Critical Difference, Buddhism vs Vedanta

[Veritas Aequitas]

There are differences and similarities between Vedanta [various] and Buddhism [various],
BUT the critical and fundamental difference is this;

Advaita Vedānta posits a substance ontology, an ontology which holds that underlying the change and impermanence of empirical reality is an unchanging and permanent absolute reality, like an eternal substance it calls Atman-Brahman.[385]
In its substance ontology, as like other philosophies, there exist a universal, particulars and specific properties and it is the interaction of particulars that create events and processes.[386]

In contrast, Buddhism posits a process ontology, also called as "event ontology".[387][386]
According to the Buddhist thought, particularly after the rise of ancient Mahayana Buddhism scholarship, there is neither empirical nor absolute permanent reality and ontology can be explained as a process.[387][388][note 69] There is a system of relations and interdependent phenomena (pratitya samutpada) in Buddhist ontology, but no stable persistent identities, no eternal universals nor particulars. Thought and memories are mental constructions and fluid processes without a real observer, personal agency or cognizer in Buddhism. In contrast, in Advaita Vedānta, like other schools of Hinduism, the concept of self (atman) is the real on-looker, personal agent and cognizer.[390]
-WIKI

Substance Ontology is basically Philosophical Realism, i.e. it believes there is a thing-in-itself as the ultimate reality that is mind-independent.
As such, the ultimate reality is the efficient cause of the mind, thus independent from the mind.
If there are no human minds, Brahman the ultimate reality as Absolute and unconditioned will still exists.

Buddhism in contrast is not Substance Ontology thus basically ANTI-Philosophical_Realism.
Buddhism came about in direct counter the Brahman-Atman idea.
There are various school of Buddhism with different philosophies, but the fundamental of Buddhism as intended from Guatama Buddhist should be the same.

Do Buddhist believe in god?
No, we do not. There are several reasons for this. The Buddha, like modern sociologists and psychologists, believed that religious ideas and especially the god idea have their origin in fear. The Buddha says:

• "Gripped by fear men go to the sacred mountains,
  sacred groves, sacred trees and shrines".
  Dp 188

https://www.buddhanet.net/ans73.htm

Even with advaita-vedanta [emerged to counter the popularity of Buddhism then] which is quite close to Buddhism, there is no change in its fundamental, otherwise advaita-vedanta might as well be recognized as Buddhism.

[Veritas Aequitas]

https://www.buddhanet.net/ans73.htm

"Do Buddhist believe in god?
No, we do not.
There are several reasons for this. The Buddha, like modern sociologists and psychologists, believed that religious ideas and especially the god idea have their origin in fear. The Buddha says:

• "Gripped by fear men go to the sacred mountains,
  sacred groves, sacred trees and shrines".
  Dp 188

Primitive man found himself in a dangerous and hostile world, the fear of wild animals, of not being able to find enough food, of injury or disease, and of natural phenomena like thunder, lightning and volcanoes was constantly with him. Finding no security, he created the idea of gods in order to give him comfort in good times, courage in times of danger and consolation when things went wrong. To this day, you will notice that people become more religious at times of crises, you will hear them say that the belief in a god or gods gives them the strength they need to deal with life. You will hear them explain that they believe in a particular god because they prayed in time of need and their prayer was answered. All this seems to support the Buddha’s teaching that the god-idea is a response to fear and frustration. The Buddha taught us to try to understand our fears, to lessen our desires and to calmly and courageously accept the things we cannot change. He replaced fear, not with irrational belief but with rational understanding.

The second reason the Buddha did not believe in a god is because there does not seem to be any evidence to support this idea. There are numerous religions, all claiming that they alone have god’s words preserved in their holy book, that they alone understand god’s nature, that their god exists and that the gods of other religions do not. Some claim that god is masculine, some that she is feminine and others that it is neuter. They are all satisfied that there is ample evidence to prove the existence of their god but they laugh in disbelief at the evidence other religions use to prove the existence of another god. It is not surprising that with so many different religions spending so many centuries trying to prove the existence of their gods that still no real, concrete, substantial or irrefutable evidence has been found. Buddhists suspend judgement until such evidence is forthcoming.

