Buddhism vs Jainism
People sometimes get confused about the difference between Buddhism and Jainism. Well, they are likely not to be blamed because the two religions have several similarities in as much as there are keynote differences. The two religions also came to existence almost at the same time and at the same place; India. Even the Buddhist calls Mahayira (the founder of Jainism) as the enlightened one ‘“ a contemporary of Buddha.
In terms of similarities, the concept of Nirvana is quite the same between the two. Buddhists believe that Nirvana is a state of freedom. It is when a being turns into a non-being like turning something into nothing. Jainism declares Nirvana as a state of Moksha. The being will tend to lose its identity. In addition, both religions emphasize the practice of meditation and yoga. It is an exercise to focus more on one’s inner self. Yoga is needed for one to be purified and feel liberated. More importantly, the two highlights non-violence.
With regard to their disparities, the foremost difference is on their view on Karma. Although both religions believe in the concept of Karma’s universality, Jainism specifies that Karma is not the effect or result of the person’s actions. Karma is perceived as a true substance that freely flows throughout the human body (jiva). Buddhism concretely believes that karmais the direct effect of one’s own action.
The two religions also have differing views about the soul. The soul, according to Jainism is more universal. It is present in all things may it be the living and non-living things. All elements in the universe wind, earth, fire and water also have their own respective souls. Buddhism believes otherwise because the soul is said to reside in living things only like animals and plants and that inanimate objects don’t have any.
Thirdly, the two have different interpretations with the evolution of each person. In Buddhism, the soul will be gone after Nirvana; what’s left is the individuality of the person that passes through a state of nothingness. This state is indescribable. For Jainism, the soul still continues to thrive after Nirvana. This soul remains to be in its purest form and is in its enlightened state.
In Summary:
· Jainism believes that Karma is not the direct effect of the person’s actions while Buddhism believes that it is.
· Jainism believes that the soul is present in both living and non-living things. Buddhism believes that the soul is only present in living things.
· Jainism believes that the soul continues even after Nirvana but Buddhism believes that the soul will be dissolved into nothingness after Nirvana.
- Difference Between Plant Protein and Animal Protein - March 7, 2024
- Difference Between Crohn’s and Colitis - March 7, 2024
- Difference Between Expression and Equation - March 7, 2024
Buddhists are agnostic about the possibility of a soul, they do not believe or disbelieve in one.
Reply
Buddhist philosophy doesn’t believe in soul, like Hindu / Jain traditions, but rather, in an universal conciseness which is different from soul.
Reply
It is very good diffrence
Reply
Everything that happens to you is because of karma. All types of karmas(good & bad) are attached to the soul. Once you get rid of all the karmas(good & bad), you get moksha. I think so Jain religion is more clear than buddhists.
Reply
There are corrections to be made here…
Karma (kamma) is concretely said to be intention.
Buddha: “Intention, I tell you, is kamma. Intending, one does kamma by way of body, speech, & intellect.” — http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an06/an06.063.than.html
The Buddha never taught that there was a soul aka self
Buddha: “Ananda, if I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is a self — were to answer that there is a self, that would be conforming with those brahmans & contemplatives who are exponents of eternalism [the view that there is an eternal, unchanging soul]. If I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is no self — were to answer that there is no self, that would be conforming with those brahmans & contemplatives who are exponents of annihilationism [the view that death is the annihilation of consciousness]. If I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is a self — were to answer that there is a self, would that be in keeping with the arising of knowledge that all phenomena are not-self? And if I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is no self — were to answer that there is no self, the bewildered Vacchagotta would become even more bewildered: ‘Does the self I used to have now not exist?'” — http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn44/sn44.010.than.html
Nirvana is not “turning something into nothing” or the annihilation of a “self” or “soul”.
Buddha: “And so, my friend Yamaka — when you can’t pin down the Tathagata as a truth or reality even in the present life — is it proper for you to declare, ‘As I understand the Teaching explained by the Blessed One, a monk with no more effluents, on the break-up of the body, is annihilated, perishes, & does not exist after death’?”
“Previously, my friend Sariputta, I did foolishly hold that evil supposition. But now, having heard your explanation of the Dhamma, I have abandoned that evil supposition, and have broken through to the Dhamma.”
“Then, friend Yamaka, how would you answer if you are thus asked: A monk, a worthy one, with no more mental effluents: what is he on the break-up of the body, after death?”
“Thus asked, I would answer, ‘Form is inconstant… Feeling… Perception… Fabrications… Consciousness is inconstant. That which is inconstant is stressful. That which is stressful has ceased and gone to its end.”
“Very good, my friend Yamaka. Very good.”
Reply
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.085.than.html
Reply
Never give up
Reply
Very nice appp for history
Reply