I may be mistaken...

[juantoo3]

There is always the possibility I may be mistaken.

What truth? G-d? That to me seems the only definitive objective truth we have limited access to.

Christianity has no patent or copyright on truth, or G-d. The path laid by Jesus before those who choose Christianity is not unlike the path laid before others of different faiths. Through the teachings of Jesus, Christians walk the path in the direction of G-d. Through the teachings of Moses, Jews walk the path in the direction of G-d. Through the teachings of Mohamed, Muslims walk the path in the direction of G-d. In my opinion and while they may not quite understand, through the teachings of Buddha, Buddhist walk the path in the direction of G-d (upper case). Through the teachings of the Vedas, Hindus walk the path in the direction of G-d. Through various folk traditions, many Pagans walk the path in the direction of G-d.

If G-d is the objective truth, the subjective truth is in any of us trying to put a human face on G-d. He has none that we may view (we would go insane at best). G-d is not made in the image of man, male or female. We run the risk of making "a god" in our own image when we ascribe human attributes to Him. It is sufficient to know He exists, and that things are going as He intends. When they are not going as He intends it is not by His hand, but by those humans that dare to intervene. And we dare, far too often, because of this little glitch in our system called "rational mind." The Knowledge of Good and Evil formed a curtain that separates us from Him, clouds our better judgement, prevents us from continually remaining in His "will," and requires us to seek Him mentally, spiritually and ultimately physically.

Jesus is instrumental in guiding us back to G-d, for Christians. It is through his teachings that I strive to return to my Heavenly Father, because that is the path I know and understand. Had I been born Jewish, I would still strive to return to my Heavenly Father, but I would do so through the teachings of Moses. Had I been born Muslim, I would strive to return to my Heavenly Father through the teachings of Mohamed. Had I been born Buddhist, I would strive to return to my Heavenly Father through the teachings of the Buddha. Had I been born Hindu, I would strive to return to my Heavenly Father through the teachings of the Vedas. Had I been born Pagan, I would strive to return to my Heavenly Father through whatever traditions passed down to me through generations of family and sages. No matter where or when I was born, I would still strive to return to my Heavenly Father through whatever means available to me. This is the law written on my heart.

No path has all of the answers. Not even Christianity. One doesn't need all of the answers, just enough of the correct answers to pass the final test, the Great White Throne of Judgement. And all of these paths have those answers available buried within the mythos, speculation, metaphor and allegory, hints and allegations. Faith, hope and charity...and love one another as I have loved you.

It is human politics that has created the "triumphalism" (thanks Dauer!) that makes any one path politically deem itself supreme over all others. It is manipulation of the masses by the greedy and the power hungry that have turned paths against one another. It is humans who have twisted the gifts G-d has given each of us. G-d created all of us, and placed all of us where He intended for us to be. He created the Muslim and the Jew, just as He created the Buddhist, the Hindu and the Pagan. And it is all very good, as stated at the time of the sixth day creation, even before Adam and Eve and the Garden.

G-d desires that none perish, and if any one holds true to what path they have been placed upon, they will not perish. The compass written on each person's heart will lead them in the right direction. Just because any one does not belong to an exclusive club (exclusive because some man says so), does not mean they will be destroyed in the end. We are all given the same opportunity, a path laid before us. What we do on that path is what determines whether we will be found acceptable, or wanting.

Subjective truths, like heaven versus reincarnation, are irrelevant. Subjective truths like Yoga versus Meditation, are irrelevant. Subjective truths like prayer versus chanting, are irrelevant. Not irrelevant to those who practice any one of these, but irrelevant in the sense that there is no "one" way that is the "only" way. All of these, properly used in context, are tools to assist us on the path back to our Heavenly Father. All of these, properly used in context, put our minds on a higher realm, and help us aspire to spiritual things. We cannot see these spiritual things, but we know them and that they exist, we intuit them. We sense them. We pursue what we sense using those tools available to us through the various paths. But the tools are not the path, and the tools are not the destination, and in the end analysis the tools are irrelevant.

