Revision as of 21:56, 26 May 2014 edit101.56.129.136 (talk) Undid revision 610262952 by Ohnoitsjamie (talk)← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 14:04, 9 December 2024 edit undoRevirvlkodlaku (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users84,128 edits Restored revision 1255390843 by Rizzmater00 (talk): Reverting inappropriate content removal.Tags: Twinkle Undo | ||
(603 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{short description|Buddhist views on the belief in a creator deity, or any eternal divine personal being}} | |||
{{Technical|date=March 2023}} | |||
{{Use dmy dates|date=April 2023}} | |||
{{Buddhism}} | {{Buddhism}} | ||
{{Conceptions of God|narrow}} | |||
] rejected the existence of a ],<ref>{{cite web|last=Thera|first=Nyanaponika|title=Buddhism and the God-idea|url=http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nyanaponika/godidea.html|work=The Vision of the Dhamma|publisher=Buddhist Publication Society|location=Kandy, Sri Lanka|quote=In Buddhist literature, the belief in a creator god (issara-nimmana-vada) is frequently mentioned and rejected, along with other causes wrongly adduced to explain the origin of the world; as, for instance, world-soul, time, nature, etc. God-belief, however, is placed in the same category as those morally destructive wrong views which deny the kammic results of action, assume a fortuitous origin of man and nature, or teach absolute determinism. These views are said to be altogether pernicious, having definite bad results due to their effect on ethical conduct.}}</ref><ref>''Approaching the Dhamma: Buddhist Texts and Practices in South and Southeast Asia'' by Anne M. Blackburn (editor), Jeffrey Samuels (editor). Pariyatti Publishing: 2003 ISBN 1-928706-19-3 pg 129</ref> refused to endorse many views on creation<ref>{{cite book|title=The All Embracing Net of Views: Brahmajala Sutta|year=2007|publisher=Buddhist Publication Society|url=http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.01.0.bodh.html|author=Bhikku Bodhi|editor=Access To Insight|location=Kandy, Sri Lanka|chapter=III.1, III.2, III.5}}</ref> and stated that questions on the origin of the world are not ultimately useful for ending ].<ref>{{cite web|title=Acintita Sutta: Unconjecturable|url=http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.077.than.html|work=AN 4.77|publisher=Access To Insight|author=Thanissaro Bhikku|language=translated from Pali into English|year=1997|quote=Conjecture about the world is an unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=Cula-Malunkyovada Sutta: The Shorter Instructions to Malunkya|url=http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.063.than.html|publisher=Access To Insight|author=Thanissaro Bhikku|language=translated from Pali into English|year=1998|quote=It's just as if a man were wounded with an arrow thickly smeared with poison. His friends & companions, kinsmen & relatives would provide him with a surgeon, and the man would say, 'I won't have this arrow removed until I know whether the man who wounded me was a noble warrior, a priest, a merchant, or a worker.' He would say, 'I won't have this arrow removed until I know the given name & clan name of the man who wounded me... until I know whether he was tall, medium, or short... The man would die and those things would still remain unknown to him. In the same way, if anyone were to say, 'I won't live the holy life under the Blessed One as long as he does not declare to me that 'The cosmos is eternal,'... or that 'After death a Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist,' the man would die and those things would still remain undeclared by the Tathagata.}}</ref> | |||
Generally speaking, ] is a religion that does not include the belief in a ] ].<ref name="Harvey, Peter 2019 p. 1">Harvey, Peter (2019). ''"Buddhism and Monotheism",'' p. 1. Cambridge University Press.</ref>{{sfn|Taliaferro|2013|p=35}}<ref>{{cite book|last1=Blackburn|first1=Anne M.|last2=Samuels|first2=Jeffrey|title=Approaching the Dhamma: Buddhist Texts and Practices in South and Southeast Asia|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=ktWAQAk7XPkC|year=2003|publisher=Pariyatti|isbn=978-1-928706-19-9|pages=|chapter=II. Denial of God in Buddhism and the Reasons Behind It|chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=ktWAQAk7XPkC&pg=PA128DQ}}{{Dead link|date=December 2023 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}</ref> As such, it has often been described as either (non-]) ] or as ]. However, other scholars have challenged these descriptions since some forms of Buddhism do posit different kinds of ], ], and unconditioned ] (e.g., ]).<ref>Schmidt-Leukel (2006), pp. 1-4.</ref> | |||
], instead, emphasizes the system of causal relationships underlying the universe ('']'' or Dependent Origination) which constitute the natural order ('']'') and source of enlightenment. No dependence of phenomena on a supernatural reality is asserted in order to explain the behaviour of matter. According to the doctrine of the Buddha, a human being must study nature ('']'') in order to attain personal wisdom ('']'') regarding the nature of things (''dharma''). In Buddhism, the sole aim of spiritual practice is the complete alleviation of ] in '']'',<ref>{{cite web|title=Alagaddupama Sutta: The Water-Snake Simile|url=http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.022.than.html#dukkha|publisher=Access To Insight|author=Thanissaro Bhikku|language=translated from Pali into English|year=2004|quote=Both formerly and now, monks, I declare only stress and the cessation of stress.}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=Anuradha Sutta: To Anuradha|url=http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.086.than.html|publisher=Access To Insight|author=Thanissaro Bhikku|language=translated from Pali into English|year=2004|quote=Both formerly & now, it is only stress that I describe, and the cessation of stress.}}</ref> which is called '']''. | |||
Buddhist teachings state that there are divine beings called '']'' (sometimes translated as 'gods') and other ], heavens, and rebirths in its doctrine of ], or cyclical rebirth. Buddhism teaches that none of these gods is a creator or an eternal being. However, they can live very long lives.<ref name="Harvey, Peter 2019 p. 1"/><ref name=":3" /> In Buddhism, the devas are also trapped in the cycle of rebirth and are not necessarily virtuous. Thus, while Buddhism includes multiple "gods", its main focus is not on them. Peter Harvey calls this "trans-]".<ref name="Harvey, Peter 2019 p. 1"/> | |||
Some teachers tell students beginning ] that the notion of divinity is not incompatible with Buddhism,<ref>{{cite book|title=Beginning Insight Meditation and other essays|year=1988|publisher=Buddhist Publication Society|pages=Bodhi Leaves|url=http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/figen/bl085.html|author=Dorothy Figen|location=Kandy, Sri Lanka|chapter=Is Buddhism a Religion?|quote=So to these young Christians I can say, "Believe in Christ if you wish, but remember, Jesus never claimed divinity either." Yes, believe in a unitary God, too, if you wish, but cease your imploring, pleading for personal dispensations, health, wealth, relief from suffering. Study the Eightfold Path. Seek the insights and enlightenment that come through meditative learnings. And find out how to achieve for yourself what prayer and solicitation of forces beyond you are unable to accomplish.}}</ref> and at least one Buddhist scholar has indicated that describing Buddhism as ] may be overly simplistic;<ref>Dr. B. Alan Wallace, 'Is Buddhism Really Non-Theistic?' Lecture given at the National Conference of the American Academy of Religion, Boston, Mass., Nov. 1999, p. 8.</ref> but many traditional theist beliefs are considered to pose a hindrance to the attainment of ''nirvana'',<ref>{{cite book|title=Buddhism and the God-idea|year=1994|publisher=Buddhist Publication Society|location=Kandy, Sri Lanka|url=http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nyanaponika/godidea.html|author=Nyanaponika Thera|work=The Vision of the Dhamma|quote=Although belief in God does not exclude a favorable rebirth, it is a variety of eternalism, a false affirmation of permanence rooted in the craving for existence, and as such an obstacle to final deliverance.}}</ref> the highest goal of Buddhist practice.<ref>Mahasi Sayadaw,, The Wheel Publication No. 298/300, Kandy BPS, 1983, "...when Buddha-dhamma is being disseminated, there should be only one basis of teaching relating to the Middle Way or the Eightfold Path: the practice of ], ], and ], and the ]."</ref> | |||
] also posit that mundane deities, such as ], are misconstrued to be creators.{{sfn|Harvey|2013|p=36-8}} ] follows the doctrine of ], whereby all phenomena arise in dependence on other phenomena, hence no primal unmoved mover could be acknowledged or discerned. ], in the ], is also shown as stating that he saw no single beginning to the universe.<ref name="Harvey, Peter 2019 p. 1"/> | |||
Despite this apparent nontheism, Buddhists consider ] of the ]<ref>Buddhists consider an enlightened person, the Dhamma and the community of monks as noble. See ].</ref> very important,<ref>{{cite book|last=Thera|first=Nyanaponika|title=Devotion in Buddhism|year=1994|publisher=Buddhist Publication Society, Kandy, Sri Lanka|url=http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nyanaponika/devotion.html|quote=It would be a mistake, however, to conclude that the Buddha disparaged a reverential and devotional attitude of mind when it is the natural outflow of a true understanding and a deep admiration of what is great and noble.}}</ref> although the two main traditions of Buddhism differ mildly in their reverential attitudes. While ] view the Buddha as a human being who attained ] or ], through human efforts,<ref>{{cite web|last=Bhikku|first=Thanissaro|title=The Meaning of the Buddha's Awakening|url=http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/awakening.html|publisher=Access to Insight|accessdate=June 5, 2010}}</ref> some ] consider him an embodiment of the cosmic '']'', born for the benefit of others.<ref>{{cite book|title=Becoming the Buddha: The Ritual of Image Consecration in Thailand|year=2004|publisher=Princeton University Press|isbn=978-0-691-11435-4|author=Donald K. Swearer}}</ref> In addition, some Mahayana Buddhists worship their chief ], ],<ref>{{cite book|last=Hong|first=Xiong|title=Hymn to Bodhisattva Avalokiteshvara|year=1997|publisher=Vastplain|isbn=978-957-9460-89-7|location=Taipei}}</ref> and hope to embody him.<ref>{{cite book|title=Becoming the Compassion Buddha: Tantric Mahamudra for Everyday Life|year=2003|publisher=Wisdom Publications|isbn=978-0-86171-343-1|pages=89–110|author=Lama Thubten Yeshe|author2=Geshe Lhundub Sopa|editor=Robina Courtin|month=June}}</ref> | |||
During the ], Buddhist philosophers like ] developed extensive refutations of ] and ]. Because of this, some modern scholars, such as ], have described this later stage of Buddhism as ]<ref name=":3" /><ref>Schmidt-Leukel (2006), p. 9.</ref> Buddhist anti-theistic writings were also common during the ], in response to the presence of ]aries and their ]. | |||
Some Buddhists accept the existence of beings in higher realms (see ]), known as ], but they, like humans, are said to be suffering in '']'',<ref>{{cite web|title=The Thirty-one planes of Existence|url=http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sagga/loka.html|publisher=Access To Insight|accessdate=May 26, 2010|author=John T Bullitt|year=2005|quote=The suttas describe thirty-one distinct "planes" or "realms" of existence into which beings can be reborn during this long wandering through samsara. These range from the extraordinarily dark, grim, and painful hell realms to the most sublime, refined, and exquisitely blissful heaven realms. Existence in every realm is impermanent; in Buddhist cosmology there is no eternal heaven or hell. Beings are born into a particular realm according to both their past kamma and their kamma at the moment of death. When the kammic force that propelled them to that realm is finally exhausted, they pass away, taking rebirth once again elsewhere according to their kamma. And so the wearisome cycle continues.}}</ref> and are not necessarily wiser than us. In fact, the Buddha is often portrayed as a teacher of the gods,<ref>{{cite book|title=Teacher of the Devas|year=1997|publisher=Buddhist Publication Society|url=http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/jootla/wheel414.html|author=Susan Elbaum Jootla|editor=Access To Insight|location=Kandy, Sri Lanka|chapter=II. The Buddha Teaches Deities|quote="Many people worship Maha Brahma as the supreme and eternal creator God, but for the Buddha he is merely a powerful deity still caught within the cycle of repeated existence. In point of fact, "Maha Brahma" is a role or office filled by different individuals at different periods." "His proof included the fact that "many thousands of deities have gone for refuge for life to the recluse Gotama" (MN 95.9). Devas, like humans, develop faith in the Buddha by practicing his teachings." "A second deva concerned with liberation spoke a verse which is partly praise of the Buddha and partly a request for teaching. Using various similes from the animal world, this god showed his admiration and reverence for the Exalted One.", "A discourse called Sakka's Questions (DN 21) took place after he had been a serious disciple of the Buddha for some time. The sutta records a long audience he had with the Blessed One which culminated in his attainment of stream-entry. Their conversation is an excellent example of the Buddha as "teacher of devas," and shows all beings how to work for Nibbana."}}</ref> and superior to them.<ref>{{cite book|last=Bhikku|first=Thanissaro|title=Kevaddha Sutta|year=1997|publisher=Access To Insight|url=http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.11.0.than.html#bigbrahma|authorlink=Digha Nikaya, 11|quote=When this was said, the Great Brahma said to the monk, 'I, monk, am Brahma, the Great Brahma, the Conqueror, the Unconquered, the All-Seeing, All-Powerful, the Sovereign Lord, the Maker, Creator, Chief, Appointer and Ruler, Father of All That Have Been and Shall Be... That is why I did not say in their presence that I, too, don't know where the four great elements... cease without remainder. So you have acted wrongly, acted incorrectly, in bypassing the Blessed One in search of an answer to this question elsewhere. Go right back to the Blessed One and, on arrival, ask him this question. However he answers it, you should take it to heart.}}</ref> Despite this there are believed to be enlightened devas.<ref>http://www.himalayanart.org/pages/Visual_Dharma/yidams.html</ref> | |||
Despite this, some writers, such as ] and ], have noted that certain doctrines in ] can be seen as being similar to certain theistic doctrines like ] theology and ].<ref>B. Alan Wallace, "". Snow Lion Newsletter, Volume 15, Number 1, Winter 2000. {{ISSN|1059-3691}}.</ref> Various scholars have also compared ] doctrines regarding the supreme and eternal Buddhas like ] or Amitabha with certain forms of theism, such as pantheism and ].<ref>Zappulli, Davide Andrea (2022). ''Towards a Buddhist theism.'' Religious Studies, First View, pp. 1 – 13. {{doi|10.1017/S0034412522000725}}</ref> | |||
Some variations of Buddhism express a philosophical belief in an ]: a representation of omnipresent enlightenment and a symbol of the true nature of the universe. The primordial aspect that interconnects every part of the universe is the clear light of the eternal Buddha, where everything timelessly arises and dissolves.<ref>http://hhdl.dharmakara.net/hhdlquotes22.html</ref><ref>Dr. Guang Xing, The Concept of the Buddha, RoutledgeCurzon, London, 2005, p. 89</ref><ref>Hattori, Sho-on (2001). A Raft from the Other Shore : Honen and the Way of Pure Land Buddhism. Jodo Shu Press. pp. 25–27. ISBN 4-88363-329-2.</ref> | |||
==View of a Creator God according to Buddha== | |||
In the Devadaha Sutta the Buddha, referring to the self-mortification of naked ascetics, remarks: "If, O Bhikkhus, beings experience pain and happiness as the result of God's creation (Issaranimmānahetu), then certainly these naked ascetics must have been created by a wicked God (pāpakena issarena), since they suffer such terrible pain."<ref> The Buddha and his teachings by ] page313 http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/buddha-teachingsurw6.pdf</ref> | |||
<ref> Devadaha Sutta: At Devadaha by ] http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.101.than.html </ref> | |||
== |
==Early Buddhist texts== | ||
] Brahma Sahampati asks the Buddha to teach. Buddhism accepts the existence of devas (celestial beings, literally "shining ones"), but these beings are not creator gods, nor are they eternal (they suffer and die).]] | |||
* "If beings experience pleasure & pain based on the creative act of a supreme god, then obviously the Niganthas(Jains)have been created by an evil supreme god, which is why they now feel such fierce, sharp, racking pains. | |||
* "If beings experience pleasure & pain based on the creative act of a supreme god, the Niganthas(Jains) deserve censure. Even if not, they still deserve censure. | |||
* "If beings experience pleasure & pain based on the creative act of a supreme god, then obviously the Tathagata has been created by an excellent supreme god, which is why he now feels such pleasure free from fermentation. | |||
* "If beings experience pleasure & pain based on the creative act of a supreme god Tathagata deserves praise. Even if not, he still deserves praise. ~ Devdaha Sutta <ref> Devadaha Sutta: At Devadaha by ] http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.101.than.html </ref> | |||
Damien Keown notes that in the ], the Buddha sees the cycle of rebirths as stretching back "many hundreds of thousands of aeons without discernible beginning."<ref>Keown, Damien (2013). ''"Encyclopedia of Buddhism."'' p. 162. Routledge.</ref> Saṃyutta Nikāya 15:1 and 15:2 states: "This samsara is without discoverable beginning. A first point is not discerned of beings roaming and wandering on hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving."<ref>Bhikkhu Bodhi (2005). ''"In the Buddha's Words: An Anthology of Discourses from the Pali Canon."'' p. 37. Simon and Schuster.</ref> | |||
He who has eyes can see the sickening sight, | |||
Why does not Brahma 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 you Brahma one th'unjust among, | |||
Who made a world in which to shelter wrong." | |||
Bhūridatta Jātaka (No. 543)<ref> The Buddha and his teachings by ] page313 </ref> <ref>The ] Vol. VI, tr. by ] and W. H. D. Rouse, </ref> | |||
According to ] ], the early Buddhist ] literature treats the question of the existence of a creator god "primarily from either an epistemological point of view or a moral point of view". In these texts, the Buddha is portrayed not as a creator-denying ] who claims to be able to prove such a god's nonexistence, but rather his focus is other teachers' claims that their teachings lead to the highest good.<ref>Hayes, Richard P., , ''Journal of Indian Philosophy'', 16:1 (1988:Mar) pgs 5-6, 8</ref> | |||
"If there exists some Lord all powerful to fulfil | |||
