Buddhists and God

Ask the Lama Lama Surya Das If There's No God in Buddhism, Are Buddhists Atheists? Our columnist explains why not. Q: Is there a God in Buddhism? I read in a book by the pope that Buddhism is atheistic and life-denying.A: I read the same thing in the pope's book "Crossing the Threshold of Hope," in a chapter called "Buddha?" But the pontiff should know better, or at least be better informed by his scholar-advisers. Buddhism is neither atheistic nor life-denying. We can witness this in the great surge of socially activist Buddhists in the Western countries today, which includes the widespread movement of so-called "engaged Buddhism" founded in part by the Vietnamese Zen master, poet, and peace activist Thich Nhat Hanh. There is great affirmation and hope in Buddhist teaching, or Buddha-dharma, and great respect and reverence for life in all its forms, human and otherwise. In fact, Buddhism is generally considered to be not atheistic but agnostic, in that, the Buddha himself did not deny the existence of God. The Indian teacher and social reformer teacher called Sakyamuni Buddha is reported to have either kept silent when asked whether God existed, or in other cases to have said that his Noble Eightfold path led to enlightenment and deathless peace, and did not require faith or belief in a divine being or supreme creator. "Buddhism Without Beliefs," by the former monk and Buddhist scholar Stephen Batchelor, offers a fine argument for the agnostic thinking of basic Buddhism. Q: Do you believe in hell? And if not, what keeps you from sin? A: I don't believe in eternal damnation or hell. Everything is impermanent, or so it seems to me. Transience and impermanence is also one of the fundamental tenets of Buddhism, simply a fact of life from the Buddhist perspective. Of course, it does seem like some beings do live in and experience truly hellacious states of mind, due to their karma. That is probably enough suffering for anyone, and my heart goes out to them, wishing they may expiate their sins, exhaust their bad karma, and eventually evolve out of the darkness. What keeps me from sin is a felt understanding about karmic cause and effect: that what goes around comes around, that as we sow, we shall reap. That, combined with my deep wish to do no harm. I am also trained in and committed to the five fundamental lay Buddhist ethical precepts of cherishing life, honesty, right action, non-intoxication, and sexual responsibility, which helps me stay grounded and balanced, experience spiritual wellness and wholeness, and keeps me in alignment with the universal law. This is Buddha's Middle Path, free of extremism, and it brings freedom, inner peace and harmony, wisdom, and joyous fulfillment. Fear of hellfire is not necessary to motivate me to live a moral life, challenging as that may occasionally prove to be. I prefer to strive for virtue and to live a wholesome, happy, nonviolent, service-oriented life that contributes to the greater good. For I would rather be part of the solution to the world's woes than part of that problem.

Buddhism and God

And What About God? Do Buddhist believe in a Creator-God? Buddhists believe that there are beings that inhabit the various celestial realms. These are variously called angels, spirits, gods and devas by various cultures. But do Buddhists believe that a God created everything and manipulate human lives? No, we do not. There are several reasons for this. Modern sociologists and psychologists, believed that religious ideas and especially the Creator-God idea have their origin in fear. The Buddha says: "Gripped by fear men go to the sacred mountains, sacred groves, sacred trees and shrines ~ Dhammapada 188" Primitive man found himself 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 was constantly with him. Finding no security, he created the idea of a God that gives him 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 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 supports 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 Buddhists do not believe in a Creator-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. For centuries, men have prayed to God for protection from war, from natural calamities and disease. Yet till today, these prayers remain unanswered. This is not surprising. Even less surprising is that so many different religions having spent so many centuries trying to prove the existence of their God there remains no real, substantial or irrefutable evidence. The third reason the Buddhists do not believe in a Creator-God is that the belief is not necessary. Some claim that the belief in a God is necessary in order to explain the origin on 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 there is no reason nor any other reasonable basis to 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. "He who has eyes can see the sickening sight, Why does not God set his creatures right?If his wide power no limit can restrain, Why is his hand so rarely spread to bless?Why are his creatures all condemned to pain? Why does he not to all give happiness?Why do fraud, lies, and ignorance prevail? Why triumphs falsehood -- truth and justice fail?I count your God one among the unjust , who made a world in which to shelter wrong." ~ Bhuridatta Jataka" But so many people believe in some form of a Creator, it must be true. Not so. There was a time when everyone believed that the world was flat, but they were all wrong. The number of people who believe in an idea is no measure of the truth or falsehood of that idea. The only way we can tell whether an idea is true or not is by looking at the facts and examining the evidence. If people continue to believe in God, they do so through faith, and faith is simply holding on to a belief when reason, logic and the evidence says otherwise. So if Buddhists don't believe in God, what do you believe in? Each human being is precious and important, as all have the potential to develop the qualities of a Buddha – a perfected human being. Human beings can outgrow ignorance and irrationality and see things as they really are. Hatred, anger, spite and jealousy can be replaced by love, patience, generosity and kindness. All this is within the grasp of each person if they make the effort, are guided and supported by fellow Buddhists and inspired by the example of the Buddha. So if Buddhists do not believe in God, is it an atheistic religion? Buddhism is an atheistic religion only because it rejects the theistic and primitive concept of a Creator-God. The idea of God as a bearded old man looking down at us from the heavens and manipulating humans like in a puppet show appears ridiculous. Instead, Buddhists have as their highest ideal the state of Nirvana. The Buddha calls it the highest bliss. It is a state beyond all conceptual thought and is described by the Buddha as the Unborn, the Uncreated. "There is O monks, an Unborn, Unoriginated, Uncreated, Unformed. Were there not, o monks, this Unborn, Unoriginated, Uncreated, Unformed, there would be no escape from the world of the born, originated, created, formed. ~ Udana, 80-81" Buddhism teaches that the focus of our attention should not be an imaginary God and pointless speculation about what such a God did in the past and what he will do in the future. Instead, Buddhism is immensely more pragmatic. It teaches to focus our attention on ourselves, - to determine what is the cause of our sorrows and pain and to find a way to liberate ourselves from these. These teachings are encapsulated in the Four Noble Truths.

Buddhism and God

Buddhism is generally viewed as a religion without a Supreme Being or Creator God. This is especially the case in connection with the Pali scriptures. Yet some Mahayana sutras envision the Buddha as the "god above the gods", as a primal, eternal, sustaining essence within all beings and phenomena, while some tantras paint a portrait of the Buddha on a cosmological scale and in cosmogonic terms as the emanator of all universes. To the extent that the Buddha is seen in this way as the indestructible Ground of all, even as the progenitor of all persons and phenomena, he can be equated to a mystical notion of Godhead. Gautama Buddha (as portrayed in the Pali scriptures/ the agamas) set an important trend in nontheism in Buddhism in the sense of denying the existence of an omnipotent Creator God[1]. Nevertheless, in many passages in the Tripitaka Gautama Buddha spoke about gods and gave specific examples of individuals who were reborn as a god, or gods who were reborn as humans. Buddhist cosmology recognizes various levels and types of gods, but none of these gods is considered the creator of the world or of the human race[2]. In Mahayana Buddhism there is far less reticence on the part of the Buddha to speak of metaphysical matters (including the all-pervasiveness of Buddha's "body" throughout the universe - see trikaya). A distinction therefore needs to be drawn between the teachings ascribed to the Buddha in the Pāli Canon or the Āgamas, which do not speak affirmatively of an omnipotent Creator God, and the more explicitly mystical ideas attributed to the Buddha in some Mahayana sutras and Tantras, where expression is given to an apparent Ultimate Ground of all things - the immanent, omniscient, and transcendent Reality of the Awakened Mind or the boundless sphere of the "Buddha Nature" (buddha-dhatu or Tathagatagarbha; see, for example, the Mahaparinirvana Sutra and the Kunjed Gyalpo Tantra). In both the Pali suttas and the Mahayana sutras, the Buddha does teach the existence of "gods" (devas). These are not, however, "God" but merely heavenly beings who temporarily dwell in celestial worlds of great happiness. Such beings are not eternal in that incarnational form and are subject to death and eventual rebirth into lower realms of existence[3]. While Buddhism does not deny the existence of supernatural beings (e.g., the devas, of which many are discussed in Buddhist scripture), it does not ascribe power for creation, salvation or judgment to them. Like humans, they are regarded as having the power to affect worldly events and so some Buddhist schools associate with them via ritual. All supernatural beings, as living entities, are a part of the six-part reincarnation cycle. Certain Buddhists (particularly in the modern West) hold to an interpretation of Buddhism that admits nothing of either the supernatural or divinity. In non-theistic views, realms and gods are viewed with a liberal dose of metaphor, as tools to understand aspects of Mind, and indeed this is supported by some sutras such as the Lankavatara Sutra. Contents[hide] 1 First Cause in Buddhism - Ignorance 2 The God idea in early Buddhism 3 Mahayana and tantric mystical doctrines 3.1 God as Manifestation of Mind 4 Brahman in Earliest Buddhism 5 See also 6 Literature 7 References 8 External links // [edit] First Cause in Buddhism - Ignorance What is deemed as "Creation of the world" by an all-powerful God in many other religions is not accepted by any school of Buddhism. Avidya or ignorance is the closest thing to a "first cause" or principle of creation and not any God or Buddha. By removal of this ignorance with wisdom or prajna, we understand things as they really are and thus attain to Buddhahood. [edit] The God idea in early Buddhism The Buddha of the Pāli suttas (scriptures) dismisses as “foolish talk”, as “ridiculous, mere words, a vain and empty thing” (Digha-Nikaya No. 13, Tevijja Sutta) the notion that Brahmins (the priestly caste), who according to the Buddha have not in fact seen Brahma face to face, can teach others how to achieve union with what they themselves have never beheld. This is not a denial of the existence of Brahma, however, but merely intended (by the Buddha) to indicate the folly of those religious teachers who would lead others to what they themselves do not personally know. Yet Brahma himself (see Brahmajala Sutta), for example, while not denied by the Buddha, is in no way viewed by him as a sovereign, all-knowing, all-powerful Creator God. Brahma (in common with all other devas) is subject to change, final decline and death, just as are all other sentient beings in samsara (the plane