic texts. The Buddha just said “Oh all those un wise priest, in the temples who read those scriptures. They know nothing about their religion.” Although Swami Ramakrishna (a Hindu Saint) even said; “Many good sayings are to be found in holy books, but merely reading them will not make one religious.” This is clearly obvious, as many of the priests during the time, preformed animal sacrifice, which was opposed in the Gita!!!! Plus everything in the Buddhist texts is technically the same as that in the Vedic texts, as you will see!! Even in the Jakatales Lord Rama and Lord Krishna plus their stories appear. Hindus believe in the Atman, a concept closely related to a primordial soul, or God. Buddhism teaches that the belief in the Atman is the prime consequence of ignorance, which is itself the cause of all misery and the foundation of samsāra (the cycle of rebirth). Buddhism acknowledge the existence of some gods and goddesses of Hindu pantheon, but give them a rather subordinate status. Well Buddhism is accused of not including a God or a Soul/Atman concept. Not so! Buddhism, due to its strong beliefs that the Lord is emptiness, is considered to deny any existence of the God and the Atman/Soul, as well as the idea of Moksha and the soul reuniting with Brahman. Rubbish!! Of course, there is a God and Soul inBuddhism, as we explained Brahman/Atman(as the Atman is a part of God or Brahman), is nothing!! Plus the soul, experiences nothing when reunited with Brahman(as Brahman is nothing), so the Buddhist Nirvana and Hindu Moksha are united!! I mean Heaven, Such Khand, Brahman and Nirvana are all the same, as all faiths lead to the same god!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Read this; Was Buddha An Atheist? By Sant Sevi Ji Paramahans Maharaj The Harmony of All Religions: Santmat [[[[[Copyright 2007, All Rights Reserved]]]]] From the Chapter on Buddhism: All the theistic religions of the world recognize the existence of God. The Divine Being is referred to by various names due to different languages: Brahman (Hindu), God (Christianity), Allah (Islam), Buddha (Buddhism), Tao (Taoism), Yahweh (Judaism), and Ahur Mazd (Zoroastrianism). We can say that a religion with a belief in God is a theistic religion. Religions which do not have a belief in God would be called atheistic. Upon careful consideration, we can see that there are in fact two types of atheism: entirely atheistic and partially atheistic. The Belief Systems which do not have a belief in the existence of either God or soul are considered to be entirely atheistic. Those which do have a belief in the soul but not in Godare considered partially atheistic. In modern times some scholars have interpreted the Buddha’s silence on the issue of the existence of God as atheistic. In their opinion, Buddharefused to answer any questions regarding the existence of the Divine Reality and the Soul (Atman or Jivatman), and therefore they have concluded that Buddha was an atheist. However, in my opinion these kinds of conclusions demonstrate limited knowledge and ignorance about the essence of the Buddhist texts. In fact, Buddhist literature contains multiple references to the soul (atta or atman), the Lord (Natha), and the maker of the body. Examples can be found even in the fairly short book Dhammapada, where Buddha elaborates on Soul or self (atta): "The atman is the lord of atman. What else could be the Lord? When the individual self jiivatman) is well subdued, a man finds the Lord (Natha) who is difficult to fathom" (Dhammapada 12/4). Some scholars have interpreted the word ’lord’ in this verse as if it literally means ’lordship’. However, even a cursory examination of the words in Pali, the original language of these texts, yields the true meaning. In Pali the word ’lord’ is in the second case accusative, and therefore it would best be translated as ’to the lord’. The noted Buddhist scholar Bhikshu Rahul Sankrityayan has explained this in his rendering of this verse of the Dhammapada: "A man is the lord of himself Who else then could be the lord? If the self is wholly disciplined then he is able to attain a lord who is difficult to be attained." Buddha addresses the creator of the body: "Oh maker of the house I have seen you." (Jaravaggo) "Impermanence" of Buddhism and "Maya" of the Vedic Dharma In the Vedanta literature, the Upanishads, and in the literature of the saints, this physical world is said to comprise both name and form, and is referred to as maya. It is understood to be illusory