• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

god in Buddhism

payak

Active Member
If 2 people exist,one is doing good, the other not so well.
What power decides that good man will be rewarded accordingly as karma dictates, the other will need certain karmic lessons to pull him into line.

two paths, something of intelligence must be the judge and deciding on the karma and the lessons and how they will play out.

Some Buddhist believe in god,others do not,some are on the fence like me as we are often taught to follow only what your senses reveal.
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
The way I see it, Karma is its own punishment / reward, and it all comes down to avoiding ignorance.

If there is a god in truth, I can only assume that he wants us to heal our ignorance.
 

apophenia

Well-Known Member
Karma is not a set of 'moral laws' enforced by the universe. It simply means cause and effect.

The interpretation that there is a cosmic reward and punishment system is fantasy.
 

Gjallarhorn

N'yog-Sothep
It's a simple matter of existentialism. Actions define us. Good people are people who do good things, and people who do good things are thought of as good.

Karma, rebirth. Cause, effect.
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
The way I see it, Karma is its own punishment / reward, .......

Karma is not a set of 'moral laws' enforced by the universe. It simply means cause and effect.

The interpretation that there is a cosmic reward and punishment system is fantasy.

Good descriptions as to what karma is.

Just "ripples" that resonate and subside everywhere interacting with other "ripples". Also, just because negative occurrences happen dosent mean you did anything wrong. Not all active karma centers on any specific point of origin. The subtlety and interactions tend to be quite complex and amazing.

I would prefer to simply ride and navigate the waters and whatever happens, happens. That imo is an effective way to understand karma and the nuances directly.
 

payak

Active Member
Karma is not a set of 'moral laws' enforced by the universe. It simply means cause and effect.

The interpretation that there is a cosmic reward and punishment system is fantasy.

Very much what I wrote in another thread yesterday.

No magic,just cause and effect and a philosophy created for right action.

However you never know what's out their,could be.
 

apophenia

Well-Known Member
Very much what I wrote in another thread yesterday.

No magic,just cause and effect and a philosophy created for right action.

However you never know what's out their,could be.

The reward and punishment aspect certainly does exist in one way - actions generate guilt or self-esteem, depending on whether or not they are in accordance with our principles, then an unconscious, or semi-conscious, mechanism sets up 'punishment' or 'reward'.

"Your own, personal, Jesus"

I have often thought that this is the meaning of alayavijnana ( the 'storehouse of wisdom' ). If it doesn't mean that, it should :D

[youtube]26DD0JwAbAc[/youtube]
Depeche Mode-Personal Jesus (With Lyrics) - YouTube

Your own personal jesus
Someone to hear your prayers
Someone who cares
Your own personal jesus
Someone to hear your prayers
Someone whos there

Feeling unknown
And youre all alone
Flesh and bone
By the telephone
Lift up the receiver
Ill make you a believer

Take second best
Put me to the test
Things on your chest
You need to confess
I will deliver
You know Im a forgiver

Reach out and touch faith
Reach out and touch faith

Your own personal jesus...

Feeling unknown
And youre all alone
Flesh and bone
By the telephone
Lift up the receiver
Ill make you a believer

I will deliver
You know Im a forgiver

Reach out and touch faith

Your own personal jesus

Reach out and touch faith
 
Last edited:
If 2 people exist,one is doing good, the other not so well.
What power decides that good man will be rewarded accordingly as karma dictates, the other will need certain karmic lessons to pull him into line.


two paths, something of intelligence must be the judge and deciding on the karma and the lessons and how they will play out.


Some Buddhist believe in god,others do not,some are on the fence like me as we are often taught to follow only what your senses reveal.


In very ancient times (thousands and thousands of years ago before the English language was born) the word "Karma" had a very mundane meaning. Unfortunately with all of these spiritual philosophies developing over time that used the word "karma," it took on a spiritual meaning, and lost its once original meaning.


Fortunately, there are some records left in the halls of ancient languages that still possess the more ancient pre-spiritualize meaning of "karma."


The first is a little known, or little spoken about Brahminical God named "Vishvakarman."


Vishvakarman is the Supreme Architect of the Universe... the Utmost BUILDER. He is the patron deity of all craftsmen. There is/was a small Caste in old India named after him called the Vishvabramins, composed of carpenters, blacksmiths, stonemasons, and so on.


In those very ancient times, the pre-spiritualized meaning of the word "Karma" was to "Build/Make." In Pali, the old meaning of the word "kamma" is to Build, and a Kammaka is a Builder or Smith.


