Compare and Contrast Essay Sample on Hinduism and Buddhism

Compare and Contrast Essay Sample on Hinduism and Buddhism From egotism, force, pride,// Desire, wrath, and possession// Freed, unselfish, calmed,// He is fit for becoming Brahman (Bhagavad Gita XVIII.53). Hinduism and Buddhism are two of the worlds greatest and most influential religions. Both of these religions arose in South Asia, and thus stem from a similar philosophy and culture. While contrasting greatly with the monotheistic religions of the West, Hinduism and Buddhism also contrast greatly with each other. Although similar in respect to general philosophy, Hinduism and Buddhism differ greatly on matters of social structure. The two religions also contrast because Hinduism omits and Buddhism emphasizes individual freedom to progress spiritually and socially in the current life. By comparing the two religions, one can easily see why it is that Hinduism has proved the more stable and Buddhism the more humanitarian philosophy. Both Hinduism and Buddhism are more philosophical than religious. Both describe an all-encompassing philosophy and define existence itself. For instance, the essential Hindu concept defining the individual and his responsibilities is dharma. A convoluted term, dharma is a sense of obligation. One must fulfill his roles in society and the world. Such responsibilities include reproduction and caste duties, but extend into the philosophical realm of peaceful and humble acceptance of ones position. Dharma defines correct living for a Hindu. Buddhism has a similar concept, dhamma (note even the linguistic similarity). Dhamma does not imply specific biological or social obligations, but maintains a comparable philosophical construct. The Buddhist definition of right conduct and personal obligation, dhamma is the path which must be taken to escape the suffering of worldly life. Other similarities between Hinduism and Buddhism are more apparent. Both religions maintain a broad perspective of religious worship. Hinduism is polytheistic while Buddhism maintains no structured belief in an independent, sentient god-like entity (especially in human form). Either of these concepts yields a malleable religion which can adjust and conform to local tradition and fluctuations in intellectual and spiritual thought. Both religions believe in a system of reincarnation, and both religions emphasize the community over the self. The major rift between the two religions seems to stem from the role of social structure in the two religions. Hinduisms caste system perpetuates a fatalism and apathy toward social rights and advancement while reinforcing the ruling establishment. Buddhism concentrates on the individuals release from suffering, implying no overriding social definition. The outstanding example of Hinduisms establishment tendencies is the caste system. The caste system divides the Hindu people into four major classes, Brahman, Kshatriya, Vaishya, and Shudra, and untouchables, or people outside of all the classes. Members of certain castes have certain duties. Caste is determined by birth, allowing no social advancement, career choice, or individual freedom. The castes are socially ranked, forming an upper social division as well as lower ones. Caste, then, determines ones profession, ones potential education, ones social position, even defining these limitations for your children. These social limitations are reinforced by the concept that caste is determined by sins or virtues in a previous life: how well one fulfilled his dharma in the past. The responsibilities of ones current caste also constitute the dharma which will further advance or punish one in your next life. In other words, exceeding ones dharma in not only unnecessary, but in all probab ility will hurt your dharma, causing you to fall into a lower caste in your next life. This intertwining of social strata with religion creates a fatalism derived from inevitable destiny, guilt complexes of past life caste determination, a philosophy of acceptance, and fear of punishment for transcending ones dharma. In this light, Hinduism becomes a tremendous force for stagnation, eliminating the initiative for progress in a philosophy of acceptance which breeds an apathy for social justice. Such a pervasive philosophy becomes an asset to the status quo and ruling stratum, stabilizing the social structure at the expense of individuals. Buddhism, on the other hand, plays little role in the social or political structure of a society. Buddhism actually began as a reaction to the violence of Hindu society, including the brutality of the caste system. Buddhism concentrates not on the society, but on the individual, thus divorcing religion from the interests of the ruling stratum. The pessimism of Hindu reincarnation is replaced by a more optimistic and less fatalistic cycle. One is no longer born into a position due to past inequities. Although Buddhism does see life as pain and suffering and reincarnation as a renewal of this suffering, there is a potential escape. If one renounces his attachment to desire and self, Nirvana, or escape from the cycles of suffering, is possible. The most important aspect of Nirvana, however, is its unrestricted access to people of any social background. In other words, although a Hindu untouchable cannot possibly advance in this life through any extraordinary effort of his own, any Buddh ist can achieve Nirvana through the Four Noble Truths and the Eightfold Path, realizations of the essence of suffering and the methods to remove all suffering. Buddhism also seems to be less ritualistic and deity-dependent than Hinduism. Cultures across the world have created man-shaped gods to emphasize the dignity and purpose of human existence. In my opinion, this shows an emotional dependency which flaws a religious philosophy. If a religion is created to emotionally satisfy its followers, it seems to contain less truth or philosophical rightness. I believe this is the case with Hinduism. While Hinduism has man shaped gods to emphasize human dignity, Buddhism manages to instill a respect for humanity through the intellectual and spiritual capacity of man. This is evidenced by the supreme respect Buddhist have for those who achieve Nirvana, quasi-deifying these men, recognizing their superhuman wisdom and spirit while refusing to attribute them supernatural properties. The lack of an artificial diety to instill purpose in a religions followers makes Buddhism significantly different, and more advanced, than Hinduism. An especially important indicator of the contrast between Hinduism and Buddhism arises in their historical relationship. Buddhism, of course, arose as a reform movement out of Hinduism. This in itself tends to put Buddhism in a more positive light as the religion that integrated Hindu beliefs while excluding the most negative aspects of Hinduism. This turns out to be the case when the caste system is examined. While Hinduism not only perpetuates, but is itself the caste system, Buddhism utterly rejects any system of caste. Buddhism actually reached high levels of support during the rule of Ashoka, who adopted the Buddhist concept of ahimsa, or non violence, and its tendency toward greater equality. The attractiveness of a philosophy/religion of peace and general freedom, including a rejection of the social stigmas of caste for untouchables and lower caste members, brought thousands of converts. Again, however, the historical relationship of Hinduism and Buddhism shows the inherent ma lleability and strength of Hinduism. In order to integrate the Buddhist movement into Hinduism, the Buddha was made an avatar of Vishnu. Now even if one claimed to be a Buddhist, one could easily be dismissed as a Hindu. By erasing the demarcation between the two religions, Hinduism managed to absorb the Buddhist movement. This result shows the power of a religion so closely tied to the social structure. Because Hinduism pervaded the very fabric of society, it was able to stifle and absorb threatening philosophies. Buddhism, on the other hand, has no interest in the structural model of a society to effect similar results. Between Hinduism and Buddhism, I believe that Buddhism is more positive religion. The myths and history of Hinduism create a field of immensely greater interest than that of Buddhism. The culture of Hinduism also seems more captivating, although this is only by virtue of its distinct difference with Western class systems. Despite the draw Hinduism holds upon outsiders, Buddhism remains the more advanced religion. Whereas Hinduism represses others through caste, Buddhism projects ultimate acceptance. Both religions maintain an emphasis upon the community and a rejection of selfishness that is refreshingly different from Western religions. Although both of these religions instill respect and a genuine concern for others, Hinduism does so in a forced, repressive manner while Buddhism is more liberal. The relationship between Hinduism and Buddhism is much the same as between Catholicism and Protestantism. One can equate Catholicism with Hinduism and Protestantism with Buddhism. Protestantism grew as a reform movement out of Catholicism. The corruption, immorality, and restrictive power structure of the Catholic Church became so intolerable that Protestantism, a religion emphasizing the individuals personal relationship with the deity, was created. Protestantism offered more freedom and dignity to the people than did Catholicism. Although the religions are vastly different, Buddhism also grew out of the corruption, immorality, and restrictive power structure of Hinduism to give the people more freedom and dignity. Unfortunately, the comparison stops here since the philosophy of Protestantism did not support a selfless, dignified religion, while the very essence of Buddhism supports a selfless and dignified view of humanity. This again results from Buddhisms deemphasis on social ord er. Hinduism and Buddhism are very similar religions in comparison to the monotheistic religions of the West. On a direct comparison, however, the differences between Buddhism and Hinduism are great. Although the general tendencies of both religions lean toward the family and community, Hinduism does so at the expense of women and the lower castes while Buddhism remains more universally accepting. Both religions seem to have elements which would do the West good to learn, but only Buddhism lacks any large scale negative repercussions for its followers. On the basis of these criteria, Buddhism seems to have more positive character as a general life philosophy.

