Buddhism, deities and kamma

[Khalliqa]

What is the Buddhist principle of "justice"? Does it have one? And how is it related to the notion of the colloquially used term "karma?"

In what ways is Buddhism similar to Christianity?

In what ways does it differ?

Is it true that there are strands of Buddhism that are mystical and rely heavily on tradition and mysticism?

 

[JD16]

The concept of karma is a simple one, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, you reap what you sow, as oppose to the concept of sin, which is an offence against a deity, and seeking forgiveness...that's my take on it.

 

[ananda]

What is the Buddhist principle of "justice"? Does it have one? And how is it related to the notion of the colloquially used term "karma?"

In what ways is Buddhism similar to Christianity?

In what ways does it differ?

Is it true that there are strands of Buddhism that is mystical and relies heavily on tradition and mysticism?

Speaking only for early Buddhism as I understand and practice it:

Regarding justice: Justice is essentially kamma: results always follow causes. Are results and causes always proportional? Not in superficial appearance, at first glance. Other strands of prior kamma modify results too. E.g. There are innumerable causes that can join together to cause any effect. E.g. I plant (cause) a seed, I can reasonably expect a plant to sprout from it (effect). However, there are other additional causes that can combine together which modifies the resultant effect, e.g. mineral content of the soil, amount of sunlight, temperature, moisture, insects, etc.

Regarding mysticism: There are elements of what could be called mysticism in early Buddhism. The Buddha taught the truth of what he personally experienced, e.g. deities, heavens, hells, etc. However, since faith is not essential for "salvation" in Buddhism, we do not need to have blind faith in these things. We are called to walk the progressive, graduated Path ourselves, in order to perceive these things directly ... not to believe on blind faith. It reminds me of an event where the Buddha was teaching a point of doctrine to his disciples. He asked his most senior disciple (Ven. Sariputta) if he believed in what he (the Buddha) was teaching. Ven. Sariputta stated "no" - he didn't believe, because he hadn't known it for himself - yet. The Buddha praised him.

Regarding similarities to Christianity: Early Buddhism is similar to modern Christianity in that virtuous behavior is enjoined, and the golden rule is found in the early Buddhist texts. Metta (loving-kindness) is a virtue in Buddhism, similar to love in Christianity, but it is not considered the highest virtue.

Regarding differences: There are also many differences: Buddhism teaches rebirth; kamma; a number of different levels of heavens & hells (all impermanent); self-help/salvation (based on the law of kamma); innumerable deities (powerful but not omnipotent, extremely long lived into the aeons but not eternal, and most live under various delusions of their own grandeur, lifespan, or power) - we are deities, in a sense, compared to those in realms below our own; etc.

More differences: I specifically chose early Buddhism because it focuses on the importance of intention (not the letter of the law), things to be known personally (not belief in unverifiable dogmas), that it possesses no intermediaries or hierarchies (vs plenty of them in other religions), that it doesn't depend on a "real" Buddha (vs religions which require a "real" figurehead which constitutes their foundations and must be followed blindly), and posits truths universally applicable throughout space & time (vs things bound to time/culture/lands/an exclusive people group/etc.), with an emphasis on less (vs more), that it also encourages independent thought (vs need for conformity), that it targeted dukkha/suffering, the root issue of the human condition (vs other religions which seek to treat the symptoms of dukkha), and that it provides a systematic, methodical, testable path to treat that condition (vs dogmas, again).

(P.S. Regarding other forms of "Buddhisms", such as Mahayana, Tibetan/Vajrayana, Zen, etc. are later developments, and IMO they are all different religions, practically speaking. Early Buddhism is more practice based, with an emphasis on personal knowledge and effort towards personal transcendence. Theravada, as it stands today, is one expression of early Buddhism but tends towards more study instead of practice. Mahayana is essentially faith & devotional-based with savior figures, like the Abrahamic religions, and is largely founded on texts written hundreds of years after the early Buddhist texts. Vajrayana/Tibetan (Dali Lama) is for the most part Mahayana + native Tibetan shamanism.)