of continual reincarnation and suffering). Instead of belief in such a would-be Creator God as Brahma (a benign heavenly being who is in reality not yet free from self-delusion and the processes of rebirth), the wise are encouraged to practise the Dharma (spiritual truth) of the Buddha, in which right vision, right thinking, right speaking, right acting, right living, right effort, right attentive awareness, and right meditative absorption are paramount and are said to bring spiritual Liberation. The “God idea” forms no part of Theravada Buddhism's doctrine of release from suffering - although some see in the “deathless realm of Nirvana” a hint of an impersonal, transcendental Absolute. Sir Charles Elliot in his Hinduism and Buddhism: An Historical Sketch correctly describes God in early Buddhism as: The attitude of early Buddhism to the spirit world—the hosts of deities and demons who people this and other spheres. Their existence is assumed, but the truths of religion are not dependent on them, and attempts to use their influence by sacrifices and oracles are deprecated as vulgar practices similar to juggling. The systems of philosophy then in vogue were mostly not theistic, and, strange as the words may sound, religion had little to do with the gods. If this be thought to rest on a mistranslation, it is certainly true that the dhamma had very little to do with devas. Often as the Devas figure in early Buddhist stories, the significance of their appearance nearly always lies in their relations with the Buddha or his disciples. Of mere mythology, such as the dealings of Brahma and Indra with other gods, there is little. In fact the gods, though freely invoked as accessories, are not taken seriously, and there are some extremely curious passages in which Gotama seems to laugh at them, much as the sceptics of the 18th century laughed at Jehovah. Thus in the [Pali Canon] Kevaddha Sutta he relates how a monk who was puzzled by a metaphysical problem applied to various gods and finally accosted Brahma himself in the presence of all his retinue. After hearing the question, which was “Where do the elements cease and leave no trace behind?” Brahma replies, “I am the Great Brahma, the Supreme, the Mighty, the All-seeing, the Ruler, the Lord of all, the Controller, the Creator, the Chief of all, appointing to each his place, the Ancient of days, the Father of all that are and are to be.” “But,” said the monk, “I did not ask you, friend, whether you were indeed all you now say, but I ask you where the four elements cease and leave no trace.” Then the Great Brahma took him by the arm and led him aside and said, “These gods think I know and understand everything. Therefore I gave no answer in their presence. But I do not know the answer to your question and you had better go and ask the Buddha.” Even more curiously ironic is the account given of the origin of Brahma. There comes a time when this world system passes away and then certain beings are reborn in the “World of Radiance” and remain there a long time. Sooner or later, the world system begins to evolve again and the palace of Brahma appears, but it is empty. Then some being whose time is up falls from the “World of Radiance” and comes to life in the palace and remains there alone. At last he wishes for company, and it so happens that other beings whose time is up fall from the “World of Radiance” and join him. And the first being thinks that he is Great Brahma, the Creator, because when he felt lonely and wished for companions other beings appeared. And the other beings accept this view. And at last one of Brahma’s retinue falls from that state and is born in the human world and, if he can remember his previous birth, he reflects that he is transitory but that Brahma still remains and from this he draws the erroneous conclusion that Brahma is eternal. He who dared to represent Brahma (for which name we might substitute Allah or Jehovah) as a pompous deluded individual worried by the difficulty of keeping up his position had more than the usual share of scepticism and irony. The compilers of such discourses regarded the gods as mere embellishments, as gargoyles and quaint figures in the cathedral porch, not as saints above the altar. [1] [edit] Mahayana and tantric mystical doctrines The situation takes on a different complexion in Mahayana and Tantric Buddhism. Here one encounters the notion of the Buddhas as kinds of cosmic wizards or magicians, as the creators of, and rulers over, “Buddha fields” (Buddha Paradises – whole world systems of spiritual exaltation and instruction). Although there are countless Buddhas, their essence is one - that of "Tathata" ("suchness" or "that-ness") - , and it is in this sense that the Buddha proclaims himself as "Tathagata" and exalts himself in theistic terms beyond all other "gods" when he declares: "I am the god above the gods, superior to all the gods; no god is like me - how could there be a higher?" (Lalitavistara Sutra). There are also many examples in the Pāli Canon, where the Buddha shows his magical superiority over the Brahma class of gods. So this was already present in the Pāli scriptures/ agamas. His realm (“dhatu”), of which he is the "Holy King" (Nirvana Sutra), is further said to be inherent in all beings. This indwelling, indestructible, incomprehensible, divine sphere or essence is called the “Buddha-dhatu” (Buddha-sphere, Buddha-nature, Buddha-realm) or “Tathagatagarbha” in such sutras as the “Mahaparinirvana Sutra” and the “Anunatva-Apurnatva-Nirdesa”. Further, the idea of an eternal, all-pervading, all-knowing, immaculate, uncreated and deathless Ground of Being (the dharmadhatu, inherently linked to the sattvadhatu, the realm of beings), which is the Awakened Mind (bodhicitta) or Dharmakaya (“body of Truth”) of the Buddha himself, is promulgated in such texts. In the Mahavairocana Sutra, this essence of the one ultimate Buddha, named Vairocana, is symbolised by the letter “A”, which is said to reside in the hearts of all beings and of which Buddha Vairocana declares: “[the mystic letter ‘A’] is placed in the heart location: it is Lord and Master of all, and it pervades entirely all the animate and inanimate. ‘A’ is the highest life-energy …” (The Maha-Vairocana-Abhisambodhi Tantra, p. 331). This great Vairocana Buddha is called: “the Bhagavat [= Blessed One - a term traditionally linked in Indian discourse with "the Divine"], Master of the Dharma, the Sage who is completely perfect, who is all-pervasive, who encompasses all world systems, who is All-Knowing, the Lord Vairocana” (p. 355). The Tantric text, The Sarva-Tathagata-Tattva-Samgraha, eulogises the supreme Buddha Vairocana in the following theistic paeons: “He is universal Goodness, beneficial, destroyer [of suffering], the great Lord of Happiness, sky womb, Great Luminosity … the great All-perceiving Lord … He is without beginning or end … [He is] Vishnu [God] … Protector of the world, the sky, the earth … The elements, the good benefactor of beings, All things … the Blessed Rest, Eternal … The Self of all the Buddhas … Pre-eminent over all, and master of the world.” Similar God-like descriptions are encountered in the All-Creating King Tantra (Kunjed Gyalpo Tantra), where the universal Mind of Awakening (personified as “Samantabhadra Buddha” - the “All-Good”) declares of himself: “I am the core of all that exists. I am the seed of all that exists. I am the cause of all that exists. I am the trunk of all that exists. I am the foundation of all that exists. I am the root of existence. I am ‘the core’ because I contain all phenomena. I am ‘the seed’ because I give birth to everything. I am ‘the cause’ because all comes from me. I am ‘the trunk’ because the ramifications of every event sprout from me. I am ‘the foundation’ because all abides in me. I am called ‘the root’ because I am everything.” (The Supreme Source, p. 157). Thus Buddhism spans a grand arch from evident non-theism to mystically hued mentalist pantheism. There is also in Mahayana Buddhism, the concept of an Ādibuddha (Adi-Buddha). This being is the primordial, self-existent, self-created Buddha who some believe that the whole of creation stems from. However, all these so called God-like figures, i.e Samantabhadra, Vairochana, Vajradhara etc. are traditionally understood to be personifications of emptiness, the true nature of all phenomena. Some modern Buddhists see the above Samantabhadra Buddha quote as radically subjective psychology, while still others will insist that the words mean what they say and do communicate the sense of an actual sustaining Buddhic force or spiritual essence behind and within all phenomena. [edit] God as Manifestation of Mind One of the more important Mahayana Sutras, the Lankavatara Sutra, states that the notions of a sovereign God, Atman are figments of the imagination or manifestations of the mind and can also be an impediment to perfection as this leads to attachment to the concept of "God": All such notions as causation, succession, atoms, primary elements, that make up personality, personal soul, Supreme Spirit, Sovereign God, Creator, are all figments of the imagination and manifestations of mind. No, Mahamati, the Tathágata’s doctrine of the Womb of Tathágata-hood is not the same as the philosopher’s Atman.[2] However, the same sutra also sees the Buddha reveal that he is the One who is actually being addressed when beings project from their unawakened minds notions of Divinity and address themselves to "God". The many names for such ultimate Being or Truth are in fact said by the Buddha to be unwitting appellations of the Buddha himself. He states: The same can be said of myself as I appear in this world of patience before ignorant people and where I am known by uncounted trillions of names. They address me by different names not realizing that they are all names of the one Tathagata. Some recognize me as Sun, as Moon; some as a reincarnation of the ancient sages; some as one of "ten powers"; some as Rama, some as Indra, and some as Varuna. Still there are others who speak of me as The Un-born, as Emptiness, as "Suchness," as Truth, as Reality, as Ultimate Principle; still there are others who see me as Dharmakaya, as Nirvana, as the Eternal; some speak of me as sameness, as non-duality, as un-dying, as formless; some think of me as the doctrine of Buddha-causation, or of Emancipation, or of the Noble Path; and some think of me as Divine Mind and Noble Wisdom. Thus in this world and in other worlds am I known by these uncounted names, but they all see me as the moon is seen in the water. Though they all honor, praise and esteem me, they do not fully understand the meaning and significance of the words they use; not having their own self-realization of Truth they cling to the words of their canonical books, or to what has been told to them, or to what they have imagined, and fail to see that the name they are using is only one of the many names of the Tathagata. In their studies they follow the mere words of the text vainly trying to gain the true meaning, instead of having confidence in the one "text" where self-confirming Truth is revealed, that is, having confidence in the self-realization of noble Wisdom.