The third reason the Buddha did not believe in a god is that the belief is not necessary. Some claim that the belief in a god is necessary in order to explain the origin on the universe. But this is not so. Science has very convincingly explained how the universe came into being without having to introduce the god-idea. Some claim that belief in god is necessary to have a happy, meaningful life. Again we can see that this is not so. There are millions of atheists and free-thinkers, not to mention many Buddhists, who live useful, happy and meaningful lives without belief in a god. Some claim that belief in god’s power is necessary because humans, being weak, do not have the strength to help themselves. Once again, the evidence indicates the opposite. One often hears of people who have overcome great disabilities and handicaps, enormous odds and difficulties, through their own inner resources, through their own efforts and without belief in a god. Some claim that god is necessary in order to give man salvation. But this argument only holds good if you accept the theological concept of salvation and Buddhists do not accept such a concept. Based on his own experience, the Buddha saw that each human being had the capacity to purify the mind, develop infinite love and compassion and perfect understanding. He shifted attention from the heavens to the heart and encouraged us to find solutions to our problems through self-understanding."

[Veritas Aequitas]

Notes: KIV

[Atla]

There are differences and similarities between Vedanta [various] and Buddhism [various],
BUT the critical and fundamental difference is this;

Advaita Vedānta posits a substance ontology, an ontology which holds that underlying the change and impermanence of empirical reality is an unchanging and permanent absolute reality, like an eternal substance it calls Atman-Brahman.[385]
In its substance ontology, as like other philosophies, there exist a universal, particulars and specific properties and it is the interaction of particulars that create events and processes.[386]

In contrast, Buddhism posits a process ontology, also called as "event ontology".[387][386]
According to the Buddhist thought, particularly after the rise of ancient Mahayana Buddhism scholarship, there is neither empirical nor absolute permanent reality and ontology can be explained as a process.[387][388][note 69] There is a system of relations and interdependent phenomena (pratitya samutpada) in Buddhist ontology, but no stable persistent identities, no eternal universals nor particulars. Thought and memories are mental constructions and fluid processes without a real observer, personal agency or cognizer in Buddhism. In contrast, in Advaita Vedānta, like other schools of Hinduism, the concept of self (atman) is the real on-looker, personal agent and cognizer.[390]
-WIKI

Substance Ontology is basically Philosophical Realism, i.e. it believes there is a thing-in-itself as the ultimate reality that is mind-independent.
As such, the ultimate reality is the efficient cause of the mind, thus independent from the mind.
If there are no human minds, Brahman the ultimate reality as Absolute and unconditioned will still exists.

Buddhism in contrast is not Substance Ontology thus basically ANTI-Philosophical_Realism.
Buddhism came about in direct counter the Brahman-Atman idea.
There are various school of Buddhism with different philosophies, but the fundamental of Buddhism as intended from Guatama Buddhist should be the same.

I think many people would intuitively say that Advaita had the better approach all along. I'd add that that's indeed the case, Advaita was just handled poorly, the Absolute should be seen as substanceless and ultimately unknowable.

"Process ontology" or "event ontology" is a fabrication that doesn't even make sense by itself, it only makes sense as a reaction to the idea of the Absolute. Just as anti-realism is a fabrication that doesn't even make sense by itself, it only makes sense as a reaction to realism.