 

[Khalliqa]

Speaking only for early Buddhism as I understand and practice it:

Regarding justice: Justice is essentially kamma: results always follow causes. Are results and causes always proportional? Not in superficial appearance, at first glance. Other strands of prior kamma modify results too. E.g. There are innumerable causes that can join together to cause any effect. E.g. I plant (cause) a seed, I can reasonably expect a plant to sprout from it (effect). However, there are other additional causes that can combine together which modifies the resultant effect, e.g. mineral content of the soil, amount of sunlight, temperature, moisture, insects, etc.

I appreciate you taking the time to give thoughtful answers. Also, thank you for addressing my points directly. That doesn't happen often during internet dialogue. :-D

I've always thought of justice as evaluating the fairness of a situation based on a certain set of values..

In your explanation you say that Justice is results following causes.. I am unable to rectify my understanding of justice with your explanation. It seems that cause and effect is simply "reality" and as nothing to do with evaluations or utilizing a yardstick to measure behavior or events by.

Regarding mysticism: There are elements of what could be called mysticism in early Buddhism. The Buddha taught the truth of what he personally experienced, e.g. deities, heavens, hells, etc. However, since faith is not essential for "salvation" in Buddhism, we do not need to have blind faith in these things. We are called to walk the progressive, graduated Path ourselves, in order to perceive these things directly ... not to believe on blind faith. It reminds me of an event where the Buddha was teaching a point of doctrine to his disciples. He asked his most senior disciple (Ven. Sariputta) if he believed in what he (the Buddha) was teaching. Ven. Sariputta stated "no" - he didn't believe, because he hadn't known it for himself - yet. The Buddha praised him.

I've seen you question Christians on what they know.. Do others Buddhists accept the existence of deities, heaven and hell..? Do they experience them? If so, how? and how are they certain?

Regarding similarities to Christianity: Early Buddhism is similar to modern Christianity in that virtuous behavior is enjoined, and the golden rule is found in the early Buddhist texts. Metta (loving-kindness) is a virtue in Buddhism, similar to love in Christianity, but it is not considered the highest virtue.

While I have my issues with the golden rule I do see it has some value. What is the highest virtue in Buddhism?

Regarding differences: There are also many differences: Buddhism teaches rebirth; kamma; a number of different levels of heavens & hells (all impermanent); self-help/salvation (based on the law of kamma); innumerable deities (powerful but not omnipotent, extremely long lived into the aeons but not eternal, and most live under various delusions of their own grandeur, lifespan, or power) - we are deities, in a sense, compared to those in realms below our own; etc.

What is the difference between a deity and a human?
Why teach rebirth? And how does the Buddha know anyone is reborn?

More differences: I specifically chose early Buddhism because it focuses on the importance of intention (not the letter of the law), things to be known personally (not belief in unverifiable dogmas), that it possesses no intermediaries or hierarchies (vs plenty of them in other religions), that it doesn't depend on a "real" Buddha (vs religions which require a "real" figurehead which constitutes their foundations and must be followed blindly), and posits truths universally applicable throughout space & time (vs things bound to time/culture/lands/an exclusive people group/etc.), with an emphasis on less (vs more), that it also encourages independent thought (vs need for conformity), that it targeted dukkha/suffering, the root issue of the human condition (vs other religions which seek to treat the symptoms of dukkha), and that it provides a systematic, methodical, testable path to treat that condition (vs dogmas, again).

I'm big on intention too but also assisting one (externally and internally) with achieving the letter of the law - whatever that may be.
Aren't levels of heaven&hells hierarchies?

(P.S. Regarding other forms of "Buddhisms", such as Mahayana, Tibetan/Vajrayana, Zen, etc. are later developments, and IMO they are all different religions, practically speaking. Early Buddhism is more practice based, with an emphasis on personal knowledge and effort towards personal transcendence. Theravada, as it stands today, is one expression of early Buddhism but tends towards more study instead of practice. Mahayana is essentially faith & devotional-based with savior figures, like the Abrahamic religions, and is largely founded on texts written hundreds of years after the early Buddhist texts. Vajrayana/Tibetan (Dali Lama) is for the most part Mahayana + native Tibetan shamanism.)