 

[JosephM]

Good Post Juantoo3,

I will add a quote from Sri Ramana Maharshi that is in my view relevant.

"Under whatever name and form one may worship the Absolute Reality (God) , it is only a means for realizing It without name and form. That alone is true realization, wherein one knows oneself in relation to that Reality, attains peace and realizes one's identity in it."

Peace,
JM

 

[Snoopy]

Through the teachings of Jesus, Christians walk the path in the direction of G-d. Through the teachings of Moses, Jews walk the path in the direction of G-d. Through the teachings of Mohamed, Muslims walk the path in the direction of G-d. In my opinion and while they may not quite understand, through the teachings of Buddha, Buddhist walk the path in the direction of G-d (upper case). Through the teachings of the Vedas, Hindus walk the path in the direction of G-d. Through various folk traditions, many Pagans walk the path in the direction of G-d.

The sea of words is indeed treacherous…! I like, of course, the notion of tolerance and acceptance of other beliefs / faiths / religions and can nod generally in regard to there being only one ultimate reality. The trouble comes when we start to use words and concepts which create veils of apparent separation (and potentially “superiority”) as you say. I do feel a little squirmy at “In my opinion and while they may not quite understand, through the teachings of Buddha, Buddhist walk the path in the direction of G-d (upper case).” But hey, you preceded it with “In my opinion”. I know you didn’t mean Buddhists are a little dense!!!; maybe somewhat misled?

If G-d is the objective truth, the subjective truth is in any of us trying to put a human face on G-d. He has none that we may view (we would go insane at best). G-d is not made in the image of man, male or female. We run the risk of making "a god" in our own image when we ascribe human attributes to Him. It is sufficient to know He exists, and that things are going as He intends. When they are not going as He intends it is not by His hand, but by those humans that dare to intervene. And we dare, far too often, because of this little glitch in our system called "rational mind." The Knowledge of Good and Evil formed a curtain that separates us from Him, clouds our better judgement, prevents us from continually remaining in His "will," and requires us to seek Him mentally, spiritually and ultimately physically.

Jesus is instrumental in guiding us back to G-d, for Christians. It is through his teachings that I strive to return to my Heavenly Father, because that is the path I know and understand. Had I been born Jewish, I would still strive to return to my Heavenly Father, but I would do so through the teachings of Moses. Had I been born Muslim, I would strive to return to my Heavenly Father through the teachings of Mohamed. Had I been born Buddhist, I would strive to return to my Heavenly Father through the teachings of the Buddha. Had I been born Hindu, I would strive to return to my Heavenly Father through the teachings of the Vedas. Had I been born Pagan, I would strive to return to my Heavenly Father through whatever traditions passed down to me through generations of family and sages. No matter where or when I was born, I would still strive to return to my Heavenly Father through whatever means available to me. This is the law written on my heart.

No path has all of the answers. Not even Christianity. One doesn't need all of the answers, just enough of the correct answers to pass the final test, the Great White Throne of Judgement. And all of these paths have those answers available buried within the mythos, speculation, metaphor and allegory, hints and allegations. Faith, hope and charity...and love one another as I have loved you.

It is human politics that has created the "triumphalism" (thanks Dauer!) that makes any one path politically deem itself supreme over all others. It is manipulation of the masses by the greedy and the power hungry that have turned paths against one another. It is humans who have twisted the gifts G-d has given each of us. G-d created all of us, and placed all of us where He intended for us to be. He created the Muslim and the Jew, just as He created the Buddhist, the Hindu and the Pagan. And it is all very good, as stated at the time of the sixth day creation, even before Adam and Eve and the Garden.

