Hinduism and Buddhism

by Ananda K. Coomaraswamy

Hinduism and Buddhism by Ananda Coomaraswamy is an illuminating exploration of two ancient Eastern philosophies. With meticulous scholarship, Coomaraswamy delves into the core principles, symbolism, and artistic expressions of Hinduism and Buddhism, revealing their profound spiritual insights. This thought-provoking book provides readers with a deeper understanding of these rich traditions and their impact on art, culture, and human consciousness.


In-depth exploration of Hinduism and Buddhism by Ananda Coomaraswamy
Explores the core principles and symbolism of both philosophies
Sheds light on the artistic expressions influenced by these traditions
Offers profound spiritual insights into the nature of existence
Provides readers with a deeper understanding of Eastern philosophies and their cultural significance.

Genres: Buddhism, Religion, Philosophy, Hinduism, Nonfiction, Spirituality, Mythology

133 pages, Kindle Edition

First published January 1, 1943

About the author

Ananda Kentish Coomaraswamy was a Ceylonese philosopher and metaphysician, as well as a pioneering historian and philosopher of Indian art, particularly art history and symbolism, and an early interpreter of Indian culture to the West. In particular, he is described as "the groundbreaking theorist who was largely responsible for introducing ancient Indian art to the West." (Wikipedia)

Reviews

[A. · Rating 3 out of 5]

A rather cryptic and difficult book honestly, being an introduction to Hinduism and Buddhism but "from above", from a rather high perspective that expects you to already know many things - therefore the person expecting historical narratives and comparisons might be at a loss.

I would advise one to find another book to begin with, this one is for advanced readers in these subjects (i.e : not me).
However, as always, Coomaraswamy's footnotes and references are incredibly precise and useful.

Some very interesting extracts :
One would begin, for example, by remarking that the Vedic doctrine is neither "pantheistic" nor polytheistic, nor a worship of the powers of Nature except in the sense that Natura naturans est Deus and all her powers but the names of God’s acts; that karma is not ‘‘fate’’ except in the orthodox sense of the character and destiny that inhere in created things themselves, and rightly understood, determines their vocation; that 'maya' is not ‘illusion", but rather the material measure and means essential to the manifestation of a quantitative and in this sense “material”, world of appearances, by which we may be either enlightened or deluded according to the degree of our own maturity; that the notion of a “reincarnation” in the popular sense of the return of deceased individuals to rebirth on this earth represents only a misunderstanding of the doctrines of heredity, transmigration and regeneration; and that the six darshanas the later Sanskrit “philosophy” are not so many mutually exclusive “systems'’ but, as their name implies, so many “points of view" which are no more mutually contradictory than are, let us say, botany and mathematics. We shall also deny in Hinduism the existence of anything unique and peculiar to itself, apart from the local colouring and social adaptations that must be expected under the sun where nothing can be known except in the mode of the knower.
*******************
We can only suppose that Buddhism has been so much admired mainly for what it is not. A well known modem writer on the subject has remarked that “Buddhism in its purity ignored the existence of a God; it denied the existence of a soul; it was not so much a religion asa code of ethics”. We can understand the appeal of this on the one hand to the rationalist and on the other to the sentimentalist. Unfortunately for these, all three statements arc untrue, at least in the sense in which they are meant. It is with another Buddhism than this that we arc in sympathy and are able to agree; and that is the Buddhism of the texts as they stand.

[Christopher · Rating 4 out of 5]

Not for the faint of heart, nor for anyone looking to understand the question "So what is Hinduism or Buddhism, anyway?" Written by a genius who doesn't slow down to wait for you to catch up to him, 75% of the text is footnotes and further references. If you are on your way to post-doctoral studies in Eastern religions, this is the book to begin with.

[Amari · Rating 3 out of 5]

Baf. I am against unnecessary reading in translation. But I had this in French, wanted to read something non-fictional, and so began. Then I realized that I'm not interested in Hinduism. So I skipped to the portion of the book that deals with Buddhism. And I was just a bit bored. There's no reason to be even a bit bored. Ever. So many books call out. And sometimes even people.

[no.stache.nietzsche · Rating 2 out of 5]

A short but informative collection of essays. We especially enjoyed the attention given tot he importance to the "lower" varnas of the Hindu caste system: its very seldom mentioned (Guenon never seems to attend to this) but as Coomaraswamy argues- members of the shudra caste are best able to actualize their full potential as individuals by participating int he rightful place reserved for this caste (Shudra are NOT simply dalets or chandala- they are the manual labour class, and there are many benefits and much dignity in manual labour, in a properly ordered society that respects the rights of this class).