How accurate are the texts?

Thank you again for answering.

 

[ananda]

I appreciate you taking the time to give thoughtful answers. Also, thank you for addressing my points directly. That doesn't happen often during internet dialogue. :-D

No problem

I've always thought of justice as evaluating the fairness of a situation based on a certain set of values..

In your explanation you say that Justice is results following causes.. I am unable to rectify my understanding of justice with your explanation. It seems that cause and effect is simply "reality" and as nothing to do with evaluations or utilizing a yardstick to measure behavior or events by.

In early Buddhism, it is important to understand that there is no one fixed set of values. Someone who is exceptionally virtuous, peaceful, and wise will - as a result of kamma - attain rich rewards, possibly in the form of rebirth in a high heaven. Another person with moderate virtues/peace/wisdom may find themselves reborn in a middle heaven. Others who are exceptionally evil, etc. might attain one of the hells. Justice is served by the Laws of Reality, proportional to one's overall kamma.

I've seen you question Christians on what they know.. Do others Buddhists accept the existence of deities, heaven and hell..? Do they experience them? If so, how? and how are they certain?

Yes, most Buddhists (with probably the exclusion of modern, eclectic, Western "Buddhism"-lite) believe in the existence of various heavens and hells, and corresponding intelligences which dwell in them. Belief in them is not necessary, however. It is said that some have experienced these things directly. Advancement to a certain grade (fourth jhana) along the Buddhist Path is said to uncloud, uncover, and reveal the disciple's higher senses such as the divine eye, through which one can directly observe such things for ourselves.

While I have my issues with the golden rule I do see it has some value. What is the highest virtue in Buddhism?

Equanimity and wisdom. The Buddhist Eightfold Path is directed towards the development of these two virtues to the supreme degree.

Equanimity, because it produces the clarity of mind which unclouds the divine senses, and through investigation of deeper layers of reality through the use of these divine senses, greater amounts of wisdom arises.

Wisdom, because it produces detachment from lower, grosser states of being, and reveals higher blissful states, and the final bliss of nibbana.

What is the difference between a deity and a human?

A being on a higher plane of existence is said to be more powerful, more intelligent, and more long-lived than those on lower planes of existence. The higher beings are more inherently luminous because they are no longer attached to lower states of coarser matter and concerns. In one story in the Buddhist scriptures, a being from the twelfth heaven appearing to the beings of the second heaven caused the latter to exclaim "a god is approaching!" Likewise, a being from the second heaven appearing to us might cause us to exclaim "a god/angel is approaching!"

Why teach rebirth? And how does the Buddha know anyone is reborn?

Rebirth (not reincarnation) is evident all around us. We are undergoing rebirth every moment of every day in our lives. E.g. Are we the same or are we completely different now when compared to our 5-year old selves? This is the visible process of rebirth, on the physical plane.

The Buddha claimed that achievement of the divine eye allows one to directly observe the process of rebirth on other planes of existence, and throughout space and time.

I'm big on intention too but also assisting one (externally and internally) with achieving the letter of the law - whatever that may be. Aren't levels of heaven & hells hierarchies?

No; just because beings in a higher plane are longer-lived and more powerful, does not mean that they are inherently masters over us. Most are less than wise, being enraptured and captured by the pleasures which surround them in their heavens. Some may deceitfully claim authority over us, however. They do not necessarily possess greater inherent wisdom than we do. Nor do they usually concern themselves with us. A deity descending to our plane would be likened to ourselves diving into a filthy cesspool. Few would do such a thing.

How accurate are the texts?

Pretty accurate, I would say. I have personally verified much of what the Buddha allegedly taught in the early texts. It is the Laws of Reality that is "scripture" for us. The words of the Buddha and other noble disciples are merely commentaries and maps which point to these Laws.

Thank you again for answering.

You're welcome!