[3] In the "Sagathakam" section of the sutra, one also reads of the reality of the pure Self (atman), which (while not identical to the atman of the Hindus) is equated with the Tathagatagarbha (Buddha-Essence): "The atma [Self] characterised with purity is the state of self-realisation; this is the Tathagatagarbha, which does not belong to the realm of the theorisers." [4]. This Tathagatagarbha is in the Lankavatara Sutra identified with the root or all-containing Consciousness of all beings, the Alaya-vijnana. This Tathagatagarbha-Alayavijnana is stated not to belong to the realm of speculation, but can be understood directly by "those Bodhisatva-Mahasattvas [great Bodhisattvas] who like you [Mahamati] are endowed with subtle, fine, penetrative thought-power and whose understanding is in accordance with the meaning ..." [5]. [edit] Brahman in Earliest Buddhism It has been asserted by current secular Buddhism, that Buddhism knows only of the gods (Brahma) and nothing of the Godhead/Absolute/Agathon Brahman. In actuality there can be doubt that in the grammatically ambiguous _expression Brahmabhu’to (attano) which describes the condition of those who are wholly liberated, that it is Brahman (the Absolute) and not Brahma (deva, or mere god) that is in the text and must be read; for it is by Brahman that one who is “wholly awake” has ”become.” The highest appellation in Buddhist Nikayan sutra is “Brahambhutena attano” [MN 1.341] “The Soul is having become Brahman”; absolutely equivalent to ‘Tat tvam asi’ (That/Brahman, thou art). For the Buddha himself is = Brahmabhu’to (Become That, Brahman). For (1) the comparatively limited knowledge of a Brahma is repeatedly emphasized, and (2) Brahmas are accordingly the Buddhas pupils, not he theirs [S 1.141-145; Mil 75-76], (3) The Buddha had already been in previous births a Brahma (god) and a Mahabrahma [AN 4.88] hence it is meaningless and absurd in the equation to say Brahmabhu’to=Buddho [AN 5.22; DN 3.84; It 57 etc.], to assume that Brahman= Brahma (god) and that (4) the Buddha is explicitly “much more than a Mahabrahma" [DhA 2.60]. [DN 3.84] "The Tathagata means 'the body of Brahman', 'become Brahman'." (this passage also proves [from earlier context] that Brahma (god/s) is utterly diffferent than the word Brahman). [DN 1.249] “ I teach the way to the union with Brahman, I know the way to the supreme union with Brahman, and the path and means leading to Brahman, whereby the world of Brahman may be gained.” [DN 1.248] ”all the peoples say that Gotama is the supreme teacher of the way leading to the Union with Brahman!” [3.646 Pat-Att.] “To have become Brahman [is the meaning of] Brahmabhuto.” [Atthakanipata-Att. 5.72] “To become Brahman is to become highest Svabhava (Self-nature).” [It 57] “Become-Brahman is the meaning of Tathagata.” [SN 3.83] “Without taints, it meant ‘Become-Brahman’.” [SN 5.5] “The Aryan Eightfold Path is the designation for Brahmayana (path to Brahman).” [MN 1.341] “The Soul is having become Brahman.” [SN 4.117] "Found the ancient path leading to Brahman." [edit] See also Anunatva-Apurnatva-Nirdesa Brahmajala Sutta Buddha as an Avatara of Vishnu Buddha-nature Faith in Buddhism God Kunjed Gyalpo Tantra Mahaparinirvana Sutra Nontheism in Buddhism Tathagatagarbha Trikaya [edit] Literature The Supreme Source, C. Norbu, A. Clemente (Snow Lion Publications, New York 1999) The Maha-Vairocana-Abhisambodhi Tantra, tr. by Stephen Hodge (Routledge Curzon, London 2003) The Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra, tr. by Kosho Yamamoto, ed. and revised by Dr. Tony Page (Nirvana Publications, London 1999-2000) [edit] References ^ Sir Charles Elliot. "Hinduism and Buddhism: An Historical Sketch" (English). ^ Lankaavatar Sutra, Chapter VI ^ Lankavatar Sutra, Chapter XII Tathagatahood Which Is Noble Wisdom, translated by Suzuki and Goddard ^ (see Suzuki, op. cit. p. 282) ^ (op. cit. p. 193) [edit] External links Christian FAQs by Ryuei Emptiness & God - A Buddhist Perspective by E-Sangha Buddha Teachings A Study of Buddhism in Contrast to Christianity Gandhi and Lord Buddha Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_in_Buddhism" Categories: Buddhist philosophical concepts Comparative Buddhism

Buddhism and God

Buddhism and God Ajahn Jagaro There are so many other things we could be doing rather than listening to a talk about Buddhism and God, so many important things in our lives which are crucial to our material well-being. However, anyone who has taken the trouble to come here this evening will appreciate that there is something more important than our material well-being - and that is the spiritual aspect of life. We have to devote a great deal of time and energy, both physical and mental, to obtaining comfortable living conditions and creating a safe and pleasant environment for ourselves and our families. But is that all there is to life? There is something else which is at least equally as important as the material aspect of life, which is the spiritual side. Unfortunately, Australian society is traditionally not very interested in religion. In one sense this is unfortunate. In another sense, it is fortunate that our culture is rather disinterested in religion, because this means there are not such strong fanatical tendencies. In fact Australian society is probably one of the most free, open and fair societies as far as the practice, study and choice of religious paths in concerned. It would be very difficult to find another society that offers such a degree of freedom and fairness. People quite often ask me whether, being a Buddhist monk, I have encountered any discrimination in coming to Australia. The answer is no, none at all, it's a very fair society. I only wish that other societies, other cultures, other countries, and other religions in this world were as free and as fair as here in Australia. That is the good side of a society that has not made religion into an obsession. But, of course, the unavoidable consequence is that Australian society is very wishy-washy when it comes to religion. Religion is not a major concern in people's lives. Nevertheless, these days there are growing numbers of people who are beginning to realise the need for something other than material comforts, a spiritual need. You could say it is a religious need, or a need of the heart. It is something other than just striving to get enough to eat, a place to live, money, a car and success. There is a need for something more than that, and that is a religious or spiritual need. Talking about the spiritual or religious side of life, we encounter a tremendous variety of beliefs, and every belief system has its own vocabulary. A large proportion of our population has been brought up and conditioned by the terminology, attitudes, values, assumptions and beliefs that are prevalent in this particular culture. This doesn't necessarily mean that people will believe them or follow them completely, but they cannot escape the fact that it is part of their make-up or their conditioning. It considerably affects the assumptions they make about life, the world, existence, the future, birth and death. So much that is part of our culture comes from religious beliefs. For those who have been brought up in a culture that is not Christian, such as Muslim, Hindu or Buddhist, the conditioning is very different. The terminology, assumptions, beliefs and attitudes towards life, death, the future and our existence are very different. This is why a lot of confusion arises when different belief systems or religions come into contact. People from a theistic background coming into contact with Buddhism inevitably ask if Buddhists believe in God. This arises because for them religion is always equated with God. For them, God is religion, you cannot separate the two. If you are going to talk about religion then you must talk about God. To find out whether a Buddhist is a religious person, the first thing asked is, "Do you believe in God?" If you say yes, you are obviously all right, you are a religious person. If you say no, then you aren't a religious person. But for those who have received their conditioning from a Buddhist culture, that question is a strange one. It really has nothing to do with religion. It is an irrelevant question which leads to a lot of misunderstandings. A lot of assumptions are made without careful consideration or understanding of what we are talking about. Where does God fit in? I chose this topic because I think it is of interest in our situation, where Buddhist people are living amongst a predominantly theistic culture, mainly Christian, and as such often encounter such questions regarding God. People new to Buddhism and taking up many of its practices are often perplexed or unresolved as to where God fits into the picture - not that they necessarily //want// God to fit in, but due to their past conditioning they can't help wondering about God's relation to all this. I shall endeavour to talk around this topic, sharing some ideas, reflections and personal appreciation, rather than giving a lecture. It may be helpful to you; you don't have to believe it, you don't have to take it as the word of authority, or as Buddhist dogma. You should consider wisely, reflect on it and use your capacity to contemplate and reason clearly; not only to contemplate and question what I say, but to question your own thoughts, assumptions and beliefs on the subject. It is not good to believe others too easily, but neither is it good to believe yourself too easily. You are no more trustworthy than others, in the sense that much of our thinking is conditioned, biased and contained within fixed limitations. If we stay within that limited view, in that limited belief system and its assumptions, we are going to remain trapped and we will be unable to grow. There is a fine line between being gullible and being hidebound. That fine line is the point of sincerity, the desire to understand, the humility to admit that one may not be right, that one may not know. It is the sincerity and openness to contemplate and see things from different angles, to try to understand and trust in the human ability to consider things carefully. Dare to question, be open, be willing to listen; question and consider. The first thing to question is the very word "God" - it's a strange word, because as soon as you say the word 'God' something comes into your mind. What it is depends on what kind of conditioning you have received through a lifetime of association with a culture and a belief system. The word 'God' has an immediate emotive effect, certain assumptions arise in the mind. That is the first problem with the word, because your mind is already closed. It is important for us to contemplate this word 'God'. What is God? What do we mean by this word 'God', by 'belief in God'? If you are going to believe something you first have to know what it is. If you ask me whether I believe in God, my response is to ask, "What do you mean by God?" Tell me what you mean by the word, and then I can tell you whether I believe it or not. This is where it becomes so interesting, because as soon as we say that everybody gives a different answer - and I mean everybody. They may agree on some generalizations if they are from the same cultural heritage, but when you look closely there will be many disagreements on the details. If we went around the world asking five billion people, "What do you mean by God?" we would get a billion different answers. Now what does that indicate? I suggest that it indicates a very fundamental, recurring situation. The God that we are talking about is created by the individual who talks about it. That is why each individual talks about it in a slightly different way. What they are describing is actually the God they are creating in their own minds. That is all that they can describe. You may think that if you talk about God to Christians they will all have the same idea of God, but there will be many discrepancies in their descriptions of God. Man creates God I heard a story which I can't really believe is true, although I guess by repeating it I'm giving it some validity. The story comes from a Buddhist monk who was very outspoken about Christianity, because he had once been a very staunch Catholic, but had renounced Catholicism. You tend to get very 'anti' when you renounce something, like getting divorced. This monk went to a meeting where there were Christians from different parts of the world, all talking about God. There was a European who said, "God is a white man;" there was an Asian who said, "God is an Asian;" there was a black man who said, "God is a black man;" and there was a woman who said, "God is a woman." Even if this story isn't true, it's not very different from the way people talk about God. Note how much of theology today is based on God being a man, and European of course, because most of that theology was developed within the Roman Empire and was therefore European based. Of course today that is being challenged. Perhaps 'God the Mother' is the right terminology. Ridiculous though this story may be, it serves to illustrate the idea that people create God in their own