In every creature bliss or woe, and action good or ill; | |||
That Lord is stained with sin. | |||
Man does but work his will. | |||
Mahābodhi Jātaka (No. 528)<ref>The ], Vol. V, tr. by H.T. Francis, ,</ref> <ref>The Buddha and his teachings by Narada Maha thera page313 </ref> | |||
According to Hayes, in the ''Tevijja Sutta'' (DN 13), there is an account of a dispute between two ]s about how best to reach union with Brahma (''Brahmasahavyata''), who is seen as the highest god over whom no other being has mastery and who sees all. However, after being questioned by the Buddha, it is revealed that they do not have any direct experience of this Brahma. The Buddha calls their religious goal laughable, vain, and empty.<ref>Hayes, Richard P., "Principled Atheism in the Buddhist Scholastic Tradition", ''Journal of Indian Philosophy'', 16:1 (1988:Mar) p. 2.</ref> | |||
==Early Buddhism== | |||
As scholar Surian Yee describes, "the attitude of the Buddha as portrayed in the ]s is more anti-speculative than specifically atheistic", although Gautama did regard the belief in a creator deity to be unhealthy.<ref name="unm.edu">Hayes, Richard P., , ''Journal of Indian Philosophy'', 16:1 (1988:Mar.) pg 9</ref> | |||
However, the ] placed materialism and amoralism together with ] as forms of wrong view.<ref name="unm.edu"/> | |||
Hayes also notes that in the early texts, the Buddha is not depicted as an atheist, but more as a ] who is against religious speculations, including speculations about a creator god. Citing the ''Devadaha Sutta'' (] 101), Hayes states, "while the reader is left to conclude that it is attachment rather than God, actions in past lives, fate, type of birth or efforts in this life that is responsible for our experiences of sorrow, no systematic argument is given in an attempt to disprove the existence of God."<ref>Hayes, Richard P., "Principled Atheism in the Buddhist Scholastic Tradition", ''Journal of Indian Philosophy'', 16:1 (1988:Mar) pp. 9-10</ref> | |||
] also notes that the Buddha specifically calls out the doctrine of ] (termed ]) for criticism in the ]. This doctrine of creation by a supreme lord is defined as follows: "Whatever happiness or pain or neutral feeling this person experiences, all that is due to the creation of a supreme deity (''issaranimmāṇahetu'')."<ref name="Narada Thera 2006 pp. 268-269">Narada Thera (2006) ''"The Buddha and His Teachings,"'' pp. 268-269, Jaico Publishing House.</ref> The Buddha criticized this view because he saw it as a fatalistic teaching that would lead to inaction or laziness: | |||
Citing the ''Devadaha Sutta'' ('Majjhima Nikaya 101), Hayes remarks that "while the reader is left to conclude that it is attachment rather than God, actions in past lives, fate, type of birth or efforts in this life that is responsible for our experiences of sorrow, no systematic argument is given in an attempt to disprove the existence of God."<ref>Hayes, Richard P., "Principled Atheism in the Buddhist Scholastic Tradition", ''Journal of Indian Philosophy'', 16:1 (1988:Mar) pgs 9-10</ref> | |||
<blockquote>" So, then, owing to the creation of a supreme deity, men will become murderers, thieves, unchaste, liars, slanderers, abusive, babblers, covetous, malicious and perverse in view. Thus for those who fall back on the creation of a god as the essential reason, there is neither desire nor effort nor necessity to do this deed or abstain from that deed."<ref name="Narada Thera 2006 pp. 268-269"/></blockquote> | |||
In the ] the Buddha tells Vasettha that the ] (the Buddha) was ], the 'Truth-body' or the 'Embodiment of Truth', as well as Dharmabhuta, 'Truth-become', 'One who has become Truth.'<ref>]</ref><ref>See Walsh, Maurice. 1995. The Long Discourses of the Buddha: A Translation of the Dīgha Nikāya. Boston: Wisdom Publications, “Aggañña Sutta: On Knowledge of Beginnings,” p. 409.</ref> | |||
In another early sutta (''Devadahasutta'', ] 101), the Buddha sees the pain and suffering that is experienced by certain individuals as indicating that if they were created by a god, then this is likely to be an evil god:<ref name=":5">Westerhoff, Jan. “Creation in Buddhism” in Oliver, Simon. ''The Oxford Handbook of Creation'', Oxford University Press, Oxford, forthcoming</ref> | |||
The Buddha is equated with the Dhamma: | |||
{{quote|... and the Buddha comforts him, "Enough, Vakkali. Why do you want to see this filthy body? Whoever sees the Dhamma sees me; whoever sees me sees the Dhamma."<ref>] (SN 22.87) See footnote #3]</ref>}} | |||
<blockquote>" If the pleasure and pain that beings feel are caused by the creative act of a Supreme God, then the ] surely must have been created by an evil Supreme God, since they now feel such painful, racking, piercing feelings."</blockquote> | |||
''Putikaya'', the "decomposing" body, is distinguished from the eternal ''Dhamma'' body of the Buddha and the ] body. | |||
=== |
===High gods who are mistaken as creator=== | ||
{{further|Brahmā (Buddhism)}} | |||
] is among the common gods found in the Pali Canon. Brahma (in common with all other devas) is subject to change, final decline and death, just as are all other sentient beings in ] (the plane of continual reincarnation and suffering). In fact there are several different Brahma worlds and several kinds of Brahmas in Buddhism, all of which however are just beings stuck in samsara for a long while. Sir Charles Eliot describes attitudes towards Brahma in early Buddhism as follows: | |||
] in Bangkok, Thailand.]] | |||
According to Peter Harvey, Buddhism assumes that the universe has no ultimate beginning to it and thus sees no need for a creator god. In the early texts, the nearest term to this concept is "Great Brahma" (''Maha Brahma''), such as in ''Digha Nikaya'' 1.18.{{sfn|Harvey|2013|p=36-8}} However, "hile being kind and compassionate, none of the ''brahmās'' are world-creators."{{sfn|Harvey|2013|p=37}} | |||
{{quote|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.<ref name="Sir Charles Elliot">{{cite web|url=http://www.gutenberg.org/browse/authors/e#a4887 |title= Hinduism and Buddhism: An Historical Sketch |author= Sir Charles Elliot | authorlink= Charles Eliot (diplomat)}}</ref>}} | |||
In the ], Buddhism includes the concept of reborn gods.{{sfn|Harvey|2013|p=36-37}} According to this theory, periodically, the physical world system ends and beings of that world system are reborn as ]s in lower heavens. This too ends, according to Buddhist cosmology, and god ] is then born, who is alone. He longs for the presence of others, and the other gods are reborn as his ministers and companions.{{sfn|Harvey|2013|p=36-37}} In Buddhist suttas, such as DN 1, Mahabrahma forgets his past lives and falsely believes himself to be the Creator, Maker, All-seeing, the Lord. This belief, state the Buddhist texts, is then shared by other gods. Eventually, however, one of the gods dies and is reborn as human, with the power to remember his previous life.{{sfn|Harvey|2013|p=36-8}} He teaches what he remembers from his previous life in lower heaven, that Mahabrahma is the Creator. It is this that leads to the human belief in a creator, according to the Pali Canon.{{sfn|Harvey|2013|p=36-8}} | |||
===Other common gods referred to in the Canon=== | |||
Many of the other gods in the Pali Canon find a common mythological role in Hindu literature. Some common gods and goddesses are Indra, Aapo (]), Vayo (]), Tejo (]), Surya, Pajapati (]), Soma, Yasa, Venhu (]), Mahadeva (]), Vijja (]), Usha, Pathavi (]), Sri (]), Kuvera (]), several yakkhas (]s), gandhabbas (]s), ]s, garula (]), sons of Bali, Veroca, etc.<ref>Mahasamaya Sutta, DN 20</ref> While in Hindu texts some of these gods and goddesses are considered embodiments of the Supreme Being, the Buddhist view is that all gods and goddesses were bound to samsara. The world of gods according to the Buddha presents a being with too many pleasures and distractions. | |||
], Malaysia.]] | |||
==Abhidharma and Yogacara analysis== | |||
The Theravada ] tradition did not tend to elaborate argumentation against the existence of god, but in the '']'' of the ], ] does actively argue against the existence of a creator, stating that the universe has no beginning.<ref>Hayes, Richard P., "Principled Atheism in the Buddhist Scholastic Tradition," ''Journal of Indian Philosophy'', 16:1 (1988:Mar) pg 10</ref> | |||
A similar story of a high god (brahma) who mistakes himself as the all-powerful creator can be seen in the ''Brahma-nimantanika Sutta'' (MN 49). In this sutta, the Buddha displays his superior knowledge by explaining how a high god named Baka Brahma, who believes himself to be supremely powerful, actually does not know of certain spiritual realms. The Buddha also demonstrates his superior psychic power by disappearing from Baka Brahma's sight, to a realm that he cannot reach, and then challenges him to do the same. Baka Brahma fails in this, demonstrating the Buddha's superiority.<ref name="Nichols, Michael D. 2019 p. 70">Nichols, Michael D. (2019). ''"Malleable Mara: Transformations of a Buddhist Symbol of Evil,"'' p. 70. SUNY Press.</ref> The text also depicts ], an evil trickster figure, as attempting to support the Brahma's misconception of himself. As noted by Michael D. Nichols, MN 49 seems to show that "belief in an eternal creator figure is a devious ploy put forward by the Evil One to mislead humanity, and the implication is that Brahmins who believe in the power and permanence of Brahma have fallen for it."<ref name="Nichols, Michael D. 2019 p. 70"/> | |||
The Chinese monk ] studied Buddhism in India during the 7th century CE, staying at ]. There, he studied the Consciousness Only teachings passed down from ] and Vasubandhu, and taught to him by the abbot ]. In his comprehensive work '']'' (Skt. ''Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi Śastra''), Xuanzang refutes the Indian philosophical doctrine of a "Great Lord" (]) or a Great Brahmā, a self-existent and omnipotent creator deity who is ruler of all existence.<ref>Cook, Francis, ''Three Texts on Consciousness Only.'', Numata Center, Berkeley, 1999, pp. 20-21.</ref> | |||
==The Problem of Evil in the Jatakas== | |||
{{quote|According to one doctrine, there is a great, self-existent deity whose substance is real and who is all-pervading, eternal, and the producer of all phenomena. This doctrine is unreasonable. If something produces something, it is not eternal, the non-eternal is not all-pervading, and what is not all-pervading is not real. If the deity's substance is all-pervading and eternal, it must contain all powers and be able to produce all phenomena everywhere, at all times, and simultaneously. If he produces phenomena when a desire arises, or according to conditions, this contradicts the doctrine of a single cause. Or else, desires and conditions would arise spontaneously since the cause is eternal. Other doctrines claim that there is a great Brahma, a Time, a Space, a Starting Point, a Nature, an Ether, a Self, etc., that is eternal and really exists, is endowed with all powers, and is able to produce all phenomena. We refute all these in the same way we did the concept of the Great Lord.}} | |||
Some stories in the Buddhist ] outline a critique of a Creator deity that is similar to the ]<ref>Harold Netland, Keith Yandell (2009). ''"Buddhism: A Christian Exploration and Appraisal"'', pp. 184 - 186. InterVarsity Press.</ref> | |||
One Jataka story (VI.208) states: | |||
==Mahayana and Vajrayana doctrines== | |||
<blockquote>If Brahma is lord of the whole world and Creator of the multitude of beings, then why has he ordained misfortune in the world without making the whole world happy; or for what purpose has he made the world full of injustice, falsehood and conceit; or is the lord of beings evil in that he ordained injustice when there could have been justice?<ref>Harold Netland, Keith Yandell (2009). ''"Buddhism: A Christian Exploration and Appraisal"'', pp. 185 - 186. InterVarsity Press.</ref></blockquote> | |||
In the ] tradition, ] advances a number of arguments against the existence of a creator god in his ''Pramāṇavārika'', following in the footsteps of Vasubandhu.<ref>Hayes, Richard P., "Principled Atheism in the Buddhist Scholastic Tradition," ''Journal of Indian Philosophy'', 16:1 (1988:Mar.) pg 12</ref> Later Mahayana scholars such as Śāntarakṣita and Kamalaśīla continued this tradition.<ref>Hayes, Richard P., "Principled Atheism in the Buddhist Scholastic Tradition," ''Journal of Indian Philosophy'', 16:1 (1988:Mar.) pg 14</ref> Some Mahayana and ] traditions of Buddhism, however, do assert an underlying monistic 'ground of being' or ], which is stated to be indestructibly present in all beings and phenomena. The ], in particular, enunciate this view. | |||
The Pali Bhūridatta Jātaka (No. 543) has the bodhisattva (future Buddha) state: | |||
===Tathagatagarbha, Dharmakaya and God=== | |||
], unlike ], talks of the mind using terms such as "]" (''tathagatagarbha''). The affirmation of emptiness by positive terminology is radically different from the early Buddhist doctrines of ] and refusal to personify or objectify any Supreme Reality. | |||
: "He who has eyes can see the sickening sight, | |||
In the ''tathagatagarbha'' tradition, the Buddha is on occasion identified with the ], Supreme Reality, which possesses the god-like qualities of eternality, inscrutability and immutability. In his monograph on the tathagatagarbha doctrine as formulated in the only ancient Indian commentarial analysis of the doctrine extant - the ''Uttaratantra'' - Professor C. D. Sebastian writes of how the 'divinised' Buddha is accorded worship and is characterised by a compassionate love, which becomes manifest in the world in the form of salvific activity to liberate beings from suffering. Sebastian stresses, however, that the Buddha thus conceived, although deemed worthy of worship, was never viewed as synonymous to a Creator God: | |||
:Why does not Brahmā 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 you Brahmā one th'unjust among, | |||
:Who made a world in which to shelter wrong."<ref name="Narada Thera 2006 pp. 268-269"/> | |||
In the Pali Mahābodhi Jātaka (No. 528), the bodhisattva says: | |||
{{quote|"Mahayana Buddhism is not only intellectual, but it is also devotional... in Mahayana, Buddha was taken as God, as Supreme Reality itself that descended on the earth in human form for the good of mankind. The concept of Buddha (as equal to God in theistic systems) was never as a creator but as Divine Love that out of compassion (karuna) embodied itself in human form to uplift suffering humanity. He was worshipped with fervent devotion... He represents the Absolute (''paramartha satya''), devoid of all plurality (''sarva-prapancanta-vinirmukta'') and has no beginning, middle and end... Buddha... is eternal, immutable... As such He represents Dharmakaya."|Professor C. D. Sebastian<ref>Professor C. D. Sebastian, ''Metaphysics and Mysticism in Mahayana Buddhism: An Analytical Study of the Ratnagotravibhago-mahayanaottaratantra-sastram'', ''Bibliotheca Indo-Buddhica'' Series 238, Sri Satguru Publications, Delhi, 2005, pp. 64-66.</ref>}} | |||
:"If there exists some Lord all powerful to fulfil | |||
According to the Tathagatagarbha sutras, the Buddha taught the existence of this spiritual essence called the tathagatagarbha or ], which is present in all beings and phenomena. Dr. B. Alan Wallace writes of this doctrine: | |||
:In every creature bliss or woe, and action good or ill; | |||
:That Lord is stained with sin. | |||
:Man does but work his will."<ref>Narada Thera (2006) ''"The Buddha and His Teachings,"'' p. 271, Jaico Publishing House.</ref> | |||
==Medieval philosophers== | |||
{{quote|"The essential nature of the whole of samsara and nirvana is the absolute space (''dhatu'') of the ''tathagatagarbha'', but this space is not to be confused with a mere absence of matter. Rather, this absolute space is imbued with all the infinite knowledge, compassion, power, and enlightened activities of the Buddha. Moreover, this luminous space is that which causes the phenomenal world to appear, and it is none other than the nature of one's own mind, which by nature is clear light."|Dr. B. Alan Wallace<ref>Dr. B. Alan Wallace, "Is Buddhism Really Non-Theistic?" Lecture delivered at the National Conference of the American Academy of Religion, Boston, Mass., Nov., 1999. sbinstitute.com/.../Is%20Buddhism%20Really%20Nontheistic_.pdf pp. 2-3</ref>}} | |||
While ] was not as concerned with critiquing concepts of God or Īśvara (since ] was not as prominent in India until the medieval era),{{citation needed|date=March 2022}} medieval Indian Buddhists engaged much more thoroughly with the emerging Hindu theisms (mainly by attempting to refute them). According to ], medieval Buddhist philosophers deployed a host of arguments, including the ] and others that "stressed formal problems in the conception of a supreme deity".<ref name=":3">Kapstein, Matthew T. ''The Buddhist Refusal of Theism,'' Diogenes 2005; 52; 61.</ref> Kapstein outlines this second line of argumentation as follows:<ref name=":3" /><blockquote>God, the theists affirm, must be eternal, and an eternal entity must be supposed to be altogether free from corruption and change. That same eternal being is held to be the creator, that is, the causal basis, of this world of corruption and change. The changing state, however, of a thing that is caused implies there to be change also in its causal basis, for a changeless cause cannot explain alteration in the result. The hypothesis of a creator god, therefore, either fails to explain our changing world, or else God himself must be subject to change and corruption, and hence cannot be eternal. Creation, in other words, entails the impermanence of the creator. Theism, the Buddhist philosophers concluded, could not as a system of thought be saved from such contradictions.</blockquote> Kapstein also notes that by this time, "Buddhism's earlier refusal of theism had indeed given way to a well-formed ]." However, Kapstein notes that these criticisms remained mostly philosophical, since Buddhist antitheism "was conceived primarily in terms of the logical requirements of Buddhist philosophical systems, for which the concept of a personal god violated the rational demands of an impersonal, moral and causal order".<ref name=":3" /> | |||
===Madhyamaka philosophers=== | |||
Dr. Wallace further writes on how the primal Buddha, Samantabhadra, who in some scriptures is viewed as one with the ''tathagatagarbha'', forms the very radiating foundation of both samsara and nirvana. Noting a progression within Buddhism from doctrines of a mind-stream (''bhavanga'') to that of the absolutised ''tathagatagarbha'', Wallace comments that it may be too simple in the light of such doctrinal elements to define Buddhism unconditionally as "non-theistic": | |||
In the ''Twelve Gate Treatise (''十二門論, ''Shih-erh-men-lun)'', the Buddhist philosopher ] (c. 1st–2nd century) works to refute the belief of certain Indian non-Buddhists in a god called Isvara, who is "the creator, ruler and destroyer of the world".<ref>Hsueh-Li Cheng. "Nāgārjuna's Approach to the Problem of the Existence of God" in Religious Studies, Vol. 12, No. 2 (Jun. 1976), pp. 207-216 (10 pages), Cambridge University Press.</ref> Nagarjuna makes several arguments against a creator God, including the following:<ref>Hsueh-li Cheng (1982). ''Nagarjuna's Twelve Gate Treatise'', pp. 93-99. D. Reidel Publishing Company</ref> | |||