For those Buddhist here who are Theravadins, this little known god Vishvakarman actually is a Deva/devatta who is spoken about in the Tipikata (Pali Canon).


In the Pali Canon Vishvakarma is still an Architect. He is said in the Tipitaka to reside in the 32 level of the Bhavachakka. He played a small yet significant role in the story of the Buddha. The Tipitaka says that when the Blessed One (Buddha) desired to come down to the realm of man, he asked Vishvakarman to build him a descending staircase of 33 steps made of emerald, by which the Blessed One descended to the world of man.


In Theravada countries like Cambodia, there are still festivals dedicated to Vishvakarman. During the consecration ceremony of a new Wat (temple) a hole is dug in the precinct of the Wat, stones are placed in the hole along with offerings of food, and Vishvamarman is paid homage to. In those countries he is known by the name "Bisnu" (Bee-Snoo).


The word "karma" or "kamma" is not the only architectural word found in Buddhism.


Dharma/Dhamma had a pre-spiritualized meaning once. Dhamma meant "Foundation," "Instruction," "Constitution." Today we would call it a "Blueprint." The kammaka draws out the plans of a Temple on a dhamma, and the workers take that dhamma to manifest it physically.


The word "Upasaka" (masculine) & "Upasika" (feminine) also fits into this architectural theme. It means an “assistant,” or “attendant.” The kammaka draws up his plans on a dhamma, gives it the upasaka to kamma.


The word “Tipitaka” also fits in with this building theme. Ti (Tri in Sk.) meaning Three, and Pitaka meaning “Basket.”


In ancient days, stonemasons used woven baskets to haul raw material to construction sites to build their temples. Naming the words and teachings of the Buddha the “Three-Baskets” is intended to imply that the material one finds in the Tipitaka are only Raw Material, which you/we as Upasakas/Upasika are then to labour (kamma) to make real.


For instance, Buddha is the architect, on his dhamma is the plan of Metta. As an Upasaka it is then your duty to Labour (kamma) to make that Metta real by living it, expressing it, thru your/our actions and deeds.


Two other concepts Buddha used also fits in with this building theme. In Theravada, if a person desired to be a doctor, and this person went to college for many years, and he became a doctor, the Labour/work (kamma) this person put into becoming a doctor is described as being “Kamma Kosala” meaning literally “Constructive Building (Labour/Work).”


On the other hand, if a husband was addicted to gambling, and because of his addiction he lost his job, lost his house, his wife, and children, and ended up destitute, in Buddhism we describe his kamma (work he put into life) as being “Kamma Akosala” literally meaning “Unconstructive Building/Labour.”


The Buddha can be all wise, and even the dhamma may be excellently drawn out, but if the Upasaka – Assistant Builder – is undisciplined and his work is kamma akosala, then the Vipaka (fruit) of his labour will always be defective.


It is Causality/Causation which makes kamma work. We exist in a causal universe. Causal meaning a causal system. A vending machine is a causal system. We put in a dollar, and it gives us a bag of chips. The causal world works in the same way. We input action, and it out puts end result. And therefore, because we can understand this causal Nature of our world, there needs not be a god or some hocus pocus cosmic principle watching our every deed and punishing or rewarding us accordingly.


The Buddha had several contentions with the Brahmin's host of gods. The first issue he had was how he defines what is “real.” Real is “That which can be verified.” Gods can't be verified.


A second contention is the other way Buddha used the word dhamma, to mean Natural Phenomenon. By default, a natural phenomenon is observable as a phenomenon of nature. Gods can't seem to be observable phenomena in and of nature.


The Brahmin may counter this by saying that God/Creator is the creator and the source of Life, and therefore Brahma/Jehovah/Allah is everywhere around us. This leads into another contention Buddha had with gods. The word in the Tipitaka is “Papanca” (said as papancha).


In some uses of the word, Papancha in English can mean “Reification.” reification is when we take an idea, ideal, conceptualization of mind, and we treat it as if it were a concrete object/thing. And so when people say things like God is everywhere because he is Life, it is reification. Because we have taken the idea of Life, and the idealization of Life, and we reify it into something objective/concrete, as if such were “things.”
 
Last edited:

payak

Active Member
In very ancient times (thousands and thousands of years ago before the English language was born) the word "Karma" had a very mundane meaning. Unfortunately with all of these spiritual philosophies developing over time that used the word "karma," it took on a spiritual meaning, and lost its once original meaning.


Fortunately, there are some records left in the halls of ancient languages that still possess the more ancient pre-spiritualize meaning of "karma."