G-d desires that none perish, and if any one holds true to what path they have been placed upon, they will not perish. The compass written on each person's heart will lead them in the right direction. Just because any one does not belong to an exclusive club (exclusive because some man says so), does not mean they will be destroyed in the end. We are all given the same opportunity, a path laid before us. What we do on that path is what determines whether we will be found acceptable, or wanting.

Similarly, references to walking towards God, striving to return to the Heavenly Father, having a path laid out, the test of the Great White Throne of Judgment and being created by God. If these words are taken at their face value meaning, then someone who does not believe that there is a (judging) creator deity (as opposed to a rather different understanding of what the term “God” perhaps stands for, (e.g. ultimate reality for example) is probably not going to agree that these ideas are statements of truth.

Subjective truths, like heaven versus reincarnation, are irrelevant. Subjective truths like Yoga versus Meditation, are irrelevant. Subjective truths like prayer versus chanting, are irrelevant. Not irrelevant to those who practice any one of these, but irrelevant in the sense that there is no "one" way that is the "only" way. All of these, properly used in context, are tools to assist us on the path back to our Heavenly Father. All of these, properly used in context, put our minds on a higher realm, and help us aspire to spiritual things. We cannot see these spiritual things, but we know them and that they exist, we intuit them. We sense them. We pursue what we sense using those tools available to us through the various paths. But the tools are not the path, and the tools are not the destination, and in the end analysis the tools are irrelevant

The pointing finger is not the moon, but the finger IS relevant in the meantime, BECAUSE it points at the moon.

Looking for commonalities is good but expressing other religions through the terminology and beliefs of one is rather a rather fraught activity, I believe.

s.

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Snoopy!

Thank you for your response!

I do feel a little squirmy at “In my opinion and while they may not quite understand, through the teachings of Buddha, Buddhist walk the path in the direction of G-d (upper case).” But hey, you preceded it with “In my opinion”. I know you didn’t mean Buddhists are a little dense!!!; maybe a somewhat misled?

By no means do I intend to suggest Buddhists are dense. Certainly no more so than Christians or any other. This was copied from another thread, so there is a little bit of nuance that got left out that should probably be reinstated.

There is a significant difference between "god" (lower case) and G-d (upper case). My understanding of the Buddhist view of god is limited, but I suspect some "type" of superhuman entity. (Whether I agree or not is irrelevant). Whereas G-d as the wellspring, the source of ALL, not a being or entity in any sense a human might dare imagine, would be that from which everything derives...even the Buddha. Like the Buddhist, I have issues with a "personified, anthropomorphic" god. I view this as creating a god in our own image. G-d has no human face, and cannot have human attributes ascribed to Him. BTW, I use the term "Him" out of tradition and respect. G-d in the sense I am speaking is both male and female, both and neither. IS and ALL.

Similarly, references to walking towards God, striving to return to the Heavenly Father, having a path laid out, the test of the Great White Throne of Judgment and being created by God. If these words are taken at their face value meaning, then someone who does not believe that there is a (judging) creator deity (as opposed to a rather different understanding of what the term “God” perhaps stands for, (e.g. ultimate reality for example) is probably not going to agree that these ideas are statements of truth.

This is the nature of the relevant irrelevance. In the proper context, the various views provide relevance for those who use those tools. If a person by their nature at the place they happen to be in their understanding requires an anthropomorphic deity to further their growth and understanding, then be it so, for that person. That does not make their view correct for all others. Some may well have grown in knowledge and understanding to surpass such a limited view. Likewise, a person who cannot fathom any view of deity (through logic, for example) might be inclined to dismiss the whole affair, not grasping that G-d is not the same as "god." What is relevant to an individual at a given moment is what brings that person closer to the wellspring, closer to the source from which ALL comes. But these are merely tools, they are not the end in themselves. What is the Buddha's teaching about rafts, and discarding them once the destination is arrived at?

The pointing finger is not the moon, but the finger IS relevant in the meantime, BECAUSE it points at the moon.

