Buddhist vs. Hindu cosmology: Inheritance, divergence, and polemical transformation

Cosmology in both Hindu and Buddhist traditions serves a dual function: it is not only a descriptive model of the universe’s structure and temporal cycles but also a normative framework that shapes ethical behavior, ritual practice, and spiritual aspiration. In this light, cosmological systems are never value-neutral; they articulate worldviews that define the meaning of life, the nature of reality, and the goals of religious practice.

Dharma Wheel (dharmachakra; left) and the Hindu symbol of the Om (Aum; right).

Both Hindu and Buddhist cosmologies emerged from the same broad cultural milieu of ancient India. They share a language of concepts such as karma, rebirth, and cyclical time, as well as geographical and mythological motifs including Mount Meru, celestial realms, and vast cosmic time scales. These shared elements, however, do not imply doctrinal agreement. Rather, they often reflect a process of mutual engagement, reinterpretation, and polemical differentiation.

In this post, we aim to clarify how Buddhist cosmology inherited and adapted elements of earlier Vedic and later Hindu frameworks while also reformulating them in line with its core doctrine, particularly anattā (non-self), dependent origination (pratītyasamutpāda), the nature of suffering (dukkha), and the path to liberation (nirvāṇa). The distinction between structural borrowing and doctrinal transformation is essential. What may look like continuity in myth or imagery often masks deep differences in philosophical orientation and soteriological intent.

Structural similarities and shared tropes

Despite their doctrinal differences, both Hindu and Buddhist cosmologies share a number of structural features that reflect their common cultural and geographic origins. One of the most prominent shared elements is the centrality of Mount Meru, conceived as the cosmic axis around which the universe is organized. In both traditions, Mount Meru is envisioned as a vast mountain at the center of the world-system, surrounded by concentric oceans and continents, and serving as the abode of gods and divine beings.

This spatial structure reflects a vertically stratified universe composed of multiple realms arranged along an axis: heavenly realms above, inhabited human and animal worlds at the middle level, and hells or infernal domains below. These vertical layers correspond not only to different existential planes but also to gradations of moral and karmic consequence. Both Hindu and Buddhist traditions describe intricate cosmographies that locate these realms in great detail, reinforcing moral hierarchies and metaphysical causality.

Equally central to both systems is a conception of time that is vast, cyclical, and impersonal. Time unfolds through immense eons called kalpas, which encompass phases of creation, sustenance, decline, and destruction, followed by rebirth and renewal. While Hindu cosmology often casts these cycles in terms of divine play (līlā) and cosmic law (ṛta), Buddhism interprets them as part of the unsatisfactory cycle of saṃsāra, driven by ignorance and craving. Nevertheless, both traditions present the cosmos as an eternal flux of emergence and dissolution, eschewing linear or apocalyptic models.

These structural similarities form the backdrop for more significant doctrinal and philosophical divergences. While the mythic and spatial language may overlap, the meaning and function of these cosmologies diverge sharply in each tradition, reflecting distinct metaphysical commitments and soteriological aims.

The role of deities and cosmic agency

One of the most significant differences between Hindu and Buddhist cosmologies lies in their treatment of divine agency. In many forms of Hindu thought, the cosmos is animated, sustained, and periodically renewed by creator deities such as Brahmā, Viṣṇu, and Śiva. These gods are not only cosmological agents but also embodiments of metaphysical principles and objects of devotional worship. Viṣṇu, for example, is revered as the preserver who descends as avatāras to restore cosmic order, while Śiva may serve as both destroyer and liberator. Brahmā, though less widely worshipped in later periods, is traditionally seen as the creator of the world within each cosmic cycle.

Buddhism, by contrast, rejects the notion of a permanent or omnipotent creator. Deities do exist in Buddhist cosmology, occupying various heavenly realms and enjoying extraordinary power and lifespan, but they are nonetheless impermanent, subject to karma, and ultimately unenlightened. Far from being sources of ultimate refuge or salvation, they are seen as fellow beings trapped in the cycle of saṃsāra, albeit at a higher existential tier. This ontological relativization of gods is foundational to Buddhist metaphysics, which emphasizes dependent origination (pratītyasamutpāda) over divine agency.