The first is a little known, or little spoken about Brahminical God named "Vishvakarman."


Vishvakarman is the Supreme Architect of the Universe... the Utmost BUILDER. He is the patron deity of all craftsmen. There is/was a small Caste in old India named after him called the Vishvabramins, composed of carpenters, blacksmiths, stonemasons, and so on.


In those very ancient times, the pre-spiritualized meaning of the word "Karma" was to "Build/Make." In Pali, the old meaning of the word "kamma" is to Build, and a Kammaka is a Builder or Smith.


For those Buddhist here who are Theravadins, this little known god Vishvakarman actually is a Deva/devatta who is spoken about in the Tipikata (Pali Canon).


In the Pali Canon Vishvakarma is still an Architect. He is said in the Tipitaka to reside in the 32 level of the Bhavachakka. He played a small yet significant role in the story of the Buddha. The Tipitaka says that when the Blessed One (Buddha) desired to come down to the realm of man, he asked Vishvakarman to build him a descending staircase of 33 steps made of emerald, by which the Blessed One descended to the world of man.


In Theravada countries like Cambodia, there are still festivals dedicated to Vishvakarman. During the consecration ceremony of a new Wat (temple) a hole is dug in the precinct of the Wat, stones are placed in the hole along with offerings of food, and Vishvamarman is paid homage to. In those countries he is known by the name "Bisnu" (Bee-Snoo).


The word "karma" or "kamma" is not the only architectural word found in Buddhism.


Dharma/Dhamma had a pre-spiritualized meaning once. Dhamma meant "Foundation," "Instruction," "Constitution." Today we would call it a "Blueprint." The kammaka draws out the plans of a Temple on a dhamma, and the workers take that dhamma to manifest it physically.


The word "Upasaka" (masculine) & "Upasika" (feminine) also fits into this architectural theme. It means an “assistant,” or “attendant.” The kammaka draws up his plans on a dhamma, gives it the upasaka to kamma.


The word “Tipitaka” also fits in with this building theme. Ti (Tri in Sk.) meaning Three, and Pitaka meaning “Basket.”


In ancient days, stonemasons used woven baskets to haul raw material to construction sites to build their temples. Naming the words and teachings of the Buddha the “Three-Baskets” is intended to imply that the material one finds in the Tipitaka are only Raw Material, which you/we as Upasakas/Upasika are then to labour (kamma) to make real.


For instance, Buddha is the architect, on his dhamma is the plan of Metta. As an Upasaka it is then your duty to Labour (kamma) to make that Metta real by living it, expressing it, thru your/our actions and deeds.


Two other concepts Buddha used also fits in with this building theme. In Theravada, if a person desired to be a doctor, and this person went to college for many years, and he became a doctor, the Labour/work (kamma) this person put into becoming a doctor is described as being “Kamma Kosala” meaning literally “Constructive Building (Labour/Work).”


On the other hand, if a husband was addicted to gambling, and because of his addiction he lost his job, lost his house, his wife, and children, and ended up destitute, in Buddhism we describe his kamma (work he put into life) as being “Kamma Akosala” literally meaning “Unconstructive Building/Labour.”


The Buddha can be all wise, and even the dhamma may be excellently drawn out, but if the Upasaka – Assistant Builder – is undisciplined and his work is kamma akosala, then the Vipaka (fruit) of his labour will always be defective.


It is Causality/Causation which makes kamma work. We exist in a causal universe. Causal meaning a causal system. A vending machine is a causal system. We put in a dollar, and it gives us a bag of chips. The causal world works in the same way. We input action, and it out puts end result. And therefore, because we can understand this causal Nature of our world, there needs not be a god or some hocus pocus cosmic principle watching our every deed and punishing or rewarding us accordingly.


The Buddha had several contentions with the Brahmin's host of gods. The first issue he had was how he defines what is “real.” Real is “That which can be verified.” Gods can't be verified.


A second contention is the other way Buddha used the word dhamma, to mean Natural Phenomenon. By default, a natural phenomenon is observable as a phenomenon of nature. Gods can't seem to be observable phenomena in and of nature.


The Brahmin may counter this by saying that God/Creator is the creator and the source of Life, and therefore Brahma/Jehovah/Allah is everywhere around us. This leads into another contention Buddha had with gods. The word in the Tipitaka is “Papanca” (said as papancha).


