• 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!

Did you know.

Spirit of Light

Be who ever you want
That in Buddhism there is teachings about the realm of 33 Gods?
Yes actually in the Dhamma (teaching) Buddha do talk about God, But not in the way of an everlasting Creator God. Buddha used the word God in a sense of the Dhamma or teaching, because the teaching will lead toward the relalisation of enlightenment, and if you look at the meaning of God it is not only have one meaning.
But Buddhist do not see Buddha as a God in the sense of almighty.

Actually Buddha did not shy away from talk or discussion of God or Gods, He invited it in to discussion or talks.
I a not afraid to talk about Gods even as a buddhist. But i do not follow a God who is seen as creator :)

Buddha translated to English means Enlighten being or as long they stay on earth, Enlighten person.
the word God translated in to Buddhist language is Brahma :)
 
Last edited:

Brickjectivity

Turned to Stone. Now I stretch daily.
Staff member
Premium Member
That in Buddhism there is teachings about the realm of 33 Gods?
I did not, and I thought that gods were more of a teaching tool than an article of belief. I thought they were the predicate of logical statements. "If god does x then such & such must be true." The word 'Realm' could refer to the realm of imagination or emotion. Actually I got the impression that in Buddhism emotions were likened to demons. In ancient times how would one know the difference? Well perhaps they would learn the difference through studying and philosophical conversation? Perhaps Buddhism does not really have gods and demons (as articles that must be believed) but predicates in philosophical arguments. If I hear you say "The realm of 33 gods" I first assume that the number 33 is some sort of mnemonic or has a lesson associated with it -- like "8 Fold path" and "The 4 this and that." Seemingly numbers are arbitrary and are just memory aids.

Buddha translated to English means Enlighten being or as long they stay on earth, Enlighten person.
the word God translated in to Buddhist language is Brahma :)
There is a parallel to that in Christian teachings. They would call it becoming the word of God. It means different things to different Christians, but it is conceptually and semantically compatible with that idea. The basis for a Christian is that man is made in the image of God, which is actually a Jewish concept; and then the Christian will consider that embracing wisdom and compassion is replacing your dying parts with eternal ones. So then the mortal coil and the 'I' goes away, replaced by Christ. Not everybody sees it that way, but I point out that there is a similarity between Buddhism's enlightenment and at least one interpretation of Christ. You will not find this similarity among those who seek a physical afterlife where they go visiting old friends and family. There is not, therefore, a strong similarity between Buddhism and Christ but just occasional similarity.
 

Spirit of Light

Be who ever you want
I did not, and I thought that gods were more of a teaching tool than an article of belief. I thought they were the predicate of logical statements. "If god does x then such & such must be true." The word 'Realm' could refer to the realm of imagination or emotion. Actually I got the impression that in Buddhism emotions were likened to demons. In ancient times how would one know the difference? Well perhaps they would learn the difference through studying and philosophical conversation? Perhaps Buddhism does not really have gods and demons (as articles that must be believed) but predicates in philosophical arguments. If I hear you say "The realm of 33 gods" I first assume that the number 33 is some sort of mnemonic or has a lesson associated with it -- like "8 Fold path" and "The 4 this and that." Seemingly numbers are arbitrary and are just memory aids.


There is a parallel to that in Christian teachings. They would call it becoming the word of God. It means different things to different Christians, but it is conceptually and semantically compatible with that idea. The basis for a Christian is that man is made in the image of God, which is actually a Jewish concept; and then the Christian will consider that embracing wisdom and compassion is replacing your dying parts with eternal ones. So then the mortal coil and the 'I' goes away, replaced by Christ. Not everybody sees it that way, but I point out that there is a similarity between Buddhism's enlightenment and at least one interpretation of Christ. You will not find this similarity among those who seek a physical afterlife where they go visiting old friends and family. There is not, therefore, a strong similarity between Buddhism and Christ but just occasional similarity.

