What did Buddhism add that Hinduism didn't already cover?

What did Buddhism add that Hinduism didn't already cover?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhasmasur
books.google.fr/books?id=Lsp18ZvstrcC&lpg=PP1&pg=PP1&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_atheism
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

It basically said the atman (soul) isn't real.

Hinduism came after buddhism. It offered education and systemic morals relatively free of class or creed. It later diverged into several special groups; theraveda and mahayana went east while vedanta merged with vedism and local idol worship to form the basis of modern hinduism.

>Hinduism came after buddhism.

No it didn't.

well tbf, modern "hinduism" was a british invention and like everything the eternal anglo touched, it was a mistake.
They are the IRL equivalent of Bhasmasur
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhasmasur

Buddhism has cooler iconography.

>Hinduism came after Buddhism

Hai Ram!

buddhist schools that take samsara literally like Tibetan clearly believe in atman, it's a volatile "bad" atman, but clearly an individual soul

I would argue that all buddhist schools really believe in atman, they just think it gets in the way and use language games to get you to forget yours (buddhists call them "beings")

if buddhism didn't believe in souls they wouldn't have all this literature and disciplines dedicating to liberating them

Self doesn't need to exist for suffering and suffering's cessation to exist.

Hinduism is just Indians believing in stuff, usually informed by the Vedas.
There is no Hindu "canon".
Hindu Scripture is not a single narrative or a set of teachings. It's a compendium of ideas and events ancient folks thought about.

>Hinduism is just Indians believing in stuff, usually informed by the Vedas.

>Buddhism is just Indians believing in stuff, usually informed by the Pali Canon.
>Judaism is just Jews believing in stuff, usually informed by the Torah.
>Christianity is just Greeks believing in stuff, usually informed by the New Testament.
>Islam is just Arabs believing in stuff, usually informed by the Quran.

and yet buddhism's entire context is the self; physical and emotional phenonemas and their cessation, mindfulness, self-discipline etc

a buddhist can't help suffering without dealing with some other aspect of the self, physical or mental

>physical and emotional phenonemas
>mindfulness
>discipline

None of those things need self to exist.

THIS

Indian religion is ever-changing and cover a wide range of sects. Today hinduism has nothing to do with Brahmanism evenless Vedism.

ok, but I can just package your statement of "those things" as the self and now your statment "None of the self needs self to exist" is now nonsensical

it's not a matter of "need", they just /are/

>I can just package your statement of "those things" as the self

That's not what self means.

The Buddha didn't teach there was no self, he taught that what we call self is actually not an eternal unchanging Essence, its a mass of interconnected components that change constantly.

We let poisonous conditioning remain a part of us because we think the conditioning is an aspect of some eternal personality.

.

Hinduism is the oldest of all main religions.

well buddhists sure don't spend a lot of time defining the self, do they

but at least in English, if you say you experienced sadness yourself, it occurs in the same context of experience that you discipline (your self, ie self-discipline vs disciplining another) or are mindful (self-aware vs awareness of someone else's phenonema)

Pali Canon teaches no I, me, or mine. This isn't the same as teaching either annihilation or eternalism, but it also isn't the same as saying there is a self.

>you experienced sadness yourself

There just is a sadness. It doesn't belong to a self.

You lack insight. If you take a chariot and say "This is a chariot" and someone takes it apart and asks you "Where is the chariot?", the correct answer is "No where, it has ceased to exist"

"Chariot" is a word that indicates a collection of interconnected objects, much as "self" in buddhism indicates a collection of interconnected aggregates, not an eternal soul.

Saying "There is no such thing as the Self" is as much an error as saying "There is such a thing as a Self"

The answer, like all subtle truths, is more nuanced then that.

>There just is a sadness. It doesn't belong to a self.

