Pleitez 1

Erika Pleitez

Prof. Kane

English 115 MW

6 September 2018

Hinduism and Buddhism: Existence

Existence can be viewed as a universal, abstract concept and can be perceived in many

different perspectives. Hindu and Buddhist views enlighten ways of how existence can be

viewed which emphasizes the term on reality that connects with that concept. Hindu views claim

that attaining the view of reality within the concept of existing is to “...accept (1) permanence,

(2) universality, (3) identity, and (4) unity,” (Koller), and it connects with the acceptance of

one’s identity whether it be an object, animal, or a human being. Both Hindu and Buddhist views

include identity being a major role within existence so in Hindu, it is to find one’s self, but in

Buddhism, it is to not find one’s self. Buddhist views, however, refute Hindu views of existence

and they describe it as being the polar opposite of permanence, universality, identity, and unity.

Logically, Buddhist views have a more credible and precise perspective than Hindu

views. Hindu views lean more onto the idea of “destiny” where identity is created since birth and

is changeless reaching old age; furthermore, Hindu views provided an example that describes

unity in identity where even if there are many different entities, it is all within the same group

that accepts universality. It described a point about how dogs are placed in one group called

“dog” as claimed by the view “...it is commonly assumed that they are all so related to each other

that they form one thing, this dog. Sometimes this doctrine of identity is coupled with the

doctrines of universality and identity, and it is held that the reason why the different parts of an

organism are related in such a way that they form one thing is that they all belong to the same
 Pleitez 2

underlying thing, namely, the substratum of the dog,” (Koller). The dog, even if many have

different attributes, they all pertain the same identity until old age. Buddhist views by the

Vaibhashikas and Sautrantikas, however believe it is opposite which values a more plausible

concept. Buddhist views claim that the opposite of permanence, universality, identity, and unity

is momentariness, conglomeration, particularity and discreteness. These views value that identity

within existence have “constant flux” and contain ”...dependent origination (paticca samuppada),

which is the law of arising and ceasing of elements of existence,” (Koller). This poses a more

logical way than Hindu views because humans cannot determine whether or not identity can be

changeless and with that identity may evolve into something different over time; furthermore,

identity can be changed if force is brought upon that certain entity as long as there is trial and

error. Buddhist views do not lean on the idea that destiny is set and is the only path to follow

because views claim that “...we rejoice over birth, life, and youth. But in reality, arising is always

accompanied by ceasing, and ceasing is always accompanied by arising,” (Koller). Buddhists

have views that provide more clarity and vision as accompanied by the idea that it is not possible

to know the whole in perceiving the idea of existence.

Work Cited

Koller, John M. Oriental Philosophies. Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1970, pp 150-152, 153-154,

155-157.