Exactly. The finger is the tool, not the destination. It is relevant to that individual during the journey. Once one arrives at the moon, the finger becomes irrelevant ("in the final analysis").

Looking for commonalities is good but expressing other religions through the terminology and beliefs of one is rather a rather fraught activity, I believe.

I agree. Even so, I use the terminology I have at my disposal to further my own comprehension. Terms like "Great White Throne Judgement" may well hold little or no meaning to someone outside of the Christian tradition. But I am Christian, and I write and speak in Christian terms, and Christians by and large get the drift of what I am saying. Whether they agree or not is another story. Sometimes, when I am aware, I might be able to insert a parallel phraseology from another path to help broaden the understanding of the audience, but words are always a fraught activity. The menu is not the food. The way that can be named is not the way.

Thanks for allowing me this clarification, snoop!

 

[Snoopy]

By no means do I intend to suggest Buddhists are dense. Certainly no more so than Christians or any other. This was copied from another thread, so there is a little bit of nuance that got left out that should probably be reinstated.

I know you didn’t really, I was just being a cheeky chappy!

There is a significant difference between "god" (lower case) and G-d (upper case). My understanding of the Buddhist view of god is limited, but I suspect some "type" of superhuman entity. (Whether I agree or not is irrelevant). Whereas G-d as the wellspring, the source of ALL, not a being or entity in any sense a human might dare imagine, would be that from which everything derives...even the Buddha.

My understanding of most things is pretty limited. Buddhist gods I think are deities in rarified realms, bigging it up till their good karma has expired (a jolly good while), then they’ll be back into a more mundane sphere and form, as part of the cycle of samsara. As for G-d then, well if space/time has always existed and always will, with no “first cause” that can be realistically speculated about (without it driving you nuts), then I’m not sure where this leaves the wellspring. Maybe we call it Tao but then that doesn’t do the trick as you say…

This is the nature of the relevant irrelevance. In the proper context, the various views provide relevance for those who use those tools. If a person by their nature at the place they happen to be in their understanding requires an anthropomorphic deity to further their growth and understanding, then be it so, for that person. That does not make their view correct for all others. Some may well have grown in knowledge and understanding to surpass such a limited view. Likewise, a person who cannot fathom any view of deity (through logic, for example) might be inclined to dismiss the whole affair, not grasping that G-d is not the same as "god." What is relevant to an individual at a given moment is what brings that person closer to the wellspring, closer to the source from which ALL comes.

This reminds me of the 84,000 gates or paths referred to in Buddhism that point to the myriad approaches to Bodhi – (awakening or enlightenment); indeed there are as many paths or gates as people. (not sure then if the 84,000 is to be taken literally, and if so, which poor sod had to count them).

But these are merely tools, they are not the end in themselves. What is the Buddha's teaching about rafts, and discarding them once the destination is arrived at?

Indeedy!

I agree. Even so, I use the terminology I have at my disposal to further my own comprehension. Terms like "Great White Throne Judgement" may well hold little or no meaning to someone outside of the Christian tradition. But I am Christian, and I write and speak in Christian terms, and Christians by and large get the drift of what I am saying. Whether they agree or not is another story. Sometimes, when I am aware, I might be able to insert a parallel phraseology from another path to help broaden the understanding of the audience, but words are always a fraught activity. The menu is not the food. The way that can be named is not the way.

Yes we are all limited by our vocabularies and upbringings in the extent to which we can communicate with others, me the same as every bugger else. Eight billion towers of Babel anyone?

s.

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Snoopy!

I know you didn’t really, I was just being a cheeky chappy!

Ah, I should've guessed.

My understanding of most things is pretty limited. Buddhist gods I think are deities in rarified realms, bigging it up till their good karma has expired (a jolly good while), then they’ll be back into a more mundane sphere and form, as part of the cycle of samsara.

This agrees with and adds a bit to the meager amount I have heard. I dare say your limited understanding surpasses mine!

