Quick [and shallow] comparisons with learning in Tipitaka show a lot of similarities [in different wording - semantics] that both are based on senses [experiences] and imagination [thinking: correlating/grouping, connecting/isolating, modifying/applying]. But DE is of course more than 2000 years newer.

Both however do not consider memory in learning. Without memory one cannot compare or track changes; so, one does not know if one has learned. Memory [data, record of experiences] becomes important as invalid/incomplete memory can lead to invalid learning. Here is where ‘religions’ divide rights from wrongs - to allow decisions on lack of evidence.