Placoid Scales on Sharks and Rays

Placoid Scales on Sharks and Rays Placoid scales are the tiny tough scales that cover the skin of sharks, rays, and other elasmobranchs. Even though placoid scales are similar to the scales of bony fish, they are modified teeth and are covered with hard enamel. They grow out of the dermis layer and this is why they are called dermal denticles. Placoid scales are packed tightly together, supported by spines, and grow with their tips facing backward. This gives the fishs skin a rough feel. The function of these scales is for protection against predators. In some sharks, they may also have a hydrodynamic function, helping them swim more efficiently and quietly. The placoid scales are shaped such that little vortices form, reducing friction as the shark swims. They also direct the water around the fish. The Structure of Placoid Scales The placoid scales grow out of the dermis, with the flat rectangular base plate embedded in the skin of the fish. Like our teeth, placoid scales have an inner core of pulp made up of connective tissues, blood vessels, and nerves. Like the pulp cavity of a tooth, it is nursed by a layer of odontoblast cells that secrete dentine. This hard, calcified material forms the next layer. The dentine is covered by enamel-like vitrodentine, which is produced by the ectoderm. Once the scale erupts through the epidermis, no more enamel can be deposited on that portion of the scale. Different species have different kinds of spines develop to support the scales. The spines give the scales their rough texture. It is so rough that it has been used as sandpaper by various cultures form many centuries. The species of fish can be identified by the shape of the scales and spines. On some sharks, they are shaped like a duck foot. Scales in bony fish grow as the fish gets larger, but placoid scales stop growing after they reach a certain size, and then more scales are added as the fish grows. Shark Skin Leather The tough nature of the placoid scales makes shark rawhide leather, called shagreen. The scales are ground down so the surface is rough with rounded protrusions. It can take on dye colors or be left white. It was used in Japan to cover sword hilts, where its rough nature was appreciated to help form a good grip. Other Types of Fish Scales Ctenoid scales are another kind of toothed scales, but the teeth are only along the outer edge of the scale. They are found on fish such as perch that have spiny fin rays. Cycloid scales have a smooth texture and they are found on fish with soft fin rays, including salmon and carp. They are rounded and show growth rings as they grow with the animal. Ganoid scales are diamond-shaped and they do not overlap, but they fit together like pieces of a jigsaw puzzle. They are seen on gars, bichirs, and reedfishes, and they act like armor plates.