As for G-d then, well if space/time has always existed and always will, with no “first cause” that can be realistically speculated about (without it driving you nuts), then I’m not sure where this leaves the wellspring. Maybe we call it Tao but then that doesn’t do the trick as you say…

Ever notice just how big a word two little letters can make? I suppose we could posit a number of "ifs," but I think for the moment I will remain in agreement with Doctor Hubble about "big bang," red shift and an expanding universe. Perhaps the universe has banged and crunched a zillion times, but I think in this existence the moment that concerns us and relates directly to us is this most recent bang.

This reminds me of the 84,000 gates or paths referred to in Buddhism that point to the myriad approaches to Bodhi – (awakening or enlightenment); indeed there are as many paths or gates as people. (not sure then if the 84,000 is to be taken literally, and if so, which poor sod had to count them).

Ah, thank you for the memory jog. I incorrectly stated earlier 88 doors, and I knew it wasn't correct at the time but couldn't for the life of me remember.

Yes we are all limited by our vocabularies and upbringings in the extent to which we can communicate with others, me the same as every bugger else. Eight billion towers of Babelanyone?

All we can do is try...

 

[Tao_Equus]

Hi Juantoo,

And we dare, far too often, because of this little glitch in our system called "rational mind." The Knowledge of Good and Evil formed a curtain that separates us from Him, clouds our better judgement, prevents us from continually remaining in His "will," and requires us to seek Him mentally, spiritually and ultimately physically.

and

No path has all of the answers. Not even Christianity. One doesn't need all of the answers, just enough of the correct answers to pass the final test, the Great White Throne of Judgement. And all of these paths have those answers available buried within the mythos, speculation, metaphor and allegory, hints and allegations. Faith, hope and charity...and love one another as I have loved you.

It seems to me that this is all about a God that judges us on what are actually human perceptions of good and evil. That regardless of faith it is indeed an ideal human morality you wish to ascribe to God. And this notion of Judgement is what links all the faiths. I think this an entirely human idea with its origins firmly imbedded in the behaviour of any social group of animals. Morality, and the the lack of it, leads to reward or sanction in any and all societies. The notion of devine judgement is simply an extension of this. It is so anthropocentric and evolved from regulating social cohesion in groups that it is infact easy to argue that God, being a singular entity, is infact nothing like that at all. Judgement, whether it be the ruthless damnation of Islam or the personal karma of Buddhists is a central tennet of all faiths but its origins are natural charcteristics of all mammilian social animals and are absent in the solitary. This is a key reason I find religions hard to swallow. They ascribe naturaly evolved inclinations to divine will. It is also why religions are so easilly usurped by the powerful because in ascribing divinity to what one states to be acceptable morality you control the masses. That is a sword that can swing 2 ways.

TE

 

[Francis king]

...there are many mansions in my fathers house...

 

[Snoopy]

And this notion of Judgement is what links all the faiths.

Judgement, whether it be the ruthless damnation of Islam or the personal karma of Buddhists is a central tennet of all faiths but its origins are natural charcteristics of all mammilian social animals and are absent in the solitary.

I’m struggling to see how karma involves judgement? Karma is action (mental, verbal, or physical) and vipaka is its result. It’s like cause and effect in the moral, intentional realm. I’m not saying it’s a description of how things actually operate or not, just that I can’t see how there is a judgemental element involved in the concept. Who or what is doing the judging for instance?

s.

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, everybody!

I will add a quote from Sri Ramana Maharshi that is in my view relevant.

"Under whatever name and form one may worship the Absolute Reality (God) , it is only a means for realizing It without name and form. That alone is true realization, wherein one knows oneself in relation to that Reality, attains peace and realizes one's identity in it."

Thanks for the compliment and the quote, JM!

...there are many mansions in my fathers house...

Wonderful addition Francis!

Tao!

It seems to me that this is all about a God that judges us on what are actually human perceptions of good and evil... That is a sword that can swing 2 ways.

