This paper examines the theological orientations of Hinduism and Buddhism as interpreted through the lens of Western religious scholarship, drawing primarily on Jacob Neusner's World Religions in America and Stephen Prothero's God Is Not One. The discussion traces how both traditions diverge from the monotheistic structures central to the Judeo-Christian tradition, emphasizing instead polytheism, animism, and monism. Beginning with Hinduism's Vedic and Upanishadic roots and their embrace of animism, and moving to Buddhism's experiential, non-declarative spirituality, the paper argues that geography, culture, and social history all shape religious evolution. The result is a comparative framework that highlights the distinctly Eastern character of both faiths.
The paper demonstrates effective use of a comparative analytical lens: rather than treating Hinduism and Buddhism as isolated subjects, it reads both through the shared framework of Western scholarly perspective. This meta-analytical move — examining how the observer's standpoint shapes what is seen as "common ground" — elevates the discussion beyond simple description into interpretive argument.
The paper opens with an introduction that establishes its thesis and scholarly sources, then moves through Hinduism's historical development from the Vedas through animism and polytheism, transitions to Buddhism's experiential and non-declarative character, and closes with a summary conclusion that generalizes the argument to the broader relationship between culture, geography, and religious evolution. The structure is linear and thesis-driven, appropriate for a short comparative essay.
Though the religious traditions of Hinduism and Buddhism are both highly variant in practice and their cultural identities fully distinct from one another, they are often regarded in Western religious discourse as sharing various commonalities. In one respect, this is because these are dominant spiritual traditions in their respective spheres of the Asian continent. But beyond their geographical proximity, this discussion will show that these religious traditions share a common ground when addressed from a Western perspective.
Indeed, though Prothero and Neusner take wholly different perspectives on the two religions in question, their respective discussions reveal Hinduism and Buddhism as both diverging from the monotheistic structures common to the Judeo-Christian tradition. The faiths of Hinduism and Buddhism derive a commonality in the framework of this discussion because they are both being examined by authors of Western origins. The result is a comparative discussion which reveals two spiritual traditions that represent a significant departure from Western modes of worship and religious practice.
In its two earliest incarnations — where its primary doctrines were first formed in the Vedas and, thereafter, in the Upanishads — there is explicit declaration of beliefs which are still in practice today, even if, as Neusner reports, this practice is more ritualistic than practical in nature (p. 130). With respect to these beliefs, Neusner describes an evolving tradition in which a polytheistic and human-centered mode of theology began to distinguish Hinduism. In light of the historical roots of modern Hinduism, the eventual emphasis on humanism in defining the faith and the development of a uniquely pragmatic ethical code, it is easy to understand why Hinduism has arrived at its current identity as a faith in pursuit of theologically influenced social and scholastic progressivism.
The polytheism of Hinduism took its cues from the brand of spirituality which preceded it, adopting the ancient belief in animism to fit its cultural tendencies. Animism stresses the notion that there is godliness in all earthly beings and objects found in nature. As Neusner describes it, "anthropologists sometimes use the term animism to describe the primal religious belief that all of nature — things like rocks and seemingly nonconscious life-forms such as trees — are alive and possess a nonmaterial 'spirit' (soul) or spiritual quality" (Neusner, p. 243). While animism did not define specific practices of worship, the philosophy attached to it dictated the need for communal oneness with nature and harmony with environmental surroundings, including other people.
This provided a pathway for spirituality to the early Vedic thinkers. For these founding ideologists, this pathway led to the notion that there are multiple deistic beings which can occupy all manner of space and mental plane — a sharp departure from the "ethical monotheism" that underscores most Western religious traditions. This quality, perhaps more than any other, helps to illustrate the common ground between Hinduism and Buddhism, which Prothero goes to even greater lengths to show are distinctly Eastern in their theological orientation.
In this respect, Prothero makes the argument that like Hinduism, Buddhism is pointedly non-declarative in its belief in a single god. In fact, the practice of monism is common in Buddhist worship and denotes that "everything is one" (p. 59). Again, like animism, this suggests the presence of some spiritual force in all things and not just in the definable form of a single deity.
As the discussion notes, the Western perspective which drives our key sources also helps to demonstrate the distinct evolution of both Hinduism and Buddhism therefrom. In both, a cultural identity has forged two religious traditions that look for spiritual guidance in forms other than those traditionally described in monotheistic faiths. Namely, the proclivities toward polytheism, animism, and monism have underscored religious practices which tend to incline toward more interpretive worship, more individualized paths of orientation, and less rigid moral codes than those found in practicing Judeo-Christian contexts.
Quite to this point, it may be suggested that distinct cultural, social, and geographical patterns play a direct role in the way that religious traditions tend to evolve. The sharp lines of distinction between Eastern and Western modes of worship give foundation to this suggestion.
Neusner, J. (2003). World Religions in America. Westminster John Knox Press.
Prothero, S. (2010). God Is Not One: The Eight Rival Religions that Run the World. HarperOne.
You’re 86% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 1 section.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.