Ven. Nyanaponika Thera, Buddhism and the God-Idea, Wheel 47, Buddhist Publication Society (BPS.lk) edited by Dhr. Seven, Pat Macpherson (eds.), Wisdom Quarterly
Quite contradictory views have been expressed in Western
literature on the attitude of Buddhism toward the concept of
Gods (
brahmas) and gods (
gods) and even Brahman (GOD).
From a study of the Buddha's sutras preserved in the Pali canon, it will be seen that the
idea of a personal deity, an ultimate "creator god" conceived to be eternal
and omnipotent, is not compatible with the Buddha’s
Teachings, the Dhamma.
On the other hand, conceptions of an impersonal
godhead (Brahman) of any description, such as a world-soul and so on, are
excluded by the Buddha’s Teaching on the basis of the ultimate teaching of anattā, non-self or
insubstantiality. [This statement does not make sense because anatta is the teaching that all things, including a God of any description, are impersonal.]
In sacred Buddhist literature, the belief in or teaching of a creator god (issara-nimmāna-vāda) is frequently mentioned and rejected, along
with other causes wrongly adduced to explain the origin of
the universe, as, for instance, a world-soul, time, nature, and so on.
God-belief, however, is not placed in the same category as
those morally destructive wrong views that deny the
karmic results of action (deeds), assume a fortuitous origin of humans and nature, or teach absolute determinism.
These views are
said to be altogether pernicious, having definite bad results
due to their effect on personal ethical/moral conduct.
Theism, however, is regarded as a kind of karma-teaching
in that it upholds the moral efficacy of deeds. Hence, a theist who leads a moral life may, like anyone else who does so,
expect a favorable and fortunate rebirth. One may possibly even be reborn
in one of the many heavenly worlds that resemble one's own conception of "heaven," though it will not be eternal as one might wish or expect.
If, however, fanaticism induces a person to persecute others who do not share the same beliefs, this will have grave
consequences for one's future destiny. Fanatical attitudes,
intolerance, and violence against others are
unwholesome karma (deeds) that result in unwished for results (vipaka and phala), leading to moral degeneration and unhappy rebirths.
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 eternal existence and, as such, is an obstacle to final liberation from rebirth and suffering.
Among the fetters (saṃyojana) that bind us to repeated rearising, theism
is particularly subject to those of personality-belief, clinging to rites and rituals, and craving for fine-material
existence (as opposed to the sensual existence we currently enjoy), or for a “heaven of the Sensual Sphere” [rebirth in this same sphere but in a higher plane of existence, which is heavenly compared to our current terrestrial abode] as the case
may be.
As an attempt at explaining the universe, its origin, and the human situation in his world, the God-idea was found
entirely unconvincing by Buddhist thinkers of old.
Through the centuries, Buddhist philosophers have
formulated detailed arguments refuting the doctrine of a "creator god."
It may be of interest to compare these with
the ways in which Western philosophers have refuted the
theological proofs of the existence of God. But for an earnest believer, the God-idea is more than a
mere device for explaining external facts like the origin of
the world.
For such a person it is an article of faith that can bestow a
strong feeling of certainty, not only as to God’s existence
“somewhere out there,” but as to God’s consoling presence
and closeness. This feeling of certainty requires
close scrutiny. Such scrutiny will reveal that in most cases
the God-idea is only the devotee’s projection of the ideal —
generally a noble one — and of one's fervent wish and deeply
felt need to believe.
These projections are largely
conditioned by external influences, such as childhood education, impressions, cultural traditions, and the social environment one is raised in.
Charged with a strong emotional emphasis, brought to life
by the powerful human capacity for imagining,
visualization, and the creation of myth, they then come to be
identified with the impressions and conceptions of whatever
religion a devotee follows.
In the case of many of the sincerest believers, a searching analysis would show that this “God-experience” has no more specific content than this.
Yet the range and significance of God-belief and God-experience are not fully exhausted by the preceding
remarks.
The lives and writings of the mystics of all the great
religions bear witness to religious experiences of great
intensity, in which considerable changes take place in the
quality of consciousness.