In some uses of the word, Papancha in English can mean “Reification.” reification is when we take an idea, ideal, conceptualization of mind, and we treat it as if it were a concrete object/thing. And so when people say things like God is everywhere because he is Life, it is reification. Because we have taken the idea of Life, and the idealization of Life, and we reify it into something objective/concrete, as if such were “things.”

I often try as a Theravada Buddhist to explain exactly what you said, never could I have put it better.

Post of the year.
 

crossfire

LHP Mercuræn Feminist Heretic Bully ☿
Premium Member
The reward and punishment aspect certainly does exist in one way - actions generate guilt or self-esteem, depending on whether or not they are in accordance with our principles, then an unconscious, or semi-conscious, mechanism sets up 'punishment' or 'reward'.

"Your own, personal, Jesus"

I have often thought that this is the meaning of alayavijnana ( the 'storehouse of wisdom' ). If it doesn't mean that, it should :D
Ooooh, a topic for another thread, perhaps?
I'll hide my remarks to this so as not to derail this thread:

Alaya consciousness doesn't judge, no? Judgement is associated with the first 7 consciousnesses, no?
See this link:
Dharmas Interactive with the Mind

Alaya consciousness doesn't even have a view of self, either, right?

So, I'm speculating that since alaya doesn't have a sense of self, that perhaps Jung's collective unconscious and archetypes (alaya does conceptualize) might be a product of alaya....

Just a thought--I need to contemplate this. Any feedback would be appreciated. :)
 

ratikala

Istha gosthi
namaste :namaste

If 2 people exist,one is doing good, the other not so well.
What power decides that good man will be rewarded accordingly as karma dictates, the other will need certain karmic lessons to pull him into line.

two people exist in this material realm in that they have taken human birth at the same moment in time , yet each in previous lives have lived differently and thus created different conditions , so allthough each take similar births each posesses different imprints of 'karma' , ....'karma' is in itself the action ,... what many refer to as karma are the fruits of previous actions . so when two men are born into this realm one as you say is doing well and for the other things are a little harder he is not doing as well , things do not come so easily , ..both of these situations are the fruits of previous actions , good fortune in this life is something that we have laid down in previous lives , in just such a way as generosity and kindness is repaied by the love and respect of others who will return such kindnesses when they see us in need , it is literaly ...''as you sow , ..so shall you reap ''.

two paths, something of intelligence must be the judge and deciding on the karma and the lessons and how they will play out.
in the respect of judging , ...No . ... that something of inteligence , that buddhi , is not handing out rewards or retribution , that inteligent being is shining a light by which we might ourselves determine right thought , right speach and right action , and by so doing either gain full enlightenment or at least create more favorable conditions for future births .


Some Buddhist believe in god,others do not,some are on the fence like me as we are often taught to follow only what your senses reveal.
it dosent matter if you see buddha as an eternal god like being , or if you see him as one who appeared momentarily to illuminate the path of dharma , either way he is the lamp on the path not the harbringer of retrebution .
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
There is no belief of a creator-god (a deity that supposedly created all) and, as a mater of fact, it really violates the principle of dependence rising (the web of cause and effect that's ongoing).
 

payak

Active Member
There is no belief of a creator-god (a deity that supposedly created all) and, as a mater of fact, it really violates the principle of dependence rising (the web of cause and effect that's ongoing).

Only if you think of god in the christian sense, not saying their is a god as I don't know, its for that reason I cannot discount the possibility.

you are thinking that the god goes with christian beliefs, he came before religion if he exists, Buddhism is not pro or anti belief it just teaches to believe when you see.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
Only if you think of god in the christian sense, not saying their is a god as I don't know, its for that reason I cannot discount the possibility.

you are thinking that the god goes with christian beliefs, he came before religion if he exists, Buddhism is not pro or anti belief it just teaches to believe when you see.

The issue I mentioned deals only with that of a single creator-god, which indeed defies dharma, especially dependence rising:

Question:
Do Buddhists believe in a god?

Answer:
No, we do not. There are several reasons for this. The Buddha, like modern sociologists and psychologists, believed that religious ideas and especially the god idea have their origins in fear. The Buddha says:

Gripped by fear people go to sacred mountains, sacred groves, sacred trees and shrines.
Dp. 188

Primitive humans found selves in a dangerous and hostile world, the fear of wild animals, of not being able to find enough food, of injury or disease, and of natural phenomena like thunder, lightning and volcanoes were constantly with them. Finding no security, they created the idea of gods in order to give them comfort in good times, courage in times of danger and consolation when things went wrong. To this day, you will notice that people become more religious at times of crises, you will hear them say that the belief in a god or gods gives them the strength they need to deal with life. You will hear them explain that they believe in a particular god because they prayed in time of need and their prayer was answered. All this seems to support the Buddha's teaching that the god-idea is a response to fear and frustration. The Buddha taught us to try to understand our fears, to lessen our desires and to calmly and courageously accept the things we cannot change. He replaced fear, not with irrational belief but with rational understanding.

