Difference between Jainism/Buddhism

Who are these figures? Mahavira is shown on the left, the Buddha Gautama on the right.

.

Not the Buddha, this is Mahavira. Same person?

QUESTION: Jainism sounds GREAT. Why doesn't Wisdom Quarterly convert to Jainism like the April Fools' article claims? 

ANSWER: Excellent question! Jainism is great. We love it, along with Buddhism's fellow Dharmic religions, Hinduism (in its many varieties, particularly the Eightfold Path of Yoga), Sikhism, and even Dharma-adjacent traditions like mystical Indian Sufism, Zoroastrianism, and Kurdistan-Iraqi Yazidism. But there is fault to be found with all of them. Fault can be found with anything. It isn't normal fault, like how adherents behave or anything like that. There's a fatal flaw in the philosophy of sweet wandering ascetic and great teacher Mahavira (Nigantha Nattaputta). So great are other religions that, if we didn't have Buddhism, we would find another spiritual tradition in India to content us until Maitreya (the Future Buddha) arose to reveal the true Buddha-Dharma. What could that flaw be? It's subtle, but it comes down to the belief in self and the nature of what qualifies as real "liberation" (moksha). All Indian traditions use the word moksha, but no one defines it the way the Buddha does. To them their "liberation" is good enough, but to the Buddha it was not enough.

What made Siddhartha the Buddha (the "Awakened One") was that he awoke to the utmost. He checked and checked if there were something higher. The Buddhist definition of nirvana is the ultimate, and one knows it when it is attained. (Sadly, when it is not yet attained, it is easy to be confused and mistake what one has realized as nirvana).

The peace of cessation, nirodha, knowing-and-seeing the deconstruction of all formations is rest, unending peace, the ultimate, because the cause has been known and the cure implemented. The problem has been seen (dukkha) and the path to its cessation traveled. Sadly, other teachers and doctrines loosely use this word "nirvana" and mean something else by it.

Those definitions were flawed, leading again to samsara (the Cycle of Rebirth) after a long respite or an exalted and sublime rebirth in one of the many heavens. There is only one class of heavenly worlds worth being reborn into, and those are called the Pure Abodes? Why?

I really thought I found what the Buddha found.

They are limited to only partially enlightened inhabitants. (There are stages of enlightenment, and until one is an arhat, full enlightened, one is only partially enlightened).

And from those worlds beings are completely liberated. As it is, few people can tell the difference between Hinduism (or the much older Vedic religion and Brahmanism) and Buddhism. But they are different enough to merit entirely separate traditions.

The former are mainly limited to India, whereas Buddhism is universal, not limited to India, not even really from India except that that's where the Buddha taught, having been born next door in Gandhara on the northwest frontier of proto-India. There was no "India" when the Buddha taught. There were kingdoms and republics, great territories and family holdings (with at least 16 mahajanapadas).

All liberations are not alike

All mokshas, "liberations," are not alike. In one hair raising sutra, the Buddha says to some monastics, "See over there," and he points to wandering ascetics of another school (and there were at least six "heretical" schools). They see a teacher regarded as full enlightened and his disciples. The Buddha says, "There is no enlightened person over there, not of the first stage, second stage..." This is a shocking statement because the Buddha is saying not only is there no fully enlightened person (arhat) person in that school, there's not even someone who has entered this first stage of enlightenment nor one who is even on the path to the first stage. Similarly, he points around to other teachers and other schools with their disciples and says the same thing. Then he clarifies by saying that here, in this school, there are people on the path, and those who have reached the first stage, second stage...and arhats. Then he makes the big reveal. "And why is that?" the Buddha asks. He answers, "because over [in that dharma with that teacher], they do not understand anatta [the doctrine of all things being impersonal]." And because of that, they do not have disciples on the path to enlightenment, at the first stage, second stage...nor arhats. This was shocking to those monastics because those teachers and their dharmas and disciplines, their schools, were widely regarded as enlightened. They were famous and regarded as such -- and this would have included the great Mahavira, Vardhamana, the Nigantha Nattaputta, the Jina (Arihant), the Tirthankara, the founder of Jainism. But the Buddha is declaring that they are not arahants and not even on the path to becoming arahants. He seems to be exalting himself and denigrating them.

