Differences between Hinduism and Buddhism - Essay Example

Differences between Hinduism and Buddhism Hinduism and Buddhism have got quite a few differences though both the religions came into existence and evolved in ancient India. Hinduism is one of the most ancient religions and came into existence much before Buddhism, some 2500 years prior to it. The two religions have different concepts about gods and how the universe is run however this paper will focus on the laws of the two religions and how the life of man and women, slaves and liberal men revolved around it. It could be said that Buddhism was an improved version of Hinduism in terms of their laws as it gave more freedom to the weaker ones and the ones in minority. The Maurya’s law that are analyzed in this paper to study Hinduism are penetrated from an ancient book called Arthashastra. The book describes the role of women, slaves and how people should follow the law and live their lives. In Hinduism, the Maurya’s law places a lot of importance to marriage. It describes it as a solution for all disputes meaning that marriage had not only the power to unite the bride and groom but also their relatives that might not be very friendly towards each other before the marriage had taken place (Goucher 2008). There were different types of ancestral marriages that included giving a virgin daughter in exchange of a cow and also to a priest for his services. This shows that women did not have any social status in society. They were not asked nor were any approval taken from them. The approval was taken from the male members of the family mainly the father. If the family were in financial trouble then women could easily be traded for cow. Daughters were also encouraged to marry priests as it was believed to maintain a good relationship with religious leaders. If a woman had her husband killed or died of natural causes then she was obliged to marry whom her father in law suggested. If the woman fails or denies doing that then she would lose all the possession that was left by her husband for her. Buddhism has a different perspective about marriage. According to the Theravada Buddhist scriptures, marriage should not be taken as a religious or social duty and should be regarded as a personal matter (Wijayaratna 1990). The sole purpose is to unite two bodies and soul for their and the benefit of mankind. No trade of any sort is allowed as men and women were not forced to marry against their will. The Hindu culture and religion allowed men to marry more than 1 wife but Buddhism did not encourage nor allow men to marry more than once. Buddha believed that a woman is entitled to her love from her husband and if the husband goes and marries many times then that love will be distributed. Women were not traded like commodities nor used as gifts to please other people. This was strictly prohibited. Buddhism emerged in India around 500 B.B. when people there were already following Hinduism. It were these very laws against women that Buddha wished to change as he thought that they had no say in any affair. Being the bearer and producer of children, Buddha felt very sympathetic towards them. That is the reason why Buddhism tried to give women a social status. They were not forced to stay with their husband if he was troubling them. Unlike in Hinduism, a woman was forced to spend her entire life with the man she married there was no such thing in Buddhism. A woman could ask for a divorce and live separately if she wished to. A woman would stay entitled to her belongings left to her by her dead husband. Buddhism does not place any difficulty on a widow woman. In Hinduism, if a woman was kidnapped or harmed in some way then compensation could be paid to the father of a woman. This law seems strange as men who abducted women for pleasure or torture were left unpunished if they had the power to pay the compensation money. New born daughters were not regarded as a moment of happiness and families did not celebrate any events such events. Men were allowed to leave their wife if they could not bear them sons. A woman’s life was subjected to domesticity where she stayed inside the home to cook food for the family and take care of the children. If a woman stepped out of her house while her husband was asleep then she would be fined 12 panas. The amount would double if she disallowed her husband to enter the house at night. She would also be subjected to public lashing if found guilty of an affair. Buddhism did not contain any laws that required men to pay compensation after abducting a woman. These kinds of activities were not encouraged nor did they happen. Without a woman’s consent, she could not be harmed and the rule applied for the rich and poor. Women were equal to men in every way. A daughter was regarded as a source of prosperity and income for the family and it was encouraged to celebrate her birth. Women were not confined to the walls of their homes. They were allowed to seek education and be a part of the system. Some historians believe that the concept of nuns came from the Buddhist religion and culture as they gave women the right to preach religion. This clearly shows that their actions were not restricted to any extent. Hinduism allowed the wealthy members of its society to keep slaves. It was Hinduism that started the caste system and the concept of inferiority and superiority was at its peak just before the birth of Buddha. Slaves were supposed to spend their entire life with their owners serving and looking after all their needs. Once the owner died, the slave was passed to his family. In short a person born a slave would die as a slave in Hinduism. That was one reality that they had to face for the rest of their life. Life was not too easy for them. They were not allowed to mix with society and not even among themselves. They were always kept involved in some kind of work. Slaves had no rights whatsoever in Hinduism. They were subjected to all kinds of punishment and received lashes on a regular basis. Because they did not receive healthy diet and enough food, a slave when seen eating would be thought of stealing food and would be whipped in public so that any such incident would not happen in the future. They were not allowed to marry until the permission from the owner was given to them. Many slaves were not given the permission and they spent their entire life in isolation. Women slaves were also treated this way. If they were raped then compensation was paid to them. This again shows that there was a law present that asked the rapist to pay an amount to the victim. It was thus easy for men to abuse women and get away with it (Halsall 1998). The ancient scriptures show no reference of slaves in Buddhism. Buddha himself was a Prince who always had servants to his disposal. But he urged to forgive that life and live like a common man. It is believed that Buddha himself did not keep any slaves nor did he encourage his disciples to do so. He was served by the ones who loved him and respected him. So the concept of slavery does not exist in any ancient scriptures of Buddhism. However, there is proof that Buddhist monks did keep servants and so did the merchants and traders (Conze 2011). Historians believe that servants did not have a very high social status but they did have their fair rights in society. They were not owned but rather given an income or pay for their endeavour. There had the right to marry and bear children. There was no caste system as Buddha abolished all laws that degraded the rights of human beings. Though the servants did not sat and eat with their masters, they were also not flogged uselessly. Other than this there were other laws elucidated in the Arthashastra. Those who murder while quarrelling were tortured to death. There was no compensation accepted in case a person murdered someone. This is one area where the law of compensation should have been active. In many outcomes, anger or sudden rush of blood creates a situation that leads one to attack the other. It is very likely that a person may end up murdering someone in anger and then repent later for his deeds. But Hinduism ignores such kind of compassion and orders the offender death by torture. Buddhism on the other hand believes in forgiving people. If someone has taken the life of someone then the offender can be forgiven if he accepts his mistakes and seeks forgiveness from the victim’s family. He would have to pay something in compensation if he successfully does that then he will be given a warning and set free. This law seems fairer (Halsall 1998). Buddha lived and grew up in a society that was much influenced by the Hindu culture and religion. He worked on things he found were wrong or weak in Hinduism. He improved some of things and successfully managed his followers to do the same. It was the efforts put by Buddha that saw a more Western type of laws for men, women, slaves and society overall (Conze 2011). Bibliography Conze, E. 2011. Ashvoghosha Life of the Buddha 1 - 15. Webtech. Goucher, Candice. 2008. World History: Journeys from Past to Present. Abington: Routledge. Halsall, Paul. 1998. Indian History Sourcebook: Kautilya: from The Arthashastra, c. 250 BC. New York: Fordham University. Wijayaratna, Mohan. 1990. Buddhist Monastic Life: According to the Texts of the Theravada Tradition. New York: Cambridge University Press. Read More