image. Different people describe God in different ways. They tend to create God in their own minds - in other words they conceive God in their minds. And they can only create God in their own minds, in their own image, because all that they can create is the thoughts and images that they conceive. That is why we can recognise every description of God that we encounter. Have you ever noticed that? If I can recognise it, it means that it is something familiar to me, something very similar to me. I can relate to every aspect that is described, because it is something that has been created by the human mind. Now contemplate this in terms of the history of human religion, going back to its most primitive forms. What sort of gods were created and worshipped? They were rough, coarse, primitive - war gods, power gods, nature gods. The more fierce and warlike the tribe and culture, the more fierce and warlike the gods. As culture and society became more civilised, more emphasis began to be placed on other attributes, such as compassion, kindness and love. Consequently the form and description of the gods changed. Such is the progression of the descriptions of God that have been worshipped by people through the ages. This is evident even in a single religion, such as Christianity. If we look at the Bible carefully we can see an evolution in the form God takes, from a very fierce, warlike God to a more loving, compassionate God. I'm not saying that God changes, but the attributes that are described and attributed to him as represented in these books do change. What that means is that the people, the culture and the society are changing. They are changing in their psychology, toward an appreciation of more humane, more refined qualities. As they learn to appreciate these qualities and respect them, they then attribute them to God. You can recognise these attributes in yourself. Whether it is love, hatred, jealousy, fire and brimstone or universal compassion, you can always recognise them. That's the sort of thing that goes on in the human mind to one degree or another. Most of the primitive or older societies talked about God singular, one God as we have in the Christian, Muslim and Jewish faiths. But when the descriptions in these different religions are compared there is some disagreement. Generally the concept of God is as the creator who rewards and punishes, and it is a personal God. It is very hard for people to stop thinking about God as an entity with which they have some form of personal relationship, as a God who rewards and punishes. The Buddhist view Buddhism, however, has very different ideas on this matter. Buddhism grew out of a culture which certainly believed in gods, many levels of gods, called //devas//. There was also the highest level of gods, the //Brahma// gods, and Maha Brahma, the highest God. That was the Brahman belief system. There were many gods, and Maha Brahma was the great God, the creator, the destroyer and the punisher. Buddha made it very clear that he rejected this. Although you should not jump to any conclusion here, clearly a Buddhist can say at this point that Buddhism does not believe in a creator God, an all-powerful being that punishes and rewards. Buddhism simply does not teach this. The Buddha did not believe this, he did not teach it. It's an interesting statement because it seems so final. People will say that Buddhism is not a religion, it's just a philosophy, a way of life. Many people like to present it that way. Buddhist philosophy as a good way of life. But that is a very inaccurate and incomplete description of Buddhism. Why? The Buddha once made a very interesting statement concerning the motivation that led him to leave his home at the age of twenty-nine, in the midst of wealth, prosperity and good health. He said: "Why, being myself subject to birth, aging, sickness, death, sorrow and defilement, do I seek after that which is also subject to these things? Suppose, being myself subject to these things, seeing the danger in them, I were to seek after the unborn, unaging, unailing, deathless, sorrowless, undefiled, supreme freedom from bondage, Nibbana?" That is a very interesting statement from someone who says he doesn't believe in God. He didn't mention God, he didn't say, "I want to unite with Great Brahma eternally." But there is something very important in his statement that is obviously not concerned with material well-being, with comfort, with a nice philosophy about how to live with family and offspring or how to govern a country or make a decent living. He didn't say anything about that, but simply asked why he, being mortal, being subject to old age, sickness and death, should use his life to seek wealth, health, knowledge, position, power and family? Why should he use this life for these things? Instead, he decided to strive to realise the unconditioned, the unoriginated, the deathless, that which is free from mortality. This was the Buddha's motivation for leaving home and striving for something other than just a material goal in life or a philosophical idea or a different way of life. He had a definite goal. It was a spiritual goal, a religious goal, because, by definition, religion means that which binds to the highest, that which takes you to the highest. This was a tremendous spiritual quest. His realisation was a spiritual realisation because his Enlightenment was the very attainment of the unborn, the uncreated, the unoriginated, the complete freedom from mortality and bondage. What, then, do we make of this teaching? What do we make of this teacher who is obviously after something spiritual, who claimed to have attained and realised something spiritual, but who has nothing to do with God, and does not accept the idea of a creator God who rewards and punishes? He mentions gods, many kinds of them. In much the same way as the Hindu tradition, and to some extent as in the Islamic tradition which says there are many levels of heaven: depending on your level of merit, the closer you get to God. This is very similar to the Buddhist cosmology, where, according to accumulated merit, people are reborn into various heavenly realms. These realms increase in refinement up to the Brahma realm - not just one, but many. The Buddha did talk about gods, heavens, hells and beings in all three realms in his teaching, but with one important distinction: all these gods are mortal, all these realms are mortal. Mortal means that which is born and dies. Every being, in whatever shape or form, is subject to the process of birth and death. Every being in every realm, be it god, //deva//, hell-being, animal or human being, is born and dies, all are mortal. However that doesn't seem to fit the description of what people mean when they use the word 'God'. If you inform a Christian or a Muslim that God is born and dies they will not be very happy about that. That's not what Christians are referring to when they talk about God, not gods, //devas//, or spirits. They're referring to something different, something that isn't born and doesn't die. In Buddhism, all gods, //devas// and spirits are mortal. Some of the Brahma gods can become quite conceited and arrogant. There are many stories in the Buddhist texts where the Buddha used his psychic powers to confront these Brahma gods. In the scriptures, the Brahma god is portrayed as very arrogant and conceited, calling himself the All-Powerful, All-Knowing Creator. It's very easy to be arrogant when you are powerful, because power corrupts, but it always has its limits. These Brahma gods, too, eventually find their limits. They, too, pass away and are reborn in other realms. This is rather abstract and is obviously not what we mean in the English vocabulary by the word 'God', certainly not what is meant from the Christian or Muslim point of view. And it's not what the Buddha aimed at when he left home. He didn't aim at the Brahma realm and becoming the all-knowing, the all-powerful, the creator, the destroyer or even at going to live in the Brahma realm. He strove for the unborn, the unoriginated, the uncreated, the deathless. What is it that he strove for and attained, this ultimate goal? Was it God or the Buddhist equivalent of God? I would never say that, in view of the statement I made at the beginning of this talk, because as soon as you say 'God', people start getting ideas in their heads, and that is already far from the unborn, the unconditioned, the uncreated, the unoriginated, the deathless. All these words - the unborn, the unconditioned, the uncreated, the unoriginated, the deathless - tell you nothing. What comes into your mind? Nothing? Very good, you are getting a bit closer to it. This is very important, because until people understand this there will never be any understanding between religions. False Idols There will never be any true inter-religious dialogues until people appreciate that the false idols are not statues. No one would worship a statue as God or Buddha. Those statues represent something. They are symbols, just like a photograph of your mother: you don't stand on it, you put it up on the wall. You may even put some flowers in front of it. That's what a statue is. Not many people are inclined to attach to, or worship, idols of that nature. But the tendency of human beings, even intelligent human beings, to worship and believe in the idols they create in their own minds is very common. They cannot see that they are idols, false idols, that these beliefs are not the truth, or anything near the truth. It is their own creations of God which they worship, and that is why they will never reach the truth. What we think is what blocks us off from the truth. Thoughts, images, concepts - these are all barriers, obstacles to realising the unborn, the uncreated, the unconditioned. This is because by its very nature the unborn is beyond thought. Thought cannot reach it because thought is always creation. Thought is in creation, it is limited and dualistic. To that which Buddhism calls the highest, I would not put the label 'God', because the word 'God' is misinterpreted. One Christian monk defined God in a way which I find acceptable. He said, "God is the nothing that supports everything" - that's a very good definition and quite useable. But how many people would be prepared to accept that? You can't make head or tail of it anyway. Just like the unborn, the uncreated, the unoriginated - you can't make anything of that either. That's why it is so good; you're not supposed to be able to make something of it. If you make something of it you are creating something which is not real, you are creating God. We should stop creating God and realise the truth - that which is beyond creation. The Buddha made this wonderful statement: "There is, monks, an unborn, uncreated, an unconditioned. Here, monks, I say there is no coming, no going, no standing, no ceasing, no beginning. Not fixed, not movable, it has no support. Just this is the end of suffering." It's a very powerful statement, a very wonderful statement, a penetrating view of reality. Note that it is negative: negating all creation, negating all that is individual, negating all the characteristics that isolate, such as concepts of an individual, concepts that are dualistic, limited, mortal. It is pure negation, sweeping away everything. That is what the unconditioned is - when you sweep away all conditions. What sort of debate would it be, to ask is God a man or a woman? In the lower realms there are said to be both male and female gods, but even in the Brahma realms there are no longer male and female, because those beings are without bodies; they are radiant beings of pure consciousness. So how can the Ultimate be male or female? People can't give up the idea of a personal relationship with God the father: "Ask, and He will give; He will look after you and He will punish you." This is incompatible with the unborn, the unoriginated, the unconditioned, the deathless. There is no personal relationship with this. It has nothing to do with rewarding and punishing, having a chosen people, punishing non-chosen people. This is the unborn, uncreated, unconditioned - that's all. Just realising it is freedom from