Thank you for your answer :)
There are both similarities and difference in Christinaity and Buddhism But the big difference is that Christianity belive in a creator God. The gods Buddha did talk about are not creators in same sense :)

I like much of what you write, i just wonder one thing :) What did you mean by "Actually I got the impression that in Buddhism emotions were likened to demons"
 

Epic Beard Man

Bearded Philosopher
But, but Wikipedia says:

"Buddhist thought consistently rejects the notion of a creator deity. It teaches the concept of gods, heavens and rebirths in its Saṃsāra doctrine, but it considers none of these gods as a creator. Buddhism posits that mundane deities such as Mahabrahma are misconstrued to be a creator. Buddhist ontology follows the doctrine of Dependent Origination, whereby all phenomena arise in dependence on other phenomena, hence no primal unmoved mover could be acknowledged or discerned."

Here is my question in all these rebirths and dying and what not so when you die and get reborn somehow who created this process? How does this process continue systemically with nobody to control it? It just all seems to me that there is a design behind the process. Nothing of this complexity exists in a vacuum.

Creator in Buddhism - Wikipedia
 
Last edited:

Spirit of Light

Be who ever you want
But, but Wikipedia says:

"Buddhist thought consistently rejects the notion of a creator deity. It teaches the concept of gods, heavens and rebirths in its Saṃsāra doctrine, but it considers none of these gods as a creator. Buddhism posits that mundane deities such as Mahabrahma are misconstrued to be a creator. Buddhist ontology follows the doctrine of Dependent Origination, whereby all phenomena arise in dependence on other phenomena, hence no primal unmoved mover could be acknowledged or discerned."

Creator in Buddhism - Wikipedia

That is similar to what i wrote in my OP :) There are buddhists who do reject that there are gods, but from what buddha did teach the brahma or gods do exist, but not as one omnipresent creator god. In buddhism as you also found gods are within the real of samsara/ reincarnation cycle.
This means that even they do have god "title" or enlightenment status they to can do wrong and fall if they become corupt and do less good moral action words or thoughts
 

Brickjectivity

Turned to Stone. Now I stretch daily.
Staff member
Premium Member
Thank you for your answer :)
There are both similarities and difference in Christinaity and Buddhism But the big difference is that Christianity belive in a creator God. The gods Buddha did talk about are not creators in same sense :)

I like much of what you write, i just wonder one thing :) What did you mean by "Actually I got the impression that in Buddhism emotions were likened to demons"
See this Wikipedia article on the Buddhist demon 'Mara' ? Mara (demon) - Wikipedia

It says Nyanaponika Thera has described Mara as "the personification of the forces antagonistic to enlightenment." I don't know who Nyanaponika Thera is, but they must be important to be in the article. Its pretty plain that if the demons are personifications then they aren't demons in the sense people think of this term.

It also says
In traditional Buddhism, four metaphorical forms of "māra" are given:[6]

Kleśa-māra, or Ma̋ra as the embodiment of all unskillful emotions, such as greed, hate and delusion.
Mṛtyu-māra, or Māra as death.
Skandha-māra, or Māra as metaphor for the entirety of conditioned existence.
Devaputra-māra, the deva of the sensuous realm, who tries to prevent Gautama Buddha from attaining liberation from the cycle of rebirth on the night of the Buddha´s enlightenment.
 

Spirit of Light

Be who ever you want
See this Wikipedia article on the Buddhist demon 'Mara' ? Mara (demon) - Wikipedia

It says Nyanaponika Thera has described Mara as "the personification of the forces antagonistic to enlightenment." I don't know who Nyanaponika Thera is, but they must be important to be in the article. Its pretty plain that if the demons are personifications then they aren't demons in the sense people think of this term.