* "If all living beings are the sons of God, He should use happiness to cover suffering and should not give them suffering. And those who worship Him should not have suffering but should enjoy happiness. But this is not true in reality." | |||
* "If God is self-existent, He should need nothing. If He needs something, He should not be called self-existent. If He does not need anything, why did He change, like a small boy who plays a game, to make all creatures?" | |||
* "Again, if God created all living beings, who created Him? That God created Himself, cannot be true, for nothing can create itself. If He were created by another creator, He would not be self-existent." | |||
* "Again, if all living beings come from God, they should respect and love Him just as sons love their father. But actually this is not the case; some hate God and some love Him." | |||
* "Again, if God is the maker , why did He not create men all happy or all unhappy? Why did He make some happy and others unhappy? We would know that He acts out of hate and love, and hence is not self-existent. Since He is not self-existent, all things are not made by Him." | |||
In his ''Hymn to the Inconceivable'' (''Acintyastava''), Nagarjuna attacks this belief in two verses:<ref>Lindtner, Christian (1986). ''Master of Wisdom: Writings of the Buddhist Master Nāgārjuna'', pp. 26-27. Dharma Pub.</ref><blockquote>33. Just as the work of a magician is empty of substance, all the rest of the world has been said by you to be empty of substance—including a creator deity. | |||
34. If the creator is created by another, he cannot avoid being created and, consequently, is not permanent. Alternatively, if he creates himself, it implies that the creator is the agent of the activity affecting himself, which is absurd.</blockquote>Nagarjuna also argues against a Creator in his ''Bodhicittavivaraṇa''.<ref name=":5" /> Furthermore, in his ''Letter to a Friend'', he also rejects the idea of a creator deity:<ref> by Nagarjuna , translated by Alexander Berzin, studybuddhism.com</ref><blockquote> The ] (come) not from a triumph of wishing, not from (permanent) <abbr>time</abbr>, not from <abbr>primal matter</abbr>, not from an <abbr>essential nature</abbr>, not from the Powerful Creator Ishvara, and not from having no <abbr>cause</abbr>. Know that they <abbr>arise</abbr> from <abbr>unawareness</abbr>, karmic actions, and <abbr>craving</abbr>.</blockquote> | |||
{{quote|"], the primordial Buddha whose nature is identical with the ''tathagatagarbha'' within each sentient being, is the ultimate ground of ''samsara'' and ''nirvana''; and the entire universe consists of nothing other than displays of this infinite, radiant, empty awareness. Thus, in light of the theoretical progression from the ''bhavanga'' to the ''tathagatagarbha'' to the primordial wisdom of the absolute space of reality, Buddhism is not so simply non-theistic as it may appear at first glance."|Dr. B. Alan Wallace<ref>Dr. B. Alan Wallace, "Is Buddhism Really Non-Theistic?" Lecture given at the National Conference of the American Academy of Religion, Boston, Mass., Nov. 1999, p. 8.</ref>}} | |||
] (c. 500 – c. 578) also critiques the idea in his ''Madhyamakahṛdaya'' (Heart of the Middle Way, ch. III).<ref>Schmidt-Leukel, Perry (2016). ''Buddhism, Christianity and the Question of Creation: Karmic or Divine?'' p. 25. Routledge</ref> | |||
===Vajrayana views=== | |||
In some Mahayana traditions, the Buddha is indeed worshipped as a virtual divinity who is possessed of supernatural qualities and powers. Dr. Guang Xing writes: "The Buddha worshiped by Mahayanist followers is an omnipotent divinity endowed with numerous supernatural attributes and qualities ... is described almost as an omnipotent and almighty godhead.".<ref>Guang Xing, ''The Three Bodies of the Buddha: The Origin and Development of the Trikaya Theory'', RoutledgeCurzon, Oxford, 2005, pp.1 and 85</ref> | |||
A later Madhyamaka philosopher, ], states in his ''Introduction to the Middle Way'' (6.114): "Because things (bhava) are not produced without a cause (hetu), from a creator god (isvara), from themselves, another or both, they are always produced in dependence ."<ref>Fenner, Peter (2012). ''The Ontology of the Middle Way'', p. 85. Springer Science & Business Media</ref> | |||
The Buddhist scholar B. Alan Wallace has also indicated (as shown above) that saying that Buddhism as a whole is "non-theistic" may be an over-simplification. Wallace discerns similarities between some forms of Vajrayana Buddhism and notions of a divine "ground of being" and creation. He writes: "a careful analysis of Vajrayana Buddhist cosmogony, specifically as presented in the Atiyoga tradition of Indo-Tibetan Buddhism, which presents itself as the culmination of all Buddhist teachings, reveals a theory of a transcendent ground of being and a process of creation that bear remarkable similarities with views presented in Vedanta and Neoplatonic Western Christian theories of creation."<ref>B. Alan Wallace, "Is Buddhism Really Non-Theistic?" Lecture delivered at the National Conference of the American Academy of Religion, Boston, Mass., November 1999. sbinstitute.com/.../Is%20Buddhism%20Really%20Nontheistic_.pdf p. 1, accessed 14 August 2009</ref> In fact, Wallace sees these views as so similar that they seem almost to be different manifestations of the same theory. He further comments: "Vajrayana Buddhism, Vedanta, and Neoplatonic Christianity have so much in common that they could almost be regarded as varying interpretations of a single theory."<ref>B. Alan Wallace, "Is Buddhism Really Non-Theistic?", p. 7</ref> | |||
] (c. 8th century), in the 9th chapter of his '']'', states: | |||
The Tibetan monk-scholar ] of the Tibetan Jonang tradition speaks of a universal spiritual essence or ''noumenon'' (the Buddha as '']'') which contains all sentient beings in their totality, and quotes from the ''Sutra on the Inconceivable Mysteries of the One-Gone-Thus'': | |||
<blockquote>'God is the cause of the world.' Tell me, who is God? The elements? Then why all the trouble about a mere word? (119) Besides, the elements are manifold, impermanent, without intelligence or activity; without anything divine or venerable; impure. Also such elements as earth, etc., are not God.(120) Neither is space God; space lacks activity, nor is ]—that we have already excluded. Would you say that God is too great to conceive? An unthinkable creator is likewise unthinkable, so that nothing further can be said.<ref name="Dargyay, Eva K 1985">Dargyay, Eva K. "The Concept of a 'Creator God' in Tantric Buddhism". The Journal of the International Association of Buddhist studies, Volume 8, 1985, Number 1.</ref></blockquote> | |||
"... space dwells in all appearances of forms .. similarly, the body of the one-gone-thus also thoroughly dwells in all appearances of sentient beings ... For example, all appearances of forms are included inside space. Similarly, all appearances of sentient beings are included inside the body of the one-gone-thus ."<ref>''Dolpopa in Mountain Doctrine: Tibet's Fundamental Treatise on Other-Emptiness and the Buddha Matrix'', ed. and translated by Jeffrey Hopkins, Ithaca, N.Y. 2006, p. 84</ref> | |||
===Vasubandhu=== | |||
Dolpopa further quotes Buddhist scripture when he writes of this unified spiritual essence or noumenon as the 'supreme Over-Self of all continuums'<ref>Jeffrey Hopkins, ''Mountain Doctrine'', New York, 2006, p. 126</ref> and as "Self always residing in all, as the selfhood of all."<ref>Jeffrey Hopkins, ''Mountain Doctrine'', New York, 2006, p. 135</ref> | |||
], Nara, Japan]] | |||
The 5th-century Buddhist philosopher ] argued that a creator's singular identity is incompatible with creating the world in his '']''.<ref name="unm.edu">Hayes, Richard P., , ''Journal of Indian Philosophy'', 16:1 (1988:Mar.) pg 11-15.</ref> He states (AKB, chapter 2):<blockquote> The universe does not originate from one single cause (''ekaṃ kāraṇam'') which may be called God/Supreme Lord (]), Self (]), Primal Source (]) or any other name.</blockquote> Vasubandhu then proceeds to outline various arguments for and against the existence of a creator deity or single cause. In the argument that follows, the Buddhist non-theist begins by stating that if the universe arose from a single cause, "things would arise all at the same time: but everyone sees that they arise successively".<ref name=":0">de La Vallee Poussin & Sangpo (2012), p. 675</ref> The theist responds that things arise in succession because of the power of God's wishes; he thus wills things to arise in succession. The Buddhist responds: "then things do not arise from a single cause, because the desires (of God) are multiple". Furthermore, these desires would have to be simultaneous, but since God is not multiple, things would all arise at the same time.<ref name=":0" /> | |||
===Yogacara and the Absolute=== | |||
Another scholar sees a Buddhist Absolute in Consciousness. Writing on the ] school of Buddhism, Dr. A. K. Chatterjee remarks: "The Absolute is a non-dual consciousness. The duality of the subject and object does not pertain to it. It is said to be void (''sunya''), devoid of duality; in itself it is perfectly real, in fact the only reality ...There is no consciousness ''of'' the Absolute; Consciousness ''is'' the Absolute."<ref>Dr. A. K. Chatterjee, ''The Yogacara Idealism'', Motilal, Delhi, 1975, pp. 133-134</ref> | |||
The theist now responds that God's desires are not simultaneous, "because God, in order to produce his desires, takes into account other causes". The Buddhist replies that if this is the case, then God is not the single cause of everything, and furthermore, he then relies on causes that are also dependent on other causes (and so on).<ref name=":1">de La Vallee Poussin & Sangpo (2012), p. 676.</ref> | |||
While this is a traditional Tibetan interpretation of Yogacara views, it has been rejected by modern Western scholarship, namely by Kochumuttom, Anacker, Kalupahana, Dunne, Lusthaus, Powers, and Wayman.<ref>''Empty Words: Buddhist Philosophy and Cross-Cultural Interpretation'' by Jay L. Garfield. Oxford University Press: 2001. ISBN 0-19-514672-7<sup></sup></ref><ref name="acmuller.net">], ''What is and isn't Yogacara.'' .</ref><ref>Alex Wayman, ''A Defense of Yogacara Buddhism.'' Philosophy East and West, Volume 46, Number 4, October 1996, pages 447-476. "Of course, the Yogacara put its trust in the subjective search for truth by way of a samadhi. This rendered the external world not less real, but less valuable as the way of finding truth. The tide of misinformation on this, or on any other topic of Indian lore comes about because authors frequently read just a few verses or paragraphs of a text, then go to secondary sources, or to treatises by rivals, and presume to speak authoritatively. Only after doing genuine research on such a topic can one begin to answer the question: why were those texts and why do the moderns write the way they do?"</ref> Scholar ] writes: "They did not focus on consciousness to assert it as ultimately real (Yogācāra claims consciousness is only conventionally real since it arises from moment to moment due to fluctuating causes and conditions), but rather because it is the cause of the karmic problem they are seeking to eliminate."<ref name="acmuller.net"/> | |||
Then the question of why God creates the world is taken up. The theist states that it is for God's own joy. The Buddhist responds that in this case, God is not lord over his own joy since he cannot create it without an external mean, and "if he is not Sovereign with respect to his own joy, how can he be Sovereign with respect to the world?"<ref name=":1" /> Furthermore, the Buddhist also adds:<blockquote> Besides, do you say that God finds joy in seeing the creatures which he has created in the prey of all the distress of existence, including the tortures of the hells? Homage to this kind of God! The profane stanza expresses it well: "One calls him Rudra because he burns, because he is sharp, fierce, redoubtable, an eater of flesh, blood and marrow.<ref name=":2">de La Vallee Poussin & Sangpo (2012), p. 677.</ref></blockquote> Furthermore, the Buddhist states that the followers of God as a single cause deny observable cause and effect. If they modify their position to accept observable causes and effects as auxiliaries to their God, "this is nothing more than a pious affirmation, because we do not see the activity of a (Divine) Cause next to the activity of the causes called ''secondary''".<ref name=":2" /> | |||
===Zen and the Absolute=== | |||
A further name for the irreducible, time-and-space-transcending mysterious Truth or Essence of Buddhic Reality spoken of in some Mahayana and tantric texts is the ] (Body of Truth). Of this the ] master ], says:<ref>''Zen Pivots'', Weatherhill, NY, 1998, pp. 142, 146:</ref> | |||
{{quote|... ''dharmakaya'' the equivalent of God ... The Buddha also speaks of no time and no space, where if I make a sound there is in that single moment a million years. It is spaceless like radio waves, like electric space - intrinsic. The Buddha said that there is a mirror that reflects consciousness. In this electric space a million miles and a pinpoint - a million years and a moment - are exactly the same. It is pure essence ... We call it 'original consciousness' - 'original ''akasha''' - perhaps God in the Christian sense. I am afraid of speaking about anything that is not familiar to me. No one can know what IT is ...}} | |||
The Buddhist also argues that since God did not have a beginning, the creation of the world by God would also not have a beginning (contrary to the claims of the theists). Vasubandhu states: "the Theist might say that the work of God is the creation (''ādisarga''): but it would follow that creation, dependent only on God, would never have a beginning, like God himself. This is a consequence which the Theist rejects."<ref name=":2" /> | |||
The same Zen adept, Sokei-An, further comments:<ref>''The Zen Eye'', Weatherhill, New York, 1994, p. 41</ref> | |||
{{quote|The creative power of the universe is not a human being; it is Buddha. The one who sees, and the one who hears, is not this eye or ear, but the one who is ''this'' consciousness. ''This One'' is Buddha. ''This One'' appears in every mind. ''This One'' is common to all sentient beings, and is God.}} | |||
Vasubandhu finishes this section of his commentary by stating that sentient beings wander from birth to birth doing various actions, experiencing the effects of their karma and "falsely thinking that God is the cause of this effect. We must explain the truth in order to put an end to this false conception."<ref>de La Vallee Poussin & Sangpo (2012), p. 678.</ref> | |||
The Rinzai Zen Buddhist master, Soyen Shaku, speaking to Americans at the beginning of the 20th century, discusses how in essence the idea of God is not absent from Buddhism, when understood as ultimate, true Reality:<ref>''Sermons of a Buddhist Abbot'', by Soyen Shaku, Samuel Weiser Inc, New York, 1971, pp.25-26, 32</ref> | |||
{{quote|At the outset, let me state that Buddhism is not atheistic as the term is ordinarily understood. It has certainly a God, the highest reality and truth, through which and in which this universe exists. However, the followers of Buddhism usually avoid the term God, for it savors so much of ], whose spirit is not always exactly in accord with the Buddhist interpretation of religious experience ... To define more exactly the Buddhist notion of the highest being, it may be convenient to borrow the term very happily coined by a modern German scholar, 'panentheism', according to which God is ... all and one and more than the totality of existence .... As I mentioned before, Buddhists do not make use of the term God, which characteristically belongs to Christian terminology. An equivalent most commonly used is ] ... When the Dharmakaya is most concretely conceived it becomes the Buddha, or Tathagata ...}} | |||
===Other Yogacara philosophers=== | |||
===Primordial Buddhas=== | |||
The Chinese monk ] (fl. c. 602–664) studied Buddhism in India during the seventh century, staying at ]. There, he studied the ] teachings passed down from ] and Vasubandhu and taught to him by the abbot ]. In his work '']'' (Skt. ''Vijñāptimātratāsiddhi śāstra''), Xuanzang refutes a "Great Lord" or Great Brahmā doctrine:<ref>Cook, Francis, Chʿeng Wei Shih Lun (''Three Texts on Consciousness Only''), Numata Center, Berkeley, 1999, {{ISBN|978-1-886439-04-7}}, pp. 20-21.</ref> | |||
{{Main|Eternal Buddha}} | |||
{{blockquote|According to one doctrine, there is a great, self-existent deity whose substance is real and who is all-pervading, eternal, and the producer of all phenomena. This doctrine is unreasonable. If something produces something, it is not eternal, the non-eternal is not all-pervading, and what is not all-pervading is not real. If the deity's substance is all-pervading and eternal, it must contain all powers and be able to produce all ]s everywhere, at all times, and simultaneously. If he produces dharma when a desire arises, or according to conditions, this contradicts the doctrine of a single cause. Or else, desires and conditions would arise spontaneously since the cause is eternal. Other doctrines claim that there is a great Brahma, a Time, a Space, a Starting Point, a Nature, an Ether, a Self, etc., that is eternal and really exists, is endowed with all powers, and is able to produce all dharmas. We refute all these in the same way we did the concept of the Great Lord.<ref>{{cite book|author=Numata Center for Buddhist Translation and Research|title=Chʿeng Wei Shih Lun|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=qjDYAAAAMAAJ|date=January 1999|publisher=仏教伝道協会|isbn=978-1-886439-04-7|pages=20–22}}</ref>}} The 7th-century Buddhist scholar ] advances a number of arguments against the existence of a creator god in his ''Pramāṇavārtika'', following in the footsteps of Vasubandhu.<ref>Hayes, Richard P., "Principled Atheism in the Buddhist Scholastic Tradition," ''Journal of Indian Philosophy'', 16:1 (1988:Mar.) pg 12</ref> | |||
Theories regarding a self-existent immutable substantial "ground of being" or substrate were common in India prior to the Buddha, and were rejected by him: "The Buddha, however, refusing to admit any metaphysical principle as a common thread holding the moments of encountered phenomena together, rejects the ] notion of an immutable substance or principle underlying the world and the person and producing phenomena out of its inherent power, be it 'being', ], ], or 'god.'"<ref>Noa Ronkin, ''Early Buddhist metaphysics: the making of a philosophical tradition.'' Routledge, 2005 , page 196.</ref> | |||
Later ] scholars, such as ], ], ] (fl. c. 9th or 10th century), and ] (fl. 975–1025), also continued to write and develop the Buddhist anti-theistic arguments.<ref>Hayes, Richard P., "Principled Atheism in the Buddhist Scholastic Tradition," ''Journal of Indian Philosophy'', 16:1 (1988:Mar.) pg 14</ref><ref name=":3" /><ref>"Śaṅkaranandana" in Silk, Jonathan A (editor in chief). ''Brill’s Encyclopedia of Buddhism Volume II: Lives.''</ref> | |||