all bondage, from all rounds of mortality, from all limitations. So what about all this punishment and reward? Is Buddhism somehow lacking? No, because the Buddha pointed to very fundamental truths. Everything that comes into existence, which is the whole round of mortality, exists according to laws. These fundamental laws have nothing to do with reward and punishment. There's no one there to reward, no one there to punish. These laws of nature can be expressed very simply in a broader sense, as the Law of Dependent Origination (//Paticcasamuppada//), like this: When this is, that is;When this arises, that arises;When this is not, that is not;When this ceases, that ceases. This is a very simple little formula, meaning that everything that comes into being does so dependent on conditions. When the conditions are there, the result is there. That result in turn becomes a condition for other results. It is a pure relationship of cause and effect, not linear, but multi-faceted. It is a fundamental and all-inclusive law, a self-contained system. This leads to the next question: "Who made that law?" This is where Buddhism is radically different. What is the beginning? Who created things? These questions are based on certain assumptions. As soon as you say, "Who created?" something outside is implied, but in Buddhism we say mortality is a self-contained system. No beginning can be seen. Of course, that's not very satisfactory. If you say, 'This part is the beginning", you have to say what is before that point. It is like asking, "What is the smallest number?" It depends on which school you went to. A child in Grade One might say number one; a PhD might say something else. Whatever you say it can be cut back further, unless you say zero, and that's not a number. Where is the smallest number? Nowhere. Where is the beginning? Nowhere. The system doesn't have a beginning. It's the wrong way of looking at it. Buddhism says there is no beginning, no creator, because as soon as you say there is a beginning, the question arises, who created it? Who created the creator? You just go round in circles. This is a self-contained system. Everything in this system follows the law of nature, all results depend on conditions. Why does it rain today? "God made it rain." This is very simplistic. It rained because the conditions were right for it to rain. Not many people today say "God made it rain." It depends on certain conditions. Is it a reward or a punishment? It depends on how you view it. This is a law that operates at all levels, physical, mental, emotional and spiritual. In is a more personal and spiritual sense, Buddhism talks about the Law of //Kamma//, which is a more specific application of this wider, all-inclusive Law of Dependent Origination. The Law of //Kamma// states that through the doing of certain volitional actions, certain results will come about. Good actions bring good results, bad actions bring bad results. This is not punishment, just natural results. The idea of God the rewarder or punisher is replaced by the law of nature. It is impersonal, it has no bias and makes deals with no one. There are no favorites, the Law is very neutral and very fair. All people who develop goodness, regardless of their religion, go to heaven through the power of that goodness. When that power of goodness fades away they die and are reborn somewhere else. Goodness and evil have their own rewards according to the laws of nature. These laws are fundamental, they are the basis of nature. This is the Buddhist explanation of that which is normally attributed to God. The role of punishing, rewarding, creating and destroying is all taken over by the laws of nature. The idea of God as something ultimate, which is the idea behind all religion, is now presented in this very enlightenment, absolutely free from any limitation or blemish of mortality, as the unborn, the unoriginated, the uncreated, the deathless. It's a wonderful way of putting it if you can open your mind to it. Then you see how it frees you from so many illogical, unsustainable conflicts that arise from the usual way of thinking about God. Ajahn Jagaro (now John Cianciosi)

Buddhism and God

The Buddhist Attitude to God By Dr V. A. Gunasekara {Statement made to a Multi-religious Seminar} Introduction The standpoint adopted here is primarily that of Theravada Buddhism. But most of what is said will be applicable to most other Buddhist traditions. The Theravada tradition, also called the Southern school of Buddhism, is based on texts maintained in the Pali language, which are the oldest of the existing Canons of Buddhism and reputed to be the closest to the teaching of the Buddha himself. There is no place for God in the Mahayana traditions of Buddhism as well, and indeed some of the early Indian Mahayana philosophers have denounced god-worship in terms which are even stronger than those expressed in the Theravada literature. Some later Mahayana schools, which flourished outside India, ascribed some degree of divinity to a transcendent Buddha, considering living Buddhas to be a manifestation of this âdhi-buddha. But even here it cannot be said that the Buddha was converted into a Divinity comparable to the God of the monotheistic religions. Buddhism as a Non-Theistic Religion Buddhism is unique amongst the religions of the world because it does not have any place for God in its soteriology. Indeed most Asian religions (with the possible exception of some extremely devotional forms of Hinduism) are essentially non-theistic, in that God does not occupy the central place that is accorded to him in monotheistic religious traditions. But Buddhism goes beyond most of these other religions in that it is positively anti-theistic because the very notion of God conflicts with some principles which are fundamental to the Buddhist view of the world and the role of humans in it (see section "The God-Concept and Buddhist Principles" below). However Buddhism is not atheistic in the sense that modern secularism, rationalism, humanism, etc. could be regarded to be atheistic (although it has much in common with them). Buddhism is not concerned primarily with refuting the notion of God (as some atheistic writers have done). It is principally concerned with developing a method of escape from the worldly ills. This involves undertaking a method of mental discipline and a code of conduct, which is sufficient to satisfy the most demanding of spiritual requirements. Indeed only very little of the Buddha's voluminous discourses deal directly with the question of God. He was more interested in expounding a way to personal salvation, and to improve the weal of mankind both in this world and in the worlds to come. It is this task that informs most of the discourses of the Buddha which later came to be compiled into the various Canons of Buddhism. The Buddha did not take an ambiguous or agnostic position on the question of God as he is sometimes represented as having taken by theistically inclined writers. The Buddha has stated his position on God in clear and unequivocal terms. The Notion of God It is first of all necessary to establish what is meant by the term "God". This term is used to designate a Supreme Being endowed with the qualities of omnipotence and omniscience, who is the creator of the universe with all its contents, and the chief law-giver for humans. God is generally considered as being concerned with the welfare of his human creatures, and the ultimate salvation of those who follow his dictates. God is therefore a person of some kind, and the question whether such an entity exists or not is fundamental to all theistic systems. In contrast to this notion of a personal God some modern theologians have interpreted the term "God" as representing some kind of abstract principle of good (or "ground of being"). This view was first developed in the ancient Indian Upanishads where God is equated with an abstract principle (Brahman). The ancient Indian philosophers could entertain such a view because they also had a theory of karma, which really does away with the need for a personal God. Buddhists too have a theory of karma, which is different from that of the Hindus, and which even more unequivocally dispenses with the need for a Deity. The use of the term "God' to denote an abstract reality by monotheistic theologians who have no theory of karma is difficult to justify; one suspects that this is merely a device to explain away the contradictions that arise from the notion of a personal God. In fact the actual practice of theistic religion proceeds as if God is a real person of some kind or other. Just as Buddhism rejects the notion of a Supreme God it also rejects the notion of an abstract God-principle operating in the universe. The notion of Brahman (in the neuter) is not discussed at all in the Buddhist texts, and even in India it may well be a post-Buddhist development resulting from the attempt to reconcile the belief in God(s) with the powerful critique of the Buddha. It is therefore the attitude of Buddhism to the notion of a supreme personal God animating the Universe that we must consider. Buddhism speaks of the existence of category of beings called devas. This term is generally translated as "gods" (with a simple `g' and in the plural). The term deva literally means a shining or radiant being, and describes their physical appearance rather than their supernatural powers (as the translation "gods" seems to imply). To prevent confusion with the notion of a supreme personal God we shall refer to these beings of Buddhist cosmology as devas. Many other religions also postulate the existence of non-human beings who are referred to as `gods' or `angels' if they are considered to be in a better position than humans (with respect to their material conditions of existence). Buddhist cosmology recognizes thirty-two planes of existence some of the higher planes being either states of meditative abstraction or actual domains for the devas. Generally we have direct experience of only two of these 32 planes (those of humans and animals). Planes of existence below these two realms are also said to exist and are characterized by greater degrees of suffering and discomfort. The actual physical location of these planes need not concern us here because the dimensions of the Buddhist universe are even greater than those envisaged by modern astronomy and will contain enough places to accommodate all these planes of existence. We can easily dispose of the devas in the context of the Buddhist attitude to God because the devas are essentially irrelevant to the human situation. Beings are born in the deva-worlds because of particular karmic factors they have accumulated, and after these karmic factors are exhausted they could revert to any of the other planes of existence depending on their unexpended karma. The devas are not particularly endowed with special powers to influence others, and far from saving anyone else they themselves are not "saved". Salvation in Buddhism comes only from full enlightenment, which could be best accomplished from the human plane of existence. The Vedic and Brahmanical religion of the Buddha's day postulated a large number of gods, many of them personifications of natural forces. However Brahmanical theology had advanced to the point that one of these gods was considered to be superior to all others, and was even considered to be the creator-god (Ishvara). This supreme god could then be considered as the equivalent to the single God of the monotheistic religions which emerged in the Middle East. Different names have been given to the supreme god in the Brahmanical and later Hindu literature, but in Buddhist texts the supreme god is referred to as Mahâ-Brahmâ (or simply Brahmâ) who was the chief of a class of gods called the Brahmâs. Brahmâ of the Buddhist texts may be considered to be the equivalent of the God of the three monotheistic religions that was to emerge in the Middle East. The first of these was Judaism, which promoted one its gods Yahweh as the one God sometime about the 6th century BCE. Next Christianity adopted the same god under the name of Jehovah who is represented as the "Father" of Jesus. Finally