Every part of Buddhist India has Jain temples. This is Mahavira, not the Buddha. The most Buddhist place in India is Bodh Gaya ("Enlightenment Grove") in Bihar, but legend has it that's where Mahavira was born. In a sense, that's where "the Buddha" was born (because that is the site of his great awakening for which he is called "the Awakened One"). It is therefore another odd coincidence that Mahavira would have literally been born in this far off rural area.

 

Magnificent statue of naked Mahavira in India

But what is actually happening is that the Buddha is saying, of course, they may have wisdom, psychic powers, rebirth in heaven and be showing the path to rebirth in heaven, good teachings (such as teaching karma and morality), fine reputations, miracles, followers who are both humans and devas, and so on. They may well be "saints" as that word is understood in the world (usually meaning that someone has attained samadhi, "stillness, mental coherence, concentration" or "superconsciousness," and shows the signs of it, which sometimes includes superhuman feats and magical displays). But what they do not have, have not understood, have not reached to true, unending peace. They have not made an end of samsara (the Wheel of Death and Rebirth) and therefore not made a complete end of all suffering, which are the cornerstones of nirvana. So if one is satisfied with that, then those teachers are appropriate, should be followed, and no one should be surprised to find themselves reborn in some heaven or another thinking they are all done with rebirth or all done with karma or all done with suffering. But they will not be. After a very long time, when the karma that brought them to that rebirth is exhausted, they fall from that lofty perch and carry on according to their just desserts (an endless store of past karma), toiling and cycling in samsara in search of delights, first here then there, never satisfied, wishing to return to those excellent heavens, experiencing rebirth in the hells, among animals, with ghosts, among other creatures, with humans, as lowly deities (devas), as divinities (brahmas), as gods (devas, yes, the word has a wide range of meaning that even encompasses all brahmas). So rare in the world is the arising of a supremely enlightened buddha (samma-sam-buddha) that one should pay attention, give ear to the Dharma, and contemplate what is being said. There is no need to give up one's previous teacher or teaching, guru or dharma, but one should open one's mind to what the Buddha is saying. And hearing that, there is no reason to resort to Hinduism (the teachings prevalent around the Indus River valley) or teachings from heaven (avatars) or the Vedas (ancient Knowledge Books), and so on.

With a teacher like that, why are there different Buddhisms?

The Buddha's Teaching, the Dhamma or Dharma, goes against the stream of our assumptions. Often, people will take the Teaching and twist it to accord with their preferences and views. This would happen all the time when the Buddha was around, and he would teach and teach to correct them and bring their view to perfection. Right view (samma ditthi) is established with practice and direct realization not by debate, argument, thinking, or mere reasoning. How could we ever accept that there is no "self"? That's just out of the question. That's impossible. That's st*pid. That's not worth considering. But it's True. It's the highest Truth. There's no reason to "believe" it, but rest assured if it has not been understood, the first stage of enlightenment (bodhi as defined in Buddhism) has not been reached. That is the crucial teaching (see an explanation) and the heart of the Heart Sutra. What is at the heart of perfect wisdom (prajna paramita)? The perfection of wisdom consists of seeing the Five Aggregates (the skandhas, khandas, the heaps) as "empty," as devoid of self or substance. The Bodhisattva Avalokiteshvara sees that and explains it to the strawman Sariputra (mocked by Mahayana as "foremost in wisdom" when they prefer other make believe "Cosmic Buddhas" and bodhisattvas and mahasattvas and all sorts of Brahminical, Vedic, and Hindu interpolations) to show that this is not an intellectual grasping but a direct experience of the ultimate Truth.

So, in conclusion, Jainism is great. Hinduism is great. But they are not Buddhism. They have not understood what the Buddha taught. They, therefore, cling to ideas and tenets of an eternal soul and do not see what the Buddha taught as Dependent Origination and the Five Aggregates clung to as self (soul, atman, atta, ego, personality, essence). So when they are asked, they cannot accurately represent what the Buddha taught or what makes Buddhism different from all spiritual and philosophical teachings there have ever been in the world. So they mock it, parody it, or revere it in ignorance. They praise the Buddha for minor things (morality, austerities, etc.) and remain ignorant of major things (the wisdom he found and communicated).

• Dhr. Seven, Amber Larson, Ashley Wells, Wisdom Quarterly; Useful Charts (video)
• Buddhism and the Axial Age in India (PowerPoint ID:1361764, slideserve.com)