Profound absorption in meditation (jhana) or prayer can bring about a deepening and widening, a
brightening and intensifying, of consciousness. This may be accompanied by a feeling of being transported, a sense of elevation or rapture, and bliss.
The contrast between these states and our normal conscious
awareness is so great that the mystic believes these experiences to be manifestations of the divine. And given the
contrast, this assumption is quite understandable.
Mystical
experiences are also characterized by a marked reduction or
temporary exclusion of the multiplicity of sense-perceptions
and restless thoughts.
This relative unification of mind is
then misinterpreted as union or communion with the One
God (of monotheism). All of these deeply moving impressions, and the first
spontaneous interpretations of them, the mystic
subsequently identifies with a particular theology.
It is
interesting to note, however, that the attempts of most great
Western mystics to relate their mystical experiences to the
official dogmas of their respective churches often resulted in
teachings that were looked upon askance by the orthodox,
if not considered downright heretical.
The psychological facts underlying those religious
experiences are accepted by the Buddhist and are well known. But one carefully distinguishes the
experiences themselves from the theological interpretations
imposed on them.
After rising from deep meditative
absorption (jhāna), a Buddhist meditator is advised to
view the physical and mental factors constituting this
experience in the light of the Three Characteristics of All
Conditioned Existence:
- impermanence,
- disappointment, and
- its impersonal nature (the absence of any abiding ego or eternal substance).
This is
done primarily to utilize the meditative purity and
strength of consciousness for the highest purpose: liberating insight (vipassana).
But this procedure also has a very important side effect that concerns us here: A meditator will not be
overwhelmed by any uncontrolled emotions and thoughts
evoked by this singular experience and will thus be able to
avoid misinterpretations of that experience not warranted by
the facts.
So a Buddhist meditator, while benefiting from the
refinement of consciousness one has achieved, will be able to
see these meditative experiences for what they are and will further know that they are impersonal that could be attributed to a deity manifesting
itself in the mind.
Therefore, the Buddhist’s conclusion must
be that the highest mystical states do not provide convincing "evidence" for the existence of a personal God or an impersonal
godhead [though the latter might be more understandable if less common. Both interpretations of such experiences are very common].
Buddhism has sometimes been called an atheistic teaching,
either in an approving sense by rationalists and freethinkers, or in a derogatory sense by theists.
Only in one way can Buddhism be described as "atheistic," namely, insofar as it denies the existence of an
eternal, omnipresent, omnipotent God or godhead that is the creator and
ordainer of the universe.
- [It is fun to think what this word "G.O.D." could mean, with one excellent proposed definition being "Generator, Operator, Destroyer," as religions like Christianity and Hinduism teach of their top deity or deities.]
The word “atheism,” however, like
the word “godless,” frequently carries a number of
disparaging overtones and implications, which in no way
apply to the Buddha’s Teaching.
Those who use the word “atheism” often associate it with a
materialistic doctrine that knows nothing higher than this world of the senses and the slight happiness it bestows.
Buddhism is nothing of that sort. In this respect, it agrees
with the teachings of other religions: true lasting happiness
cannot be found in this world nor, the Buddha adds, can it
be found on any higher plane of existence, conceived of as heavenly or divine worlds; this is because ALL planes of existence are
impermanent and therefore incapable of providing everlasting bliss.
The
spiritual values advocated by Buddhism are directed not
towards a new life in a higher world, but towards a
state utterly transcending the universe, namely, nirvana.
In
making this statement, however, we must point out that
Buddhist spiritual values do not draw an absolute
separation between the beyond and the here-and-now. They
have firm roots in the world itself, for they aim at the highest
realization of Truth in this very existence.
Along with such
spiritual aspirations, Buddhism encourages earnest
endeavor to make this world a better place to live in.
The opposite materialistic philosophy of Annihilationism
(ucchedavāda), like Eternalism, is emphatically rejected by the Buddha as another false doctrine.
The doctrine of karma (the efficacy of actions to produce results in the future) is sufficient to prove
that Buddhism does not teach annihilation after death. Everything does not end for us, as scientists might have us believe; things continue after death, after passing away from here. Where will life continue? That is determined by our own karma (deeds) now.