This text however is going to get a mere 2 stars from me, not for the writing of Coomaraswamy, but for the absolutely atrocious editing in this particular edition. There were so many typos and misspelled words, that at times I could not even decipher the intended meaning of the text. Really atrocious stuff, and its rife throughout the text. Very unfortunate.

[Aayush Thapa · Rating 5 out of 5]

"The more superficially one studies Buddhism, the more it seems to differ from the Brahmanism in which it originated; the more profound our study, the more difficult it becomes to distinguish Buddhism from Brahmanism"; I have been thoroughly convinced of this point. Coomaraswamy is a radiating (tapas) intellect which directs you sharply to what is the philosophia perennis in both (but what is essentially one and the same) mode of existence: Hinduism and Buddhism. Starting with the mythos, he delineates the essential wisdom of both traditions linguistically, practically, ethically, and noetically. With copious amounts of footnotes, this book is for anyone with a strong interest in knowing their Self (i.e. the universal Self, as the individual self turns out to be nothing but a persistent illusion) reflected in a tradition that epitomizes, like the philosophia of the ancient Greeks, this very effort. I anticipate this book to remain on my nightstand for weeks.

[Chedy R. · Rating 3 out of 5]

هذا الكتاب يتناول الهندوسية والبوذية، وهو يبرهن أساسا على أن الذي يتعمق في البحث في هاته الديانات يجدها متقاربة

الجزء الاول عن الهندوسية يبدا بمقدمة تليها الاسطورة المؤسسة فاللاهوت الهندوسي ثم النظام الاجتماعي. الجزء الثاني وهو عن البوذية فيه مقدمة والاسطورة المؤسسة و العقيدة. من الممتع هنا التفصيل الدقيق للاسطورة المؤسسة البوذية التي تشبه كثيرا أسطورة ولادة المسيح وأفلاطون
(العذراء، الولادة قرب الشجرة التي تنحني،الاعتراف من العرافين والخوارق الطبيعية الخ)

يتضح أيضا من الكتاب الفارق الكبير على مستوى العقيدة و تصور الإله بين هذه الديانات وديانات النص

[Laura · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is such an immensely fascinating subject. I thoroughly enjoyed the read, and I even understood almost all of of it despite the confusing amount of new names, words and concepts. Wonderful!

[Matthew · Rating 4 out of 5]

One of the many good things about religions that die is that they leave us some wonderful mythology that is nicely free from the problematic elements of people taking it literally or taking it seriously. There is no longer anyone telling us that this is what really happened, or trying to follow a dubious moral in the story. We can just enjoy them in the same way that we enjoy the Thousand Nights and One Night – as delightful fantasies.

Hinduism and Buddhism are not there yet. They are still religions that people follow. Nonetheless it is possible for many adherents to accept the older stories as mythology, rather than as fact. We do not know much about the real Buddha, but even many Buddhists would consider the stories about his life to be fantastical. Contrast that with the Christians who still take the Gospels seriously.

As this book makes clear, Buddhism is essentially an offshoot of Hinduism, which explains why it is really a religion, no matter how many westerners try to pretend that it is a self-critical philosophy. (Just don’t actually criticise it of course. Adherent of the ‘self-critical philosophy’ theory get very indignant when you actually criticise it.)

Buddhism has its myths, its absurd supernatural tales, its unsupported assertions about the afterlife and karma, and all the other trappings of a religion. There are even gods mentioned, in contrast to what Buddhism-loving atheists like to insist.

Hinduism and Buddhism tend to get an easy ride in the west. That is understandable. We can see the problems caused by Christianity, Judaism and Islam in our society, but Hindus and Buddhists exist in smaller numbers in western societies, and do not tend to interfere with our lives very much. Perhaps if we lived in India, we might be less sympathetic.

In reality, the religions share the many faults of their western counterparts. They assert belief as if it is fact, even when there is no foundation of evidence. They rely on outdated scriptures. Those scriptures can be used to justify bigotry, war and the subjugation of women.

We see it in the fascinating myths and legends assembled in this book. However much people like to talk about peaceful eastern religions that love people and animals, the old stories involve a good deal of fighting, and much cruelty against animals. Women are expected to be loyal and faithful wives, and are shunned when there is even a suspicion against them. In short, the ancient tales are not too different from religious mythology in the west.

Even the famous Bhagavad Gita is, if I understand this book correctly, a justification for killing people in war. Essentially Krishna is reassuring Arjuna that it is ok to kill his enemies because people never really die, since they are reborn. That is very reassuring, but only if you know it to be a fact, and that is something that we do not know.