In later Mahayana literature, however, 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 ] ("body of Truth") of the Buddha himself, is attributed to the Buddha in a number of Mahayana sutras, and is found in various tantras as well. In some Mahayana texts, such a principle is occasionally presented as manifesting in a more personalised form as a primordial buddha, such as ], ], ], and ], among others. | |||
The 11th-century Buddhist philosopher ], at the former university at Vikramashila (now Bhagalpur, ]), criticized the arguments for the existence of a God-like being called Isvara that emerged in the ] in his "Refutation of Arguments Establishing Īśvara" (''Īśvara-sādhana-dūṣaṇa''). These arguments are similar to those used by other sub-schools of Hinduism and Jainism that questioned the Navya-Nyaya theory of a dualistic creator.<ref>Parimal G. Patil. ''Against a Hindu God: Buddhist Philosophy of Religion in India''. New York: Columbia University Press, 2009. pp. 3-4, 61-66 with footnotes, {{ISBN|978-0-231-14222-9}}.</ref> | |||
In Buddhist tantric and Dzogchen scriptures, too, this immanent and transcendent Dharmakaya (the ultimate essence of the Buddha’s being) is portrayed as the primordial Buddha, Samantabhadra, worshipped as the primordial lord. In a study of ], Dr. ] mentions how Samantabhadra Buddha is indeed seen as ‘the heart essence of all buddhas, the Primordial Lord, the noble Victorious One, Samantabhadra’.<ref>Dr. ], ''Approaching the Great Perfection: Simultaneous and Gradual Methods of Dzogchen Practice in the Longchen Nyingtig'', Wisdom Publications, Boston, 2004, p. 55</ref> Dr. Schaik indicates that Samantabhadra is not to be viewed as some kind of separate ''mindstream'', apart from the mindstreams of sentient beings, but should be known as a universal nirvanic principle termed the Awakened Mind (''bodhi-citta'') and present in all.<ref>Dr. Sam van Schaik, ''Approaching the Great Perfection'', Wisdom Publications, Boston, 2004, p. 55</ref> Dr. Schaik quotes from the tantric texts, ''Experiencing the Enlightened Mind of Samantabhadra'' and ''The Subsequent Tantra of Great Perfection Instruction'' to portray Samantabhadra as an uncreated, reflexive, radiant, pure and vital Knowing (gnosis) which is present in all things: | |||
===Theravada Buddhists=== | |||
{{quote| | |||
The ] commentator ] also specifically denied the concept of a Creator. He wrote: | |||
The essence of all phenomena is the awakened mind; | |||
the mind of all Buddhas is the awakened mind; | |||
and the life-force of all sentient beings is the awakened mind, too … | |||
This unfabricated gnosis of the present moment is the reflexive luminosity, naked and stainless, the Primordial Lord himself.<ref>Dr. Sam van Schaik, ''Approaching the Great Perfection'', Wisdom, Boston, 2004, p. 55</ref>}} | |||
<blockquote>"For there is no god Brahma. The maker of the conditioned world of rebirths. Phenomena alone flow on. Conditioned by the coming together of causes." ('']'' 603).<ref name="Harvey, Peter 2019 p. 1"/> </blockquote><nowiki/> | |||
The ] Buddhist monk, Dohan, regarded the two great Buddhas, ] and ], as one and the same ] Buddha and as the true nature at the core of all beings and phenomena. There are several realisations that can accrue to the Shingon practitioner of which Dohan speaks in this connection, as Dr. James Sanford points out: there is the realisation that ] is the ] Buddha, Vairocana; then there is the realisation that Amida as Vairocana is eternally manifest within this universe of time and space; and finally there is the innermost realisation that Amida is the true nature, material and spiritual, of all beings, that he is 'the omnivalent wisdom-body, that he is the unborn, unmanifest, unchanging reality that rests quietly at the core of all phenomena'.<ref>Dr. James H. Sanford, 'Breath of Life: The Esoteric Nembutsu' in ''Tantric Buddhism in East Asia'', ed. by Dr. Richard K. Payne, Wisdom Publications, Boston, 2006, p. 176</ref> | |||
==Mahayana and theism== | |||
Similar God-like descriptions are encountered in the ''All-Creating King Tantra'' (]), where the universal Mind of Awakening (in its mode as "Samantabhadra Buddha") declares of itself:<ref>''The Supreme Source'', p. 157</ref> | |||
], Shanhua Temple, ], China]] | |||
Mahayana Buddhist traditions have more complex Buddhologies, which often contain a figure variously termed the ], "Supreme Buddha", the One Original Buddha, or ] (primordial Buddha or first Buddha).<ref>Getty, Alice (1988). The Gods of Northern Buddhism: Their History and Iconography, p. 41. Courier Corporation.</ref><ref>{{cite book |last1=Chryssides |first1=George D. |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=WA12nHRtmAwC&q=%22soka+gakkai%22+%22nichiren+shu%22+%22nichiren+shoshu%22&pg=PA251 |title=Historical dictionary of new religious movements |date=2012 |publisher=Rowman & Littlefield |isbn=9780810861947 |edition=2nd |location=Lanham, Md. |page=251}}</ref> | |||
{{quote|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.}} | |||
===Mahayana buddhology and theism=== | |||
The ] presents the great bodhisattva, Avalokitesvara, as a kind of supreme lord of the cosmos. A striking feature of Avalokitesvara in this sutra is his creative power, as he is said to be the progenitor of various heavenly bodies and divinities. Dr. Alexander Studholme, in his monograph on the sutra, writes: | |||
], which depicts his body as being composed of numerous other Buddhas.]] | |||
Mahayana Buddhist interpretations of the Buddha as a ], which is eternal, all-compassionate, and existing on a cosmic scale, have been compared to ] by various scholars. For example, Guang Xing describes the Mahayana Buddha as an ] and almighty divinity "endowed with numerous supernatural attributes and qualities".<ref>Guang Xing (2005). ''The Three Bodies of the Buddha: The Origin and Development of the Trikaya Theory''. Oxford: Routledge Curzon: pp. 1, 85</ref> In Mahayana, a fully awakened Buddha (such as ]) is held to be ] as well as having other qualities, such as infinite wisdom, an immeasurable life, and boundless compassion.<ref>Williams, Paul, ''Mahayana Buddhism: The Doctrinal Foundations,'' Routledge, 2008, p. 240, 315.</ref> In ], Buddhas are often seen as also having eternal life.<ref>Williams, Paul, ''Mahayana Buddhism: The Doctrinal Foundations,'' Routledge, 2008, p. 315.</ref> According to Paul Williams, in Mahayana, a Buddha is often seen as "a spiritual king, relating to and caring for the world".<ref name=":822">Williams, Paul, ''Mahayana Buddhism: The Doctrinal Foundations,'' Routledge, 2008, p. 27.</ref> | |||
{{quote|The sun and moon are said to be born from the bodhisattva's eyes, Mahesvara from his brow, Brahma from his shoulders, Narayana from his heart, Sarasvati from his teeth, the winds from his mouth, the earth from his feet and the sky from his stomach.'<ref>Dr. Alexander Studholme, ''The Origins of Om Manipadme Hum: A Study of the Karandavyuha Sutra'', SUNY, 2002, p. 40</ref>}} | |||
Various authors, such as F. Sueki, ], and Fabio Rambelli, have described Mahayana Buddhist views using the term "]" (the belief that God and the universe are identical).<ref>Sueki, F (1996) 日本仏教史―思想史としてのアプローチ (''History of Japanese Buddhism: An Approach from the History of Thought''). Tokyo: Shinchōsha.</ref><ref>Rambelli, Fabio (2013) ''A Buddhist Theory of Semiotics''. London: Bloomsbury Academic.</ref><ref name=":6">Duckworth, Douglas (2015). ''Buddha-nature and the logic of pantheism''. In Powers, J (ed.), The Buddhist World. London: Routledge, pp. 235–247</ref> Similarly, ] has compared Tibetan Buddhist Buddhology with the related view of ].<ref>Samuel, G (2013) ''Panentheism and the longevity practices of Tibetan Buddhism''. In Biernacki, L and Clayton, P (eds), Panentheism across the World's Traditions. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 83–99.</ref> | |||
Avalokitesvara himself is linked in the versified version of the sutra to the first Buddha, the Adi Buddha, who is 'svayambhu' (self-existent, not born from anything or anyone). Dr. Studholme comments: "Avalokitesvara himself, the verse sutra adds, is an emanation of the ''Adibuddha'', or 'primordial Buddha', a term that is explicitly said to be synoymous with ''Svayambhu'' and ''Adinatha'', 'primordial lord'."<ref>Dr. Alexander Studholme, ''The Origins of Om Manipadme Hum: A Study of the Karandavyuha Sutra'', SUNY, 2002, p. 12</ref> | |||
Duckworth draws on positive Mahayana conceptions of ], which he explains as a "positive foundation" and "a pure essence residing in temporarily obscured sentient beings".<ref name=":6" /> He compares various Mahayana interpretations of Buddha-nature (Tibetan and East Asian) with a pantheist view that sees all things as divine and that "undoes the duality between the divine and the world".<ref name=":6" /> In a similar fashion, Eva K. Neumaier compares Mahayana Buddha-nature teachings that point to a source of all things with the theology of ] (1401–1464), who described God as an essence and the world as a manifestation of God.<ref name=":13">Neumaier, Eva K. "Buddhist Forms of Belief in Creation", In Schmidt-Leukel (2006) Buddhism, Christianity and the Question of Creation. 1st Edition. Routledge.</ref> | |||
The Primordial Buddha is ultimately both the individual mind and the immanent ominpresent enlightenment of the macrocosmical reality. The individual and external phenomena being seen as interdependent. | |||
José Ignacio Cabezón notes that while Mahayana sources reject a universal creator God that stands apart from the world, as well as any single creation event for the entire universe, Mahayanists do accept "localized" creation of specific worlds by the Buddhas and bodhisattvas as well as the idea that any world is jointly created by the collective karmic forces of all the beings who reside in them.<ref name=":11">Cabezón, José Ignacio. "Three Buddhist Views of the Doctrines of Creation and Creator", In Schmidt-Leukel (2006) ''Buddhism, Christianity and the Question of Creation''. 1st Edition. Routledge. ISBN 9781315261218</ref> Buddha-created worlds are termed "]" (or "pure lands"), and their creation is seen as a key activity of the Buddhas and bodhisattvas.<ref name=":11" /> | |||
===The Eternal Buddha of Shin Buddhism=== | |||
In ], ] Buddha is viewed as the eternal Buddha who manifested as Shakyamuni in India and who is the personification of Nirvana itself. The Shin Buddhist priest, John Paraskevopoulos, in his monograph on Shin Buddhism, writes: | |||
Much comparative work has also been done on Mahayana Buddhist thought and ] ]. Scholars who have worked in this include ], ], ], ], John S. Yokota, Steve Odin, and Linyin Gu.<ref>Gu, L (2005) Dipolarity in Chan Buddhism and the Whiteheadian God. Journal of Chinese Philosophy 32, 211–222.</ref><ref name=":9">McDaniel, J.B.B. (2003). ''Buddhist-Christian Studies'' ''23'', 67-76. {{doi|10.1353/bcs.2003.0024}}</ref><ref name=":10">{{Cite web |last=Cobb Jr |first=John B. |date=2002 |title=Whitehead and Buddhism – Religion Online |url=https://www.religion-online.org/article/whitehead-and-buddhism/ |access-date=12 March 2023}}</ref><ref>Odin, Steve (1982). ''Process Metaphysics and Hua-Yen Buddhism: A Critical Study of Cumulative Penetration vs. Interpretation.'' State University of New York Press.</ref><ref>Griffin, David R. (1974). ''''. International Philosophical Quarterly 14 (3):261-284.</ref><ref>Shen, Vincent. ''Whitehead and Chinese Philosophy: The Ontological Principle and Huayan Buddhism's Concept of shi'' in Handbook of Whiteheadian Process Thought. {{doi|10.1515/9783110333299.1.613}}</ref><ref>Yokota, John S. ''''. Process Studies Vol. 23, No. 2, Special Issue on Process Thought and Buddhism (SUMMER 1994), pp. 87-97 (11 pages). University of Illinois Press.</ref> Some of these figures have also been involved in ] dialogue.<ref name=":9" /><ref name=":10" /> Cobb sees many affinities with the Buddhist ideas of ] and ] and Whitehead's view of God. He has incorporated these into his own process theology.<ref>Ingram Paul O (2011). ''The Process of Buddhist-Christian Dialogue'', pp. 34-35. ISD LLC.</ref> In a similar fashion, some Buddhist thinkers, like ] and John S. Yokota, have developed Buddhist theologies that draw on process theology.<ref>Hirota, Dennis (editor) (2000) ''Toward a Contemporary Understanding of Pure Land Buddhism: Creating a Shin Buddhist Theology in a Religiously Plural World,'' p. 97. State University of New York Press.</ref> | |||
'In Shin Buddhism, Nirvana or Ultimate Reality (also known as the "Dharma-Body" or ''Dharmakaya'' in the original Sanskrit) has assumed a more concrete form as (a) the Buddha of Infinite Light (''Amitabha'') and Infinite Life (''Amitayus'')and (b) the "Pure Land" or "Land of Utmost Bliss" (''Sukhavati''), the realm over which this Buddha is said to preside ... Amida is the Eternal Buddha who is said to have taken form as Shakyamuni and his teachings in order to become known to us in ways we can readily comprehend.'<ref>John Paraskevopoulos, ''Call of the Infinite: The Way of Shin Buddhism'', Sophia Perennis Publications, California, 2009, pp. 16 - 17</ref> | |||
===East Asian Buddhism and theism=== | |||
John Paraskevopoulos elucidates the notion of Nirvana, of which Amida is an embodiment, in the following terms: | |||
] | |||
In ] Buddhism, the supreme Buddha ] is seen as the "cosmic Buddha", with an infinite body that comprises the entire universe and whose light penetrates every particle in the ].<ref>Cook, Francis Harold (1977). ''Hua-yen Buddhism: The Jewel Net of Indra,'' pp. 90-91. Pennsylvania State University Press.</ref> According to a religious pamphlet from ] temple in Japan (the headquarters of Japanese Huayan), "Vairocana Buddha exists everywhere and every time in the Universe, and the Universe itself is his body. At the same time, the songs of birds, the colors of flowers, the currents of streams, the figures of clouds—all these are the sermon of Buddha".<ref>Cook, Francis Harold (1977). ''Hua-yen Buddhism: The Jewel Net of Indra,'' p. 91. Pennsylvania State University Press.</ref> However, Francis Cook argues that Vairocana is not a god, nor has the functions of a monotheistic god, since he is not a creator of the universe, nor a judge or father who governs the world.<ref name=":8">Cook, Francis Harold (1977). ''Hua-yen Buddhism: The Jewel Net of Indra,'' pp. 91-94. Pennsylvania State University Press.</ref> | |||
{{quote|... more positive connotation is that of a higher state of being, the dispelling of illusion and the corresponding joy of liberation. An early Buddhist scripture describes Nirvana as: ... the far shore, the subtle, the very difficult to see, the undisintegrating, the unmanifest, the peaceful, the deathless, the sublime, the auspicious, the secure, the destruction of craving, the wonderful, the amazing, the unailing, the unafflicted, dispassion, purity, freedom, the island, the shelter, the asylum, the refuge ... (''Samyutta Nikaya'')<ref>John Paraskevopoulos, Call of the Infinite: The Way of Shin Buddhism, California, 2009, p. 21</ref>}} | |||
], meanwhile, has written that the idea of the Buddha's "cosmic body", who is both the cosmos and its creator, "is very close to the idea of God in the theistic religions".<ref>{{Cite web |last=Thich Nhat Hanh |date=26 June 2015 |title=Connecting to Our Root Teacher, the Buddha |url=https://plumvillage.org/about/thich-nhat-hanh/letters/connecting-to-our-root-teacher-a-letter-from-thay-27-sept-2014/ |access-date=24 March 2023 |website=Plum Village}}</ref> Similarly, Lin Weiyu writes that the Huayan school interprets Vairocana as "omnipresent, omnipotent and identical to the universe itself".<ref name=":03">LIN Weiyu 林威宇 (UBC): Vairocana of the ''Avataṃsaka Sūtra'' as Interpreted by Fazang 法藏 (643-712): A Comparative Reflection on "Creator" and "Creation" 法藏(643-712)筆下《華嚴經》中的盧舍那:談佛教中的創世者和創世</ref> According to Lin, the Huayan commentator ]'s conception of Vairocana contains "elements that approach Vairocana to the monotheistic God".<ref name=":03" /> However, Lin also notes that this Buddha is contained within a broader Buddhist metaphysics of ], which tempers the reification of this Buddha as a monotheistic creator god.<ref name=":03" /> | |||
This Nirvana is seen as eternal and of one nature, indeed as the essence of all things. Paraskevopoulos tells of how the ''Mahaparinirvana Sutra'' speaks of Nirvana as eternal, pure, blissful and true self: | |||
The ] Buddhist view of the Supreme Buddha ], whose body is seen as being the whole universe, has also been called "]" (the idea that the cosmos is God) by scholars like Charles Eliot, ], and Masaharu Anesaki.<ref>Eliot, Charles (2014). ''Japanese Buddhism,'' p. 340. Routledge.</ref><ref>Hajime Nakamura (1992). ''A Comparative History of Ideas'', p. 434. Motilal Banarsidass Publ.</ref><ref>Masaharu Anesaki (1915). ''Buddhist Art in Its Relation to Buddhist Ideals,'' p. 15. Houghton Mifflin.</ref> Fabio Rambelli terms it a kind of pantheism, the main doctrine of which is that Mahāvairocana's ] is co-substantial with the universe and is the very substance that the universe consists of. Furthermore, this cosmic Buddha is seen as making use of all the sounds, thoughts, and forms in the universe to preach the Buddha's teaching to others. Thus, all forms, thoughts, and sounds in the universe are seen as manifestations and teachings of the Buddha.<ref>Teeuwen, M. (2014). . ''Monumenta Nipponica'' ''69''(2), 259-263. {{doi|10.1353/mni.2014.0025}}</ref> | |||
{{quote|In Mahayana Buddhism it is taught that there is fundamentally one reality which, in its highest and purest dimension, is experienced as Nirvana. It is also known, as we have seen, as the Dharma-Body (considered as the ultimate form of Being) or "Suchness" (''Tathata'' in Sanskrit) when viewed as the essence of all things ... "The Dharma-Body is eternity, bliss, true self and purity. It is forever free of all birth, ageing, sickness and death" (''Nirvana Sutra'')<ref>Paraskevopoulos, ''Call of the Infinite: The Way of Shin Buddhism'', California, 2009, p. 22</ref>}} | |||
===Tantric Adi-Buddha theory and theism=== | |||
To attain this Self, however, it is needful to transcend the 'small self' and its pettiness with the help of an 'external' agency, Amida Buddha. This is the view promulgated by the ] founding Buddhist master, ]. John Paraskevopoulos comments on this: | |||
] Samantabhadra, a symbol of the ] in ] thought]] | |||
] writes on how the ] ] concept of the primordial Buddha (]) is sometimes seen as forming the foundation of both '']'' (the world of suffering) and ] (liberation). This view, according to Wallace, holds that "the entire universe consists of nothing other than displays of this infinite, radiant, empty awareness."<ref>B. Alan Wallace, "Is Buddhism Really Non-Theistic?" Lecture given at the National Conference of the American Academy of Religion, Boston, Mass., Nov. 1999, p. 8.</ref> | |||
{{quote|Shinran's great insight was that we cannot conquer the self by the self. Some kind of external agency is required: (a) to help us to shed light on our ego as it really is in all its petty and baneful guises; and (b) to enable us to subdue the small 'self' with a view to realising the Great Self by awakening to Amida's light.<ref>John Paraskevopoulos, ''The Call of the Infinite: The Way of Shin Buddhism'', California, 2009, p. 43</ref>}} | |||
