The Buddhist Theory Of Human Nature

1147 Words Nov 12th, 2015 5 Pages
Proving Buddhist theory of human nature is more plausible than Hindu theory of human nature is important because it helps one have a better understanding of the world. This essay shows that Buddhism is more practical than Hinduism and it is relevant because science is dominant in determining what is true and what is not. Buddhism is closer to the scientific world because it uses sensory information to achieve data. All truth is found through sensory experience, which is what Buddhism believes in. Humans need to understand that the changing world is the real world. Everything constantly changes and there is nothing that is permanent. I will prove that the Buddhist theories of human nature is more plausible than the Hindu theories of human nature. Buddhism denies that there is no permanent self and everything constantly changes. On the other hand, Hindu’s believe there is something called an Ātman; believing there is such thing as a “permanent Self” which can not be possible. The Hindu theories of human nature is not logical, since there is proof that everything is constantly changing. Buddhism is much more empirical compared to Hinduism, making Buddhism much more convincing in the modern world. Hinduism and Buddhism are similar in some aspects but very different in other. Both traditions use the “chariot metaphor” to describe their position. The Hindus use their version of the metaphor to describe and make sense of the Ātman. On the other hand, Buddhists use their metaphor…
Open Document