Still these stories, as described by Sister Nivedita and Ananda K Coomaraswamy, are hugely enjoyable. They are full of magical and exciting details, and will give the reader an understanding of figures such as Rama, Brahma, Buddha, Krishna and others. You can also find out the amusing reason why Ganesha has an elephant’s head.

Some reviewers on Goodreads are warning that this book is hard to understand if you are not already familiar with Hinduism and Buddhism. Just ignore them. There are some florid passages at the beginning and in other places that may be a little off-putting, but once the actual myths and legends begin, the rest of the book is quite delightful.

I am not likely to be a convert to either Hinduism or Buddhism after reading this book, and I would disagree with the authors about whether I have only just become a ‘true citizen of the world by reading about the Ramayana. Let us just say that reading books of this kind are good for increasing my understanding of the beliefs that motivate others, and understanding different people is the first step towards empathy, respect and compassion for others.

[Comptes Rendus de René Guénon]

Août 1946 • Ananda K. Coomaraswamy - Hinduism and Buddhism (Philo sophical Library, New York).

Cet ouvrage est divisé en deux parties en quelque sorte parallèles, dont la première se rapporte à l’Hindouisme et la seconde au Bouddhisme, bien que l’auteur estime qu’il eût peut-être mieux valu traiter le tout comme un sujet unique, afin de faire ressortir encore davantage la concordance réelle de l’un et de l’autre. Il fait tout d’abord remarquer très justement qu’on pourrait en quelque façon donner un exposé fidèle de l’Hindouisme en niant catégoriquement la plupart des assertions émises à son égard par les érudits occidentaux, voire même par certains Hindous modernes et occidentalisés. Il précise ensuite ce qu’est le « mythe » entendu dans son véritable sens, et conçu comme essentiellement valable en dehors de toute condition particulière de temps et d’espace : agrê, « au commencement », signifie encore plus exactement « au sommet », c’est-à-dire « dans la cause première » ou « dans le Principe » (comme le grec en archê et le latin in principio) ; dans toute description symbolique du processus cosmogonique, c’est donc d’un « commencement » intemporel qu’il s’agit véritablement. Le Sacrifice (; yajna ) est une imitation rituelle de « ce qui fut fait par les Dieux au commencement » ; il est donc comme un reflet du « mythe », d’ailleurs inversé comme tout reflet, en ce sens que ce qui avait été un processus de génération et de division devient maintenant un processus de régénération et de réintégration. Pour pouvoir comprendre cette opération, il faut avant tout se demander « ce qu’est Dieu » et « ce que nous sommes » : Dieu est une Essence sans dualité ( adwaita ), mais qui subsiste dans une double nature, d’où la distinction du « Suprême » (para ) et du « Non-Suprême » (apara), auxquels correspondent, à des points de vue divers, toutes les dualités dont un des termes, étant subordonné à l’autre, est contenu « éminemment » dans celui-ci ; et nous trouvons aussi en nous-mêmes ces deux termes, qui sont alors le « Soi » et le « moi ». Le Sacrifice a pour fonction essentielle de « réunir ce qui a été séparé », donc en ce qui concerne l’homme, de ramener le « moi » au « Soi » ; cette réunion est souvent
représentée symboliquement comme un mariage, le terme supérieur d’une telle dualité étant masculin et le terme inférieur féminin l’un par rapport à l’autre. Il ne faut d’ailleurs pas oublier que, au point de vue intégralement traditionnel, toute action doit être considérée normalement comme « sacrée », c’est-à-dire comme ayant un caractère « sacrificiel » (de sacra facere ), de sorte que, par là, la notion du Sacrifice peut être étendue à la vie humaine tout entière ; et c’est en quoi consiste proprement la « voie des œuvres » ( karma mârga ) de la Bhagavad-Gîtâ, qui est naturellement à
l’opposé de la conception profane des modernes. D’autre part, le Sacrifice, étant accompli in divinis par Vishwakarma, demande, dans son imitation rituelle en ce monde, une coopération de tous les arts ( vishwâ karmâni ), d’où il résulte que, dans l’ordre social traditionnel, toutes les fonctions, quelles qu’elles soient, revêtent aussi un caractère sacré ; mais, en même temps, l’organisation sociale, non plus que les œuvres, ne saurait être considérée comme une fin en elle-même, et elle doit être telle qu’elle rende possible à chacun de ses membres la réalisation de sa propre perfection : c’est à quoi répond, dans l’Hindouisme, l’institution des quatre âshramas, par laquelle tout est ordonné en vue de l’obtention de la Délivrance finale.
Passant ensuite au Bouddhisme, M. Coomaraswamy remarque qu’il semble différer d’autant plus de l’Hindouisme qu’on l’étudie plus superficiellement, et que, à mesure qu’on l’approfondit, il devient de plus en plus difficile de préciser les différences ; et l’on pourrait dire que, en Occident, « le Bouddhisme a été admiré surtout pour ce qu’il n’est pas ». Le Bouddha lui-même n’a d’ailleurs jamais prétendu enseigner une doctrine nouvelle, ni, dans les préceptes qu’il donnait à ses auditeurs « laïques », prêcher une «réforme sociale » ; en fait, l’essentiel de son enseignement s’adressait
aux membres d’un « ordre monastique », à l’intérieur duquel il ne pouvait subsister aucune distinction sociale, puisqu’il s’agissait d’hommes ayant déjà abandonné le monde, comme les sannyâsîs de l’Hindouisme. Ici, le « mythe » est représenté par la « vie » même du Bouddha, qui offre tous les traits de YAvatâra devant lesquels les particularités individuelles se sont entièrement effacées ; la majorité des modernes ont supposé, d’après cela, qu’il s’agissait d’un homme qui aurait été « divinisé » ultérieurement, mais cette conception « éphémériste » est au rebours de la vérité : ce qui se dégage de tous les textes authentiques, c’est qu’il s’agit au contraire de la « descente » d’un Archétype céleste revêtant une forme humaine, et dont la «naissance» et l’« éveil» représentent, pourrait-on dire, des événements intemporels. Au sujet de la doctrine, M. Coomaraswamy s’attache tout particulièrement à montrer la fausseté de l’interprétation suivant laquelle le Bouddha aurait nié Yâtmâ : quand, parlant des modifications individuelles, contingentes et transitoires, il a dit, contre ceux qui identifient leur être même avec ces accidents (et parmi lesquels il aurait assurément inclus Descartes avec son Cogito ergo sum), que « cela n’est pas le Soi », on comprend comme s’il avait dit qu’« il n’y a pas de Soi » ; et cela est d’autant plus absurde que lui-même, dans son état de Bouddha, ne peut être conçu autrement que comme identique au « Soi ». Nous ne pouvons entrer davantage dans le détail, mais nous devons tout au moins signaler une excellente interprétation du terme Nirvâna ; c’est là encore une question qui a en effet grand besoin d’être mise au point, après toutes les confusions qui y ont été introduites par les orientalistes. Un autre point qui est d’un grand intérêt est celui-ci : les noms et épithètes du Bouddha, d’une façon générale, sont, aussi bien que ses actes, ceux mêmes que la tradition védique rapporte plus spécialement à Agni et à Indra, à qui aussi la désignation d 'Arhat est très souvent appliquée ; or, Agni et Indra sont respectivement le Sacerdoce et la Royauté in divinis ; c’est précisément avec ces deux possibilités que le Bouddha est né, et l’on peut dire que, en choisissant la première, il les a réalisées toutes deux, car c’est là un des cas où, comme il a été dit plus haut, l’un des deux termes est contenu « éminemment » dans l’autre.