The second reason the Buddha did not believe in a god is because there does not seem to be any evidence to support this idea. There are numerous religions, all claiming that they alone have god's words preserved in their holy book, that they alone understand god's nature, that their god exists and that the gods of other religions do not. Some claim that god is masculine, some that she is feminine and others that it is neuter. They are all satisfied that there is ample evidence to prove the existence of their god but they laugh in disbelief at the evidence other religions use to prove the existence of another god. It is not surprising that with so many different religions spending so many centuries trying to prove the existence of their gods that still no real, concrete, substantial or irrefutable evidence has been found. Buddhists suspend judgement until such evidence is forthcoming.

The third reason the Buddha did not believe in a god is that the belief is not necessary. Some claim that the belief in a god is necessary in order to explain the origin of the universe. But this is not so. Science has very convincingly explained how the universe came into being without having to introduce the god-idea. Some claim that belief in god is necessary to have a happy, meaningful life. Again we can see that this is not so. There are millions of atheists and free-thinkers, not to mention many Buddhists, who live useful, happy and meaningful lives without belief in a god. Some claim that belief in god's power is necessary because humans, being weak, do not have the strength to help themselves. Once again, the evidence indicates the opposite. One often hears of people who have overcome great disabilities and handicaps, enormous odds and difficulties through their own inner resources, through their own efforts and without belief in a god. Some claim that god is necessary in order to give man salvation. But this argument only holds good if you accept the theological concept of salvation and Buddhists do not accept such a concept. Based on his own experience, the Buddha saw that each human being had the capacity to purify the mind, develop infinite love and compassion and perfect understanding. He shifted attention from the heavens to the heart and encouraged us to find solutions to our problems through self-understanding.
-- A Basic Buddhism Guide: Buddhism and the God-idea

OTOH, it is true what you say about our own personal experiences and observations trumping dharma, so one need not automatically accept the above.
 

ratikala

Istha gosthi
namaskaram krill ji :namaste

thank you , there is so much here that is so familiar as to be from the same understanding you give it from the pali and I from the sanskrit therefore we give the same knowledge contained in both buddhism and in vedic tradition , .... please bear with me o this one ...

In very ancient times (thousands and thousands of years ago before the English language was born) the word "Karma" had a very mundane meaning. Unfortunately with all of these spiritual philosophies developing over time that used the word "karma," it took on a spiritual meaning, and lost its once original meaning.

the original meaning being 'action' , ...and its spiritual implication being the 'fruit of action' .
and yes it has been distorted to mean fruits of action .

Fortunately, there are some records left in the halls of ancient languages that still possess the more ancient pre-spiritualize meaning of "karma."


The first is a little known, or little spoken about Brahminical God named "Vishvakarman."


Vishvakarman is the Supreme Architect of the Universe... the Utmost BUILDER. He is the patron deity of all craftsmen. There is/was a small Caste in old India named after him called the Vishvabramins, composed of carpenters, blacksmiths, stonemasons, and so on.
jai jai :namaste
.... his action is to 'create' thus he is ''VishvaKarman''; ....all acomplishing , all pervading energy . (this creative force is very important)
Vishva ; ...omnipresent or all pervading , Karman ; ...act or action ,
)the action of constructive work would be 'nirmana karma')

In those very ancient times, the pre-spiritualized meaning of the word "Karma" was to "Build/Make." In Pali, the old meaning of the word "kamma" is to Build, and a Kammaka is a Builder or Smith.
yes in sanskrit karmaka is action , work , ...

For those Buddhist here who are Theravadins, this little known god Vishvakarman actually is a Deva/devatta who is spoken about in the Tipikata (Pali Canon).
thank you so much , no one will belive me when I try to suggest that the theravadins accept the rigvedic gods , in the rig veda Vishvakarman is the ultimate reality thus the source of all and given the epithet of the divine arcitect .