Islam adopted the name of Allah for their only God. To get the Buddha's views on God we must therefore consider his views on Brahmâ. One popular misconception of Buddhism must be dismissed at this point. This is view that the Buddha is some kind of God figure. In the Theravada tradition the Buddha is regarded as a supremely enlightened human teacher who has come to his last birth in samsára (the Buddhist cycle of existence). Even Mahayana traditions, which tend to think in terms of transcendental Buddhas, do not directly make a claim for Buddha as God. Thus the Buddha cannot be considered as playing a God-like role in Buddhism. The Buddhist View of God In the Buddhist texts Mahâ Brahmâ is represented as claiming the following attributes for himself: "I am Brahmâ, the Great Brahmâ, the Supreme One, the Mighty, the All-seeing, the Ruler, the Lord of all, the Maker, the Creator, the Chief of all appointing to each his place, the Ancient of days, the Father of all that is and will be." (Dîgha Nikáya, II, 263). The Buddha dismisses all these claims of Mahâ Brahmâ as being due to his own delusions brought about by ignorance. He argues that Mahâ-Brahmâ is simply another deva, perhaps with greater karmic force than the other gods, but nonetheless a deva and therefore unenlightened and subject to the samsâric process as determined by his karma. In such Suttas as the Brahmajâla sutta and the Agga¤¤a Sutta the Buddha refutes the claims of Maha Brahmâ and shows him to be subject to karmic law (i.e. cosmic law). Even though long-lived Mahâ Brahmâ will be eliminated in each cycle of inevitable world dissolution and re-evolution. In the Khevadda Sutta Mahâ Brahmâ is forced to admit to an inquiring monk that he is unable to answer a question that is posed to him, and advises the monk to consult the Buddha. This clearly shows the Brahmâ acknowledges the superiority of the Buddha. The Buddhist view is that gods may lead more comfortable lives and be addicted to all the sense pleasures, but in terms of wisdom might be inferior to humans. They are even represented as coming to receive instruction from monks and even lay persons. Later on with the Hindu revival and proliferation of God-cults the Buddhists were increasingly vocal against the pretensions of God and his retinue of lesser gods. Nargarjuna the Indian Buddhist philosopher of the 2nd century CE expressed a commonly shared Buddhist view when he wrote: The gods are all eternal scoundrelsIncapable of dissolving the suffering of impermanence.Those who serve them and venerate themMay even in this world sink into a sea of sorrow.We know the gods are false and have no concrete being;Therefore the wise man believes them notThe fate of the world depends on causes and conditionsTherefore the wise man many not rely on gods. Mahâpajâpâramitâshâstra [Lamotte trans. I, p.141] In the West a number of "arguments" have been adduced to prove or disprove the existence of God. Some of these were anticipated by the Buddha. One of the most popular is the "first cause" argument according to which everything must have a cause, and God is considered the first cause of the Universe. The Buddhist theory of causation says that every thing must have preconditions for its existence, and this law must also extend to "God" should such an entity exist. But while the "first cause" claims that God creates everything, it exempts God from the ambit of this law. However if exemptions are made with respect to God such exemptions could be made with respect to other things also hereby contradicting the principle of the first cause. But the argument which the Buddha most frequently uses is what is now called the "argument from evil" which in the Buddhist sense could be stated as the argument from dukkha (suffering or un-satisfactoriness). This states that the empirical fact of the existence of dukkha cannot be reconciled with the existence of an omnipotent and omniscient being who is also all good. The following verses from the Bhûridatta Jataka bring this out clearly: If the creator of the world entireThey call God, of every being be the LordWhy does he order such misfortuneAnd not create concord? sace hi so issaro sabbalokeBrahmâ bahûbhûtapati pajâna.mki.m sabbaloke vidah alakkhi.mki.m sabbaloka.m na sukhi.m akâsi If the creator of the world entireThey call God, of every being be the LordWhy prevail deceit, lies and ignorance And he such inequity and injustice create? sace hi so issaro sabbalokeBrahmâ bahûbhûtapati pajâna.mmâyâmusâvajjamadena c'api loka.m adhammena kimatthakâsi If the creator of the world entireThey call God, of every being be the Lord Then an evil master is he, (O Aritta) Knowing what's right did let wrong prevail! sace hi so issaro sabbalokeBrahmâ bahûbhûtapati pajâna.madhammiyo bhûtapat Ari.t.thadhamme sat yo vidahi adhamma.m (Translated by the Author) The Buddha argues that the three most commonly given attributes of God, viz. omnipotence, omniscience and benevolence towards humanity cannot all be mutually compatible with the existential fact of dukkha. From the Buddhist standpoint the classic theistic statement that "God created man in his (i.e. God's) image" has actually to be reversed. It is man who has created God in his (i.e. man's) image! And as man's own image changes so does that of his God. Thus in the present time with the rise of feminism there is an attempt to change the gender of God from a man to a woman (or perhaps even to a neuter). To liberate himself mankind has to shed his delusions, and one of these is the existence of God. The God-Concept and Buddhist Principles Quite apart from explicit statements refuting the God-idea there is a fundamental incompatibility between the notion of God and basic Buddhist principles. We have already mentioned that God cannot be reconciled with the Buddhist notion of causality, which is contained in the theory of "dependent origination" which is one of the discoveries of the Buddha during his enlightenment. Certainly nothing like this theory has been propounded prior to the Buddha. A fundamental Buddhist belief is that all phenomena without exemption (including all animate beings) have three essential characteristics. These are dukkha (explained above), anicca (impermanence), and anattá (insubstantiality, "no-soul"). The attributes of God are not consistent with these universal marks of existence. Thus God must be free from dukkha; he must be eternal (and hence not subject to anicca); finally he must have a distinct unchanging identity (and therefore lack the characteristic of anattá). Another concomitant of the God-idea that is fundamentally incompatible with Buddhism is the belief that God acts as the final judge and could determine if individuals go to heaven or hell. According to Buddhism the destination of individuals is determined by the karmic law, which cannot be interfered by any external process. Only individuals can effect their karmic destinies; even a Buddha cannot "pardon" or otherwise interfere with the karmic process. In Buddhism there is simply no place for a God even if one were to exist. There is also no place for the notion of vicarious salvation, or atonement for human sins by a "suffering" God. The Buddha affirms that "by oneself is kamma done and by oneself is kamma undone". According to Buddhism no one (and this includes gods or God) can save another. This is a cardinal principle of the Buddha, which cannot be reconciled with the declared attributes and actions of God. The Buddhist path to salvation is based on deeds (including mental culture through "meditation") not prayer. God appears to Buddhists to be a vain being expecting all others to pray to him and worship him. Indeed such prayer seems to be the most decisive factor in a person's salvation, not necessarily any good or bad deeds by him. But as mentioned above in Buddhism it is volitional action with determines the karma of an individual. There is no doubt some similarities in the moral codes of Buddhism and some theistic religions. Things like compassion are inculcated in all religions. But in Buddhism this does not arise from a heavenly dictate and there is no limitation in the exercise of these virtues as occurs in some theistic religion. The Persistence of the God-Idea The Buddha's refutation of the God-concept was formulated some 2500 years ago, perhaps at the very time that the idea of a single supreme God was mooted in India and in the Middle East. With the rise of modern science, and the discovery of natural causes for phenomena, which were formerly ascribed to the action of God, some philosophers have restated the basic fallacies of the God-hypothesis using modern science and logic (and not the Buddha's Dhamma) as their point of departure. Yet many people in the world formally subscribe to the notion of God. What is the Buddhist explanation for this phenomenon? There are many causes for the persistence of the God-idea. Some of these are induced by social and other factors. These include the institutionalization of theistic religion, the use of vast economic resources to propagate it including the mass media, and the legal right given to parents to impose their religions on their children. There is also the attractiveness of vicarious salvation, or salvation through prayer or forgiveness which permits the committing of many moral crimes for which the doer does not "pay". We shall not consider these here. From the Buddhist point of view the root causes are ignorance and fear, with fear itself ultimately the product of ignorance. Atheistic materialism has failed to dislodge the God-idea not because of any deficiency of its arguments when compared to those put forward by the theists, but because it too has not been able to eliminate ignorance. The ignorance (avijjâ) that is meant here cannot be eliminated by formal education and the propagation of scientific knowledge. After all some leading scientists are themselves completely deluded by theistic suppositions. The progress of science has resulted only in a minor diminution in the power of theistic religion, and in any case theologians have become adept at "reinterpreting" dogma while the general followers continue to do what they have always done. The Buddha himself grasped the over-pervading nature of ignorance because of his titanic struggle to liberate himself. He even initially displayed some reluctance to propagate his knowledge because of the formidable nature of the task. Nonetheless he proclaimed his knowledge out of compassion for the world because he felt that at least a few "with little dust in their eyes" would be able to benefit fully from his ideas. From the Buddhist point of view the persistence of theism, with all its evil consequences seen in history, is a necessary consequence of the persistence of ignorance. While intellectual and scientific knowledge is not the sole (or even essential) constituent of wisdom it could in the modern world with high levels of educational attainment be a good basis for it. But what is really required is the cultivation of the mind (bhâvanâ, samâdhi). This is usually referred to as "meditation" even though this term is quite inadequate to convey the full implications of what is meant. Many modern-day "meditation teachers" do not give instruction in Buddhist mental culture, and even some of those who claim to do so may take a literal view of a few classic Buddhist texts on the subject. The Buddhist path requires a correct balance between three components: wisdom, morality and mental culture. Progress in all these three areas must be made simultaneously, and exclusive concentration on any one these, especially "meditation" of a highly stylized form, is not the balanced path. The Buddha has asked all his disciples to go to the Dhamma as their guide rather than to specific teachers. The Buddha's final instruction to his followers was to "work out your own salvation with diligence" with the Buddha's teaching (the Dhamma) as the only guide. The path of the Buddha cannot be followed if a person is deluded by the notion of God. This is why a correct understanding of all the ramifications of the God-idea is essential for anyone seeking to progress along the Buddhist path to total liberation.