Furthermore, Wallace notes similarities between these Vajrayana doctrines and notions of a divine creative "]". He writes: "a careful analysis of Vajrayana Buddhist cosmogony, specifically as presented in the Atiyoga (Dzogchen) tradition of Indo-Tibetan Buddhism, which presents itself as the culmination of all Buddhist teachings, reveals a theory of a transcendent ground of being and a process of creation that bear remarkable similarities with views presented in ] and ] Western Christian theories of creation."<ref name="shambhala.com">B. Alan Wallace, "Is Buddhism Really Non-Theistic?" in Snow Lion Newsletter, Winter 2000, {{ISSN|1059-3691}}, Volume 15, Number 1. https://www.shambhala.com/snowlion_articles/is-buddhism-really-nontheistic/</ref> He further comments that the three views "have so much in common that they could almost be regarded as varying interpretations of a single theory".<ref name="shambhala.com"/> | |||
When that Great Self of Amida's light is realised, Shin Buddhism is able to see the Infinite which transcends the care-worn mundane. John Paraskevopoulos concludes his monograph on Shin Buddhism thus: | |||
Douglas Duckworth sees Tibetan tantric Buddhism as "pantheist to the core", since "in its most profound expressions (e.g., ]), all dualities between the divine and the world are radically undone". According to Duckworth, in Vajrayana, "the divine is seen within the world, and the infinite within the finite."<ref>Duckworth, Douglas. "Tibetan Mahāyāna and Vajrayāna", In Emmanuel, Steven M. (ed). (2013) ''A Companion to Buddhist Philosophy''. Wiley-Blackwell, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.</ref> | |||
{{quote|It is time we discarded the tired view of Buddhism as a dry and forensic rationalism , lacking in warmth and devotion ... By hearing the call of Amida Buddha we become awakened to true reality and its unfathomable working ... to live a life that dances jubilantly in the resplendent light of the Infinite.<ref>John Paraskevopoulos, ''The Call of the Infinite: The Way of Shin Buddhism'', California, 2009, p. 81</ref>}} | |||
Eva K. Neumaier-Dargyay notes that the Dzogchen tantra called the '']'' ("all-creating king") uses symbolic language for the Adi-Buddha Samantabhadra, which is reminiscent of theism.<ref name="Dargyay, Eva K 1985" /> Neumaier-Dargyay considers the ''Kunjed Gyalpo'' to contain theistic-sounding language, such as positing a single "cause of all that exists" (including all Buddhas). However, she also writes that this language is symbolic and points to an impersonal "ground of all existence", or primordial basis, which is "the mind of perfect purity" that underlies all that exists.<ref name=":13" /> | |||
==Devas and the supernatural in Buddhism== | |||
Alexander Studholme also points to how the '']'' presents the great ] ] as a kind of supreme lord of the cosmos and as the progenitor of various heavenly bodies and divinities (such as the Sun and Moon, the deities Shiva and Vishnu, etc.)<ref>Alexander Studholme, ''The Origins of Om Manipadme Hum: A Study of the Karandavyuha Sutra'', SUNY, 2002, p. 40</ref> Avalokiteśvara himself is seen, in the versified version of the sutra, to be an emanation of the first Buddha, the Adi-Buddha, who is called ''svayambhu'' (self-existent, not born from anything or anyone) and the "primordial lord" (''Adinatha'').<ref>Alexander Studholme, ''The Origins of Om Manipadme Hum: A Study of the Karandavyuha Sutra'', SUNY, 2002, p. 12</ref> | |||
While Buddhist traditions do not deny the existence of supernatural beings (e.g., the '']'', of which many are discussed in ]), it does not ascribe powers, in the typical Western sense, for creation, salvation or judgement, to the "gods". They are regarded as having the power to affect worldly events in much the same way as humans and animals have the power to do so. Just as humans can affect the world more than animals, ''devas'' can affect the world more than humans. While gods may be more powerful than humans, Buddhists believe none of them are ], and like humans, are also suffering in ], the ongoing cycle of death and subsequent rebirth. Buddhists see gods as not having attained ], and still subject to emotions, including jealousy, anger, delusion, sorrow, etc. Thus, since a Buddha is believed to show the way to nirvana, a Buddha is called "]" (Skrt: ''śāsta deva-manuṣyāṇaṃ''). According to the Pali Canon the gods have powers to affect only so far as their realm of influence or control allows them. In this sense therefore, they are no closer to nirvana than humans and no wiser in the ultimate sense. A dialogue between the king Pasenadi Kosala, his general Vidudabha and the historical Buddha reveals a lot about the relatively weaker position of gods in Buddhism.<ref>Kannakatthala Sutta, (MN-90)</ref> | |||
====Adi-Buddha as non-theistic==== | |||
Though not believing in a creator God, Buddhists inherited the Indian cosmology of the time which includes various types of 'god' realms such as the Heaven of the Thirty-Three, the Four Great Kings, and so on. Deva-realms are part of the various possible types of existence in the ]. Rebirth as a deva is attributed to virtuous actions performed in previous lives. Beings that had meditated are thought to be reborn in more and more subtle realms with increasingly vast life spans, in accord with their meditative ability. In particular, the highest deva realms are pointed out as false paths in meditation that the meditator should be aware of. Like any existence within the cycle of rebirth (]), a life as a deva is only temporary. At the time of death, a large part of the former deva's good karma has been expended, leaving mostly negative karma and a likely rebirth in one of the three lower realms. Therefore, Buddhists make a special effort not to be reborn in deva realms. | |||
] mandala, which symbolically depicts the entire universe as a divine field of Buddha activity.]] | |||
The ] sees this deity (called Samantabhadra) as a symbol for ultimate reality, "the realm of the Dharmakaya – the space of emptiness".<ref>The Dalai Lama (2020). ''Dzogchen: Heart Essence of the Great Perfection''. p. 188. Shambhala Publications.</ref><ref name=":11" /> He is also quite clear that "the theory that God is the creator, is almighty, and permanent is in contradiction to Buddhist teachings... For Buddhists the universe has no first cause, and hence no creator, nor can there be such a thing as a permanent, primordially pure being."<ref name=":11" /> | |||
It is also noteworthy that devas in Buddhism have no role to play in liberation. Sir Charles Eliot describes God in early Buddhism as follows: | |||
Further discussing the doctrine of the Adi-Buddha, the Dalai Lama writes that the tantric Buddhist tradition explains ultimate reality in terms of "], the essential nature of the mind" and that this seems to imply "that all phenomena, samsara and nirvana, arise from this clear and luminous source".<ref name=":11" /> This doctrine of an "ultimate source", says the Dalai Lama, seems close to the notion of a Creator, since all phenomena, whether they belong to samsara or nirvana, originate therein".<ref name=":11" /> However, he warns that we not think of this as a Creator God, since the clear light is not "a sort of collective clear light, analogous to the non-Buddhist concept of ] as a substratum. We must not be inclined to deify this luminous space. We must understand that when we speak of ultimate or inherent clear light, we are speaking on an individual level. When, in the tantric context, we say that all worlds appear out of clear light, we do not visualize this source as a unique entity, but as the ultimate clear light of each being... It would be a grave error to conceive of it as an independent and autonomous existence from beginningless time."<ref name=":11" /> | |||
{{quote|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 Dzogchen master ] also argued that this figure is not a Creator God but is a symbol for a state of consciousness and a personification of the ] in ] thought.<ref>Norbu & Clemente, 1999, p. 94.</ref> Norbu explains that the Dzogchen idea of the Adi-Buddha Samantabhadra "should be mainly understood as a metaphor to enable us to discover our real condition".<ref name=":7" /> He further adds that:<blockquote>If we deem Samantabhadra an individual being, we are far from the true meaning. In reality, he denotes our potentiality that, even though at the present moment we are in samsara, has never been conditioned by dualism. From the beginning, the state of the individual has been pure and always remains pure: this is what Samantabhadra represents. But when we fall into conditioning, it is as if we are no longer Samantabhadra because we are ignorant of our true nature. So what is called the primordial Buddha, or Adibuddha, is only a metaphor for our true condition.<ref name=":7">Norbu & Clemente, 1999, p. 233.</ref></blockquote> Regarding the term Adi-Buddha as used in the tantric ] tradition, Vesna Wallace notes:<blockquote>when the ] tradition speaks of the Adibuddha in the sense of a beginningless and endless Buddha, it is referring to the innate gnosis that pervades the minds of all sentient beings and stands as the basis of both samsara and nirvana. Whereas, when it speaks of the Adibuddha as the one who first attained perfect enlightenment by means of imperishable bliss, and when it asserts the necessity of acquiring merit and knowledge in order to attain perfect Buddhahood, it is referring to the actual realization of one's own innate gnosis. Thus, one could say that in the Kalacakra tradition, Adibuddha refers to the ultimate nature of one's own mind and to the one who has realized the innate nature of one's own mind by means of purificatory practices.<ref>Wallace, Vesna (2001). ''The Inner Kalacakratantra: A Buddhist Tantric View of the Individual,'' p. 18. Oxford University Press.</ref></blockquote> Jim Valby notes that the "All-Creating King" (''Kunjed Gyalpo'', i.e., the primordial Buddha) of Dzogchen thought and its companion deities "are not gods, but are symbols for different aspects of our primordial enlightenment. Kunjed Gyalpo is our timeless Pure Perfect Presence beyond cause and effect. Sattvavajra is our ordinary, analytical, judgmental presence inside time that depends upon cause and effect."<ref>Valby, Jim (2016). ''Ornament of the State of Samantabhadra – Commentary on the All-Creating King – Pure Perfect Presence – Great Perfection of All Phenomena''. Volume One, 2nd Edition, p. 3.</ref> | |||
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. | |||
==Modern Buddhist anti-theism== | |||
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 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."<ref name="Sir Charles Elliot"/>}} | |||
], a Chinese Buddhist figure of the ]]] | |||
The modern era brought Buddhists into contact with the ], especially ]. Attempts to convert Buddhist nations to Christianity through missionary work were countered by Buddhist attempts at refutations of Christian doctrine and led to the development of ]. The earliest Christian attempts to refute Buddhism and criticize its teachings were those of Jesuits like ], ], and ].<ref name=":02">Meynard, Thierry (2017). '''' Journal of Jesuit Studies.</ref><ref name=":4" /> | |||
The Pali Canon also attributes supernatural powers to enlightened beings (Buddhas), that even gods may not have. In a dialogue between king Ajatasattu and the Buddha, enlightened beings are ascribed supranormal powers (like human flight, walking on water etc.), clairaudience, mind reading, recollection of past lives of oneself and others.<ref>Pali Tripitaka, Sutta Pitaka, Samaññaphala Sutta</ref> | |||
These attacks were answered by Asian Buddhists, who wrote critiques of Christianity, often centered on refuting Christian theism. Perhaps the earliest such attempt was that of the Chinese monk ] (祩宏, 1535–1615), who authored ''Four Essays on Heaven'' (天說四端). Another influential Chinese Buddhist critic of Christian theism was Xu Dashou (許大受), who wrote a long and systematic refutation of Christianity, titled ''Zuopi'' (''佐闢'', "help to the refutation"), which attempts to refute Christianity from the point of view of three Chinese traditions (Confucianism, Buddhism, and Taoism).<ref name=":02" /> | |||
==Attitudes towards theories of creation== | |||
Reflecting a common understanding of the Buddha's earliest teachings, Nyanaponika Thera asserts: | |||
<blockquote>From a study of the discourses of the Buddha preserved in the Pali canon, it will be seen that the idea of a personal deity, a creator god conceived to be eternal and omnipotent, is incompatible with the Buddha's teachings. On the other hand, conceptions of an impersonal godhead of any description, such as world-soul, etc., are excluded by the Buddha's teachings on Anatta, non-self or unsubstantiality. ... In Buddhist literature, the belief in a creator god (issara-nimmana-vada) is frequently mentioned and rejected, along with other causes wrongly adduced to explain the origin of the world.<ref>" bBuddhism and the God-idea" by Nyanaponika Thera<sup></sup></ref></blockquote> | |||
The monk ] (蕅益智旭, 1599–1655) later wrote the ''Bixie ji'' ("Collected Essays Refuting Heterodoxy"), which specifically attacks Christianity on the grounds of ] as well as relying on classical ] ethics. According to Beverley Foulks, in his essays, Zhixu "objects to the way Jesuits invest God with qualities of love, hatred, and the power to punish. He criticizes the notion that God would create humans to be both good and evil, and finally he questions why God would allow Lucifer to tempt humans towards evil."<ref name=":4">Foulks, Beverley. {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211127192916/https://chinesebuddhiststudies.org/previous_issues/chbj2104-New_Foulks_CHBJ_V21.pdf |date=27 November 2021 }} (2008, 21:55-75) Taipei: Chung-Hwa Institute of Buddhist Studies 中華佛學學報第二十一期 頁55-75 (民國九十七年),臺北:中華佛學研究所 {{ISSN|1017-7132}}</ref> | |||
In addition, nowhere in the Pali Canon are Buddhas ascribed powers of creation, salvation and judgement. In fact, Buddhism is critical of all theories on the origin of the universe<ref>Brahmajala Sutta (DN 1)</ref> and holds the belief in creation as a fetter binding one to samsara. However, the ] does contain a detailed account of the Buddha describing the origin of human life on earth. In this text, the Buddha provides an explanation of the ] system alternate to the one contained in the Vedas, and shows why one caste is not really any better than the other.<ref name="M. Walshe p. 407">M. Walshe: ''The Long Discourses of the Buddha'', p. 407: "On Knowledge of Beginnings", Somerville, MASS, 1995.</ref> According to scholar Richard Gombrich, the sutta gives strong evidence that it was conceived entirely as a satire of pre-existing beliefs,<ref name="Richard Gombrich 1996, page 82">Richard Gombrich, ''How Buddhism began: the Conditioned Genesis of the Early Teachings.'' Continuum International Publishing Group, 1996, page 82.</ref> and he and scholar David Kalupahana have asserted that the primary intent of this text is to satirize and debunk the ] claims regarding the divine nature of the caste system, showing that it is nothing but a human ].<ref>], ''Theravada Buddhism: A Social History from Ancient Benares to Modern Colombo.'' Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1988, page 85: .</ref><ref>David J. Kalupahana, ''Mūlamadhyamakakārikā of Nāgārjuna: The Philosophy of the Middle Way.'' Reprint by Motilal Banarsidass Publ., 1991, page 61: </ref> Strictly speaking, the sutta is not a cosmogony, as in Buddhism, an absolute beginning is inconceivable. Since the earliest times Buddhists have, however, taken it seriously as an account of the origins of society and kingship.<ref name="Richard Gombrich 1996, page 82"/> Gombrich, however, finds it to be a parody of brahminical cosmogony as presented in the ] "]" (RV X, 129) and ] 1, 2.<ref>Richard Gombrich, ''How Buddhism began: the Conditioned Genesis of the Early Teachings.'' Continuum International Publishing Group, 1996, page 81.</ref> He states: "The Buddha never intended to propound a cosmogony. If we take a close look at the Aggañña Sutta, there are considerable incoherencies if it is taken seriously as an explanatory account - though once it is perceived to be a parody these inconsistencies are of no account." In particular, Gombrich finds that to view the Aggañña Sutta as a truthful account violates the basic Buddhist theory of how the law of karma operates, as Gombrich argues that beings cannot possibly be born in a realm (Streaming Radiance) higher than the Maha Brahma realm only to fall back to such a low realm of existence on Earth, and eventually succumb to sense craving as the first beings in a re-evolved human realm.<ref>Richard Gombrich, ''How Buddhism began: the Conditioned Genesis of the Early Teachings.'' Continuum International Publishing Group, 1996, pages 82-83.</ref> However, scholars Rupert Gethin and Brahmana Metteyya strongly disagree with Gombrich's complete dismissal as satire of the Aggañña Sutta.<ref>Brahmana, Metteyya. Book Review: What the Buddha Thought, by Richard Gombrich </ref><ref name="books.google.com">Gethin, Rupert. "Cosmology and meditation: from the Agganna Sutta to the Mahayana" in Williams, Paul. ''Buddhism, Vol. II''. Routledge 2004. ISBN 0-415-33228-1 pgs 104, 126 </ref> Gethin states: | |||
Modern ] also wrote their own works to refute Christian theism. ] (1565–1621) is perhaps one of the best-known of these critics, especially because he was a convert to Christianity who then became an ] and wrote an anti-Christian polemic, titled ''Deus Destroyed'' (''Ha Daiusu''), in 1620.<ref>Elison, George (1988). ''Deus Destroyed''. Cambridge: Council on East Asian Studies, Harvard University. pp. 154–155. {{ISBN|0-674-19962-6}}.</ref> The Zen monk Sessō Sōsai also wrote an important anti-Christian work, the ''Argument for the Extinction of Heresy'' (''Taiji Jashū Ron''), in which he argued that the Christian God is just the Vedic Brahma and that Christianity was a heretical form of Buddhism. His critiques were particularly influential on the leadership of the ].<ref>Ananda, Jason; Storm, Josephson (2012). ''The Invention of Religion in Japan'', p. 50. University of Chicago Press.</ref> | |||
{{quote|While certain of the details of the Agganna-sutta's account of the evolution of human society may be, as Gombrich has persuasively argued, satirical in intent, there is nothing in the Nikayas to suggest that these basic cosmological principles that I have identified should be so understood; there is nothing to suggest that the Agganna-sutta's introductory formula describing the expansion and contraction of the world is merely a joke. We should surely expect early Buddhism and indeed the Buddha to have some specific ideas about the nature of the round of rebirth, and essentially this is what the cosmological details presented in the Agganna-sutta and elsewhere in Nikayas constitute ... far from being out of key with what we can understand of Buddhist thought from the rest of the Nikayas, the cosmogonic views offered by the Aggañña Sutta in fact harmonize very well with it . .I would go further and say that something along the lines of the Aggañña myth is actually required by it.<ref name="books.google.com"/>}} | |||