and not real, to be ever changing, and dependent upon a higher reality In the Chandogya Upanishad, Brhidarnyaka Upanishad, Mundaka Upanishad, and Prashna Upanishad it is repeatedly stated that the nature of the world is transitory, destructible, and not real. Therefore, we must seek for that essence which is constant, true and unchanging by transcending these realms of name and form. The world of name and form is also described as avidya (ignorance) in the Katha and Mundaka Upanishads. In the Shvetashvatara Upanishad, the world is also described as illusory maya. The Upanishads also explain that: "The soul (atman), which is beyond name and form, is brimming with joy and tranquility. In its Turiyatita form (the fifth state -- a state of cosmic consciousness; a state of unity with the source), atman is beyond good and evil" (Teja bindu Upanishad). Lord Buddha says: "A mendicant is one who has no attachment to the world of name and form. He is one who does not grieve for what is not real (asat, the ever changing reality). This is the true mendicant. (Dhammapada, Bhikkhuvaggo)." In the Ramcharitmanasa Saint Tulsida says: "Name and form are the two obstructions to God." All of these references from the Upanishads and the texts of the saints, show agreement with the words of the Buddha, not difference. Ineffable Divine and Silence One person may say the true form of God is Nameless (transcending any human definition), a second person may say the true form of God is Soundless (nihshabda; beyond sound), and yet a third may keep silence in regard to the nature of the Divine. Is it logical to simply label the one who keeps silence an atheist? The wise person should reflect on this matter. If you say that the Divine Reality is nameless and then proceed to describe Him, are you not contradicting yourself! How can you describe something which is nameless? In thinking about this example, one might well conclude that the third person, who was silent when describing God, was actually closer to the nameless description of God. Keeping silence in answer to the question of the nature of the Divine, is also found in the Upanishads. A prime example of this is found in the famous discourse between Sage Vashishta and Shri Ram in the Yoga Vashistha. Shri Rama had queried Guru Vasistha about the nature of Atman and Brahman (the Supreme Reality). In response the Guru remained silent. Ram repeated the question. Guru Vasistha remained silent. Shri Rama asked a third time, and still the great sage remained mute. With joined palms Ram asked his teacher Vasistha: "Reverend Sir! Are you displeased with me and therefore not answering my question, since you always assist me in understanding?" Guru Vasistha replied: "My dear son! I am not displeased with you. I have been answering the question which you have posed. The answer to your question is only given in silence, since the Divine is ineffable, unmanifest, and beyond the senses. How could I describe the nature of the reality which transcends the senses through these very sense organs (speech)?" The point here is that if we were to call the Buddha an atheist when he is silent on the question of the nature of the Divine, as some people have, then logically we must also call Guru Vasistha an atheist when he is silent in answer to the same question. Shunya and Transcendent Reality Some scholars have discounted the Buddha’s teachings, claiming that he is promulgating a belief in "emptiness" or "nothingness." These scholars have concluded that the Buddha, does not believe in a Higher Reality (God). Therefore, they argue, his philosophy should be considered as nihilistic. According to their reasoning, it would follow that those who teach about "emptiness" or "nothingness" (shunya) [the transcendent form of Ultimate Reality is also referred to as shunya] cannot be theistic. However, teachings about shunyata (emptiness) are not only found in Buddhist literature, but are also prominent in the writings of many of the saints. Here are some examples: Gorakh Nath Ji says: "It (God) is neither existent nor non-existent (shunya), its nature is beyond the reach of senses and thought." Sant Kabir Sahab says: "Meditation on the Formless (shunya) is enjoyed by all knowers of Truth." Guru Nanak Dev Ji says: "In the thought-less state of Samadhi (sunna, emptiness), neither maya (illusion) nor the web of mind exist. Only the gracious God exists." Paltu Sahab says: "Staying in solitude and meditate on emptiness (shunya)." Saint Dadu Dayal Ji says: "That Ultimate Reality is beyond the dual categories of qualified and unqualified, it is Emptiness which transcends emptiness (shunya)." Saint Charan Das says: "When the soul is absorbed on the peak (highest inner realm) of emptiness, then it experiences rapture." This emptiness is also known as ether (akasha) or void (avakasha). In the Ramcharitamanasa, Goswami Tulsi Das Ji invokes Lord Shiva: "I invoke the name of Shiva--Lord Shiva, who dwells in the space of infinite knowledge (akasha)" There are discussions about shunya in the Tantra Shastra and the Jnanasankalnii Tantra, where it says, "Meditation is not meditation unless the mind is united with Shunya". Maharishi Mehi says: "Consciousness that is traveling beyond sunna (void) and mahasunna (the great void) traverses the realm of bhanvar gupha (the whirling cave). There it experiences the sound of Truth (sat), which is the Original Sound. This Sound embodies the essence of the spiritual preceptor. 0 Practitioner! Hold on to that sound and become one with that True Sound." In the Upanishads there are multiple references to Emptiness or Space (shunya). In the fourth Brahmana of the Mandala Brahmanopanishad it is said: "There are five kinds of celestial Shunya (ether) which are increasingly more subtle: akasham, parakasham, Mahakasham, Suryakasham and Parmakasham. The infinite light permeates all of these akasham, but the Parmakasham is ineffable and is brimming with infinite bliss. It is the essential element." When one considers all these descriptions of Shunya (emptiness or void), the question arises whether the composers of the Upanishads and the saints were atheists. The unequivocal response is, of course, that they are not atheists. How then could one logically consider the Buddha to be an atheist? The Buddha regularly speaks of both nirvana and Shunya in almost identical terminology, and yet he is accused of atheism solely on the basis of his silence on this question about the nature of God. -- Sant Sevi Ji Maharaj Sant Sevi Ji Paramahans Maharaj Hinduism accepts the Buddha as an avatar of Vishnu, one of the gods of the Hindu trinity. The Buddhists do not accept any Hindu god either as equivalent or superior to the Buddha. In Buddhism, the Hindu gods are relegated to different roles but they are not more important the the Buddhas. Buddhism believes in Bodhisattvas. Hinduism does not believe in them. Well as we have just explained Nirvana, is the state were one is ONE with Brahman or God or VISHNU (where he experiences emptiness)!! In Buddhism and Hinduism, when a Soul achieves Enlightenment, it enters the realm of Nirvana or in other words reunites with God or VISHNU!! So therefore, through Buddhism and Hinduism the Buddha is considered to an AVATAR OF VISHNU!! Plus this proves that Hindu gods/Goddess, were just normal Bodhisattvas!! A Bodhisattva, Satguru, Sant, Saint and Avatar are technically the same thing. An Enlightened and Realized Soul, whose purpose is, too guide other Souls to their own Enlightenment/Moksha. The Buddhists consider the world as suffering and regard ending suffering as the chief aim of human life. The Hindus consider that there are four chief aims (arthas) in life which every being should pursue. They are dharma (religious duty), artha (wealth or material possessions), kama (desires and passions) and moksha (salvation.) Well the four Hindu arm chiefs, are technically the same as the One Buddhist arm chief. According to a Satsang of our Satguru, from a Sant Mat/Hindu tradition, during our Human Life we must gain hold of dharma and Moksha, and destroy Karma and Artha. Even according to Buddhism, Karma and Artha are the products causing one to suffer. Hindus also believe in the four stages of life (each cycle of 25 years having a role to play.) This is not followed in Buddhism. People can participate any time depending upon their spiritual advancement, not their age. Again the four stages of life and the Casting System, have been confused throughout Hinduism in the ages. The four stages of life, just show the stages of life which one is more able to achieve Enlightenment and less able to achieve Enlightenment. Look, at this picture. It shows all the differenment stages to God and all the different people at each stage. The original meaning behind the casting system, was this! An untouchable, was an atheist, or not very religious plus maya like person. A Brahmin, is someone, who is enlightened and at one with Brahman. A warrior, is someone, who is fighting the evil of the maya to achieve enlightenment. A Vaisya, is someone, seeking a Satguru or trying to impress his Satguru. The casting system, was never meant to be confused,with names in society nor discriminate against anyone. This is all a misunderstanding of the Satguru's message!