Buddhism accepts survival after death, but it is not the survival of an eternal soul. Rather, what continues is an everchanging impersonal mental
process subject to renewed becoming (rebirth). Therefore, Buddhism teaches rebirth
without transmigration [rearising without the assumption that an eternal, unchaning, undying thing went from here to there].
The Buddha’s Teaching is not nihilism, which would offer suffering humanity no better hope than
a final cold nothingness, like many scientists completely believe.
On the contrary, Buddhism is a teaching of
salvation (niyyānika-dhamma) or freedom (vimutti) that attributes to humans the faculty to realize by their own efforts the highest goal, nirvana: the ultimate cessation of all suffering
and the final eradication of greed, hate, and delusion.
Nirvana is not the blank zero of annihilation; yet, it cannot be identified with any form of the God-idea, as it
is neither the origin nor the immanent ground or essence of
the world. [It is the "unconditioned element" utterly different from anything we know in this conditioned world of form in the Sensual Sphere, in the worlds of the Fine-Material Sphere, or in the formless worlds of the Immaterial Sphere.]
Buddhism is not an enemy of religion as atheism is believed
to be.
Buddhism, indeed, is the enemy of none. A Buddhist recognizes and appreciates whatever ethical, spiritual, and cultural values have been created by the God-belief in its
long and checkered history.
We cannot, however, close our
eyes to the fact that the God-concept has served too often as
a cloak for the human desire for power, and the reckless and
cruel use of that power, adding considerably to the
ample measure of misery in this world supposed to be the creation of an
all-loving God.
For centuries, free thought, free
research, and the expression of dissident views were
obstructed and stifled in the name of service to God. Alas, these and other negative consequences are not things of the past.
The word “atheism” also carries the innuendo of an attitude
countenancing moral laxity, or a belief that man-made
ethics, having no divine sanction, rest on shaky foundations.
In Buddhism, however, the basic moral law is inherent in
life itself. It is a special case of the law of deed and results, action and reactions, cause and effect,
needing neither a divine lawgiver nor depending on fluctuating human conceptions of socially conditioned
minor moralities and conventions.
For an increasing portion of humanity, the belief in God is breaking down rapidly, as
well as the accustomed motivations for moral conduct.
This
shows the risk of basing morality on divine
commandments when their alleged source rapidly loses
credence and authority.
There is a need for an autonomous
foundation for ethics, one that has deeper roots than a social
contract and is capable of protecting the security of the
individual and of human institutions.
Buddhism offers such
a foundation for ethics.
Buddhism does not deny that there are in the universe
planes of existence and levels of consciousness superior to our terrestrial world and to
average human consciousness.
To deny this would indeed
be provincial in an age of space travel. Bertrand Russell
rightly says: “It is improbable that the universe contains
nothing better than ourselves.”
Yet, according to Buddhist teachings, such higher planes of
existence, like our familiar world, are also impermanent, constantly changing, and unreliable. They, like this world, are hurtling toward destruction.
The inhabitants of such worlds
are, in different degrees, more powerful than
human beings, happier, brighter, and longer-lived. Whether we call
those superior beings devas, gods, godlings, deities, or angels is of
little importance; it is improbable that they call
themselves by any of those names.
They are inhabitants of
this universe, fellow wanderers in this round of existence. And though more powerful, they need not be wiser than humans.
Further, it need not be denied that such worlds and
such beings may have their lord and ruler. In all probability they do. But like any human ruler, a divine ruler might also be inclined to misjudge its own status and power, until a
greater one comes along and points out the error, as Buddhist texts report of the Buddha who confronted various Gods with the idea that they were not eternal, not all-powerful, not superior to all beings. See, for example, the Buddha's interaction with Baka Btahma.
These, however, are largely matters beyond the range and
concern of average human experience. They are mentioned here chiefly for the purpose of defining the
Buddhist position, not to serve as a topic of speculation
and argument. Such involvements can only divert attention
and effort from what ought to be our principal object: the
overcoming of greed, hatred, and delusion found in the here and now.
An ancient verse ascribed to the Buddha in "The Questions of
King Milinda" (the Milindapanha) says:
Not far from here do you need to look!
Highest existence — what can it avail?
Here in this present aggregate,
In your own body overcome the world!
%20wiki.jpeg)