In Theravada countries like Cambodia, there are still festivals dedicated to Vishvakarman. During the consecration ceremony of a new Wat (temple) a hole is dug in the precinct of the Wat, stones are placed in the hole along with offerings of food, and Vishvamarman is paid homage to. In those countries he is known by the name "Bisnu" (Bee-Snoo).
'' Bisnu '' , .... Visnu ? .....in later vexdic texts Vishvakarman is regarded as Narayana ; ..Visnu .
The word "karma" or "kamma" is not the only architectural word found in Buddhism.


Dharma/Dhamma had a pre-spiritualized meaning once. Dhamma meant "Foundation," "Instruction," "Constitution." Today we would call it a "Blueprint." The kammaka draws out the plans of a Temple on a dhamma, and the workers take that dhamma to manifest it physically.
simmilarly Dharma is Duty as in constitutional duty and is applied in relation to ones material duty and ones higher or spiritual duty , and it is law , as in instruction which yes aplies to construction and temple building also as strict guidelines exist and that temple created represents the exact plan of the universe .

The word “Tipitaka” also fits in with this building theme. Ti (Tri in Sk.) meaning Three, and Pitaka meaning “Basket.”


In ancient days, stonemasons used woven baskets to haul raw material to construction sites to build their temples. Naming the words and teachings of the Buddha the “Three-Baskets” is intended to imply that the material one finds in the Tipitaka are only Raw Material, which you/we as Upasakas/Upasika are then to labour (kamma) to make real.
in sanskrit 'Pitaka' is container , box or basket but the empasiss here is on the contents as in ''collection of texts'' instructions .

For instance, Buddha is the architect, on his dhamma is the plan of Metta. As an Upasaka it is then your duty to Labour (kamma) to make that Metta real by living it, expressing it, thru your/our actions and deeds.
jai jai :namaste
''As an Upasaka it is then your duty to Labour (kamma) to make'' ....to act , to carry out ones individual dharma .
Two other concepts Buddha used also fits in with this building theme. In Theravada, if a person desired to be a doctor, and this person went to college for many years, and he became a doctor, the Labour/work (kamma) this person put into becoming a doctor is described as being “Kamma Kosala” meaning literally “Constructive Building (Labour/Work).”
kosala ; ..skill karma kosala ; skillfull action , which exists as a practice also in other forms of buddhism , but it applies equaly to all actions .
On the other hand, if a husband was addicted to gambling, and because of his addiction he lost his job, lost his house, his wife, and children, and ended up destitute, in Buddhism we describe his kamma (work he put into life) as being “Kamma Akosala” literally meaning “Unconstructive Building/Labour.”
A infront of kosala meaning against ; therefore yes 'A'kosala ; ...is 'un'constructive .

The Buddha can be all wise, and even the dhamma may be excellently drawn out, but if the Upasaka – Assistant Builder – is undisciplined and his work is kamma akosala, then the Vipaka (fruit) of his labour will always be defective.
buddha being the master and the upasaka being the practitioner , and vipaka being the fruit of his actions or practice will bring imperfect or unstable results , ....
It is Causality/Causation which makes kamma work. We exist in a causal universe. Causal meaning a causal system. A vending machine is a causal system. We put in a dollar, and it gives us a bag of chips. The causal world works in the same way. We input action, and it out puts end result. And therefore, because we can understand this causal Nature of our world, there needs not be a god or some hocus pocus cosmic principle watching our every deed and punishing or rewarding us accordingly.
thank you , here for once I have found perfect agreement between sanatana dharma and theravada buddhism ,
you have no idea how much criticism I have had to face for holding this beleif , I am so so glad to hear a theravadin say this .


The Buddha had several contentions with the Brahmin's host of gods. The first issue he had was how he defines what is “real.” Real is “That which can be verified.” Gods can't be verified.
even here after many years of study I have found that there is not necesarily contention , it may at first seem so but after examination there is none , ...it might not be verifiable now in this state of ignorance , but it will be identifyable when that ignorance is purified .

you have identified law , ...that law belongs to the order uttered by , expounded by that which canot yet be understood


A second contention is the other way Buddha used the word dhamma, to mean Natural Phenomenon. By default, a natural phenomenon is observable as a phenomenon of nature. Gods can't seem to be observable phenomena in and of nature.
but there is no contention here either , dharma is also Law , it is natural phenomena , it is 'Rta' cosmic order , it is the divine unchanging law , truth and rightiousness .

the gods may not them selves be observable to all but their law and truth is fully testable therfore it is observable in action .

The Brahmin may counter this by saying that God/Creator is the creator and the source of Life, and therefore Brahma/Jehovah/Allah is everywhere around us. This leads into another contention Buddha had with gods. The word in the Tipitaka is “Papanca” (said as papancha).
no , ..it is that this vishvakarman pervades all , therfore he not the creator , he is the source of life and symultaniously life it self , all lives within him therefore he has created nothing , he pervades all .