Nous avons appris qu’une traduction française de cet important ouvrage est actuellement en préparation et il est à souhaiter qu’elle ne tarde guère à paraître.
*********************************
*********************************
Mars 1950 • Ananda K. Coomaraswamy - Hindouisme et Bouddhisme

Traduit de l’ anglais par René Allar et Pierre Ponsoye ( Gallimard , Paris).

Nous devons signaler à nos lecteurs cette excellente traduction du livre de notre regretté collaborateur, Hinduism and Buddhism, qui vient de paraître dans la collection Tradition ; comme nous avons déjà rendu compte précédemment (voir n° d’août 1946) de l’édition anglaise de cet important ouvrage, qui rectifie un grand nombre d’erreurs et de confusions commises par les orientalistes, nous ne nous y étendrons pas de nouveau. Nous rappellerons seulement que les deux parties en quelque sorte parallèles en lesquelles il se divise font ressortir nettement la concordance qui existe en réalité, entre l’Hindouisme et le Bouddhisme ; il est bien entendu que, en ce qui concerne ce dernier, il ne s’agit pas d’écoles plus ou moins tardives et déviées, comme celles dont Shankarâchârya réfuta les vues hétérodoxes, mais du véritable Bouddhisme originel, qui ressemble aussi peu que possible à ce qu’on a présenté sous ce nom en Occident, où, comme le dit l’auteur, « le Bouddhisme a été admiré surtout pour ce qu’il n’est pas ».