Buddhism and God

God in Buddhismhttp://www.geocities.com/scimah/ Definition of GodHow do you define God? 'Define' means place limits on, so maybe it's blasphemous even to try to define God, if this implies that the creature is attempting to place limits on its Creator. But this certainly hasn't stopped people from trying to define God in the past. In fact, disagreements about the definition of the Indefinable have been one of the major causes of wars, persecution and terrorism during the past two millenia. To quote Revel and Ricard [REF1]:'Intolerance is something that arose with monotheism. As soon as human beings allowed themselves to say, 'There's only one true God, and that's mine, so I have the right to annihilate anyone who doesn't believe in him', the cycle of intolerance and religious wars began. [This was written before Sept 11!] God the CreatorGod is usually held to be the creator of the universe. Pantheists hold that God is still present within and throughout His creation. Deists believe that God is totally separate from His creation - a watchmaker who constructed the mechanism, wound it up, and then let it run down according to the laws of thermodynamics, with no further intervention. A Personal GodGod is anthropomorphic, at least to the extent of being sexually differentiated as male rather than female (why?). God the JudgeIn all religions (apart from Buddhism) God is the Judge of the Dead. Good people and/or true believers go up to heaven. Bad people and/or atheists and heretics (who disbelieve in God or believe in the wrong definition of God) go to hell, where they are subjected to sadistic tortures for all eternity. The actual criteria for sorting out who goes to which destination is a matter of debate within the the various denominations. Some favor salvation by works, others salvation by faith, and yet others salvation by a bit of both. Salvation by WorksSalvation by works consists of collecting Brownie points. Good deeds earn positive points, bad deeds negative ones. When you die your points are counted, and if you've got more positive than negative you go to heaven, if more negative than positive it's eternity in hell. If you've got exactly the same number of each, they flip a coin. Salvation by FaithSalvation by faith places more emphasis on what you believe than what you actually do. So if your religion has, say, 39 Articles of Faith and you believe 20 and disbelieve 19, then up you go. But if you only believe 19 then you go down. The coin-flipping situation can be completely avoided by having an odd number of articles of faith. CompassionGod is often stated to be omniscient, omnipotent and compassionate, but this is where the trouble starts, as these qualities are mutually exclusive. You can have any two but not all three. There is a contradiction in the idea of a supreme being who is omniscient, compassionate and yet creates souls in the knowledge that they are damned to eternal agony in hell. If God is omniscient then he knows all events both past and future, including how people will behave, and their ultimate fate in hell or heaven. He knows this before they are even born. God has already condemned newborn babes to eternal fire. Within time or outside time?If God exists within time, and is subject to the uncertainties of Time just like the rest of us, then Time is ultimately more powerful than God. Hail Chronos, Lord and Devourer of All! If God is omniscient and exists outside time, then he can never make a decision or choose a course of action, because he knows in advance exactly what his future actions will be for all eternity. The entire history and future of the universe will be laid out before him like the frames of a movie. He cannot decide to change his mind because he knows in advance when and how he will decide to change his mind, so his mind will already be made up. Such a God would be totally paralysed by His own pre-ordained future. The Abrahamic theologians have overspecified God with various power attributes to such an extent that he has become a logically impossible being. For example: OmnipotenceIf he is omnipotent, can he produce a truly indestructible object? If he can't then he's not omnipotent. If he can then he's not omnipotent either because now there's one action he cannot do (destroy the truly indestructible). God and SatanIf God is good then why is there so much human and animal suffering in His creation? If suffering and other evils result from Satan rather than God, then why doesn't God get rid of Satan - after all, God is omnipotent and Satan is limited? In any case, if God is omniscient he knows what Satan is going to do in advance, so God could always outwit Satan and spoil his devious plots if he wanted to. Free will and changelessness.Can God create autonomous beings, whose wishes and intentions he can't control? Most Buddhists and neo-pagans claim that humans have free will. Most materialists and some Christians (especially Calvinists) claim that free will does not exist. Materialists reject free will on the basis of physicalist determinism. Calvinist Christians reject free-will because in creating autonomous beings God would lose his omnipotence (he couldn't control their actions). Which implies that by creating such beings he would have changed in his ultimate nature from a perfect being to a limited being. Thus God would be seen as inconstant, changing and indeed diminishing over time. This is regarded by Christians as a theological non-starter. Perfection and PredestinationIf God is perfect then he is sufficient in Himself. So why bother to create a world at all? The Abrahamic regions claim that the purpose of the universe is to act as a soul-sorting machine to sort good souls from bad. But if God is omniscient, he already knows which are the rejects before they're loaded onto the conveyor belt, so why construct such a huge, wasteful and extravagant mechanism in the first place? BUDDHISM AND GODBuddhism is sometimes said to be an agnostic religion. Certainly there is no concept of God as the vindictive, judgemental, time-subservient warlord of the Old Testament, or the infantile bogeyman of the Koran. Buddhism has ethical objections to the idea of a God who throws infidels and sinners into everlasting torment. The Buddhist ideal is that of the Enlightened Being, who has vowed to save all sentient beings from their suffering. What also causes problems is that Buddhism is as much a philosophy as it is a religion, and does not adopt logically inconsistent doctrines. The concept of an 'inherently-existent' God is fraught with difficulties: Buddhist philosophy regards all phenomena as being 'dependently-related' , that is existing contingently upon three relationships.(1) In relation to their causes(2) In relation to their parts.(3) In relation to the mind of the observer.(see Sunyata for further discussion) The opposite of being 'dependently-related' is to be 'inherently-existent', ie existing from its own side. An inherently existent thing contains the reason for its existence within itself. The standard Christian idea of God is that He is self-defined and not dependently-related to anything else. God is an uncaused monad with no constituent parts who exists even in the absence of any other observer. But the fact that he is not dependently-related to anything else means that no external event can change his state, so he cannot, for example, become angry if someone blasphemes against him. Neither can he forgive someone against whom he has a grudge. An inherently-existent God can never change nor be other than what He has always been, and can in no way make any reference to Time. Nor can he in any other way interact with, or receive information from dependently-related entities. He resides in splendid isolation for all eternity. Neither can he be bipolar, having an inherently-existent 'end' embedded in the Platonic Realm and a dependently-related 'end' reaching into the contingent universe It is logically impossible to have an interface between the two ends. For in Him we live, and move, and have our being.Having described the Buddhist objections to the overspecified inherently-existent God, it should be pointed out that Buddhism is not purposely atheistic, and certainly does not deny the existence of a God in the sense of that in which 'we live and move and have our being' [ACTS 17, 28]. Perhaps we can shed some light on this concept of God by considering Buddhist views on the 'Participatory Anthropic Principle' of cosmology, whereby God provides the possibilities, but sentient beings choose the actualities. To quote from the article on the Participatory Anthropic Principle: 'In the absence of an observer, the evolving universe remained as a 'multiverse' - a coherant quantum superposition of all logically possible states. Throughout its early history the universe continued to develop as an immense superposition of probabilities. Not only was the structure of the universe superposed, but all logically possible states of matter, physical constants, properties and laws were simultaneously present and evolving into ever increasing diversity.Quantum theory states that any physical system remains in a superposed state of all possibilities until it interacts with the mind of an observer. Both quantum theory and Buddhist teachings on sunyata suggest that as soon as an observer's mind makes contact with a superposed system, all the numerous possibilities collapse into one actuality. At some instant one of these possible alternative universes produced an observing lifeform - an animal with a nervous system which was sufficiently evolved to form a symbiotic association with a primordial mind. The first act of observation by this mind caused the entire superposed multiverse to collapse immediately into one of its numerous alternatives.That one alternative version of the multiverse was not just the first configuration to be inhabitable by mind. The fact that it was the first configuration also guaranteed that it was the only configuration. All uninhabited alternative universes, ranging from the nearly-but-not-quite habitable few, to the anarchic and unstructured vast majority, were instantly excluded from potential existence. According to the participatory anthopic principle, the evolving multiverse was thus always destined to resolve itself into a sufficiently ordered state to allow itself to be observed.' Now the sentient being who collapsed the superposition determined the actualisation of the laws of physics. But a myriad other strands of potential existence remained unactualised, and still remain unactualised and will forever remain unactualised. The difference between potential and actuality has, does, and will result from the choices (including ethical choices) of sentient beings. The strand was never actualised in which the young Adolf Hitler, motivated by his love of military uniform, chose to join the Salvation Army and devote his organisational genius to making it the greatest force for the relief of poverty and the eradication of disease that the world has ever seen. The strand was never actualised in which Joseph Stalin realised that absolute power caused absolute corruption, and decided to continue his studies at Tiflis theological seminary and lead the Orthodox Church through the turbulent times ahead. God provides the options in vast profusion. We make the choices. This view of God accords with the grandeur of the Mahayana conception of humanity's place in the cosmos. God is indefinable (in the sense that limits cannot be set on Her potential). She is pregnant with all possibilities (see Sanskrit root of sunyata), and She is the source of freedom whereby the choices of sentient beings dictate the actualisation of their myriad potentials. But how does this view of God correspond to traditional Christian views, and in particular can it resolve the conflict between omnisicience, omnipotence and compassion? Omniscient - Yes, all that ever was, ever will be, ever could have been, and ever might still be - are included within God. Their actualisation as experiences depends upon the choices made by sentient beings. Omnipotent. -Yes, in the sense that all potentials are present. The driving power to make anything that could logically occur actually occur ('breathe fire into the equations') is available. Compassionate Yes, the samsaric universe, for all its apparent faults, provides a path for deluded primordial mind to achieve enlightenment. Thus from the viewpoint of an Awakened Being, the universe is a perfect ground for advanced beings to rescue other migrators and bring them to enlightenment. Judgemental - No, all beings will eventually be saved (Bodhisatva vow) God within time or outside time? Neither - time operates within God - She is pregnant with possibility, and time consists of a series of instances of actualisation of those possibilities. See also: Buddhist Teachingson the mind, personal relationships, meditation and the spiritual path. Islam and BuddhismResponses to a Muslim intellectual's critique of Buddhism.Anthropology of religion'...Among many anthropologists it has recently become fashionable to dismiss all religions as memes - parasitic mental processes which propagate in the same manner as chain letters...' Anti-Buddhist argumentsThe usual arguments against Buddhism and Buddhist philosophy. Artificial