It also says

Mara is the temptation we humans experiences every day :) and when cultivating the teaching of Buddha, we have guidelines that we follow to live a more and more righterous life according to the teaching. But in human life there is temptation everywhere. example if we are in a relationship and we know we should be fully faithful to this person, the temptation of other will arise. Humans do want what they do not have, that is called craving, but craving lead to suffering.
So if mara arise it means we are tempted to do something unwholsome and we need to step back and look at the situation. when we see we are about to do something unwholsome we will leave it alone and try to not get tempted of it again.

So to not let mara arise infront of us we let go of the attachments to the craving for what we do not have, or telling go of the attachments to those things that can hurt us.
 

Brickjectivity

Turned to Stone. Now I stretch daily.
Staff member
Premium Member
Mara is the temptation we humans experiences every day :) and when cultivating the teaching of Buddha, we have guidelines that we follow to live a more and more righterous life according to the teaching. But in human life there is temptation everywhere. example if we are in a relationship and we know we should be fully faithful to this person, the temptation of other will arise. Humans do want what they do not have, that is called craving, but craving lead to suffering.
So if mara arise it means we are tempted to do something unwholsome and we need to step back and look at the situation. when we see we are about to do something unwholsome we will leave it alone and try to not get tempted of it again.

So to not let mara arise infront of us we let go of the attachments to the craving for what we do not have, or telling go of the attachments to those things that can hurt us.
That is similar to the Christian idea. Christians have a (relatively) small canon of scripture. One of the shortest books by James has this to say "When tempted, no one should say, 'God is tempting me.' For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone; but each person is tempted when they are dragged away by their own evil desire and enticed." It sounds a lot like your concept of Mara.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
But, but Wikipedia says:

"Buddhist thought consistently rejects the notion of a creator deity. It teaches the concept of gods, heavens and rebirths in its Saṃsāra doctrine, but it considers none of these gods as a creator. Buddhism posits that mundane deities such as Mahabrahma are misconstrued to be a creator. Buddhist ontology follows the doctrine of Dependent Origination, whereby all phenomena arise in dependence on other phenomena, hence no primal unmoved mover could be acknowledged or discerned."

Here is my question in all these rebirths and dying and what not so when you die and get reborn somehow who created this process? How does this process continue systemically with nobody to control it? It just all seems to me that there is a design behind the process. Nothing of this complexity exists in a vacuum.

Creator in Buddhism - Wikipedia

I question 'Wikipedia says' in this case, because of the diversity of beliefs in Buddhism, and subjective nature of these conclusions. What you cited is far to definitive to represent Buddhism as a whole.

Mahabrahma is viewed differently in different divisions of Buddhism.Some view Mahabrahma similarly as the Brahman of many Hindu divisions. Mahabrahma has been variably described as 'a realm' of the everlasting beginningless sansara.

I will agree that Buddhism rejects the concept of anthropomorphic Creator God of the Abrahamic religions, but may be described as the undefined 'Source.'
 

Spirit of Light

Be who ever you want
I question 'Wikipedia says' in this case, because of the diversity of beliefs in Buddhism, and subjective nature of these conclusions. What you cited is far to definitive to represent Buddhism as a whole.

Mahabrahma is viewed differently in different divisions of Buddhism.Some view Mahabrahma similarly as the Brahman of many Hindu divisions. Mahabrahma has been variably described as 'a realm' of the everlasting beginningless sansara.

I will agree that Buddhism rejects the concept of anthropomorphic Creator God of the Abrahamic religions, but may be described as the undefined 'Source.'

Since i see my self as a follower of the theravada tradition in buddhism, what i say comes from this teching and from my own realisation from the cultivation, other traditions within buddhism may see it differently, not all buddhist teachings in different traditions comes from buddha sakyamuni (historical buddha)
 

Earthling

David Henson
That in Buddhism there is teachings about the realm of 33 Gods?
Yes actually in the Dhamma (teaching) Buddha do talk about God, But not in the way of an everlasting Creator God. Buddha used the word God in a sense of the Dhamma or teaching, because the teaching will lead toward the relalisation of enlightenment, and if you look at the meaning of God it is not only have one meaning.
But Buddhist do not see Buddha as a God in the sense of almighty.