Later Japanese Buddhists continued to write anti-theist critiques, focusing on Christianity. These figures include Kiyū Dōjin (a.k.a. Ugai Tetsujō 1814–91, who was a head of ]), who wrote ''Laughing at Christianity'' (1869), and ].<ref>Paramore. Kiri (2010). ''Ideology and Christianity in Japan'', p. 8. Routledge.</ref> According to Kiri Paramore, the 19th-century Japanese attacks on Christianity tended to rely on more rationalistic and philosophical critiques than the Tokugawa-era critiques (which tended to be more driven by ] and ]).<ref>Paramore, Kiri. ''Anti-Christian Ideas and National Ideology: Inoue Enryō and Inoue Tetsujirō’s Mobilization of Sectarian History in Meiji Japan.'' Sungkyun Journal of East Asian Studies. Vol.9, No.1. 2009 Academy of East Asian Studies. pp.107-144</ref> | |||
In the Aggañña Sutta the Buddha advises Vasettha that whoever has strong, deep rooted, and established belief in the Tathagatha, he can declare that he is the child of ], born from the mouth of Dhamma, created from Dhamma, and the heir of Dhamma. Because the titles of the Tathagatha are: The Body of Dhamma, The Body of Brahma, the Manifestation of Dhamma, and the Manifestation of Brahma. That resonates well with the later Mahayana doctrine, though preceding it. | |||
Modern Theravada Buddhists have also written various critiques of a Creator God, which reference Christian and modern theories of God. These works include A.L. De Silva's ''Beyond Belief,'' ]'s ''Buddhism and the God Idea'' (1985), and ]'s ''A Buddhist critique of the Christian concept of God'' (1988). | |||
In Buddhism, the focus is primarily on the effect the belief in theories of creation and a creator have on the human mind. The Buddhist attitude towards every ] is one of critical examination from the perspective of what effect the belief has on the mind and whether the belief binds one to samsara or not. | |||
The Buddha declared that "it is not possible to know or determine the first beginning of the cycle of existence of beings who wander therein deluded by ignorance and obsessed by craving."<ref>], ''Causality: The Central Philosophy of Buddhism.'' The University Press of Hawaii, 1975, page 111.</ref> Speculation about the origin and extent of the universe is generally discouraged in early Buddhism.<ref>], ''Causality: The Central Philosophy of Buddhism.'' The University Press of Hawaii, 1975, pages 111-112.</ref> | |||
===Theravada=== | |||
] describes early Buddhism as psychological rather than metaphysical.<ref>{{cite book|last=Smith |first=Huston| title= The World's Religions: Our Great Wisdom Traditions |origyear=1958 |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=1G4eNRWYT6gC |accessdate=2008-09-12 |year=1991 |publisher=HarperCollins |isbn=0-06-250811-3 }}</ref> Unlike theistic religions, which are founded on notions of God and related ]s, Buddhism begins with the human condition as enumerated in the ]. Thus while most other religions attempt to pass a blanket judgement on the goodness of ] (e.g. 'He then looked at the world and saw that it was good.' ], ], ] ]) and therefore derive the greatness of its Creator, Early Buddhism denies that the question is even worth asking to begin with.<ref>, Thanissaro Bhikku</ref> Instead it places emphasis on the human condition of clinging and the insubstantial nature of the world. This approach is often even in contrast with many of the Mahayana forms of Buddhism. No being, whether a god or an enlightened being (including the historical Buddha), is ascribed powers of creation, granting salvation and judgement. According to the Pali Canon, ] cannot be ascribed to any being. Further, in Theravada Buddhism, there are no lands or heavens where a being is guaranteed nibbana (Skt. "]") except in the ] realms in the Pure Abodes (Pali: Sudhavasasa), which according to the historical Buddha require removal of the first five ] (belief in permanent self, skeptical doubt about the Dhamma, clinging to rites and rituals, sensual lust, and hatred). In Early Buddhism there is no equivalent to the Mahayana "Pure Land" or magical abode of Buddhas where one is guaranteed to be enlightened by simply reciting the Amitabha mantra before death without removing any of the 10 ] that bind us to ]. In fact, the very idea of a "Buddha" living in any heaven abode is not possible in Early Buddhism, as a "Buddha", by definition, is a being that is no longer clinging to any material or immaterial existence upon the death of the body (parinibbana).<ref>{{cite web|title=Parinibbana Sutta (SN 6.15)|url=http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn06/sn06.015.than.html}}</ref> | |||
The late Theravada philosophy states the principle of ] as the ground of being for all karmas. There are multiple Bhavanga streams which are manifested and responsible for the individual minds and continuous karmic streams. | |||
===Vajrayana=== | |||
Tibetan schools of Buddhism speak of two truths, absolute and relative. Relative truth is regarded as the chain of ongoing causes and conditions that define experience within samsara, and ultimate truth is synonymous with emptiness. There are many philosophical viewpoints, but unique to the Vajrayana perspective is the expression (by meditators) of emptiness in experiential language, as opposed to the language of negation used by scholars to undo any conceptual fixation that would stand in the way of a correct understanding of emptiness. For example, one teacher from the Tibetan ] school of Buddhism, Kalu Rinpoche, elucidates: "...pure mind cannot be located, but it is omnipresent and all-penetrating; it embraces and pervades all things. Moreover, it is beyond change, and its open nature is indestructible and atemporal."<ref>{{cite book |title=Luminous Mind |last=Kalu Rinpoche |first=Kyabje |year=1997 |publisher=Wisdom Publications |location=Boston |isbn=0-86171-118-1 |pages=20–21 |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=eWVgoVByVhcC }}</ref> | |||
==Veneration of the Buddha== | |||
Although an absolute creator god is absent in most forms of Buddhism, veneration or worship of the Buddha and other ] does play a major role in all forms of Buddhism. In Buddhism all beings may strive for Buddhahood. Throughout the schools of Buddhism, it is taught that being born in the human realm is best for realizing full enlightenment, whereas being born as a god presents one with too much pleasure and too many distractions to provide any motivation for serious insight meditation. Doctrines of ] have played an important role in Christian thought, and there are a number of theistic variations of Hinduism where a practitioner can strive to become the godhead (for example ]), but from a Buddhist perspective, such attainment would be disadvantageous to the attainment of nirvana,since it may possibly be based on mental ]. Some forms of Buddhist meditation, however, share more similarities with the concept of ]. | |||
In Buddhism, one venerates Buddhas and sages for their virtues, sacrifices, and struggles for perfect enlightenment, and as teachers who are embodiments of the ].<ref>{{cite web |url= http://www.tientai.net/teachings/dharma/buddha/10titles.htm |title= The Ten Titles of the Buddha |accessdate=2008-09-12 |last=Johnson |first=Peter |year=2001 }}</ref> | |||
{{quote|In Buddhism, this supreme victory of the human ability for perfect gnosis is celebrated in the concept of human saints known as ]s which literally means "worthy of offerings" or "worthy of worship" because this sage overcomes all defilements and obtains perfect gnosis to obtain ].}} | |||
Professor Perry Schmidt-Leukel comments on how some portrayals of the Buddha within Western understanding deprive him of certain 'divine' features, which are in fact found in the earlier scriptures and in certain Eastern contexts. Schmidt-Leukel writes: | |||
{{quote|What a difference between the presentation of the Buddha within the genuine context of religious veneration, as in temple, and the image of the Buddha - currently so widespread in the West - according to which the Buddha was simply a human being, free from all divine features! Indeed this modern view does not at all correspond to the description of the Buddha in the classical Buddhist scriptures.<ref>Professor Perry Schmidt-Leukel, 'Buddha and Christ as Mediators of the Transcendent', in ''Buddhism and Christianity in Dialogue'', ed. by Professor Perry Schmidt-Leukel, SCM Press, Norfolk, 2005, p. 152</ref>}} | |||
==See also== | ==See also== | ||
{{col div|colwidth=30em}} | |||
* ] | |||
* ] | |||
* ] | * ] | ||
* ] | * ] | ||
* ] | |||
* ] | |||
* ] | |||
* ] | |||
* ] | * ] | ||
* ] | |||
* ] | |||
* ] | * ] | ||
* ] | |||
* ] | |||
{{colend}} | |||
==References== | ==References== | ||
{{Reflist |
{{Reflist}} | ||
{{Clear}} | {{Clear}} | ||
== |
==Bibliography== | ||
{{Refbegin}} | {{Refbegin}} | ||
* {{citation |last=Harvey |first=Peter |title=An Introduction to Buddhism: Teachings, History and Practices |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=u0sg9LV_rEgC&q=buddhism%20introduction&pg=PA5 |year=2013 |publisher=Cambridge University Press |location=Cambridge, UK |edition=2nd |isbn=978-0-521-67674-8 }} | |||
* {{cite book | |||
* {{citation |editor-last=Taliaferro |editor-first=Charles |title=The Routledge Companion to Theism |year=2013 |publisher=Routledge |location=New York|isbn=978-0-415-88164-7}} | |||
|last = Fozdar | |||
* de La Vallee Poussin, Louis (fr. trans.); Sangpo, Gelong Lodro (eng. trans.) (2012) ''Abhidharmakośa-Bhāṣya of Vasubandhu Volume I.'' Motilal Banarsidass Pubs. {{ISBN|978-81-208-3608-2}} | |||
|first = Jamshed K. | |||
* Norbu, Namkhai; Clemente, Adriano (1999). ''The Supreme Source: The Kunjed Gyalpo, the Fundamental Tantra of Dzogchen Semde.'' Snow Lion Publications. | |||
|origyear = 1973 | |||
* Schmidt-Leukel, Perry (Editor) (2006). ''Buddhism, Christianity and the question of creation, karmic or divine''. Ashgate Publishing Limited. | |||
|year = 1995 | |||
|title = The God of Buddha | |||
|publisher = Casa Editrice Bahá'í Srl | |||
|location = Ariccia (RM), Italy | |||
|isbn = 88-7214-031-5 | |||
|ol = 24300363M | |||
|ref = harv | |||
}} | |||
* ], ''The Self-Aware Universe'', Tarcher, 1995 reprint, softcover, ISBN 0-87477-798-4 | |||
* {{cite book | |||
|last = Hodge | |||
|first = Stephen (tr.) | |||
|year = 2003 | |||
|title = The Maha-Vairocana-Abhisambodhi Tantra | |||
|publisher = Routledge Curzon | |||
|location = London, UK | |||
| ref = harv | |||
}} | |||
* {{cite book | |||
|last = Norbu | |||
|first = C. | |||
|coauthors = A. Clemente | |||
|year = 1999 | |||
|title = The Supreme Source | |||
|publisher = Snow Lion Publications | |||
|location = New York, USA | |||
| ref = harv | |||
}} | |||
* Sokei-an, 1998, ''Zen Pivots'', Weatherhill, New York, Tokyo. | |||
* Wallis, Glenn, '''', ''Religion'' 38 (2008):54-67. | |||
* {{cite book | |||
|last = Yamamoto | |||
|first = Kosho (tr.) | |||
|coauthors = Dr. Tony Page (ed. and revision) | |||
|year = 1999–2000 | |||
|title = The Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra | |||
|publisher = Nirvana Publications | |||
|location = London, UK | |||
| ref = harv | |||
}} | |||
{{Refend}} | {{Refend}} | ||
==External links== | |||
{{Buddhism topics}} | {{Buddhism topics}} | ||
Line 280: | Line 216: | ||
{{DEFAULTSORT:God In Buddhism}} | {{DEFAULTSORT:God In Buddhism}} | ||
] | ] | ||
] | ] | ||
] |
Latest revision as of 14:04, 9 December 2024
Buddhist views on the belief in a creator deity, or any eternal divine personal beingThis article may be too technical for most readers to understand. Please help improve it to make it understandable to non-experts, without removing the technical details. (March 2023) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
Part of a series on |
Buddhism |
---|
History |
Buddhist texts |
Practices |
Nirvāṇa |
Traditions |
Buddhism by country |
Generally speaking, Buddhism is a religion that does not include the belief in a monotheistic creator deity. As such, it has often been described as either (non-materialistic) atheism or as nontheism. However, other scholars have challenged these descriptions since some forms of Buddhism do posit different kinds of transcendent, unborn, and unconditioned ultimate realities (e.g., Buddha-nature).
Buddhist teachings state that there are divine beings called devas (sometimes translated as 'gods') and other Buddhist deities, heavens, and rebirths in its doctrine of saṃsāra, or cyclical rebirth. Buddhism teaches that none of these gods is a creator or an eternal being. However, they can live very long lives. In Buddhism, the devas are also trapped in the cycle of rebirth and are not necessarily virtuous. Thus, while Buddhism includes multiple "gods", its main focus is not on them. Peter Harvey calls this "trans-polytheism".
Buddhist texts also posit that mundane deities, such as Mahabrahma, are misconstrued to be creators. Buddhist ontology follows the doctrine of dependent origination, whereby all phenomena arise in dependence on other phenomena, hence no primal unmoved mover could be acknowledged or discerned. Gautama Buddha, in the early Buddhist texts, is also shown as stating that he saw no single beginning to the universe.
During the medieval period, Buddhist philosophers like Vasubandhu developed extensive refutations of creationism and Hindu theism. Because of this, some modern scholars, such as Matthew Kapstein, have described this later stage of Buddhism as anti-theistic. Buddhist anti-theistic writings were also common during the modern era, in response to the presence of Christian missionaries and their critiques of Buddhism.
Despite this, some writers, such as B. Alan Wallace and Douglas Duckworth, have noted that certain doctrines in Vajrayana Buddhism can be seen as being similar to certain theistic doctrines like Neoplatonic theology and pantheism. Various scholars have also compared East Asian Buddhist doctrines regarding the supreme and eternal Buddhas like Vairocana or Amitabha with certain forms of theism, such as pantheism and process theism.
Early Buddhist texts
Damien Keown notes that in the Saṃyutta Nikāya, the Buddha sees the cycle of rebirths as stretching back "many hundreds of thousands of aeons without discernible beginning." Saṃyutta Nikāya 15:1 and 15:2 states: "This samsara is without discoverable beginning. A first point is not discerned of beings roaming and wandering on hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving."
According to Buddhologist Richard Hayes, the early Buddhist Nikaya literature treats the question of the existence of a creator god "primarily from either an epistemological point of view or a moral point of view". In these texts, the Buddha is portrayed not as a creator-denying atheist who claims to be able to prove such a god's nonexistence, but rather his focus is other teachers' claims that their teachings lead to the highest good.
According to Hayes, in the Tevijja Sutta (DN 13), there is an account of a dispute between two brahmins about how best to reach union with Brahma (Brahmasahavyata), who is seen as the highest god over whom no other being has mastery and who sees all. However, after being questioned by the Buddha, it is revealed that they do not have any direct experience of this Brahma. The Buddha calls their religious goal laughable, vain, and empty.
Hayes also notes that in the early texts, the Buddha is not depicted as an atheist, but more as a sceptic who is against religious speculations, including speculations about a creator god. Citing the Devadaha Sutta (Majjhima Nikaya 101), Hayes states, "while the reader is left to conclude that it is attachment rather than God, actions in past lives, fate, type of birth or efforts in this life that is responsible for our experiences of sorrow, no systematic argument is given in an attempt to disprove the existence of God."
Narada Thera also notes that the Buddha specifically calls out the doctrine of creation by a supreme deity (termed Ishvara) for criticism in the Aṅguttara Nikāya. This doctrine of creation by a supreme lord is defined as follows: "Whatever happiness or pain or neutral feeling this person experiences, all that is due to the creation of a supreme deity (issaranimmāṇahetu)." The Buddha criticized this view because he saw it as a fatalistic teaching that would lead to inaction or laziness:
" So, then, owing to the creation of a supreme deity, men will become murderers, thieves, unchaste, liars, slanderers, abusive, babblers, covetous, malicious and perverse in view. Thus for those who fall back on the creation of a god as the essential reason, there is neither desire nor effort nor necessity to do this deed or abstain from that deed."
In another early sutta (Devadahasutta, Majjhima Nikāya 101), the Buddha sees the pain and suffering that is experienced by certain individuals as indicating that if they were created by a god, then this is likely to be an evil god:
" If the pleasure and pain that beings feel are caused by the creative act of a Supreme God, then the Nigaṇṭhas surely must have been created by an evil Supreme God, since they now feel such painful, racking, piercing feelings."
High gods who are mistaken as creator
Further information: Brahmā (Buddhism)According to Peter Harvey, Buddhism assumes that the universe has no ultimate beginning to it and thus sees no need for a creator god. In the early texts, the nearest term to this concept is "Great Brahma" (Maha Brahma), such as in Digha Nikaya 1.18. However, "hile being kind and compassionate, none of the brahmās are world-creators."
In the Pali Canon, Buddhism includes the concept of reborn gods. According to this theory, periodically, the physical world system ends and beings of that world system are reborn as gods in lower heavens. This too ends, according to Buddhist cosmology, and god Mahabrahma is then born, who is alone. He longs for the presence of others, and the other gods are reborn as his ministers and companions. In Buddhist suttas, such as DN 1, Mahabrahma forgets his past lives and falsely believes himself to be the Creator, Maker, All-seeing, the Lord. This belief, state the Buddhist texts, is then shared by other gods. Eventually, however, one of the gods dies and is reborn as human, with the power to remember his previous life. He teaches what he remembers from his previous life in lower heaven, that Mahabrahma is the Creator. It is this that leads to the human belief in a creator, according to the Pali Canon.
A similar story of a high god (brahma) who mistakes himself as the all-powerful creator can be seen in the Brahma-nimantanika Sutta (MN 49). In this sutta, the Buddha displays his superior knowledge by explaining how a high god named Baka Brahma, who believes himself to be supremely powerful, actually does not know of certain spiritual realms. The Buddha also demonstrates his superior psychic power by disappearing from Baka Brahma's sight, to a realm that he cannot reach, and then challenges him to do the same. Baka Brahma fails in this, demonstrating the Buddha's superiority. The text also depicts Mara, an evil trickster figure, as attempting to support the Brahma's misconception of himself. As noted by Michael D. Nichols, MN 49 seems to show that "belief in an eternal creator figure is a devious ploy put forward by the Evil One to mislead humanity, and the implication is that Brahmins who believe in the power and permanence of Brahma have fallen for it."