[Atla]

There are differences and similarities between Vedanta [various] and Buddhism [various],
BUT the critical and fundamental difference is this;

Advaita Vedānta posits a substance ontology, an ontology which holds that underlying the change and impermanence of empirical reality is an unchanging and permanent absolute reality, like an eternal substance it calls Atman-Brahman.[385]
In its substance ontology, as like other philosophies, there exist a universal, particulars and specific properties and it is the interaction of particulars that create events and processes.[386]

In contrast, Buddhism posits a process ontology, also called as "event ontology".[387][386]
According to the Buddhist thought, particularly after the rise of ancient Mahayana Buddhism scholarship, there is neither empirical nor absolute permanent reality and ontology can be explained as a process.[387][388][note 69] There is a system of relations and interdependent phenomena (pratitya samutpada) in Buddhist ontology, but no stable persistent identities, no eternal universals nor particulars. Thought and memories are mental constructions and fluid processes without a real observer, personal agency or cognizer in Buddhism. In contrast, in Advaita Vedānta, like other schools of Hinduism, the concept of self (atman) is the real on-looker, personal agent and cognizer.[390]
-WIKI

Substance Ontology is basically Philosophical Realism, i.e. it believes there is a thing-in-itself as the ultimate reality that is mind-independent.
As such, the ultimate reality is the efficient cause of the mind, thus independent from the mind.
If there are no human minds, Brahman the ultimate reality as Absolute and unconditioned will still exists.

Buddhism in contrast is not Substance Ontology thus basically ANTI-Philosophical_Realism.
Buddhism came about in direct counter the Brahman-Atman idea.
There are various school of Buddhism with different philosophies, but the fundamental of Buddhism as intended from Guatama Buddhist should be the same.

I think many people would intuitively say that Advaita had the better approach all along. I'd add that that's indeed the case, Advaita was just handled poorly, the Absolute should be seen as substanceless and ultimately unknowable.

"Process ontology" or "event ontology" is a fabrication that doesn't even make sense by itself, it only makes sense as a reaction to the idea of the Absolute. Just as anti-realism is a fabrication that doesn't even make sense by itself, it only makes sense as a reaction to realism.

Also, dependent origination of distinct events is incompatible with modern science, where the entire universe is one event.

[Iwannaplato]

Science has very convincingly explained how the universe came into being.

But you've argued that this is not as certain as knowledge the can be tested repeatedly.

Because the Big Bang Theory is inferred from indirect evidences within the science-physics-cosmology FSK, it will have a lesser degree of reliability, credibility and objectivity in contrast to the science-chemistry-FSK which can be tested repeatedly with direct evidences.

Inferred, indirect.

Further the Big Bang theory, at least many versions of it, makes no full claim to an understanding of origins. It's just a description of the earliest events we have come across, nor does it claim to know if there is a before the Big Bang nor if this universe sits in other universes.

Not that the existence of a deity eliminates concerns about origins. One can then ask Why is there a God?

The whole God vs. Big Bang as the complete explanation of the origins is itself a myth. Neither offers (nor does the latter claim to) a complete origin explanation.

Some claim that belief in god is necessary to have a happy, meaningful life. Again we can see that this is not so. There are millions of atheists and free-thinkers, not to mention many Buddhists, who live useful, happy and meaningful lives without belief in a god.

Though Buddhists consider dukkha to be an inherent part of life and not in occasional crises but ongoing, daily, until one gives up the sense that one is a person or self.

[Atla]

Though Buddhists consider dukkha to be an inherent part of life and not in occasional crises but ongoing, daily, until one gives up the sense that one is a person or self.

Biggest lie of Eastern philosophy. I wonder how they could have fallen for it for thousands of years.

Giving up personhood permanently, simply doesn't work. Maybe it could work for a hermit who wants to spend the rest of his life alone, wasting his life, and is being provided with food by the villagers. And even then, most forms of suffering are unaffected. Some forms of suffering do cease. And a few new ones are born.

Usually one has to return to personhood, and usually there is overall less suffering than before, but by not that much.

And there's this whole dharmic chain or whatever they want to get rid of, karma, rebirth, reincarnation, all that. Instead of spending one's entire life trying to end the cycle of rebirth, one could realize in 2 seconds that this whole cycle of rebirth was made up from the start.