 

[FireDragon76]

Karma and western concepts of justice aren't identical. Especially because western concepts of justice are largely based on Greek thought and the concept of a transcendent good.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

What is the Buddhist principle of "justice"? Does it have one? And how is it related to the notion of the colloquially used term "karma?"

To my knowledge, negative behaviour is called "unskilled" in Buddhism - and basically carries its own punishment within itself, even ignoring the karmic aspects.

I think this approach makes much more sense of what we actually see out there than a metaphysical world view that proposes cosmic good and evil.

In what ways is Buddhism similar to Christianity?

The similarities are mostly superficial, but nonetheless significant: a strong focus on compassion and what Christians would call "brotherly love". Also, traditional Buddhist metaphysics include the concept of punitive dimensions ("hells"), where those who stray furthest suffer.

In what ways does it differ?

The most significant difference is that Buddhism is apatheistic, meaning that the existence or non-existence of a deity or deities is insignificant to the Eightfold Path. Buddhism is not about giving praise or glory to a cosmic potentate, but about breaking free from the cycle of suffering. More "mass-compatible" branches within Buddhism have introduced elements that are at least somewhat similar to theism, with Buddha or Bodhisattvas receiving the kind of attention otherwise given to deities in temples, but I dare say that this is not how it started, or what's at the heart of it.

Is it true that there are strands of Buddhism that are mystical and rely heavily on tradition and mysticism?

Oh, absolutely! Both the Zen tradition and Tibetan Buddhism come to mind here.

 

[Khalliqa]

Thank you for responding. I'll have to come back to this thread. I wanted to find out more because I see fundamental similarities to theism regarding unproven mystical explanations about life.. In some sects there are similarities to the dogma.. but not much... I was hoping that I would get a clear distinction between the two..

It would be helpful to know that I am a principled person and don't have a term for that.. I am drawn to many Buddhist/Zen teachings because the principles are highlighted over dogma.. If the principle supports values I hold and aids towards my understanding of "peace" I'm all for it.. even if the process looks harmful to begin with or goes against the grain for others.. My concept of peace as the end goal was formulated during my time accepting Islam.. and my sense of principles/values- ethics- formulated during my tenure as a tutored philosophy student..

It would also be helpful to know that I once read a book called "Confessions of a Buddhist Atheist" by Stephen Batchelor which is the catalyst for my inquiry.

The concept of justice is still confusing to me.. I can understand the importance of accepting consequences to an action.. but I don't see how that can be called "justice" maybe something else? I still don't equate the two..

A poster above is confirming that they are fundamentally separate things generating from different thought patterns and that makes more sense to me. Not that one is better than the other just that they are different. I've long suspected that those who tout "karma" are mislead about the idea of justice. This is starting to be confirmed a bit for me. But I'm open to a counter point. I'm research mode here.. :-D I'll come back later..

g'day

 

[ananda]

Thank you for responding. I'll have to come back to this thread. I wanted to find out more because I see fundamental similarities to theism regarding unproven mystical explanations about life.. In some sects there are similarities to the dogma.. but not much... I was hoping that I would get a clear distinction between the two..

The one essential teaching in early Buddhism that forms the foundation for everything else in the Dhamma is the understanding that "whatever is subject to origination is all subject to cessation" (e.g. SN 56.11). Everything else seems to evolve from that core tenet.

The concept of justice is still confusing to me.. I can understand the importance of accepting consequences to an action.. but I don't see how that can be called "justice" maybe something else? I still don't equate the two.. I've long suspected that those who tout "karma" are mislead about the idea of justice ...

Do you differentiate between cosmic justice (which I view as "kamma", where everything eventually balances out), and earthly justice (e.g. done by governments, etc.)?

 

[TheOldWays]

What is the Buddhist principle of "justice"? Does it have one? And how is it related to the notion of the colloquially used term "karma?"

As one travels through their many lives and incarnations in the samsara, they accumulate karma based on their actions. this shapes their future rebirths in the samsara. it is karma that keeps one in the samsara. when one is free of their karma, they will become a Buddha and escape the samsara. Sadly, in this age of dharma decline, i believe this is no longer possible.