Early Buddhist texts often engage in polemics against the idea of an eternal creator. The Brahmājāla Sutta (DN 1) and Aggañña Sutta (DN 27), for example, satirize Brahmā’s delusion and claim to be the sole creator. These narratives suggest that such claims arise from ignorance and that the belief in a creator god is itself a karmically conditioned view. Similarly, the concept of Īśvara (a personal god) is explicitly rejected in many Abhidharma and Madhyamaka texts, where ultimate causality is attributed not to divine will but to interdependent processes devoid of selfhood or permanence.

Thus, while Buddhism inherited a richly populated cosmological landscape from its Indian context, it reframed divine figures within a radically different philosophical and soteriological framework. Gods remain part of the cosmos but no longer occupy its center. The emphasis shifts from worship of eternal beings to liberation from all conditioned states, including the divine.

Temporality and soteriology

Building on the shared temporal framework outlined above, the central question here is how each tradition evaluates time in relation to liberation. The issue is not how cycles are structured but whether time can be inhabited as a path to freedom or whether it is the very medium of bondage.

In many strands of Hindu thought, temporal cycles are embedded in a sacred order that can be lived and navigated. Human action is situated within a meaningful cosmos where Dharma, devotion, knowledge, and sometimes renunciation cooperate toward liberation. Mokṣa remains the goal, yet participation in the world can be graded toward it. Time is not an enemy as such, since ritual and ethical alignment can support progress.

In Buddhism, the same cyclical backdrop is read as the texture of saṃsāra. What recurs is conditioned arising powered by ignorance and craving, explained by dependent origination. Ethical discipline and contemplative insight do not harmonize the self with cosmic time, they erode the causes that keep time rolling. The path aims at cessation, which is unconditioned and therefore outside temporal process.

This difference is crystallized in the divergent positioning of the soteriological goal. In Hindu thought, mokṣa often entails union with a divine absolute, for example Brahman, and may be realized through the fulfillment of duties, ascetic withdrawal, or devotional surrender. While it transcends temporal existence, mokṣa is frequently conceived as the culmination of participation in a sacred order. In contrast, the Buddhist ideal of nirvāṇa is discontinuous with the cosmological system. It is not a divine state nor a perfected realm within the universe, but the complete cessation of the conditions that give rise to cyclic existence. As such, nirvāṇa is unconditioned, beyond space and time, and outside the cycles of rebirth. Canonical formulations often describe it in negative terms, such as the extinguishing of craving and the ending of becoming, precisely to indicate transcendence of cosmological structure.

Thus, while both traditions share a vocabulary of cyclical time and speak of liberation, they diverge sharply in how the cosmos relates to the path. Hindu cosmology tends to integrate the universe into the logic of salvation, whereas Buddhist cosmology offers a critique of cosmological entrapment. Time, in the Buddhist view, is not a sacred process to be harmonized with, but a mechanism of suffering to be transcended.

Karma, rebirth, and the six realms

Both Hinduism and Buddhism embrace the principle of karma, the moral law of cause and effect, as the driving force behind rebirth. In both cosmologies, beings are continually reborn into various realms of existence in accordance with their actions, intentions, and accumulated merit or demerit. However, the classification and ethical framing of these realms differ considerably.

In Buddhist cosmology, rebirth occurs within six primary realms: gods (devas), demigods (asuras), humans, animals, hungry ghosts (pretas), and hell beings (narakas). These realms encompass the full range of sentient experience, from the pleasurable to the extremely painful, and all are impermanent and unsatisfactory. None is considered a final destination, and even the gods, though powerful and long-lived, remain bound to the cycle of saṃsāra until they attain awakening. The six realms serve a pedagogical function: they symbolize different psychological and existential states, emphasizing the instability and inherent suffering of all conditioned existence.

Hindu cosmology, by contrast, outlines a more extensive set of realms, often described as 14 lokas (worlds) arranged vertically: seven higher (heavenly) realms and seven lower (subterranean) realms. These include the realms of gods (e.g., Svarga), sages, humans, ancestors, and hells (naraka). In many schools of Hinduism, higher realms are attainable through virtuous action, devotion, or asceticism and may offer long periods of reward, but they are still ultimately transient. However, the soteriological emphasis often lies in reaching the highest spiritual realm, such as Satyaloka or union with Brahman, which transcends the cycle of rebirth entirely.