[Iwannaplato]

Though Buddhists consider dukkha to be an inherent part of life and not in occasional crises but ongoing, daily, until one gives up the sense that one is a person or self.

Biggest lie of Eastern philosophy. I wonder how they could have fallen for it for thousands of years.

Giving up personhood permanently, simply doesn't work. Maybe it could work for a hermit who wants to spend the rest of his life alone, wasting his life, and is being provided with food by the villagers. And even then, most forms of suffering are unaffected. Some forms of suffering do cease. And a few new ones are born.

Usually one has to return to personhood, and usually there is overall less suffering than before, but by not that much.

And there's this whole dharmic chain or whatever they want to get rid of, karma, rebirth, reincarnation, all that. Instead of spending one's entire life trying to end the cycle of rebirth, one could realize in 2 seconds that this whole cycle of rebirth was made up from the start.

Well, my objection is that sure, if you decide that - to put it in scientific terms - your limbic system if bad and you spend every day for hours cutting yourself off from the limbic system and training yourself not to express emotions, especially with sound and passion, perhaps small verbal notifications are alright - well, you may suffer less, because you are less human. If you are careful not to mention hate, but systematize a kind of self-hatred, and cut off the limbic system, you may experiences less suffering. Whoopie

[Atla]

Though Buddhists consider dukkha to be an inherent part of life and not in occasional crises but ongoing, daily, until one gives up the sense that one is a person or self.

Biggest lie of Eastern philosophy. I wonder how they could have fallen for it for thousands of years.

Giving up personhood permanently, simply doesn't work. Maybe it could work for a hermit who wants to spend the rest of his life alone, wasting his life, and is being provided with food by the villagers. And even then, most forms of suffering are unaffected. Some forms of suffering do cease. And a few new ones are born.

Usually one has to return to personhood, and usually there is overall less suffering than before, but by not that much.

And there's this whole dharmic chain or whatever they want to get rid of, karma, rebirth, reincarnation, all that. Instead of spending one's entire life trying to end the cycle of rebirth, one could realize in 2 seconds that this whole cycle of rebirth was made up from the start.

Well, my objection is that sure, if you decide that - to put it in scientific terms - your limbic system if bad and you spend every day for hours cutting yourself off from the limbic system and training yourself not to express emotions, especially with sound and passion, perhaps small verbal notifications are alright - well, you may suffer less, because you are less human. If you are careful not to mention hate, but systematize a kind of self-hatred, and cut off the limbic system, you may experiences less suffering. Whoopie

Yeah that too. Getting rid of emotions and interpersonal human attachments, doing meditation for 50 years. All they have to do is stop being human.

They seem to have this idea that butchering themselves in this way, leads to some sort of enlightenment, cessation of suffering, cessation of rebirth. It's all nonsense. The only 'enlightenment' is the nondual awakening to our true nature, and that doesn't have to involve any of this self-butchering.

[Veritas Aequitas]

It would be stupid on this;
"Getting rid of emotions and interpersonal human attachments, doing meditation for 50 years. All they have to do is stop being human."

The Buddha tried the ascetic /hermit approach and found that it failed, thus the Buddha NEVER recommended asceticism and as approach to manage dukkha [existential sufferings].

As reflected in the Ten Bulls;

• Barefooted and naked of breast, I mingle with the people of the world. My clothes are ragged and dust-laden, and I am ever blissful. I use no magic to extend my life; Now, before me, the dead trees become alive.
  https://www.deeshan.com/zen.htm

Nevertheless there are a small percentile of people [1 in 10,000] [as evident] who have various psychological problems and asceticism is optimal for them to seek enlightenment.

Buddhism NEVER recommend that one get rid of emotions.
However, in Buddhism one should cultivate one's state to the point one is not being a slave to and be controlled by one's emotion.
Rather one should acknowledge whatever inherent emotions that arise and optimize it to one's well being in a particular condition.

