1. Introduction
The standpoint adopted here is primarily that of Theravāda Buddhism.
But most of what is said will be applicable to most other Buddhist traditions.
The Theravāda 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 a be a manifestation of this ādhi-buddha. But even
here it cannot be said that the Buddha was converted into a Divinity comparable
to the God of the monotheistic religions.
2. 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 5 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.
3. 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 recognises 32 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 characterised
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 Mahā-Brahmā (or simply Brahmā) who was the chief
of a class of gods called the Brahmās. Brahmā 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 Brahmā.
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 samsāra (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.
4. The Buddhist View of God
In the Buddhist texts Mahā Brahmā is represented as claiming
the following attributes for himself:
"I am Brahmā, the Great Brahmā, 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 Nikāya,
II, 263).
The Buddha dismisses all these claims of Mahā Brahmā as being
due to his own delusions brought about by ignorance. He argues that Mahā-Brahmā
is simply another deva, perhaps with greater karmic force than the other
gods, but nonetheless a deva and therefore unenlightened and subject to
the samsāric process as determined by his karma. In such suttas as
the Brahmajāla sutta and the Aggañña Sutta the Buddha
refutes the claims of Maha Brahmā and shows him to be subject to
karmic law (i.e. cosmic law). Even though long-lived Mahā Brahmā
will be eliminated in each cycle of inevitable world dissolution and re-evolution.
In the Khevadda Sutta Mahā Brahmā 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
Brahmā 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. Nāgarjunā the Indian
Buddhist philosopher of the 2nd century CE expressed a commonly shared
Buddhist view when he wrote:
The gods are all eternal scoundrels
Incapable of dissolving the suffering of impermanence.
Those who serve them and venerate them
May 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 not
The fate of the world depends on causes and conditions
Therefore the wise man many not rely on gods.
Mahāpajāpāramitāshâstra
[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 unsatisfactoriness). 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 Bhūridatta Jataka bring this
out clearly:
If the creator of the world entire
They call God, of every being be the Lord
Why does he order such misfortune
And not create concord? |
sace hi so issaro sabbaloke
Brahmā bahūbhūtapati pajānaṃ
kiṃ sabbaloke vidah alakkhiṃ
kiṃ sabbalokaṃ na sukhiṃ akāsi |
If the creator of the world entire
They call God, of every being be the Lord
Why prevail deceit, lies and ignorance
And he such inequity and injustice create? |
sace hi so issaro sabbaloke
Brahmā bahūbhūtapati pajānaṃ
māyāmusāvajjamadena c'api
lokaṃ adhammena kimatthakāsi |
If the creator of the world entire
They 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 sabbaloke
Brahmā bahūbhūtapati pajānaṃ
adhammiyo bhūtapat Ariṭṭtha
dhamme sat yo vidahi adhammaṃ |
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
5. 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 anatta (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 anatta).
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.
6. 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 institutionalisation
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 (avijjā) 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 overpervading 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 (paññā) 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 (bhāvanā,
samādhi). 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 stylised 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.
|