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! All Sants/Satgurus, therefore oppose the modern and incorrect casting system of India!! Guru Nanak, Kabir Sahib, Ramanada and the Geatuma Buddha, are famous, for there battles against the modern casting system!! The social body The social body and its components are likened to the human form. Society is compared to a body with the brahmanas as the head, kshatriyas as the arms, vaishyas as the belly (or thighs) and the shudras as the legs Social functions are determined according to this analogy. For example, the brahmanas are the eyes and mouth of society. They provide a spiritual vision for society and teach people accordingly. Just as the arms are raised to defend the body, the kshatriya's main duty is to protect society. The vaishya's main duty is material nourishment, and the shudra supports all other sections of society. The ashrams are sometimes related to the same metaphor, with the successive stages of student life, household life, retirement and renunciation represented by the legs, belly, arms and head respectively. Buddhists organize themselves into a monastic Order (Sangha) and the monks live in groups. Hinduism is basically an individualistic religion. Certain Hindu groups follow this rule. Refuge in the Buddha, the Sangha and Dharma are the three cardinal requirements on the eightfold path. Hinduism offers many choices to its followers on the path of self-realization. Hinduism, may offer many paths to self-realization, but they all include require refuge in the; the Buddha (Satguru), Sangha (spiritual community) and Dharma (religious duty.) Although both religions believe in karma and rebirth, they differ in the manner in which they operate and impact the existence of individual beings. Above, I have explained the how Buddhism does describe an Atman/Soul concept through a Non Self/Emptiness concept, used a lot in Vedic Hinduism. Source of these so-called differences; http://www.japanese-buddhism.com/hinduism.html These prinples are true about Buddhism, Hinduism and Sant Mat; Both Hinduism and Buddhism teaches that the true nature of the world is illusion and that karma is what is keeping men tied to this world and the cycle of births and deaths. Buddha taught that desire is the main cause of suffering and removal of desire results in the cessation of suffering. Some of the Hindu texts such as the Upanishads (Isa) and the Bhagavadgita state that by accomplishing an action due to desire and attachment we are lead to bondage and suffering. On the contrary, if we accomplish an action without selfish desire, we are closer to liberation from the karmic cycle. Both religions believe in the concept of karma and the reincarnation of souls. Both preach compassion and non violence towards all living beings. Both believe in the existence of several hells and heavens or higher and lower worlds. Both believe in the existence of gods or deities on different planes. Both believe in certain spiritual practices like meditation, concentration, cultivation of certain mood of ecstasy and the channeling of these emotional energies that is induced by the maturing of devotion. Both believe in detachment, renunciation of worldly riches as a prerequisite to enter to spiritual life. Both consider desire as the chief cause of suffering. Buddhism and Hinduism have their own versions of Tantra. Both originated and evolved on the Indian soil. The founder of Buddhism was a Hindu who became the Buddha. The Gautama Buddha, Krishna and Lord Rama plus all the other Hindu Sages were all Satgurus/Saints (Enlightened and God/Vishnu realized souls.) They all came to save other Souls from this evil Maya/Samsara of life and death, plus enlighten other Souls. They considered the quality of God to be of emptiness. They all believed God was always incarnated down on earth in the form of a Satguru/Sant/Saint/Bodhisattva/Buddha. They all believed in the; Soul/Atman, reincarnation, Maya/illusion of life concept, ONE GOD, the Vedic time scale, the Dharmic concepts of Suffering and religion

— 64.✗.✗.222
-7

June 14, 2013, 1:58pm

The new writer has presented some wrong points. They should be gotten rid of at once.

— 203.✗.✗.82
-12

share

Up next

Hinduism vs. Islam