It is something like Aristotle on Anger and applicable to all emotions;

• Anybody can become angry-that is easy;
  but to be angry
  with the right person, and
  to the right degree, and at the right time, and
  for the right purpose, and
  in the right way
  -that is not within everybody’s power and is not easy.

[Iwannaplato]

It would be stupid on this;
"Getting rid of emotions and interpersonal human attachments, doing meditation for 50 years. All they have to do is stop being human."

The Buddha tried the ascetic /hermit approach and found that it failed, thus the Buddha NEVER recommended asceticism and as approach to manage dukkha [existential sufferings].

But getting rid of emotions is not asceticism. It's part and parcel of Buddhist practice and theory. You observe emotions. You do not express them. Spend time in nearly any Buddhist community and you find the expression of strong emotions frowned on and shunned. But the very practices cut off the natural expression of emotions, not that they say this.

As reflected in the Ten Bulls;

• Barefooted and naked of breast, I mingle with the people of the world. My clothes are ragged and dust-laden, and I am ever blissful. I use no magic to extend my life; Now, before me, the dead trees become alive.
  https://www.deeshan.com/zen.htm

Zen is like the grandchild of the Buddhism of Siddheartha. First percolating through China and then over to Japan.

But even there let's remember that standard Zen practice was military in nature with masters hitting people with poor posture in meditation and for a variety of other reasons with sticks. For Zen monks we are talking about a set of practices that were disciplines in the extreme.

Nevertheless there are a small percentile of people [1 in 10,000] [as evident] who have various psychological problems and asceticism is optimal for them to seek enlightenment.

How did you ever come up with this number?

Buddhism NEVER recommend that one get rid of emotions.

They don't say that, but the practices do that. You cut off the natural flow of feeling to expression.

However, in Buddhism one should cultivate one's state to the point one is not being a slave to and be controlled by one's emotion.
Rather one should acknowledge whatever inherent emotions that arise and optimize it to one's well being in a particular condition.

It is something like Aristotle on Anger and applicable to all emotions;

• Anybody can become angry-that is easy;
  but to be angry
  with the right person, and
  to the right degree, and at the right time, and
  for the right purpose, and
  in the right way
  -that is not within everybody’s power and is not easy.

[/quote]That is so vague it could mean anything, and he was, of course, not that you suggested it a Buddhist.

Many in the West read a bit about Buddhism here. Perhaps manage to actually go to a temple of some kind and get a littel instruction. But in general just throw together some bricoleur version of Buddhism that suits them. They haven't been in an actual Buddhist community. They haven't pick and choose parts of the various Buddhisms that suit them. They idealize Buddhism, especially when they contrast it with Abrahamic religions they not longer like.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I have done a lot of research on asceticism within the Buddhist community.
1 in 10,000 people of 400 million Buddhists 40,000 ascetics or hermits in mountain caves and homes on the own, not monks in monasteries. This number may be a bit excessive in 2023.

• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpqaI_Py_zc
  This is a documentary of a trip into the Sacred Mountains of China with Red Pine (Bill Porter) to meet Buddhist and Taoist monks and nuns who live as hermits and practice their religion. These are some of the people about whom Red Pine wrote in his book, Road to Heaven: Encounters with Chinese Hermits.

"Getting rid of emotions and interpersonal human attachments, doing meditation for 50 years. All they have to do is stop being human."

As stated there is no way one can get rid of one's emotions.
Buddhist do not cut off emotions but rather modulate the emotions to the extent they don't let emotions [which are spontaneous] to control them.

Zen is a sort of cult at the fringe of the Buddhist community but they still adopt the fundamentals of Buddhism re Sunyata.

[Atla]

They don't say that, but the practices do that. You cut off the natural flow of feeling to expression.

What actually makes my blood boil, is how they get rid of romantic love, and substitute it with a general detached compassion. Motto: say NO to life!