Actually Buddha did not shy away from talk or discussion of God or Gods, He invited it in to discussion or talks.
I a not afraid to talk about Gods even as a buddhist. But i do not follow a God who is seen as creator :)

Buddha translated to English means Enlighten being or as long they stay on earth, Enlighten person.
the word God translated in to Buddhist language is Brahma :)

Okay. Buddha, that is, Siddhartha Gautama, (Sanskrit spelling) or Siddhattha Gotama, (Pali spelling), didn't believe in our Western concept of 'God,' but the very simple concept of god in general, outside of the Western concept of a "God," means mighty / respected which certainly could be applied to - well, anything.

So, from the Western perspective Dhamma, or Darmha, which is a Hindu teaching of cosmic law. A underlying right behavior and social order. In Buddhism it's the nature of reality regarded as a universal truth. It sort of is the teachings of, Buddhism (Link), isn't it?

My question is - how significant to you and the average Buddhist of any discipline - is the Buddha, and by that I don't mean "enlightened one" but specifically Siddhartha Gautama, who was trying to escape the trappings of Hinduism and it's complexities and seems to have, or at least his disciples have, exceeded those complexities. This, especially given that his words or teachings were not likely written down until 500 to 1000 years after his death.
 

GoodbyeDave

Well-Known Member
Go into a Buddhist temple in Thailand and it has images of Hindu gods. If Buddhists don't believe in gods, why should that be the case?

The only book on Buddhism I ever read was by the abbot of a Thai monastery and he also protested against the idea that Buddhism is atheistic, comparing his concept of god with Shankara's nirguna Brahman.

As for encyclopedias, one thing I've learnt over the years is to beware of western academics writing about non-European religions: if you want to learn about a religion, find a book by some-one raised in it, or at the very least by a convert. Too many professors of comparative religion are authoritative, scholarly, and wrong!
 

Spirit of Light

Be who ever you want
Okay. Buddha, that is, Siddhartha Gautama, (Sanskrit spelling) or Siddhattha Gotama, (Pali spelling), didn't believe in our Western concept of 'God,' but the very simple concept of god in general, outside of the Western concept of a "God," means mighty / respected which certainly could be applied to - well, anything.

So, from the Western perspective Dhamma, or Darmha, which is a Hindu teaching of cosmic law. A underlying right behavior and social order. In Buddhism it's the nature of reality regarded as a universal truth. It sort of is the teachings of, Buddhism (Link), isn't it?

My question is - how significant to you and the average Buddhist of any discipline - is the Buddha, and by that I don't mean "enlightened one" but specifically Siddhartha Gautama, who was trying to escape the trappings of Hinduism and it's complexities and seems to have, or at least his disciples have, exceeded those complexities. This, especially given that his words or teachings were not likely written down until 500 to 1000 years after his death.

Buddha Sakyamuni is the teacher of how to end the suffering in our human life, and by understanding the 4 noble truths and following the 8 folded path we can realise the same as he did, So to answer your question what buddha is to me, the teacher.
The teaching was kept in oral tradition for some generation after buddha Sakyamuni passing, but this was very common in that time. So the general teaching would have been kept correctly. actually the bigger problem was when the text was translated from sanskrit or pali to other languages, this i where we can see that it can be some small changes from translation to trnslation, but again the mainteaching and the important aspects of the teaching is as it was that time.
 

Spirit of Light

Be who ever you want
Go into a Buddhist temple in Thailand and it has images of Hindu gods. If Buddhists don't believe in gods, why should that be the case?

The only book on Buddhism I ever read was by the abbot of a Thai monastery and he also protested against the idea that Buddhism is atheistic, comparing his concept of god with Shankara's nirguna Brahman.

