Karma

[cb2008]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

The split is reminiscent of that between the Catholics and Protestants. We are a strange species since NONE of us actually KNOW anything for certain. It is just what resonates with us.

How so? The split between Buddhism and Hinduism lies in the Self/Atman as divinity within. Buddha did not mention the eternal Self, the Atman. In fact Buddhism assert Anatman, non-self.

. In Buddhism, the term anattā (Pali: अनत्ता) or anātman (Sanskrit: अनात्मन्) refers to the doctrine of "non-self" – that no unchanging, permanent self or essence can be found in any phenomenon.[note 1] While often interpreted as a doctrine denying the existence of a self, anatman is more accurately described as a strategy to attain non-attachment by recognizing everything as impermanent, while staying silent on the ultimate existence of an unchanging essence.[1][2][3] In contrast, Hinduism asserts the existence of Atman as pure awareness or witness-consciousness,[4][5][6][note 2] "reify[ing] consciousness as an eternal self."[7]

http://https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anattā

[MysticPhD]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

The split is reminiscent of that between the Catholics and Protestants. We are a strange species since NONE of us actually KNOW anything for certain. It is just what resonates with us.

Originally Posted by cb2008

How so? The split between Buddhism and Hinduism lies in the Self/Atman as divinity within. Buddha did not mention the eternal Self, the Atman. In fact Buddhism assert Anatman, non-self.

http://https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anattā

I was NOT comparing them doctrinally, CB. They are NOT comparable. I was merely noting that they use the same source documents and split over interpretations of them.

[cb2008]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

I was NOT comparing them doctrinally, CB. They are NOT comparable. I was merely noting that they use the same source documents and split over interpretations of them.

yes. agree