I've been reading a few posts on these boards about rebirth and reincarnation, and am confused. What is the difference between the Buddhist view and the Hindu view? I've seen it explained as - in Hinduism, there is an unchanging mover that transmigrates in Buddhism, there is no such mover, and aspects of consciousness are reborn What exactly does this mean, particularly the Buddhist view? It almost seems like semantics, and I'm sure there is something very fundamental that I'm missing here. As a secondary point, I've seen it said that the Buddhist view of nirvana is sort of like a negation of one essence, where Hindu thought might be that there is one essence that all things are. My understanding of this (insofar as this is possible or even meaningful) is that both teachings are essentially wordplay, and the underlying reality is the same*. Is this the wrong way of looking at the differences? I.e. is there a practical difference between the two traditions? *[I guess in this, I'm referring specifically to Zen koans such as 'Does a dog have Buddha nature', where either a yes or a no are wrong; the emphasis on negation in the buddhist teaching seems in this context almost a reaction to the vedic teaching, and indicates that you can't rely on logical frameworks to contain the ineffable]. I guess where I'm coming from on this (and where my misunderstandings are probably arising) is that I have always thought of Buddhist thought as being a refinement/clarification of the essence of the Vedas, which removes many of the 'theological' aspects of Vedic teaching and instead concentrates on human psychology. Again, what am I fundamentally missing here?