In what ways is Buddhism similar to Christianity?

My Buddhist path is similar in that a 'salvation' figure offers to do all the work for you so one can escape their karma and go to the Pureland. Other Buddhist paths are really nothing like Christianity.

Is it true that there are strands of Buddhism that are mystical and rely heavily on tradition and mysticism?

Just like any religion, Buddhism has a wide variety of idea, paths and practices.

 

[juvenissun]

What is the Buddhist principle of "justice"?

If one did "evil", then he must either payback or be punished. There is no mercy. That is probably all branches of Buddhism said.

In fact, this is what ALL religions made by human said.

 

[Khalliqa]

To my knowledge, negative behaviour is called "unskilled" in Buddhism - and basically carries its own punishment within itself, even ignoring the karmic aspects.

I think this approach makes much more sense of what we actually see out there than a metaphysical world view that proposes cosmic good and evil.

Okay. I understand this as: "Justice" is the effect or natural consequences and there is no evaluation. If I am correct, does this Buddhist philosophy of Justice necessitate the idea of rebirth since so many violations to the human spirit occur and are not punished during one's life time? Then there are the perceptions of "justice."

The similarities are mostly superficial, but nonetheless significant: a strong focus on compassion and what Christians would call "brotherly love". Also, traditional Buddhist metaphysics include the concept of punitive dimensions ("hells"), where those who stray furthest suffer.

I find the idea of the existence of a deity, heaven, and hell to be the essential commonality to Christianity.

The most significant difference is that Buddhism is apatheistic, meaning that the existence or non-existence of a deity or deities is insignificant to the Eightfold Path. Buddhism is not about giving praise or glory to a cosmic potentate, but about breaking free from the cycle of suffering. More "mass-compatible" branches within Buddhism have introduced elements that are at least somewhat similar to theism, with Buddha or Bodhisattvas receiving the kind of attention otherwise given to deities in temples, but I dare say that this is not how it started, or what's at the heart of it.

Apatheism seems to be the most civil rational humanistic stance to take imo (hence why I take it)

Why is a deity inferred, referenced, thought of at all if the path does not require it?

Oh, absolutely! Both the Zen tradition and Tibetan Buddhism come to mind here.

That is unfortunate, I love the western watered down principle of zen.. lol..

 

[TheOldWays]

That is unfortunate, I love the western watered down principle of zen.. lol..

My experience with Zen is it is the least mystical and most secular path in Buddhism.

 

[Khalliqa]

My experience with Zen is it is the least mystical and most secular path in Buddhism.

I thought so too.. but I'm not well versed in Buddhism.. Can someone explain the seeming contradiction?

 

[ananda]

I thought so too.. but I'm not well versed in Buddhism.. Can someone explain the seeming contradiction?

What contradiction do you see?

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Okay. I understand this as: "Justice" is the effect or natural consequences and there is no evaluation. If I am correct, does this Buddhist philosophy of Justice necessitate the idea of rebirth since so many violations to the human spirit occur and are not punished during one's life time? Then there are the perceptions of "justice."

It's not just the "bad" stuff that keeps the cycle going, but ALL entanglement/attachment. Yes, bad deeds are a sure way to demonstrate that you haven't realized enlightenment, and aren't even remotely close to doing so. But that's not the only thing that bogs you down. Being attached to your possessions, to specific people (but not others/all), to status or identity concepts - all of that entangles you.

I find the idea of the existence of a deity, heaven, and hell to be the essential commonality to Christianity.

Well, see below.

Why is a deity inferred, referenced, thought of at all if the path does not require it?

Siddharta lived ca. 500 BCE, in a culture where theistic explanations for the universe were basically the only ones available. I'm pretty sure he simply went with what was commonly accepted as the best explanation for reality at the time, since it did not touch upon what he had realized in any relevant fashion.
It's as if you found a method of achieving perfect happiness, but didn't correct mistakes in our current scientific models: one is not connected to the other.