The ethical orientations embedded in each cosmology reflect broader doctrinal priorities. Buddhism frames rebirth as a problem to be solved. Ethical conduct (śīla), meditation, and wisdom are tools for breaking the cycle, not fulfilling one’s cosmic role. The ideal is renunciation, i.e., the deliberate abandonment of worldly entanglements and identification with the conditioned self, in pursuit of nirvāṇa.

In Hindu traditions, particularly those emphasizing Dharma, the cosmological order is often viewed as a stage for the performance of one’s moral and social duties. Proper engagement with one’s caste, stage of life, and devotional obligations can lead to favorable rebirth or spiritual liberation. While renunciation (sannyāsa) is also an option, especially in the later stages of life, it is typically framed as one path among several rather than a universal imperative.

Thus, while both traditions recognize karma and rebirth as central mechanisms of the cosmos, they deploy these concepts in service of different ethical projects. Buddhism universalizes the path of renunciation and aims at transcending the entire system of rebirth; Hinduism often integrates rebirth into a stratified yet ultimately redeemable cosmic order in which moral participation can also serve as a path to liberation.

Cosmology as critique and upāya

Buddhist cosmology does not merely adopt pre-existing Indian cosmological motifs; it also critically repurposes them to serve soteriological and pedagogical functions. This process reflects the Mahāyāna concept of upāya, skillful means, through which the Buddha adapts teachings and symbols to the capacities and needs of sentient beings.

A prime example of this is the Buddhist reinterpretation of widely recognized cosmological structures such as Mount Meru, multiple heavens, and cycles of rebirth. These are retained not as literal truths to be venerated, but as didactic tools to illustrate impermanence, suffering, and the importance of ethical discipline. The grandeur of celestial realms, for instance, is acknowledged, but also relativized: even gods are subject to death and delusion, and ultimate liberation lies beyond any cosmic tier.

One of the sharpest divergences from theistic Hindu cosmology lies in Buddhism’s outright rejection of a creator god. The doctrine of dependent origination (pratītyasamutpāda) posits that all phenomena arise from interdependent causes and conditions, leaving no space for a singular, autonomous agent of creation. This principle functions not only as a metaphysical claim but also as a direct critique of the idea of divine will as the origin of the cosmos.

This critique is often framed satirically in early texts. In the Aggañña Sutta (DN 27), Brahmā falsely believes himself to be the creator due to ignorance of the karmic forces that preceded his manifestation. The Buddha corrects this view, exposing the arrogance and epistemic limitations of even the most exalted beings. Such narratives do not simply reject Hindu deities but reinterpret their roles within a karmic framework that denies ultimate authority to any divine entity.

In this sense, Buddhist cosmology serves as both critique and upāya: it undermines metaphysical absolutism while retaining symbolic structures for pragmatic use. Cosmology becomes a flexible vehicle for awakening, not a rigid ontological schema. Through this approach, Buddhism navigates its inheritance creatively, using familiar imagery to deliver radically different philosophical and ethical messages.

Later developments and syncretism

As Buddhist cosmology evolved, it continued to interact with broader religious and intellectual developments, leading to both doctrinal innovation and cultural synthesis. One of the most significant arenas for this transformation was the emergence of Tantric Buddhism (Vajrayāna), particularly in India, Tibet, and Nepal. In this context, numerous Hindu deities and cosmological motifs were reinterpreted and incorporated into Buddhist ritual and metaphysics. Figures such as Śiva, Pārvatī, and Viṣṇu were reimagined as protective or wrathful manifestations of enlightened mind, while cosmological structures, including mandalas, cakras, and divine abodes, were integrated into elaborate tantric sādhanā (practices). Rather than adopting these elements wholesale, tantric Buddhism recontextualized them through the lens of non-duality, emptiness (śūnyatā), and upāya, transforming the inherited cosmology into a means for inner realization.