[Gianluca Fiore · Rating 5 out of 5]

A superbly intriguing book that wasn't has complex as I feared before starting its read. Not for initiates of course, but for those who are quite familiar with Buddhism and Hinduism.

[Patrick Gibson]

excelllent Book exciting to read the HIndu and Buddhist Myths and Legends. Monkey Kings , Rakshasas and titans of Enlightenment!

[Ross McPherson · Rating 5 out of 5]

An incredibly dense book, every paragraph could be expanded into a book of its own. The more closely one studies Buddhism, the more difficult it becomes to distinguish it from Hinduism.

[Pramod Pant · Rating 3 out of 5]

Sanskrit, Greek, German, Latin, and English are the languages used and you are expected to understand all of them . No translations!

Hinduism is treated mostly in it’s Vedantic form , though it is far more various. The result is an uncalled for vagueness . Brevity is the soul of wit , surely, but not of this kind that ‘ signifies nothing’ . Erudition shouldn’t try to deliberately ( my suspicion) further obfuscate complex issues .

By the way, the word Orientalism is used at page 20. I thought it was used for the first time by Edward Said who wrote his books after Coomaraswamy was long dead! Is it the interference by the publisher ? Doesn’t matter much though , provided the publisher has not taken similar liberties elsewhere in the book .

[Gargantua · Rating 1 out of 5]

Not recommended for anyone lacking familiarity with either Hinduism or Buddhism as you will almost immediately be lost.

On the whole I found this an interesting comparison between Hinduism and Buddhism (as you’d expect given the title) but the author seems to view not only the two titular religions as essentially different ways of saying the same thing, but that ALL religions are saying this same thing as well. Now, this type of omnism has been stated elsewhere before (Jung for instance) but I found the author’s statement of this either profoundly ignorant or arrogant, routinely comparing snippets of Western philosophy and religion to Hindu/Buddhist concepts as if they were identical, completely ignoring the difference in context and metaphysics between them.

The worst of this came at the end of the book where the author states this view explicitly:
“We are forced by the logic of the scriptures themselves to say that Agnendrau, Buddha, Krishna, Moses and Christ are names of one and the same “descent” whose birth is eternal.”

A statement this grand deserves its own book to attempt to justify, let alone slapping it on at the very end as some foregone conclusion. In doing so the author less seems to say “all religions are the same” so much as “all religions are Hinduism.”

This makes me skeptical of the author’s conflation of Buddhism as a restatement of Hinduism, so perhaps further readings of Buddhist and Hindu texts will reveal that the author has done much the same in hand-waving the two as essentially the same monistic belief system.

All in all somewhat thought-provoking in its comparison for intermediate learners of Hinduism and Buddhism, but I can’t speak to its accuracy given the author’s erroneous conclusion. Perhaps I’ll amend this review in the future once I’m more familiar with both religions.

[Wayne · Rating 2 out of 5]

I have an electronic form of this book I purchased from Amazon. It is riddled with misspelled words, and, evidently, missing words. I compared my copy to a physical copy a friend of mine has and the texts were not the same.

Regardless of this problem, however, I have to say I found this book to be lacking in clarity. What insight it provided was buried under a style of writing that explored words rather than explaining them. Too many words describing the same thing - and in various languages - did nothing to clarify the author's thoughts. In fact, for this reader, I was left confused and frustrated. I did not expect to have to be a scholar versed in Hindu theology in order to understand the book. Also, if I am honest, I was shocked that there were statements made that had the fingerprints of ego on them. Pride in knowledge should not be used as a means to distance the reader from the material at hand. Yet, this is my experience reading this book.

Not that I think many people would be interested in reading this, but, if one is considering reading it, I would suggest another book, and, probably, another writer. The effort it took to wade through this was not worth what I received for my effort.

[Ron · Rating 1 out of 5]

Impossible to read

It was impossible to understand any of the concepts. It was if the entire body of the text was copied from a larger body of work in some piecemeal fashion as is evident by the scores of footnotes. Or perhaps this was translated into English word for word, where the translated word in English made no sense or was ambitious. Not worth the time or effort, unfortunately.

[Emin Erdem · Rating 5 out of 5]

Güzel bir kitap. Hinduizmi ve Budizmi temel olarak anlatıyor ve yanlış anlaşılan kavramlara ışık tutuyor.