>There are just credit scores, they don't actually belong to people

cosmologies that insist on an eternally impermanent reality are boring, and silly in that the unchanging aspect of them are at least one permanent stagnation

>Thus I heard. On one occasion the Blessed One was living at Benares, in the Deer Park at Isipatana (the Resort of Seers). There he addressed the bhikkhus of the group of five: "Bhikkhus." — "Venerable sir," they replied. The Blessed One said this.
>"Bhikkhus, form is not-self. Were form self, then this form would not lead to affliction, and one could have it of form: 'Let my form be thus, let my form be not thus.' And since form is not-self, so it leads to affliction, and none can have it of form: 'Let my form be thus, let my form be not thus.'
>"Bhikkhus, feeling is not-self...
>"Bhikkhus, perception is not-self...
>"Bhikkhus, determinations are not-self...
>"Bhikkhus, consciousness is not self. Were consciousness self, then this consciousness would not lead to affliction, and one could have it of consciousness: 'Let my consciousness be thus, let my consciousness be not thus.' And since consciousness is not-self, so it leads to affliction, and none can have it of consciousness: 'Let my consciousness be thus, let my consciousness be not thus.'
>"Bhikkhus, how do you conceive it: is form permanent or impermanent?" — "Impermanent, venerable Sir." — "Now is what is impermanent painful or pleasant?" — "Painful, venerable Sir." — "Now is what is impermanent, what is painful since subject to change, fit to be regarded thus: 'This is mine, this is I, this is my self'"? — "No, venerable sir."

>trying to figure Buddhism out intellectually.

Just... lol.

That doesn't contradict anything I said.

Not-self is not the same thing as No-self.

for a universe with no selves buddhists sure do waste a lot of ink about them

That comment conflates self with the idea that there is a self. Writing a lot about the latter doesn't imply the former.

The reason why they have striking overlap is because Brahmans adopted Buddhist ideas in the middle ages to reunite the region. Many Hindu ideas are reflections of Buddhism, so the origin of theology between them doesn't make for easy comparison.

Hinduism isn't even a religion. It's a blanket term for a slew of different Dharmic religions such as Vaishnavism, Shaivism, and so on.

those are all hinduism and hinduism is a religion

>Today hinduism has nothing to do with Brahmanism evenless Vedism.

elaborate

It isn't a religion. Charvaka was explicitly atheistic and materialist yet is still considered part of Hinduism.

>implying hindus believe in individual souls

Do you even Chandogya Upanishad?

Buddhafags can't deal with that simple argument so expect them to either just ignore you or say that your argument is " intellectualizing" and doesn't conduce to enlightenment, therefore they get an excuse to do away with logic.

>it's boring
>the impermanence is permanent therefore not impermanent

Great fucking arguments. Wrap it up, boys, it's the end of Buddhism as we know it.

Hinduism isn't a centralized religion you cucklord.

It didn't even exist as just an umbrella term back then.

Vedism : a war-like religion, eating cow is allowed, and there isn't any meditative practice in it.
Brahmanism : a priestly religion, a huge emphasis on classes, a religion of the book mostly based on the exegesis of the Vedas, and a minor emphasis on meditative practice.

Both of them has nothing to do with Hinduism that has greatly degenerate.

Dhyan is a big part of the Vedas and mantras were big in Vedic times.

They revered the cow and also ate it's meat as medicine.

Brahminism was never a religion rather a practice.

See:

All of the major world religions were extremely different thousands of years ago. That doesn't magically make them not old. "Hinduism isn't a real religion" is just a modern historian meme, you can make the same argument for any of the major world religions.

emptiness.

which later became properly treated by vedanta.

>I came across Patrick Olivelle's The Early Upanishads: Annotated Text and Translation on Google Books15.
books.google.fr/books?id=Lsp18ZvstrcC&lpg=PP1&pg=PP1&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false
While the translated text is mostly unavailable, the full introduction is there. It's a really nice summary and survey of the religious and historical scene in India before the time of the Buddha. If you want to get a decent and reliable background without investing a lot of time, it's perfect.

You could, and perhaps more people should, because they'd be entirely correct.

There were god knows how many sects around the time Buddhism arose -and today for that matter- most with fundamentally different belief systems.

Either way OPs question is still retard because Buddhism was markedly different from different systems at the time.