As for encyclopedias, one thing I've learnt over the years is to beware of western academics writing about non-European religions: if you want to learn about a religion, find a book by some-one raised in it, or at the very least by a convert. Too many professors of comparative religion are authoritative, scholarly, and wrong!
I study the Digha Nikaya (long discourses of the buddha) that is the original theravada teaching, and normally i do not take much teachings from todays monks, even i do have spend time as a novice monk in monasaries. But i have studied the texts for more then 20 years now.

Do you have pictures of the hindu gods in buddhist temple? what you may have seen can be what is called devas
 

Earthling

David Henson
Buddha Sakyamuni is the teacher of how to end the suffering in our human life, and by understanding the 4 noble truths and following the 8 folded path we can realise the same as he did, So to answer your question what buddha is to me, the teacher.
The teaching was kept in oral tradition for some generation after buddha Sakyamuni passing, but this was very common in that time. So the general teaching would have been kept correctly. actually the bigger problem was when the text was translated from sanskrit or pali to other languages, this i where we can see that it can be some small changes from translation to trnslation, but again the mainteaching and the important aspects of the teaching is as it was that time.

I can see that, but to me, the really interesting thing is regarding Sakyamuni himself. I mean, I really like the practicality of the four noble truths, but to me the interesting thing is does Sakyamuni matter? Of what significance is he. From what I've read (Dhammapada, Gospel of Buddha, Four Noble Truths dissertation by Ajahn Sumedho) Sakyamuni didn't see himself as significant overall. I get the picture that he saw himself as the guy who figured this out but not as overtly significant otherwise.

I get the feeling that he kind of wanted to avoid the demigod status that was certainly a possible pitfall of his legacy. Would you agree, or do you think he is sort of . . . a god?
 

Spirit of Light

Be who ever you want
Go into a Buddhist temple in Thailand and it has images of Hindu gods. If Buddhists don't believe in gods, why should that be the case?

The only book on Buddhism I ever read was by the abbot of a Thai monastery and he also protested against the idea that Buddhism is atheistic, comparing his concept of god with Shankara's nirguna Brahman.

As for encyclopedias, one thing I've learnt over the years is to beware of western academics writing about non-European religions: if you want to learn about a religion, find a book by some-one raised in it, or at the very least by a convert. Too many professors of comparative religion are authoritative, scholarly, and wrong!
I found the answer to your hindu gods in buddhist temple. yes in thailand you can find some statues of hindu gods, this is from earlier time when hindusim spread to thailand before Buddhism did get foothold there.

Here is the link Why Thailand Has Hindu Statues at Buddhist Temples
 

Spirit of Light

Be who ever you want
I can see that, but to me, the really interesting thing is regarding Sakyamuni himself. I mean, I really like the practicality of the four noble truths, but to me the interesting thing is does Sakyamuni matter? Of what significance is he. From what I've read (Dhammapada, Gospel of Buddha, Four Noble Truths dissertation by Ajahn Sumedho) Sakyamuni didn't see himself as significant overall. I get the picture that he saw himself as the guy who figured this out but not as overtly significant otherwise.

I get the feeling that he kind of wanted to avoid the demigod status that was certainly a possible pitfall of his legacy. Would you agree, or do you think he is sort of . . . a god?
It is the teaching that is important yes :) Buddha sakyamuni is the founder of the buddhist dhamma/teaching so he is the teacher but as i say it is the teaching we must understand and realise what buddha did too

But we do take refuge in the Buddha, dhamma and sangha (buddha, teaching, monastaries)
 
Last edited:

GoodbyeDave

Well-Known Member
The article you refer to indicated that people do offer worship to the deities, as I said.

Obviously your beliefs may be closer to what Buddha taught than what many believe today, but it's always a problem to say who is "authentic" — the beliefs of the first generation of followers of Jesus were probably similar to the modern Unitarians, who are not considered Christian! I tend to follow the man in the street in preference to scholars: for me religion is about experiences, not books.
 
Top