Intelligence (AI)'...Computationalism or philosophical AI, (sometimes also known as Strong AI), which is the view that all human mental activities are reducible to algorithms, and could therefore be implemented on a computer...' Bardo'... To the western materialist, the state of a 'dead' mind is OFF / Non-Existent / No Activity. It is the ultimate Quietus - no experience whatsoever. To the Buddhist it is impossible to envisage 'no mind'. The state of a disembodied mind is active, hallucinatory and, depending on its karmic imprints, sometimes nightmarish...' Buddha '..all sentient beings, human and animal, are regarded as having Buddha seed..'Compassion'...compassion is the root of a Buddha because all Buddhas arise fom the mind of compassion, it is the root of Dharma because Buddhas give Dharma teachings out of compassion for others, and it is the root of the Sangha because it is impossible to become Sangha without practising compassion.'Cosmology'It has often been remarked by physicists and chemists that the universe is very sensitively tuned to allow life to exist. If certain physical and chemical constants were just a fraction out from their observed values, life could never have arisen.'Creationism'Bible-believing creationists claim that the world and all its species were created in six days of a single week around 4004 BC . In contrast, Buddhist philosophy is evolutionary. Buddha taught that all things are impermanent, constantly arising, becoming, changing and fading.'Darwinism 'The theological objection is that evolution states that there is a continuum between ape and man, ie human and animal.. This is not a problem for Buddhists, who believe that both humans and animals possess sentient minds which survive death. However it is a major problem for theologians. The church has always taught that only humans have immortal souls, whereas animals are automata whose minds cease at death'Dharma and dogma'Buddha Shakyamuni never claimed to have any higher authority for his teachings than his own experience.'Dualism'The western response to materialism is dualism, which claims that there are two kinds of things in the universe - material objects and souls. The major exponent of dualism was Descartes. Dualism implies that mental experience is a radically new feature that only humans possess, and a late optional extra slipped into an already well-defined, functional, physical universe.'Dukkha'Dukkha is sometimes translated as suffering but in actual fact encompasses all senses of unsatisfactoriness, even including pleasure (which evolution has contrived will always be a transient sensation - lest it detract too much from the grim business of survival).' ExclusivismMost religions teach that they are the one true path to salvation and all unbelievers are cast into hell. This is a doctrine known as exclusivism. Buddhism is not exclusivist. Any person guided in their activities by compassion is regarded as following a beneficial spiritual path.Feminine spirituality, philosophy and science'Why is God male rather than female? Gender is required to allow DNA to recombine and evolve in different and potentially novel combinations. Patriarchal religions preach that God is a single unborn, uncreated, unevolved, non-biological entity who does not reproduce and will endure for all eternity. He hasn't undergone evolution Himself, so why does He need to be sexually differentiated at all?.Feud between Science and Religion'Many (most?) scientists believe religions to be irrational, obscurantist and anti-scientific The problem goes back to Galileo, who discovered that the earth goes round the sun, rather than vice-versa as stated in the Bible.'Formless mind'The description of the root mind as 'formless' doesn't just refer to its non-material nature, but it emphasises that it is unlimited, non-mechanistic and totally free from any structure or topology. . In Buddhist psychology the root mind is non-physical and non-algorithmic. The mind cannot be understood in terms of circuit diagrams and flowcharts. It is pure awareness.' InterfaithInterfaith conference ends in homophobic riot!Karma'Sow an action, reap a habit. Sow a habit, reap a character. Sow a character, reap a destiny.' Mahayana'The Mahayana practitioner's objective is to achieve advanced spiritual states (culminating after many lifetimes in Buddhahood), in order to guide, teach and ultimately rescue all unhappy sentient beings from their suffering. To do this she needs to develop a number of attributes including great compassion (bodhicitta). 'Marxism'In Marxist countries most religions were suppressed to a greater or lesser extent, Buddhism being a particular object of persecution. The reason for this is fairly clear, for unlike the other belief-systems that Marxism encountered, Buddhism was the only one which offered a rational, logically coherent philosophy, and thus presented a real ideological threat to the Marxist materialist worldview'.Materialism'...The version of materialism prevalent nowadays is more accurately known as physicalism. Physicalism has grown out of advances during the second half of the twentieth century in the fields of genetics, evolution and computer technology. Modern physicalism takes as its subject matter DNA codes, computer instruction sets and datastructures, rather than the bouncing billiard balls of the nineteenth and early twentieth century materialists..' Mathematics - Its unreasonable effectiveness in science and engineeringSo we are left with something of a mystery. According to the physicalist worldview, the mind (including mathematicians' minds) is an epiphenomenon of matter which has evolved solely to ensure the survival of the selfish genes which code for it. Why should this 'top-level' phenomenon have such intimate access to the 'bottom level' phenomena such as quantum physics? After all, the two levels are supposedly separated by less well-understood (in some cases) explanatory layers such as evolutionary psychology, neurology, cell biology, genetics, molecular biology, and chemistry.Meditation'There can be a number of objectives of meditation from simple relief of stress, through improving the long-term peace of mind in this life, up to stabilising and clarifying the subtle (permanent) mind that goes on to future lives.' Metaphysics'Metaphysics means, literally, 'beyond physics'. Metaphysics deals with phenomena which are either more basic than physics, or beyond the reach of physical methods of analysis and understanding.'Mind - experiencing its non-physical natureOne of the quickest ways to convince yourself that the root mind is not physical, (and is not therefore limited by one birth and one death), is to meditate on the formless nature of the mind.Mind over matterCan the mind directly affect sensitive machines?Obscurantism'At present the creationist/young earth view is winning within the US educational system, as more and more boards of education outlaw the teaching of evolution. The creationists' victory is being won not by the strength of their arguments, but by imposition of censorship. It is likely that soon many young Americans will simply never come into contact with the concepts of evolution either in their lessons or libraries.' Parietal Lobe and Mystical ExperienceTo the average Westerner, deliberately cultivating the idea that your ego doesn't exist as a fixed entity may seem weird and scary, but in fact it can be immensely liberating. As one of the researcher/meditators taking part in the study said "It feels like a loss of boundary. It's as if the film of your life broke and you were seeing the light that allowed the film to be projected"Particle physicsBasically, what quantum theory says is that fundamental particles are empty of inherent existence and exist in an undefined state of potentialities. They have no existence 'from their own side' and do not become 'real' until a mind interacts with them and gives them meaning. Qualia'The Buddhist does not doubt that the brain does some very sophisticated ordering of its incoming nerve impulses into the datastructures which are the objects of knowledge. But when all is said and done, those datastructures remain as objects. They are not themselves knowledge, neither are they that which performs the function of knowing.' Rebirth - reincarnationThe belief in rebirth is not confined to Buddhism..... few Christians realised the importance of the concept of reincarnation or rebirth in Judaism, where it is known as 'gilgul' or 'ibur'. This has raised the question: 'If belief in rebirth occurs in Judaism, why was it not carried forward into Christianity?' The Buddhist and Jewish beliefs are similar in that it is the very subtle, non-material mind which survives death. Since this is the only thing that we can take with us to the future, we need to make the best use of our present life to improve its state. Science of the mind?Science will never be able to analyse such phenomena... because these 'things' do not have any structure - they do not have any nuts and bolts for the dismantling tools of science to get a grip on. The phrase 'Science of Consciousness' is thus a self-contradiction.Sentient beingsWhat make a sentient being different from an automaton? Soul...'The entity which survives death is known as 'The Soul' by Christians and as 'The Very Subtle Mind' by Buddhists . The terms 'Soul' and 'Mind' are not equivalent. There are a number of minor distinctions between the concepts which, taken by themselves, could be regarded simply as trivial doctrinal differences. However, there are also two major philosophical differences which separate the concepts of mind and soul into different ontological categories..' Spooky action at a distance (EPR Paradox)'One of the most vivid illustrations of the interactions of the mind of the observer with a quantum system is given by EPR - the 'Einstein Podolsky Rosen Paradox', or 'Spooky action at a distance' as it is sometimes known. The experimental evidence seems to show that the observer's mind goes to its object unobstructedly and instantaneously.'Sunyata (shunyata)The ultimate unfindability of the real nature of all phenomena - their lack inherent existence, is usually referred to by English-speaking Buddhists as 'emptiness', which is a translation of the Sanskrit word Sunyata (sometimes spelled Shunyata). According to David Loy the English word emptiness has a more nihilistic connotation than the original Sanskrit. The Sanskrit root su also conveys the concept of being swollen with possibility [LOY 1996]. It is therefore most important not to confuse emptiness with total nothingness. Emptiness implies the potential for existence and change. Symbiotic mindAnimals above a certain level of development require more than automatic reflexes in order to survive. Advanced organisms need motivation and intention in order to function in complex environments. Motivation and intention are chiefly driven by dukkha - the need to avoid suffering or unsatisfactoriness and the restless but futile search for lasting happiness. It is the suffering and grasping of their minds - the need to avoid pain and seek pleasure - that provides the driving force for survival and reproduction of complex animals.Tantra and Tantric Meditation All phenomena are free from inherent existence, that is they are not definable in terms of themselves, but are dependently related to other phenomena. The same line of reasoning can be applied to our own identities, for if we search hard enough for our Self or Ego - we find it isn't there! Tat Tvam Asi - That Thou ArtIs the mind of God separate from the minds of His creatures? Do we all have a spark of universal mind? Tibetan Death Chart Transpersonal PsychologyTranspersonal Psychology grew out of the rejection of the mechanistic or behaviorist model of the mind which was the orthodoxy of the mid-twentieth century academic establishment . Charles T. Tart refers to this orthodoxy when describing his college experience in the 1960's: 'As to things like mystical experiences, if they were mentioned at all, which was rare, they were relegated to the fringes of psychiatry as being undoubtedly schizophrenic in nature and just showed how sick religions were to be associated with superstitious nonsense like that'Wicca - an intuitive reaction against materialism?'As both Tibetan Buddhism and Wicca are growing rapidly in the English-speaking countries, there will come a time when there will need to be an interfaith dialogue between the two paths. The purpose of this article is to examine the similarities and differences between Wicca and Tibetan Buddhism.'Young Earth'The 'young-earth' viewpoint is similar to creationism. The theological motivation is identical - to defend Biblical chronology by proving that the world is only a few thousand years old. The challenge facing the 'young-earthers' is that all dating mechanisms which use the decay of naturally radioactive atoms in minerals agree that many of the earth's rocks were formed hundreds of millions of years ago. To get round this objection the 'young earthers' have either to invoke more conspiracy theories, or postulate that somehow the rate of radioactive decay was very much faster on the early earth than it is now. ' [REF 1] 'The Monk and the Philosopher' Revel, J-F and Ricard, M. Tr. Canti, J. Publ. Thorsons/HarperCollins, London, 1998. ISBN 0 7225 3649 6, Page 115.