That is unfortunate, I love the western watered down principle of zen.. lol..

I suspect we use different interpretations of the term "mystic".
To me, mysticism is the antithesis of what we see in fundamentalist religion: an approach that seeks to encourage personal experience, altered states of consciousness, and individual insight.
Mystic experiences are described in strikingly similar fashion, regardless of the religious background of the one who experienced them. Sure, usually they attempt to couch them within the framework they are familiar with, assimilating and interpreting it to the point where it fits, but as far as I'm concerned, that's missing the point.

 

[Khalliqa]

What contradiction do you see?

Hi Ananda,

The contradiction was whether or not Zen Buddhism is mystical or not.

 

[Khalliqa]

It's not just the "bad" stuff that keeps the cycle going, but ALL entanglement/attachment. Yes, bad deeds are a sure way to demonstrate that you haven't realized enlightenment, and aren't even remotely close to doing so. But that's not the only thing that bogs you down. Being attached to your possessions, to specific people (but not others/all), to status or identity concepts - all of that entangles you.

The idea of natural consequences sit well with my sensibilities sans the rebirthing requirement. To a lesser degree the idea of attachments makes sense to me in certain contexts.

Thank you for explaining. I have some idea of what's behind the thinking of rebirth.

Well, see below.


Siddharta lived ca. 500 BCE, in a culture where theistic explanations for the universe were basically the only ones available. I'm pretty sure he simply went with what was commonly accepted as the best explanation for reality at the time, since it did not touch upon what he had realized in any relevant fashion.
It's as if you found a method of achieving perfect happiness, but didn't correct mistakes in our current scientific models: one is not connected to the other.

Am I understanding that you mean the mention of deities is a communication convenience?

I suspect we use different interpretations of the term "mystic".
To me, mysticism is the antithesis of what we see in fundamentalist religion: an approach that seeks to encourage personal experience, altered states of consciousness, and individual insight.
Mystic experiences are described in strikingly similar fashion, regardless of the religious background of the one who experienced them. Sure, usually they attempt to couch them within the framework they are familiar with, assimilating and interpreting it to the point where it fits, but as far as I'm concerned, that's missing the point.

I have never attached supernatural experiences (what I attribute to being mystical) in any form with zen Buddhism. But again I'm not well versed in it.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

The idea of natural consequences sit well with my sensibilities sans the rebirthing requirement. To a lesser degree the idea of attachments makes sense to me in certain contexts.

I'm not exactly a Buddhist, personally, but it's the spiritual world view I am most indebted to.

Am I understanding that you mean the mention of deities is a communication convenience?

Basically, yes. (Plus, I'm not sure Siddharta knew any better, or had any reason to see things differently. Deities were simply irrelevant to the "middle way".)

I have never attached supernatural experiences (what I attribute to being mystical) in any form with zen Buddhism. But again I'm not well versed in it.

Nothing "supernatural" about it (and that's not what mysticism is, really): Zen is a method that cracks open the conceptual cage of language we find ourselves in, and allows glimpses of what I'd call "transpersonal experiences".

 

[CherubRam]

Your gods made by human hands are not gods at all.


Leviticus 19:31

“‘Do not turn to mediums or seek out spiritists, for you will be defiled by them. I am the Lord your God.


Deuteronomy 4:29

But if from there you seek the Lord your God, you will find him if you seek him with all your heart and with all your soul.


1 Chronicles 28:9

“And you, my son Solomon, acknowledge the God of your father, and serve him with wholehearted devotion and with a willing mind, for the Lord searches every heart and understands every desire and every thought. If you seek him, he will be found by you; but if you forsake him, he will reject you forever.


Psalm 4:2

How long will you people turn my glory into shame? How long will you love delusions and seek false gods?


Psalm 14:2

The Lord looks down from heaven on all mankind to see if there are any who understand, any who seek God.


Deuteronomy 4:28

There you will worship man-made gods of wood and stone, which cannot see or hear or eat or smell.


1 Chronicles 16:26

For all the gods of the nations are idols, but the Lord made the heavens.