The Problem of Evil in the Jatakas
Some stories in the Buddhist Jataka collections outline a critique of a Creator deity that is similar to the Problem of Evil.
One Jataka story (VI.208) states:
If Brahma is lord of the whole world and Creator of the multitude of beings, then why has he ordained misfortune in the world without making the whole world happy; or for what purpose has he made the world full of injustice, falsehood and conceit; or is the lord of beings evil in that he ordained injustice when there could have been justice?
The Pali Bhūridatta Jātaka (No. 543) has the bodhisattva (future Buddha) state:
- "He who has eyes can see the sickening sight,
- Why does not Brahmā 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 you Brahmā one th'unjust among,
- Who made a world in which to shelter wrong."
In the Pali Mahābodhi Jātaka (No. 528), the bodhisattva says:
- "If there exists some Lord all powerful to fulfil
- In every creature bliss or woe, and action good or ill;
- That Lord is stained with sin.
- Man does but work his will."
Medieval philosophers
While Early Buddhism was not as concerned with critiquing concepts of God or Īśvara (since theism was not as prominent in India until the medieval era), medieval Indian Buddhists engaged much more thoroughly with the emerging Hindu theisms (mainly by attempting to refute them). According to Matthew Kapstein, medieval Buddhist philosophers deployed a host of arguments, including the argument from evil and others that "stressed formal problems in the conception of a supreme deity". Kapstein outlines this second line of argumentation as follows:
God, the theists affirm, must be eternal, and an eternal entity must be supposed to be altogether free from corruption and change. That same eternal being is held to be the creator, that is, the causal basis, of this world of corruption and change. The changing state, however, of a thing that is caused implies there to be change also in its causal basis, for a changeless cause cannot explain alteration in the result. The hypothesis of a creator god, therefore, either fails to explain our changing world, or else God himself must be subject to change and corruption, and hence cannot be eternal. Creation, in other words, entails the impermanence of the creator. Theism, the Buddhist philosophers concluded, could not as a system of thought be saved from such contradictions.
Kapstein also notes that by this time, "Buddhism's earlier refusal of theism had indeed given way to a well-formed antitheism." However, Kapstein notes that these criticisms remained mostly philosophical, since Buddhist antitheism "was conceived primarily in terms of the logical requirements of Buddhist philosophical systems, for which the concept of a personal god violated the rational demands of an impersonal, moral and causal order".
Madhyamaka philosophers
In the Twelve Gate Treatise (十二門論, Shih-erh-men-lun), the Buddhist philosopher Nagarjuna (c. 1st–2nd century) works to refute the belief of certain Indian non-Buddhists in a god called Isvara, who is "the creator, ruler and destroyer of the world". Nagarjuna makes several arguments against a creator God, including the following:
- "If all living beings are the sons of God, He should use happiness to cover suffering and should not give them suffering. And those who worship Him should not have suffering but should enjoy happiness. But this is not true in reality."
- "If God is self-existent, He should need nothing. If He needs something, He should not be called self-existent. If He does not need anything, why did He change, like a small boy who plays a game, to make all creatures?"
- "Again, if God created all living beings, who created Him? That God created Himself, cannot be true, for nothing can create itself. If He were created by another creator, He would not be self-existent."
- "Again, if all living beings come from God, they should respect and love Him just as sons love their father. But actually this is not the case; some hate God and some love Him."
- "Again, if God is the maker , why did He not create men all happy or all unhappy? Why did He make some happy and others unhappy? We would know that He acts out of hate and love, and hence is not self-existent. Since He is not self-existent, all things are not made by Him."
In his Hymn to the Inconceivable (Acintyastava), Nagarjuna attacks this belief in two verses:
33. Just as the work of a magician is empty of substance, all the rest of the world has been said by you to be empty of substance—including a creator deity. 34. If the creator is created by another, he cannot avoid being created and, consequently, is not permanent. Alternatively, if he creates himself, it implies that the creator is the agent of the activity affecting himself, which is absurd.
Nagarjuna also argues against a Creator in his Bodhicittavivaraṇa. Furthermore, in his Letter to a Friend, he also rejects the idea of a creator deity:
The aggregates (come) not from a triumph of wishing, not from (permanent) time, not from primal matter, not from an essential nature, not from the Powerful Creator Ishvara, and not from having no cause. Know that they arise from unawareness, karmic actions, and craving.
Bhāviveka (c. 500 – c. 578) also critiques the idea in his Madhyamakahṛdaya (Heart of the Middle Way, ch. III).
A later Madhyamaka philosopher, Candrakīrti, states in his Introduction to the Middle Way (6.114): "Because things (bhava) are not produced without a cause (hetu), from a creator god (isvara), from themselves, another or both, they are always produced in dependence ."
Shantideva (c. 8th century), in the 9th chapter of his Bodhicaryāvatāra, states:
'God is the cause of the world.' Tell me, who is God? The elements? Then why all the trouble about a mere word? (119) Besides, the elements are manifold, impermanent, without intelligence or activity; without anything divine or venerable; impure. Also such elements as earth, etc., are not God.(120) Neither is space God; space lacks activity, nor is atman—that we have already excluded. Would you say that God is too great to conceive? An unthinkable creator is likewise unthinkable, so that nothing further can be said.
Vasubandhu
The 5th-century Buddhist philosopher Vasubandhu argued that a creator's singular identity is incompatible with creating the world in his Abhidharmakosha. He states (AKB, chapter 2):
The universe does not originate from one single cause (ekaṃ kāraṇam) which may be called God/Supreme Lord (Īśvara), Self (Puruṣa), Primal Source (Pradhāna) or any other name.
Vasubandhu then proceeds to outline various arguments for and against the existence of a creator deity or single cause. In the argument that follows, the Buddhist non-theist begins by stating that if the universe arose from a single cause, "things would arise all at the same time: but everyone sees that they arise successively". The theist responds that things arise in succession because of the power of God's wishes; he thus wills things to arise in succession. The Buddhist responds: "then things do not arise from a single cause, because the desires (of God) are multiple". Furthermore, these desires would have to be simultaneous, but since God is not multiple, things would all arise at the same time.
The theist now responds that God's desires are not simultaneous, "because God, in order to produce his desires, takes into account other causes". The Buddhist replies that if this is the case, then God is not the single cause of everything, and furthermore, he then relies on causes that are also dependent on other causes (and so on).
Then the question of why God creates the world is taken up. The theist states that it is for God's own joy. The Buddhist responds that in this case, God is not lord over his own joy since he cannot create it without an external mean, and "if he is not Sovereign with respect to his own joy, how can he be Sovereign with respect to the world?" Furthermore, the Buddhist also adds:
Besides, do you say that God finds joy in seeing the creatures which he has created in the prey of all the distress of existence, including the tortures of the hells? Homage to this kind of God! The profane stanza expresses it well: "One calls him Rudra because he burns, because he is sharp, fierce, redoubtable, an eater of flesh, blood and marrow.
Furthermore, the Buddhist states that the followers of God as a single cause deny observable cause and effect. If they modify their position to accept observable causes and effects as auxiliaries to their God, "this is nothing more than a pious affirmation, because we do not see the activity of a (Divine) Cause next to the activity of the causes called secondary".
The Buddhist also argues that since God did not have a beginning, the creation of the world by God would also not have a beginning (contrary to the claims of the theists). Vasubandhu states: "the Theist might say that the work of God is the creation (ādisarga): but it would follow that creation, dependent only on God, would never have a beginning, like God himself. This is a consequence which the Theist rejects."
Vasubandhu finishes this section of his commentary by stating that sentient beings wander from birth to birth doing various actions, experiencing the effects of their karma and "falsely thinking that God is the cause of this effect. We must explain the truth in order to put an end to this false conception."
Other Yogacara philosophers
The Chinese monk Xuanzang (fl. c. 602–664) studied Buddhism in India during the seventh century, staying at Nalanda. There, he studied the Yogacara teachings passed down from Asanga and Vasubandhu and taught to him by the abbot Śīlabhadra. In his work Cheng Weishi Lun (Skt. Vijñāptimātratāsiddhi śāstra), Xuanzang refutes a "Great Lord" or Great Brahmā doctrine:
According to one doctrine, there is a great, self-existent deity whose substance is real and who is all-pervading, eternal, and the producer of all phenomena. This doctrine is unreasonable. If something produces something, it is not eternal, the non-eternal is not all-pervading, and what is not all-pervading is not real. If the deity's substance is all-pervading and eternal, it must contain all powers and be able to produce all dharmas everywhere, at all times, and simultaneously. If he produces dharma when a desire arises, or according to conditions, this contradicts the doctrine of a single cause. Or else, desires and conditions would arise spontaneously since the cause is eternal. Other doctrines claim that there is a great Brahma, a Time, a Space, a Starting Point, a Nature, an Ether, a Self, etc., that is eternal and really exists, is endowed with all powers, and is able to produce all dharmas. We refute all these in the same way we did the concept of the Great Lord.
The 7th-century Buddhist scholar Dharmakīrti advances a number of arguments against the existence of a creator god in his Pramāṇavārtika, following in the footsteps of Vasubandhu.
Later Mahayana scholars, such as Śāntarakṣita, Kamalaśīla, Śaṅkaranandana (fl. c. 9th or 10th century), and Jñānaśrīmitra (fl. 975–1025), also continued to write and develop the Buddhist anti-theistic arguments.
The 11th-century Buddhist philosopher Ratnakīrti, at the former university at Vikramashila (now Bhagalpur, Bihar), criticized the arguments for the existence of a God-like being called Isvara that emerged in the Navya-Nyaya sub-school of Hinduism in his "Refutation of Arguments Establishing Īśvara" (Īśvara-sādhana-dūṣaṇa). These arguments are similar to those used by other sub-schools of Hinduism and Jainism that questioned the Navya-Nyaya theory of a dualistic creator.
Theravada Buddhists
The Theravada commentator Buddhaghosa also specifically denied the concept of a Creator. He wrote:
"For there is no god Brahma. The maker of the conditioned world of rebirths. Phenomena alone flow on. Conditioned by the coming together of causes." (Visuddhimagga 603).
Mahayana and theism
Mahayana Buddhist traditions have more complex Buddhologies, which often contain a figure variously termed the Eternal Buddha, "Supreme Buddha", the One Original Buddha, or Adi-Buddha (primordial Buddha or first Buddha).
Mahayana buddhology and theism
Mahayana Buddhist interpretations of the Buddha as a supreme being, which is eternal, all-compassionate, and existing on a cosmic scale, have been compared to theism by various scholars. For example, Guang Xing describes the Mahayana Buddha as an omnipotent and almighty divinity "endowed with numerous supernatural attributes and qualities". In Mahayana, a fully awakened Buddha (such as Amitābha) is held to be omniscient as well as having other qualities, such as infinite wisdom, an immeasurable life, and boundless compassion. In East Asian Buddhism, Buddhas are often seen as also having eternal life. According to Paul Williams, in Mahayana, a Buddha is often seen as "a spiritual king, relating to and caring for the world".
Various authors, such as F. Sueki, Douglas Duckworth, and Fabio Rambelli, have described Mahayana Buddhist views using the term "pantheism" (the belief that God and the universe are identical). Similarly, Geoffrey Samuel has compared Tibetan Buddhist Buddhology with the related view of panentheism.
Duckworth draws on positive Mahayana conceptions of buddha-nature, which he explains as a "positive foundation" and "a pure essence residing in temporarily obscured sentient beings". He compares various Mahayana interpretations of Buddha-nature (Tibetan and East Asian) with a pantheist view that sees all things as divine and that "undoes the duality between the divine and the world". In a similar fashion, Eva K. Neumaier compares Mahayana Buddha-nature teachings that point to a source of all things with the theology of Nicholas of Cusa (1401–1464), who described God as an essence and the world as a manifestation of God.
José Ignacio Cabezón notes that while Mahayana sources reject a universal creator God that stands apart from the world, as well as any single creation event for the entire universe, Mahayanists do accept "localized" creation of specific worlds by the Buddhas and bodhisattvas as well as the idea that any world is jointly created by the collective karmic forces of all the beings who reside in them. Buddha-created worlds are termed "Buddha-fields" (or "pure lands"), and their creation is seen as a key activity of the Buddhas and bodhisattvas.
Much comparative work has also been done on Mahayana Buddhist thought and Whiteheadian process theology. Scholars who have worked in this include Jay B. McDaniel, John B. Cobb, Jr., David R. Griffin, Vincent Shen, John S. Yokota, Steve Odin, and Linyin Gu. Some of these figures have also been involved in Buddhist–Christian dialogue. Cobb sees many affinities with the Buddhist ideas of emptiness and not-self and Whitehead's view of God. He has incorporated these into his own process theology. In a similar fashion, some Buddhist thinkers, like Dennis Hirota and John S. Yokota, have developed Buddhist theologies that draw on process theology.
East Asian Buddhism and theism
In Huayan Buddhism, the supreme Buddha Vairocana is seen as the "cosmic Buddha", with an infinite body that comprises the entire universe and whose light penetrates every particle in the cosmos. According to a religious pamphlet from Tōdai-ji temple in Japan (the headquarters of Japanese Huayan), "Vairocana Buddha exists everywhere and every time in the Universe, and the Universe itself is his body. At the same time, the songs of birds, the colors of flowers, the currents of streams, the figures of clouds—all these are the sermon of Buddha". However, Francis Cook argues that Vairocana is not a god, nor has the functions of a monotheistic god, since he is not a creator of the universe, nor a judge or father who governs the world.
Thích Nhất Hạnh, meanwhile, has written that the idea of the Buddha's "cosmic body", who is both the cosmos and its creator, "is very close to the idea of God in the theistic religions". Similarly, Lin Weiyu writes that the Huayan school interprets Vairocana as "omnipresent, omnipotent and identical to the universe itself". According to Lin, the Huayan commentator Fazang's conception of Vairocana contains "elements that approach Vairocana to the monotheistic God". However, Lin also notes that this Buddha is contained within a broader Buddhist metaphysics of emptiness, which tempers the reification of this Buddha as a monotheistic creator god.
The Shingon Buddhist view of the Supreme Buddha Mahāvairocana, whose body is seen as being the whole universe, has also been called "cosmotheism" (the idea that the cosmos is God) by scholars like Charles Eliot, Hajime Nakamura, and Masaharu Anesaki. Fabio Rambelli terms it a kind of pantheism, the main doctrine of which is that Mahāvairocana's Dharma body is co-substantial with the universe and is the very substance that the universe consists of. Furthermore, this cosmic Buddha is seen as making use of all the sounds, thoughts, and forms in the universe to preach the Buddha's teaching to others. Thus, all forms, thoughts, and sounds in the universe are seen as manifestations and teachings of the Buddha.
Tantric Adi-Buddha theory and theism
B. Alan Wallace writes on how the Tibetan Buddhist Vajrayana concept of the primordial Buddha (Adi-Buddha) is sometimes seen as forming the foundation of both saṃsāra (the world of suffering) and nirvana (liberation). This view, according to Wallace, holds that "the entire universe consists of nothing other than displays of this infinite, radiant, empty awareness."
Furthermore, Wallace notes similarities between these Vajrayana doctrines and notions of a divine creative "ground of being". He writes: "a careful analysis of Vajrayana Buddhist cosmogony, specifically as presented in the Atiyoga (Dzogchen) tradition of Indo-Tibetan Buddhism, which presents itself as the culmination of all Buddhist teachings, reveals a theory of a transcendent ground of being and a process of creation that bear remarkable similarities with views presented in Vedanta and Neoplatonic Western Christian theories of creation." He further comments that the three views "have so much in common that they could almost be regarded as varying interpretations of a single theory".
Douglas Duckworth sees Tibetan tantric Buddhism as "pantheist to the core", since "in its most profound expressions (e.g., highest Yoga tantra), all dualities between the divine and the world are radically undone". According to Duckworth, in Vajrayana, "the divine is seen within the world, and the infinite within the finite."
Eva K. Neumaier-Dargyay notes that the Dzogchen tantra called the Kunjed Gyalpo ("all-creating king") uses symbolic language for the Adi-Buddha Samantabhadra, which is reminiscent of theism. Neumaier-Dargyay considers the Kunjed Gyalpo to contain theistic-sounding language, such as positing a single "cause of all that exists" (including all Buddhas). However, she also writes that this language is symbolic and points to an impersonal "ground of all existence", or primordial basis, which is "the mind of perfect purity" that underlies all that exists.
Alexander Studholme also points to how the Kāraṇḍavyūhasūtra presents the great bodhisattva Avalokiteśvara as a kind of supreme lord of the cosmos and as the progenitor of various heavenly bodies and divinities (such as the Sun and Moon, the deities Shiva and Vishnu, etc.) Avalokiteśvara himself is seen, in the versified version of the sutra, to be an emanation of the first Buddha, the Adi-Buddha, who is called svayambhu (self-existent, not born from anything or anyone) and the "primordial lord" (Adinatha).
Adi-Buddha as non-theistic
The 14th Dalai Lama sees this deity (called Samantabhadra) as a symbol for ultimate reality, "the realm of the Dharmakaya – the space of emptiness". He is also quite clear that "the theory that God is the creator, is almighty, and permanent is in contradiction to Buddhist teachings... For Buddhists the universe has no first cause, and hence no creator, nor can there be such a thing as a permanent, primordially pure being."
Further discussing the doctrine of the Adi-Buddha, the Dalai Lama writes that the tantric Buddhist tradition explains ultimate reality in terms of "inherent clear light, the essential nature of the mind" and that this seems to imply "that all phenomena, samsara and nirvana, arise from this clear and luminous source". This doctrine of an "ultimate source", says the Dalai Lama, seems close to the notion of a Creator, since all phenomena, whether they belong to samsara or nirvana, originate therein". However, he warns that we not think of this as a Creator God, since the clear light is not "a sort of collective clear light, analogous to the non-Buddhist concept of Brahman as a substratum. We must not be inclined to deify this luminous space. We must understand that when we speak of ultimate or inherent clear light, we are speaking on an individual level. When, in the tantric context, we say that all worlds appear out of clear light, we do not visualize this source as a unique entity, but as the ultimate clear light of each being... It would be a grave error to conceive of it as an independent and autonomous existence from beginningless time."