You are right! The sword as I see it can swing one of two ways...either G-d as Creator exists, or He doesn't. So, I guess in the grand scheme we end up back at Pascal's wager. I guess it's pretty easy to see which side I am betting on and why, I presume you're hedging your bets in the other direction.

There are experiences that are personal that do not convey to others, no matter how eloquent the speech. I know G-d exists. I cannot prove it, but I know from experiences, and that knowledge is much greater than a fuzzy feeling or a handful of coincidences. I might not "see" G-d correctly, for all I know maybe "He" is some bunch of little green men with a serious case of penis envy floating around in a spaceship doing what they can to interfere with the "evolutionary development" of various planets, who knows? It simply makes more sense to me that G-d as Creator would serve simultaneously as Source and Wellspring. The Be ALL and IS.

But who's to say? For all I know, maybe you are correct afterall, and I'm hedging my bets in the wrong direction. Either way; no harm, no foul. If I lose my wager, I'll never know it. If you lose your wager...

I'll have to get back to you Snoop, pressed for time.

 

[Quahom1]

I’m struggling to see how karma involves judgement? Karma is action (mental, verbal, or physical) and vipaka is its result. It’s like cause and effect in the moral, intentional realm. I’m not saying it’s a description of how things actually operate or not, just that I can’t see how there is a judgemental element involved in the concept. Who or what is doing the judging for instance?

s.

Karma, is the building of energies (both good and bad), that affects us in our daily lives (and some say, the next plane of existence). These energies are linked to the individual who enacted in ways such to bring about the attachment or influence of said energies, to their identity.

I think "karma" is one of the few concepts that can be tangibly perceived by others, pertaining to the individual who's karma is in question.

Judgement, hence action on that judgement merits a force of karma. (what you decide and do, will come back to you).

Does that make sense?

v/r

Q

 

[Snoopy]

Judgement, hence action on that judgement merits a force of karma. (what you decide and do, will come back to you).

Does that make sense?

v/r

Q

This part, to me, no, sorry. Perhaps if you expand / rephrase?

Karma is often called the law of karma. If we accept for a moment it exists, just for the sake of kicking it around, then I cannot see where the judgement aspect comes in. "Good" karma from well intentioned actions results in good vipaka (similarly for neutral and "bad"). I cannot see the need to invoke the idea of judgement...

If a pebble hits a pool and causes ripples, there is no judgement is there? (I know the intention bit is missing in this analogy but it's the best I can come up with at the moment)

s.

 

[Quahom1]

This part, to me, no, sorry. Perhaps if you expand / rephrase?

Karma is often called the law of karma. If we accept for a moment it exists, just for the sake of kicking it around, then I cannot see where the judgement aspect comes in. "Good" karma from well intentioned actions results in good vipaka (similarly for neutral and "bad"). I cannot see the need to invoke the idea of judgement...

If a pebble hits a pool and causes ripples, there is no judgement is there? (I know the intention bit is missing in this analogy but it's the best I can come up with at the moment)

s.

Good intro. If one throws the pebble in the pond to scare the fish with the ripple effect...vs. if one throws pebbles in the pond to make the water rise high enough and cause the ripple effect to irrigate his neighbors' crop fields...both create Karma, the judgment or intention determines which type is assigned to the action or vipaka...

Does that help?

v/r

Q

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Snoopy!

I’m struggling to see how karma involves judgement?

Judgement is another one of those "fraught" words. One could think of it this way, both the Christian concept of Judgement and (by my understanding) the Buddhist concept of Karma involve action and reaction. As another at this site (wil?) is fond of saying, we are not "punished for our sin," rather we are punished by our sin.

Karma is action (mental, verbal, or physical) and vipaka is its result.

In the Buddhist tradition, yes. In the Christian tradition sin and righteousness are our actions (mental, verbal or physical) and judgement is the result.

