Difference Between Krishna and Buddha

Posted by wizanda on 1518096705

Differences:

• Krishna makes a point of Bhakti Yoga - As devotion to a Divine incarnation, as a method for connection to the Source.
• Buddha taught no self, and atman has been misunderstood to mean self.

Similarities:

• That a Universal Mind that is beyond reality is the ultimate Source of everything.
• Here is the Maya; which is an illusion that is impermanent.
• Karma affects our reality, and when we're perfected we can ascend out of this realm of existence.
• We're to strive to be a decent being, else we'll fall lower in dimension.
• By recognizing our heart/soul we come to a state of nothingness, where the Divine is all that exists (0neness).
• Be the Dharma; don't be Adharmic.
• Be in a constant state of Yoga (connection to the Divine).
• Through the state of the Buddhi we reach enlightenment (B.G 6:21).

The difference between these enlightened teachers on 'Atman' isn't because of what Krishna was saying; as Krishna isn't using the word Atman to mean self, he seems to be using it in the context of recognizing the soul...

Where Buddha used the word 'heart' as being the soul that we must recognize; as my understanding is that Hinduism was confused by that time period, and due to other texts like the Upanishads, they had concluded that Atman was meaning self...

Thus they'd also concluded that Brahman had a self...

So Buddha then uses the Universal Mind for Brahman without a name; as Brahman has no self, and Krishna did not imply this either.

Krishna does make a point of Bhakti towards himself, and that by devotion to a Divine incarnation (avatar) we connect to the Source; whereas Buddha taught connect to the Source, and recognize we all have the potential to be avatars/Bodhisattva.