The Dzogchen master Namkhai Norbu also argued that this figure is not a Creator God but is a symbol for a state of consciousness and a personification of the ground or basis (ghzi) in Dzogchen thought. Norbu explains that the Dzogchen idea of the Adi-Buddha Samantabhadra "should be mainly understood as a metaphor to enable us to discover our real condition". He further adds that:
If we deem Samantabhadra an individual being, we are far from the true meaning. In reality, he denotes our potentiality that, even though at the present moment we are in samsara, has never been conditioned by dualism. From the beginning, the state of the individual has been pure and always remains pure: this is what Samantabhadra represents. But when we fall into conditioning, it is as if we are no longer Samantabhadra because we are ignorant of our true nature. So what is called the primordial Buddha, or Adibuddha, is only a metaphor for our true condition.
Regarding the term Adi-Buddha as used in the tantric Kalachakra tradition, Vesna Wallace notes:
when the Kalacakra tradition speaks of the Adibuddha in the sense of a beginningless and endless Buddha, it is referring to the innate gnosis that pervades the minds of all sentient beings and stands as the basis of both samsara and nirvana. Whereas, when it speaks of the Adibuddha as the one who first attained perfect enlightenment by means of imperishable bliss, and when it asserts the necessity of acquiring merit and knowledge in order to attain perfect Buddhahood, it is referring to the actual realization of one's own innate gnosis. Thus, one could say that in the Kalacakra tradition, Adibuddha refers to the ultimate nature of one's own mind and to the one who has realized the innate nature of one's own mind by means of purificatory practices.
Jim Valby notes that the "All-Creating King" (Kunjed Gyalpo, i.e., the primordial Buddha) of Dzogchen thought and its companion deities "are not gods, but are symbols for different aspects of our primordial enlightenment. Kunjed Gyalpo is our timeless Pure Perfect Presence beyond cause and effect. Sattvavajra is our ordinary, analytical, judgmental presence inside time that depends upon cause and effect."
Modern Buddhist anti-theism
The modern era brought Buddhists into contact with the Abrahamic religions, especially Christianity. Attempts to convert Buddhist nations to Christianity through missionary work were countered by Buddhist attempts at refutations of Christian doctrine and led to the development of Buddhist Modernism. The earliest Christian attempts to refute Buddhism and criticize its teachings were those of Jesuits like Alessandro Valignano, Michele Ruggieri, and Matteo Ricci.
These attacks were answered by Asian Buddhists, who wrote critiques of Christianity, often centered on refuting Christian theism. Perhaps the earliest such attempt was that of the Chinese monk Zhu Hong (祩宏, 1535–1615), who authored Four Essays on Heaven (天說四端). Another influential Chinese Buddhist critic of Christian theism was Xu Dashou (許大受), who wrote a long and systematic refutation of Christianity, titled Zuopi (佐闢, "help to the refutation"), which attempts to refute Christianity from the point of view of three Chinese traditions (Confucianism, Buddhism, and Taoism).
The monk Ouyi Zhixu (蕅益智旭, 1599–1655) later wrote the Bixie ji ("Collected Essays Refuting Heterodoxy"), which specifically attacks Christianity on the grounds of theodicy as well as relying on classical Confucian ethics. According to Beverley Foulks, in his essays, Zhixu "objects to the way Jesuits invest God with qualities of love, hatred, and the power to punish. He criticizes the notion that God would create humans to be both good and evil, and finally he questions why God would allow Lucifer to tempt humans towards evil."
Modern Japanese Buddhists also wrote their own works to refute Christian theism. Fukansai Habian (1565–1621) is perhaps one of the best-known of these critics, especially because he was a convert to Christianity who then became an apostate and wrote an anti-Christian polemic, titled Deus Destroyed (Ha Daiusu), in 1620. The Zen monk Sessō Sōsai also wrote an important anti-Christian work, the Argument for the Extinction of Heresy (Taiji Jashū Ron), in which he argued that the Christian God is just the Vedic Brahma and that Christianity was a heretical form of Buddhism. His critiques were particularly influential on the leadership of the Tokugawa shogunate.
Later Japanese Buddhists continued to write anti-theist critiques, focusing on Christianity. These figures include Kiyū Dōjin (a.k.a. Ugai Tetsujō 1814–91, who was a head of Jōdo-shū), who wrote Laughing at Christianity (1869), and Inoue Enryō. According to Kiri Paramore, the 19th-century Japanese attacks on Christianity tended to rely on more rationalistic and philosophical critiques than the Tokugawa-era critiques (which tended to be more driven by nationalism and xenophobia).
Modern Theravada Buddhists have also written various critiques of a Creator God, which reference Christian and modern theories of God. These works include A.L. De Silva's Beyond Belief, Nyanaponika Thera's Buddhism and the God Idea (1985), and Gunapala Dharmasiri's A Buddhist critique of the Christian concept of God (1988).
See also
- Amitābha
- Buddhism and Hinduism
- Deva (Buddhism)
- Christianity and Theosophy
- Jainism and non-creationism
- Nontheistic religions
- Problem of the creator of God
- Transtheism
- Sanghyang Adi Buddha
- Polytheism in Buddhism
References
- ^ Harvey, Peter (2019). "Buddhism and Monotheism", p. 1. Cambridge University Press.
- Taliaferro 2013, p. 35.
- Blackburn, Anne M.; Samuels, Jeffrey (2003). "II. Denial of God in Buddhism and the Reasons Behind It". Approaching the Dhamma: Buddhist Texts and Practices in South and Southeast Asia. Pariyatti. pp. 128–146. ISBN 978-1-928706-19-9.
- Schmidt-Leukel (2006), pp. 1-4.
- ^ Kapstein, Matthew T. The Buddhist Refusal of Theism, Diogenes 2005; 52; 61.
- ^ Harvey 2013, p. 36-8.
- Schmidt-Leukel (2006), p. 9.
- B. Alan Wallace, "Is Buddhism Really Non-Theistic?". Snow Lion Newsletter, Volume 15, Number 1, Winter 2000. ISSN 1059-3691.
- Zappulli, Davide Andrea (2022). Towards a Buddhist theism. Religious Studies, First View, pp. 1 – 13. doi:10.1017/S0034412522000725
- Keown, Damien (2013). "Encyclopedia of Buddhism." p. 162. Routledge.
- Bhikkhu Bodhi (2005). "In the Buddha's Words: An Anthology of Discourses from the Pali Canon." p. 37. Simon and Schuster.
- Hayes, Richard P., "Principled Atheism in the Buddhist Scholastic Tradition", Journal of Indian Philosophy, 16:1 (1988:Mar) pgs 5-6, 8
- Hayes, Richard P., "Principled Atheism in the Buddhist Scholastic Tradition", Journal of Indian Philosophy, 16:1 (1988:Mar) p. 2.
- Hayes, Richard P., "Principled Atheism in the Buddhist Scholastic Tradition", Journal of Indian Philosophy, 16:1 (1988:Mar) pp. 9-10
- ^ Narada Thera (2006) "The Buddha and His Teachings," pp. 268-269, Jaico Publishing House.
- ^ Westerhoff, Jan. “Creation in Buddhism” in Oliver, Simon. The Oxford Handbook of Creation, Oxford University Press, Oxford, forthcoming
- Harvey 2013, p. 37.
- ^ Harvey 2013, p. 36-37.
- ^ Nichols, Michael D. (2019). "Malleable Mara: Transformations of a Buddhist Symbol of Evil," p. 70. SUNY Press.
- Harold Netland, Keith Yandell (2009). "Buddhism: A Christian Exploration and Appraisal", pp. 184 - 186. InterVarsity Press.
- Harold Netland, Keith Yandell (2009). "Buddhism: A Christian Exploration and Appraisal", pp. 185 - 186. InterVarsity Press.
- Narada Thera (2006) "The Buddha and His Teachings," p. 271, Jaico Publishing House.
- Hsueh-Li Cheng. "Nāgārjuna's Approach to the Problem of the Existence of God" in Religious Studies, Vol. 12, No. 2 (Jun. 1976), pp. 207-216 (10 pages), Cambridge University Press.
- Hsueh-li Cheng (1982). Nagarjuna's Twelve Gate Treatise, pp. 93-99. D. Reidel Publishing Company
- Lindtner, Christian (1986). Master of Wisdom: Writings of the Buddhist Master Nāgārjuna, pp. 26-27. Dharma Pub.
- “bShes-pa'i springs-yig,” Skt. “Suhrllekha” by Nagarjuna , translated by Alexander Berzin, studybuddhism.com
- Schmidt-Leukel, Perry (2016). Buddhism, Christianity and the Question of Creation: Karmic or Divine? p. 25. Routledge
- Fenner, Peter (2012). The Ontology of the Middle Way, p. 85. Springer Science & Business Media
- ^ Dargyay, Eva K. "The Concept of a 'Creator God' in Tantric Buddhism". The Journal of the International Association of Buddhist studies, Volume 8, 1985, Number 1.
- Hayes, Richard P., "Principled Atheism in the Buddhist Scholastic Tradition", Journal of Indian Philosophy, 16:1 (1988:Mar.) pg 11-15.
- ^ de La Vallee Poussin & Sangpo (2012), p. 675
- ^ de La Vallee Poussin & Sangpo (2012), p. 676.
- ^ de La Vallee Poussin & Sangpo (2012), p. 677.
- de La Vallee Poussin & Sangpo (2012), p. 678.
- Cook, Francis, Chʿeng Wei Shih Lun (Three Texts on Consciousness Only), Numata Center, Berkeley, 1999, ISBN 978-1-886439-04-7, pp. 20-21.
- Numata Center for Buddhist Translation and Research (January 1999). Chʿeng Wei Shih Lun. 仏教伝道協会. pp. 20–22. ISBN 978-1-886439-04-7.
- Hayes, Richard P., "Principled Atheism in the Buddhist Scholastic Tradition," Journal of Indian Philosophy, 16:1 (1988:Mar.) pg 12
- Hayes, Richard P., "Principled Atheism in the Buddhist Scholastic Tradition," Journal of Indian Philosophy, 16:1 (1988:Mar.) pg 14
- "Śaṅkaranandana" in Silk, Jonathan A (editor in chief). Brill’s Encyclopedia of Buddhism Volume II: Lives.
- Parimal G. Patil. Against a Hindu God: Buddhist Philosophy of Religion in India. New York: Columbia University Press, 2009. pp. 3-4, 61-66 with footnotes, ISBN 978-0-231-14222-9.
- Getty, Alice (1988). The Gods of Northern Buddhism: Their History and Iconography, p. 41. Courier Corporation.
- Chryssides, George D. (2012). Historical dictionary of new religious movements (2nd ed.). Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield. p. 251. ISBN 9780810861947.
- Guang Xing (2005). The Three Bodies of the Buddha: The Origin and Development of the Trikaya Theory. Oxford: Routledge Curzon: pp. 1, 85
- Williams, Paul, Mahayana Buddhism: The Doctrinal Foundations, Routledge, 2008, p. 240, 315.
- Williams, Paul, Mahayana Buddhism: The Doctrinal Foundations, Routledge, 2008, p. 315.
- Williams, Paul, Mahayana Buddhism: The Doctrinal Foundations, Routledge, 2008, p. 27.
- Sueki, F (1996) 日本仏教史―思想史としてのアプローチ (History of Japanese Buddhism: An Approach from the History of Thought). Tokyo: Shinchōsha.
- Rambelli, Fabio (2013) A Buddhist Theory of Semiotics. London: Bloomsbury Academic.
- ^ Duckworth, Douglas (2015). Buddha-nature and the logic of pantheism. In Powers, J (ed.), The Buddhist World. London: Routledge, pp. 235–247
- Samuel, G (2013) Panentheism and the longevity practices of Tibetan Buddhism. In Biernacki, L and Clayton, P (eds), Panentheism across the World's Traditions. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 83–99.
- ^ Neumaier, Eva K. "Buddhist Forms of Belief in Creation", In Schmidt-Leukel (2006) Buddhism, Christianity and the Question of Creation. 1st Edition. Routledge.
- ^ Cabezón, José Ignacio. "Three Buddhist Views of the Doctrines of Creation and Creator", In Schmidt-Leukel (2006) Buddhism, Christianity and the Question of Creation. 1st Edition. Routledge. ISBN 9781315261218
- Gu, L (2005) Dipolarity in Chan Buddhism and the Whiteheadian God. Journal of Chinese Philosophy 32, 211–222.
- ^ McDaniel, J.B.B. (2003). Double Religious Belonging: A Process Approach. Buddhist-Christian Studies 23, 67-76. doi:10.1353/bcs.2003.0024
- ^ Cobb Jr, John B. (2002). "Whitehead and Buddhism – Religion Online". Retrieved 12 March 2023.
- Odin, Steve (1982). Process Metaphysics and Hua-Yen Buddhism: A Critical Study of Cumulative Penetration vs. Interpretation. State University of New York Press.
- Griffin, David R. (1974). Buddhist Thought and Whitehead's Philosophy. International Philosophical Quarterly 14 (3):261-284.
- Shen, Vincent. Whitehead and Chinese Philosophy: The Ontological Principle and Huayan Buddhism's Concept of shi in Handbook of Whiteheadian Process Thought. doi:10.1515/9783110333299.1.613
- Yokota, John S. Process Thought and the Conceptualization of Amida Buddha. Process Studies Vol. 23, No. 2, Special Issue on Process Thought and Buddhism (SUMMER 1994), pp. 87-97 (11 pages). University of Illinois Press.
- Ingram Paul O (2011). The Process of Buddhist-Christian Dialogue, pp. 34-35. ISD LLC.
- Hirota, Dennis (editor) (2000) Toward a Contemporary Understanding of Pure Land Buddhism: Creating a Shin Buddhist Theology in a Religiously Plural World, p. 97. State University of New York Press.
- Cook, Francis Harold (1977). Hua-yen Buddhism: The Jewel Net of Indra, pp. 90-91. Pennsylvania State University Press.
- Cook, Francis Harold (1977). Hua-yen Buddhism: The Jewel Net of Indra, p. 91. Pennsylvania State University Press.
- Cook, Francis Harold (1977). Hua-yen Buddhism: The Jewel Net of Indra, pp. 91-94. Pennsylvania State University Press.
- Thich Nhat Hanh (26 June 2015). "Connecting to Our Root Teacher, the Buddha". Plum Village. Retrieved 24 March 2023.
- ^ LIN Weiyu 林威宇 (UBC): Vairocana of the Avataṃsaka Sūtra as Interpreted by Fazang 法藏 (643-712): A Comparative Reflection on "Creator" and "Creation" 法藏(643-712)筆下《華嚴經》中的盧舍那:談佛教中的創世者和創世
- Eliot, Charles (2014). Japanese Buddhism, p. 340. Routledge.
- Hajime Nakamura (1992). A Comparative History of Ideas, p. 434. Motilal Banarsidass Publ.
- Masaharu Anesaki (1915). Buddhist Art in Its Relation to Buddhist Ideals, p. 15. Houghton Mifflin.
- Teeuwen, M. (2014). . Monumenta Nipponica 69(2), 259-263. doi:10.1353/mni.2014.0025
- B. Alan Wallace, "Is Buddhism Really Non-Theistic?" Lecture given at the National Conference of the American Academy of Religion, Boston, Mass., Nov. 1999, p. 8.
- ^ B. Alan Wallace, "Is Buddhism Really Non-Theistic?" in Snow Lion Newsletter, Winter 2000, ISSN 1059-3691, Volume 15, Number 1. https://www.shambhala.com/snowlion_articles/is-buddhism-really-nontheistic/
- Duckworth, Douglas. "Tibetan Mahāyāna and Vajrayāna", In Emmanuel, Steven M. (ed). (2013) A Companion to Buddhist Philosophy. Wiley-Blackwell, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
- Alexander Studholme, The Origins of Om Manipadme Hum: A Study of the Karandavyuha Sutra, SUNY, 2002, p. 40
- Alexander Studholme, The Origins of Om Manipadme Hum: A Study of the Karandavyuha Sutra, SUNY, 2002, p. 12
- The Dalai Lama (2020). Dzogchen: Heart Essence of the Great Perfection. p. 188. Shambhala Publications.
- Norbu & Clemente, 1999, p. 94.
- ^ Norbu & Clemente, 1999, p. 233.
- Wallace, Vesna (2001). The Inner Kalacakratantra: A Buddhist Tantric View of the Individual, p. 18. Oxford University Press.
- Valby, Jim (2016). Ornament of the State of Samantabhadra – Commentary on the All-Creating King – Pure Perfect Presence – Great Perfection of All Phenomena. Volume One, 2nd Edition, p. 3.
- ^ Meynard, Thierry (2017). Beyond Religious Exclusivism: The Jesuit Attacks against Buddhism and Xu Dashou’s Refutation of 1623. Journal of Jesuit Studies.
- ^ Foulks, Beverley. Duplicitous Thieves: Ouyi Zhixu’s Criticism of Jesuit Missionaries in Late Imperial China. Chung-Hwa Buddhist Journal Archived 27 November 2021 at the Wayback Machine (2008, 21:55-75) Taipei: Chung-Hwa Institute of Buddhist Studies 中華佛學學報第二十一期 頁55-75 (民國九十七年),臺北:中華佛學研究所 ISSN 1017-7132
- Elison, George (1988). Deus Destroyed. Cambridge: Council on East Asian Studies, Harvard University. pp. 154–155. ISBN 0-674-19962-6.
- Ananda, Jason; Storm, Josephson (2012). The Invention of Religion in Japan, p. 50. University of Chicago Press.
- Paramore. Kiri (2010). Ideology and Christianity in Japan, p. 8. Routledge.
- Paramore, Kiri. Anti-Christian Ideas and National Ideology: Inoue Enryō and Inoue Tetsujirō’s Mobilization of Sectarian History in Meiji Japan. Sungkyun Journal of East Asian Studies. Vol.9, No.1. 2009 Academy of East Asian Studies. pp.107-144
Bibliography
- Harvey, Peter (2013), An Introduction to Buddhism: Teachings, History and Practices (2nd ed.), Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, ISBN 978-0-521-67674-8
- Taliaferro, Charles, ed. (2013), The Routledge Companion to Theism, New York: Routledge, ISBN 978-0-415-88164-7
- de La Vallee Poussin, Louis (fr. trans.); Sangpo, Gelong Lodro (eng. trans.) (2012) Abhidharmakośa-Bhāṣya of Vasubandhu Volume I. Motilal Banarsidass Pubs. ISBN 978-81-208-3608-2
- Norbu, Namkhai; Clemente, Adriano (1999). The Supreme Source: The Kunjed Gyalpo, the Fundamental Tantra of Dzogchen Semde. Snow Lion Publications.
- Schmidt-Leukel, Perry (Editor) (2006). Buddhism, Christianity and the question of creation, karmic or divine. Ashgate Publishing Limited.
Theology | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Religion portal |