It’s like cause and effect in the moral, intentional realm. I’m not saying it’s a description of how things actually operate or not, just that I can’t see how there is a judgemental element involved in the concept. Who or what is doing the judging for instance?

Disregarding for the moment the future sense of Karma, and staying with the present and immediate past (this lifetime), vipaka is automatic, and may continue past the threshold of death. In this sense judgement is very, very similar. It is automatic.

I think the confusion lies in the limited view of G-d. If one still retains a view of some superhuman entity sitting behind a bench pounding a gavel and meting sentence from a rule book, I sense that is a tool of Christianity used to establish much the same concept as the karma / vipaka tool is used for Buddhists. Either way, or perhaps some way unknown to us directly and beyond our ability to describe, we still end up reaping what we sow.

 

[Tao_Equus]

I’m struggling to see how karma involves judgement? Karma is action (mental, verbal, or physical) and vipaka is its result. It’s like cause and effect in the moral, intentional realm. I’m not saying it’s a description of how things actually operate or not, just that I can’t see how there is a judgemental element involved in the concept. Who or what is doing the judging for instance?

s.

ones conscience

 

[Tao_Equus]

Kindest Regards, everybody!




You are right! The sword as I see it can swing one of two ways...either G-d as Creator exists, or He doesn't. So, I guess in the grand scheme we end up back at Pascal's wager. I guess it's pretty easy to see which side I am betting on and why, I presume you're hedging your bets in the other direction.

There are experiences that are personal that do not convey to others, no matter how eloquent the speech. I know G-d exists. I cannot prove it, but I know from experiences, and that knowledge is much greater than a fuzzy feeling or a handful of coincidences. I might not "see" G-d correctly, for all I know maybe "He" is some bunch of little green men with a serious case of penis envy floating around in a spaceship doing what they can to interfere with the "evolutionary development" of various planets, who knows? It simply makes more sense to me that G-d as Creator would serve simultaneously as Source and Wellspring. The Be ALL and IS.

But who's to say? For all I know, maybe you are correct afterall, and I'm hedging my bets in the wrong direction. Either way; no harm, no foul. If I lose my wager, I'll never know it. If you lose your wager...

ty Juantoo, but I am not a gambling man. None the less I like to think that because I pursue honesty I have the base of Judgment covered. If there is this man-like entity thats going to judge my history I feel reasonably confident that it will see my history as that of someone struggling to discern the truth in an ocean of bull. Is there fault in that? Reality ....and I mean reality, is infinitely complex and far beyond the necessities of social laws for man. Which is what all the God books really are....to me. I find religion a bit archaic. I find belief strengthened in every insight into the beautiful and improbable place that is our universe. If we are to be judged then surely it will be on what resides in our hearts. If so I live without fear of that day.

TE

 

[Snoopy]

Good intro. If one throws the pebble in the pond to scare the fish with the ripple effect...vs. if one throws pebbles in the pond to make the water rise high enough and cause the ripple effect to irrigate his neighbors' crop fields...both create Karma, the judgment or intention determines which type is assigned to the action or vipaka...

Maybe we’re playing with semantics here, I don’t know! Anyway, thanks for managing to make something of my analogy! I think I would say that yes the karma is good or bad based upon one’s intention (scaring or irrigating) and the vipaka may come back to you now or later in some way as a result. As regards to karma, I think that’s basically it, so I’m still not seeing how the idea of “judgement” comes into the process…?

s.

 

[Snoopy]

Judgement is another one of those "fraught" words.

Good grief, yes!

In the Buddhist tradition, yes. In the Christian tradition sin and righteousness are our actions (mental, verbal or physical) and judgement is the result.

Yes, this is the difference I was trying (and failing!) to point out. Vipaka is not a judgment, simply the fruit of the karma.

Disregarding for the moment the future sense of Karma, and staying with the present and immediate past (this lifetime), vipaka is automatic, and may continue past the threshold of death. In this sense judgement is very, very similar. It is automatic.