(And they aren't even mutually exclusive. One can feel romantic love towards someone and a general detached compassion towards others.)

And how does it feel to the other person, to be emotionally cut off like that?

[Eodnhoj7]

There are differences and similarities between Vedanta [various] and Buddhism [various],
BUT the critical and fundamental difference is this;

Advaita Vedānta posits a substance ontology, an ontology which holds that underlying the change and impermanence of empirical reality is an unchanging and permanent absolute reality, like an eternal substance it calls Atman-Brahman.[385]
In its substance ontology, as like other philosophies, there exist a universal, particulars and specific properties and it is the interaction of particulars that create events and processes.[386]

In contrast, Buddhism posits a process ontology, also called as "event ontology".[387][386]
According to the Buddhist thought, particularly after the rise of ancient Mahayana Buddhism scholarship, there is neither empirical nor absolute permanent reality and ontology can be explained as a process.[387][388][note 69] There is a system of relations and interdependent phenomena (pratitya samutpada) in Buddhist ontology, but no stable persistent identities, no eternal universals nor particulars. Thought and memories are mental constructions and fluid processes without a real observer, personal agency or cognizer in Buddhism. In contrast, in Advaita Vedānta, like other schools of Hinduism, the concept of self (atman) is the real on-looker, personal agent and cognizer.[390]
-WIKI

Substance Ontology is basically Philosophical Realism, i.e. it believes there is a thing-in-itself as the ultimate reality that is mind-independent.
As such, the ultimate reality is the efficient cause of the mind, thus independent from the mind.
If there are no human minds, Brahman the ultimate reality as Absolute and unconditioned will still exists.

Buddhism in contrast is not Substance Ontology thus basically ANTI-Philosophical_Realism.
Buddhism came about in direct counter the Brahman-Atman idea.
There are various school of Buddhism with different philosophies, but the fundamental of Buddhism as intended from Guatama Buddhist should be the same.

Do Buddhist believe in god?
No, we do not. There are several reasons for this. The Buddha, like modern sociologists and psychologists, believed that religious ideas and especially the god idea have their origin in fear. The Buddha says:

• "Gripped by fear men go to the sacred mountains,
  sacred groves, sacred trees and shrines".
  Dp 188

https://www.buddhanet.net/ans73.htm

Even with advaita-vedanta [emerged to counter the popularity of Buddhism then] which is quite close to Buddhism, there is no change in its fundamental, otherwise advaita-vedanta might as well be recognized as Buddhism.

Distinctions can be blended under certain contexts.

The self is a process thus has no constant form as there is continual change. However the continuous nature of there being a process, i.e. one thing is directed to another, is a constant form. Both schools end in paradox.

As to "God": "God" is nothingness as God is beyond being and there is nothing beyond being. God can also be observed as the "highest power" with this highest power being the totality of being itself. This totality of being however is the same as nothingness due to the fact it has no comparison (and comparison is necessary for form) otherwise if it were to have a comparison it would not be 'the total'.

[Iwannaplato]

What actually makes my blood boil, is how they get rid of romantic love, and substitute it with a general detached compassion. Motto: say NO to life!

Yes: if you are really going to committ to practices it is very antilife. Most faux Buddhists meditating on their own are training their limbic system to shut up and their desires to shut up, but not at the level of true devotees who are cutting these things off with surgical effectiveness. There is an anti-life essence in Buddhism.

(And they aren't even mutually exclusive. One can feel romantic love towards someone and a general detached compassion towards others.)

It's too close to desire. Romantic love goes against the extremist balance and disconnection from the emotions and desires to be OK.

And how does it feel to the other person, to be emotionally cut off like that?

You're just another phenomenon to them on some level.

Another way to look at Buddhism is to see it as training to disidentify with emotions and desires (and thoughts). You cut off the natural expression of the first to and just observe the last.