Worship of a fat bald guy named Buddha.

Yup. The Upanishads were the result of Hindu reactions towards Buddhism.

Modern Hinduism is pretty divorced from the Rig-Vedic Aryan religion.

What's in Western philosophy that some Indian hadn't already covered?

This is right to a degree.

People are offput by the idea, but this is essentially what happened.

What existed during Buddha's time wasn't Hinduism, but rather multiple different vedic religions. Buddhism(and Jainism but more buddhism because it became much more widespread/known) added the ahimsa, samsara, nirvana, karma, and liberation to the playing field.

Once buddhism gained popularity, Hinduism also developed to counter and add their own colors to the meaning.

This is a very bad understanding of Buddhism, someone who knows some buddhist stuff but doesn't know the full picture.

Monotheism

Kinda, but Indians covered monism already, so its similar I guess.

>Hinduism came after buddhism

What the fuck are you on about?

>fire sacrifice is still a major component in brahiminical rituals
>the vedas are still chanted
>divorced.

In terms of premodern philodophy, I really don't think the West did much of anything India didn't do besides stuff that's very particular to Christianity, and I'm not even so sure about that. Hinduism covers a lot of the same ground as Christianity. The main thing that would be unfamiliar would be the idea of one earthly life then an eternal heavenly one/hellish one, vs many earthly lives, many heavenly lives, and many hellish ones. I don't know how much of a difference that would make though, in terms of the subject matter considered by most philosophers.

The West definitely leads on modernism and postmodernism, for obvious reasons, but again, I'm not so sure those movements cover much unique philosophical ground. There are a lot of postmodern themes going on in Hinduism, though modernist concepts are, I think, more rare, so far as I understand them.

Hindu thought is really diverse and covers a wide, wide array of cool subjects and in a variety of ways. I think it's fair to say that as far as religions go, Hinduism has contributed more to philosophy than any other.

He's right. What we call Hinduism today is a later series of developments that came after Buddhism. The thing is Hinduism isn't a religion but rather a blanket term that encompasses a variety of religious belief and practice and folklore, and those things that modern Hindus believe are pretty late developments.

The Vedas are not seen the same way by all Hindus as Buddhists see the Pali Canon and Jews, Christians, and Muslims see their various bibles. Many self-identified Hindus reject the Vedas; no self-identified Christians reject the New Testament.

Hinduism became a thing in response to the otherness of Islam and was a thing centuries before Britain came.

Sure, Christianity has changed a lot of the last two thousands years but that is completely different from Hinduism. Hinduism is several coexisting and interacting but different religions and the Indo-European based early religion of India, while it can be put under the umbrella term Hinduism really shouldn't be because it's completely different in almost everyday from what modern Hindus believes. It would be like lumping the pagan beliefs the Jews had before Judaism as being part of Judaism just because it came from the same place and had an influence on it. They are two completely different belief systems.

>Christianity has changed a lot of the last two thousands years
Nope it didn't.

gays
evolution
heliocentrism
literal interpretation
magic
witchcraft
demons
slavery
etc

Christianity is an ever changing religion. However hinduism right now is composed of not only ever changing parts, but also contradictory sections. Imagine if one sect says Jesus/God is real other says Jesus/God doesn't exist.

>The original Judeo-Christians didn't up and die out
>Catholics and Orthodox didn't split
>Orthodoxy didn't turn into a bunch of ethno-centric micro churches
>Catholics didn't experience a continually evolving set of doctrines
>The Hussites didn't happen
>The Protestant reformation didn't happen
>Henry VIII didn't give the RCC the boot
>The Bible isn't primarily in local vernacular now

>Imagine if one sect says Jesus/God is real other says Jesus/God doesn't exist.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_atheism

>gays
>evolution
>heliocentrism
>literal interpretation
>magic
>witchcraft
>demons
>slavery
>etc

Those things literally have nothing to do with the religion itself and everything to do with the Zeitgeist.
If you look at the service in the church itself itself it didn't really change that much compared to 1600 years ago.