Up to a point. In terms of sensual pleasures, yes. The Buddha was the first one to gain insight into their drawbacks, even when he was alive.
Is Buddhist and Hindu non attachment different?
Re: Is Buddhist and Hindu non attachment different?
“The teacher willed that this world appear to me
as impermanent, unstable, insubstantial.
Mind, let me leap into the victor’s teaching,
carry me over the great flood, so hard to pass.”
as impermanent, unstable, insubstantial.
Mind, let me leap into the victor’s teaching,
carry me over the great flood, so hard to pass.”
Re: Is Buddhist and Hindu non attachment different?
Agree.
Buddha talked about the attachment to five clinging-aggregate. (Rupa, vedana etc.)
With my limited knowledge, Hinduism and other religions are talking about attachment to sensuality only.
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”
Re: Is Buddhist and Hindu non attachment different?
MN 11 gives some insight into how the Buddha considered his teaching to be different from those of other ascetics:
So the key point here is that Buddhism addresses clinging or attachment to a doctrine of self, whereas other doctrines didn't. It's worth noting that Hinduism developed a good deal after the canon was put together, but I guess this remains a key differenceThough certain recluses and brahmans claim to propound the full understanding of all kinds of clinging... they describe the full understanding of clinging to sensual pleasures, clinging to views, and clinging to rules and observances without describing the full understanding of clinging to a doctrine of self. They do not understand one instance... therefore they describe only the full understanding of clinging to sensual pleasures, clinging to views, and clinging to rules and observances without describing the full understanding of clinging to a doctrine of self
Re: Is Buddhist and Hindu non attachment different?
Sam Vara wrote: ↑Fri Sep 02, 2022 8:43 pm MN 11 gives some insight into how the Buddha considered his teaching to be different from those of other ascetics:
So the key point here is that Buddhism addresses clinging or attachment to a doctrine of self, whereas other doctrines didn't. It's worth noting that Hinduism developed a good deal after the canon was put together, but I guess this remains a key differenceThough certain recluses and brahmans claim to propound the full understanding of all kinds of clinging... they describe the full understanding of clinging to sensual pleasures, clinging to views, and clinging to rules and observances without describing the full understanding of clinging to a doctrine of self. They do not understand one instance... therefore they describe only the full understanding of clinging to sensual pleasures, clinging to views, and clinging to rules and observances without describing the full understanding of clinging to a doctrine of self
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”