The nature of the individual’s spiritual essence, or soul, lies at the heart of Hinduism, as it does with many other religions. This core belief presupposes a journey of transcendence, of transformation, that ultimately brings the soul to spiritual perfection, or moksha. The idea of the soul is intrinsic to faith traditions like Hinduism, which teaches that the atman merges with the great universal soul, or Brahman. But for Buddhists, the eternal journey of the soul, or samsara, is part and parcel of a burdensome, cyclical physical existence (Sion, 246). The abandonment of such strivings and of worldly encumbrances can help bring one to a state of perfection, or nirvana, the Buddhist state of enlightenment. It is important to note that for Hinduism and Buddhism, reaching a state of perfection is the ideal for both, despite their differences as to how perfection may be attained.
The most essential difference between the two great traditions is the Hindu thesis that the individual’s soul becomes one with the collective soul. This belief, and the Hindu concept of karma, presumes a condition of good or evil that runs counter to Buddhist philosophy. Buddhism would not allow for the sublimation of the soul into a larger spiritual collective, as taught by the Brahmans. In this sense, there could be no “Alpha and Omega,” no be-all-and-end-all. (Rogers, 1870).
The cycle of death and rebirth can be broken and nirvana attained by acting ethically and charitably toward others; by seeking wisdom; through meditation; and by renouncing worldly possessions. Hindus believe that when a person dies, the moral weight of their actions dictate what becomes of them in their new incarnation. In other words, a soul is either reincarnated into a higher or lower state of existence based on the relative sanctity of the life they lived previously (Molloy, 326).
The Buddhist counters that the individual can determine his or her own fate, that there is no karmic “other-power” that affixes one to a specific end, passing through levels of existence based on good deeds or bad. Indeed, the Buddhist might consign this theology to a mythological irrelevancy in much the same way a Hindu may reject as mere fable the Christian doctrine that says God exiled his proto-man and woman from Paradise in anger over their moral weakness, despite the self-contradictory fact that he created them. Existence beyond death represents spiritual continuation and transcendence for the Hindu, but without the imposition of a heaven or hell. (Eliot, 302).
Release from the material and the temporal leads to the greatest good for both Hindus and Buddhists. However, for Hindus it is a matter of coming full cycle, of uniting with the Eternal.
The Buddhist argues that, as such, there is no Eternal, that a belief in one’s spiritual worthiness or unworthiness reinforces the limitations of the physical world, inhibiting the individual’s true spiritual growth. As such, one can, by diligently following the teachings of the Buddha, achieve perfection, a kind of heaven on earth.
Works Cited
Eliot, C. Hinduism and Buddhism: An Historical Sketch. Surrey, UK: The Curzon Press. 1921.
Vol. 1.
Molloy, M. Experiencing the World’s Religions. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Higher
Education. 2009.
Rogers, T. Buddhaghosha’s Parables. London, UK: Paternoster. 1870.
Sion, A. Logical and Spiritual Reflections. Geneva, CH: Avi Sion. 2008.