Yes definitely.

I think the confusion lies in the limited view of G-d. If one still retains a view of some superhuman entity sitting behind a bench pounding a gavel and meting sentence from a rule book, I sense that is a tool of Christianity used to establish much the same concept as the karma / vipaka tool is used for Buddhists. Either way, or perhaps some way unknown to us directly and beyond our ability to describe, we still end up reaping what we sow.

Maybe so. Which possibly leads back to what exactly is meant by “judgement.” If “judgement”, whatever we may mean by that, is by an outside agency, then it is not a part of karma I believe. Karma is either “wholesome” or “unwholesome” and the criterion for judging this is the underlying intention (the motive or root of the action). The unwholesome roots are traditionally greed, hatred and delusion, the wholesome roots their opposites. But this “judging” does not involve any external agency; karma is concerned with the operation of a law.

s.

 

[Snoopy]

ones conscience

Perhaps, assuming one is aware of the consequences of one’s actions. But what if one is not? Karma is meant to be a law, like Newton’s law of gravity, which acts whether or not one is aware of the consequences of one’s (volitional) actions.

s.

"Understanding the law of karma will make us realise that each of us are totally responsible for our situations. Instead of accepting responsibility, we often blame others and even God for our suffering.

Karma is a law in itself, which operates in its own field without the intervention of any external, independent ruling agency.

Happiness and misery, which are the common lot of humanity, are the inevitable effects of causes. From a Buddhist point of view, they are not rewards and punishments, assigned by a supernatural, omniscient ruling power to a soul that has done good or evil. Buddhism, which emphatically denies such an Almighty, All merciful God-Creator and an arbitrarily created immortal soul, believes in natural law and justice which cannot be suspended by either an Almighty God or an All-compassionate Buddha. According to this natural law, acts bear their own rewards and punishments to the individual doer whether human justice finds out or not.

A Buddhist who is fully convinced of the law of Karma does not pray to another to be saved but confidently relies on him for his own emancipation. Instead of making any self-surrender, or calling on any supernatural agency, he relies on his own will power, and works incessantly for the well-being and happiness of all. This belief in karma validates his effort and kindles his enthusiasm, because it teaches individual responsibility."

Basic Buddhism: The Theory of Karma

 

[Quahom1]

Perhaps, assuming one is aware of the consequences of one’s actions. But what if one is not? Karma is meant to be a law, like Newton’s law of gravity, which acts whether or not one is aware of the consequences of one’s (volitional) actions.

s.

"Understanding the law of karma will make us realise that each of us are totally responsible for our situations. Instead of accepting responsibility, we often blame others and even God for our suffering.

Karma is a law in itself, which operates in its own field without the intervention of any external, independent ruling agency.

Happiness and misery, which are the common lot of humanity, are the inevitable effects of causes. From a Buddhist point of view, they are not rewards and punishments, assigned by a supernatural, omniscient ruling power to a soul that has done good or evil. Buddhism, which emphatically denies such an Almighty, All merciful God-Creator and an arbitrarily created immortal soul, believes in natural law and justice which cannot be suspended by either an Almighty God or an All-compassionate Buddha. According to this natural law, acts bear their own rewards and punishments to the individual doer whether human justice finds out or not.

A Buddhist who is fully convinced of the law of Karma does not pray to another to be saved but confidently relies on him for his own emancipation. Instead of making any self-surrender, or calling on any supernatural agency, he relies on his own will power, and works incessantly for the well-being and happiness of all. This belief in karma validates his effort and kindles his enthusiasm, because it teaches individual responsibility."

Basic Buddhism: The Theory of Karma

If that is the case then "karma" can be neither good nor bad, which in short would negate what eastern philosophies have been telling us about concerning good Karma and bad karma.

But since the idea is to get as much good karma as possible around one, and as little as possible the bad karma, then the analogy of the forces of gravity is inaccurate.

v/r

Q