Buddhism or Hinduism: Which made me rush a frat

Buddhist and Hindu thought have both seen a surge in popularity in the west. The two religions are more alike than different. They both believe in detachment, Karma and Dharmic way of life. It makes sense because Buddhism branched off Hinduism and they both grew in the same spiritual soil. However, the two conflict on some important subjects.

The key difference between both is the existence of a soul. Hindus believe in a soul, while Buddhists do not. An eternal self vs no-self. Atta vs Annata. I have seen some biological arguments for not having a soul. In the words of Sam Harris, “There is no place in the brain for your soul to be hiding”. But neither Buddha, nor Vedic scriptures were trying to make biological arguments. The soul debate is more interesting from a philosophical point of view than a physical one. After all, Buddha was a philosopher not a neuroscientist.

The soul is the self. It is your identity. It is that experience of ‘I’, who inhabits this body from birth to death — like a driver in a car. According to Buddha, the self is an illusion. There is no coherent, individual, you. Rather, you are a sum of your thoughts, experiences, memories that are constantly changing. The you at birth is not the same as you at death. In fact, the you at this moment is not the you who started reading this sentence. The idea of yourself as the same person, the same self, is an illusion. There is no unchanging soul that continues from one moment to another. It is a story you create to tie together successive experiences.

If a ship were entirely replaced, piece by piece, is it still fundamentally the same ship? If your answer is yes, Buddha would think you are deluded. While Hindus would argue that a person, unlike a ship, has a central essense that cannot be replaced.

In both schools of thought, the goal of life is liberation. But they differ on what that means. In Vedanta Hinduism, the path to moksha is to realize the true self. In the Gita, Krishna tells Arjun to fulfill his duty as a warrior and fight. In Buddhism, the path to nirvana is to let go of the self. Siddhartha renounced his princeship and took up the life of a mendicant to become the Buddha. Who is right? Needless to say, there is no right answer. Both ideologies have their place in life.

In the past, I was influenced by Buddhist thought. I tried to dissolve my identity. I steered away from labels. I removed the phrase, “that’s not who I am” from my vocabulary. Because any idea of myself was a story I had fabricated in my mind. This allowed me to explore avenues I otherwise would never have. It motivated me to take classes in literature, rush a frat, move to New York for a summer — do things that the “real me” would have never done.

But it soon got exhausting to think of myself as a bundle of experiences rather than a coherent self. As I grow older, my identity solidifies. I have a better idea of who I am. Atman is the identity that comes from within. It is the real you. As I grow older, I have started believing in Atman. I have started believing in a soul.