In some uses of the word, Papancha in English can mean “Reification.” reification is when we take an idea, ideal, conceptualization of mind, and we treat it as if it were a concrete object/thing. And so when people say things like God is everywhere because he is Life, it is reification. Because we have taken the idea of Life, and the idealization of Life, and we reify it into something objective/concrete, as if such were “things.”
papancha ; ....prapancha ; means ...' expansion of the universe' , but it is also ' phenomena' and a it is 'manifestation of form' , ..... it takes form as without form we do not exist therefore we canot comprehend , this is what we also call maya the illusiory energy , but it is us and this universe that are the illusiory energy , it is us that are not what we belive our selves to be , and behind all this is something which we canot yet fully comprehend
there is no need to reify it just to know it as truth , the ultimate reality :namaste
 

payak

Active Member
The issue I mentioned deals only with that of a single creator-god, which indeed defies dharma, especially dependence rising:

Question:
Do Buddhists believe in a god?

Answer:
No, we do not. There are several reasons for this. The Buddha, like modern sociologists and psychologists, believed that religious ideas and especially the god idea have their origins in fear. The Buddha says:

Gripped by fear people go to sacred mountains, sacred groves, sacred trees and shrines.
Dp. 188

Primitive humans found selves in a dangerous and hostile world, the fear of wild animals, of not being able to find enough food, of injury or disease, and of natural phenomena like thunder, lightning and volcanoes were constantly with them. Finding no security, they created the idea of gods in order to give them comfort in good times, courage in times of danger and consolation when things went wrong. To this day, you will notice that people become more religious at times of crises, you will hear them say that the belief in a god or gods gives them the strength they need to deal with life. You will hear them explain that they believe in a particular god because they prayed in time of need and their prayer was answered. All this seems to support the Buddha's teaching that the god-idea is a response to fear and frustration. The Buddha taught us to try to understand our fears, to lessen our desires and to calmly and courageously accept the things we cannot change. He replaced fear, not with irrational belief but with rational understanding.

The second reason the Buddha did not believe in a god is because there does not seem to be any evidence to support this idea. There are numerous religions, all claiming that they alone have god's words preserved in their holy book, that they alone understand god's nature, that their god exists and that the gods of other religions do not. Some claim that god is masculine, some that she is feminine and others that it is neuter. They are all satisfied that there is ample evidence to prove the existence of their god but they laugh in disbelief at the evidence other religions use to prove the existence of another god. It is not surprising that with so many different religions spending so many centuries trying to prove the existence of their gods that still no real, concrete, substantial or irrefutable evidence has been found. Buddhists suspend judgement until such evidence is forthcoming.

The third reason the Buddha did not believe in a god is that the belief is not necessary. Some claim that the belief in a god is necessary in order to explain the origin of the universe. But this is not so. Science has very convincingly explained how the universe came into being without having to introduce the god-idea. Some claim that belief in god is necessary to have a happy, meaningful life. Again we can see that this is not so. There are millions of atheists and free-thinkers, not to mention many Buddhists, who live useful, happy and meaningful lives without belief in a god. Some claim that belief in god's power is necessary because humans, being weak, do not have the strength to help themselves. Once again, the evidence indicates the opposite. One often hears of people who have overcome great disabilities and handicaps, enormous odds and difficulties through their own inner resources, through their own efforts and without belief in a god. Some claim that god is necessary in order to give man salvation. But this argument only holds good if you accept the theological concept of salvation and Buddhists do not accept such a concept. Based on his own experience, the Buddha saw that each human being had the capacity to purify the mind, develop infinite love and compassion and perfect understanding. He shifted attention from the heavens to the heart and encouraged us to find solutions to our problems through self-understanding. -- A Basic Buddhism Guide: Buddhism and the God-idea

OTOH, it is true what you say about our own personal experiences and observations trumping dharma, so one need not automatically accept the above.

I myself do not however you are aware that many Buddhist believe in god yes.

And as a non believer I can neither confirm nor deny his existence, I can only give worthless theories that are based on personal opinnion rather then seeing and knowing.
 

ratikala

Istha gosthi
namaste :namaste

The issue I mentioned deals only with that of a single creator-god, which indeed defies dharma, especially dependence rising:

Question:
Do Buddhists believe in a god?