In the modern period, Buddhist cosmology also encountered reinterpretation through Theosophy and other Western esoteric movements. These interpretations often sought to harmonize Buddhist and Hindu cosmologies into a single, perennial schema. While this tendency sometimes flattened doctrinal differences, it also introduced new comparative vocabularies and cross-cultural interest in concepts such as the cycles of rebirth, the structure of the subtle body, and celestial realms. These engagements, though not always academically rigorous, played a role in the global popularization of Eastern cosmological models.

Contemporary scholarship and interreligious dialogue continue to explore the intersections and divergences between Hindu and Buddhist cosmologies. Comparative studies now focus not only on metaphysical systems but also on their practical and soteriological implications. While some efforts highlight shared motifs and mutual influences, others emphasize the distinct philosophical projects that animate each system, particularly the Buddhist orientation toward liberation from all ontological claims versus the Hindu valorization of sacred order and divine embodiment.

In sum, the evolution of Buddhist cosmology reveals a dynamic interplay between continuity and transformation, negotiation and critique. Far from being a static set of beliefs, cosmology in Buddhism remains a flexible and responsive matrix, open to integration, revision, and dialogue in response to changing historical, cultural, and spiritual contexts.

Conclusion

Buddhist cosmology exemplifies a complex interplay between cultural inheritance and philosophical innovation. Emerging from the same civilizational matrix as Hindu cosmology, it shares structural features such as a vertically tiered universe centered on Mount Meru, vast cycles of cosmic time, and the concept of karma-driven rebirth. However, Buddhist thought reinterprets these elements through a distinctive lens grounded in anattā (non-self), dependent origination (pratītyasamutpāda), and the primacy of liberative insight over cosmological participation.

Rather than serving as an account of divine creation or sacred permanence, Buddhist cosmology operates primarily as a soteriological framework. The cosmos is not a divine order to be embraced but a field of conditioned existence to be understood, transcended, and ultimately left behind. Even celestial realms and divine figures are subsumed within the impermanence of saṃsāra, rendering them inadequate as final goals. The true aim is not ascent within the cosmic order but exit from it — the realization of nirvāṇa, a state beyond the cycles of birth and death.

This perspective allows Buddhist cosmology to function both as a descriptive map and a pedagogical tool. Its purpose is to clarify the mechanisms of suffering and rebirth, and to guide practitioners in their ethical and contemplative efforts. In doing so, it employs inherited symbols not as theological endpoints but as upāya, skillful means directed toward the cessation of delusion.

As such, Buddhist cosmology also serves as a critique of metaphysical absolutism. By denying ultimate agency to creator gods and refusing to sacralize cosmological permanence, it resists the theological closure that characterizes some strands of Hindu thought. It asserts instead that all phenomena, no matter how exalted, are impermanent, dependently arisen, and ultimately empty.

This functional orientation gives Buddhist cosmology enduring relevance. Far from being an outdated mythological scaffold, it remains a flexible and potent framework for exploring the existential conditions of suffering and liberation. Whether interpreted ritually, philosophically, or psychologically, the cosmological structures of Buddhism continue to shape the spiritual imagination of its adherents and offer a coherent vision of the path to freedom.

References and further reading

• Oliver Freiberger, Christoph Kleine, Buddhismus - Handbuch und kritische Einführung, 2011, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, ISBN: 9783525500040
• Rupert Gethin, The Foundations Of Buddhism, 1998, Oxford University Press, ISBN: 9780192892232
• Oliver Bottini, Das grosse O.W. Barth-Buch des Buddhismus, 2004, Ebner & Spiegel GmbH, ISBN: 9783502611264
• Richard Francis Gombrich, How Buddhism began – The conditioned genesis of the early teachings, 2006, Taylor & Francis, ISBN: 9780415371230
• Sebastian Gäb, Die Philosophie des Buddha - Eine Einführung, 2024, UTB, ISBN: 9783825262013
• Erich Frauwallner, Die Philosophie des Buddhismus, 2009, De Gruyter Akademie Forschung, ISBN: 978-3050045313
• Mark Siderits, Buddhism As Philosophy - An Introduction, 2007, Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., ISBN: 9780754653691
• Jr. Buswell, Robert E., Jr. Lopez, Donald S., Juhn Ahn, J. Wayne Bass, William Chu, The Princeton dictionary of Buddhism, 2014, Princeton University Press, ISBN: 978-0-691-15786-3