Answer:
No, we do not. There are several reasons for this. The Buddha, like modern sociologists and psychologists, believed that religious ideas and especially the god idea have their origins in fear. The Buddha says:

Gripped by fear people go to sacred mountains, sacred groves, sacred trees and shrines.
Dp. 188

Primitive humans found selves in a dangerous and hostile world, the fear of wild animals, of not being able to find enough food, of injury or disease, and of natural phenomena like thunder, lightning and volcanoes were constantly with them. Finding no security, they created the idea of gods in order to give them comfort in good times, courage in times of danger and consolation when things went wrong. To this day, you will notice that people become more religious at times of crises, you will hear them say that the belief in a god or gods gives them the strength they need to deal with life. You will hear them explain that they believe in a particular god because they prayed in time of need and their prayer was answered. All this seems to support the Buddha's teaching that the god-idea is a response to fear and frustration. The Buddha taught us to try to understand our fears, to lessen our desires and to calmly and courageously accept the things we cannot change. He replaced fear, not with irrational belief but with rational understanding.

The second reason the Buddha did not believe in a god is because there does not seem to be any evidence to support this idea. There are numerous religions, all claiming that they alone have god's words preserved in their holy book, that they alone understand god's nature, that their god exists and that the gods of other religions do not. Some claim that god is masculine, some that she is feminine and others that it is neuter. They are all satisfied that there is ample evidence to prove the existence of their god but they laugh in disbelief at the evidence other religions use to prove the existence of another god. It is not surprising that with so many different religions spending so many centuries trying to prove the existence of their gods that still no real, concrete, substantial or irrefutable evidence has been found. Buddhists suspend judgement until such evidence is forthcoming.

The third reason the Buddha did not believe in a god is that the belief is not necessary. Some claim that the belief in a god is necessary in order to explain the origin of the universe. But this is not so. Science has very convincingly explained how the universe came into being without having to introduce the god-idea. Some claim that belief in god is necessary to have a happy, meaningful life. Again we can see that this is not so. There are millions of atheists and free-thinkers, not to mention many Buddhists, who live useful, happy and meaningful lives without belief in a god. Some claim that belief in god's power is necessary because humans, being weak, do not have the strength to help themselves. Once again, the evidence indicates the opposite. One often hears of people who have overcome great disabilities and handicaps, enormous odds and difficulties through their own inner resources, through their own efforts and without belief in a god. Some claim that god is necessary in order to give man salvation. But this argument only holds good if you accept the theological concept of salvation and Buddhists do not accept such a concept. Based on his own experience, the Buddha saw that each human being had the capacity to purify the mind, develop infinite love and compassion and perfect understanding. He shifted attention from the heavens to the heart and encouraged us to find solutions to our problems through self-understanding.
-- A Basic Buddhism Guide: Buddhism and the God-idea

OTOH, it is true what you say about our own personal experiences and observations trumping dharma, so one need not automatically accept the above.

certainly this I canot accept , I understand the vennerable ......'s reasons for writing the above , but it constitutes such an over simplification of buddhist beleif and teaching as to be missleading .

if you dont mind my asking from the perspective of judaism how do you veiw buddha in relelation to god ?
 

apophenia

Well-Known Member
I myself do not however you are aware that many Buddhist believe in god yes.

And as a non believer I can neither confirm nor deny his existence, I can only give worthless theories that are based on personal opinnion rather then seeing and knowing.


There is plenty of room for a healthy dose of ignosticism here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignosticism

The best reason to leave 'god' out of buddhism is that the word is just that - a word. There is no way of arriving at an agreed meaning.

The Jewel Ship text by Longchenpa is worth reading in this respect. Some would say that Lonchenpa is talking about 'god', whereas others would say he is talking about 'mind'.

If you have not read this text, I recommend it. It is published as "You Are the Eyes of the World"

http://www.amazon.com/You-Eyes-World-Longchen-Rabjam/dp/1559391405
 
Last edited:

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
I myself do not however you are aware that many Buddhist believe in god yes.

And as a non believer I can neither confirm nor deny his existence, I can only give worthless theories that are based on personal opinnion rather then seeing and knowing.

In gods and other deities, especially with the Mahayana rafts. I have not run across a single Buddhist that believes there's only one deity, although there might be a Buddhist who believes in such out there somewhere.
 

payak

Active Member
In gods and other deities, especially with the Mahayana rafts. I have not run across a single Buddhist that believes there's only one deity, although there might be a Buddhist who believes in such out there somewhere.

1god or many, my point was we simply cannot say they do exist or not.
 
Top