fbpx
Wikipedia

Creator in Buddhism

May 25, 2023

Generally speaking, Buddhism is a religion that does not include the belief in a monotheistic creator deity.[1][2][3] As such, it has often been described as either (non-materialistic) atheism or as nontheism, though these descriptions have been challenged by other scholars, since some forms of Buddhism do posit different kinds of transcendent, unborn, and unconditioned ultimate realities (e.g., Buddha-nature).[4]

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, though they can live very long lives.[1][5] 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".[1]

Buddhist texts also posit that mundane deities, such as Mahabrahma, are misconstrued to be creators.[6] 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.[1]

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.[5][7] Buddhist anti-theistic writings were also common during the modern era, in response to the presence of Christian missionaries and their critiques of Buddhism.

In spite of 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.[8] 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.[9]

Early Buddhist texts

 
The deva 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).

Damien Keown notes that in the Saṃyutta Nikāya, the Buddha sees the cycle of rebirths as stretching back "many hundreds of thousands of eons without discernible beginning."[10] 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."[11]

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.[12]

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.[13]

Hayes also notes that in the early texts, the Buddha is not depicted as an atheist, but more as a skeptic 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."[14]

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)."[15] 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."[15]

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:[16]

"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)
 
The high god Brahma is often seen as an object of devotion in Buddhism, but he is not seen as a creator, nor does he have eternal life. This depiction of the deity is from the Erawan Shrine 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.[6] However, "[w]hile being kind and compassionate, none of the brahmās are world-creators."[17]

In the Pali Canon, Buddhism includes the concept of reborn gods.[18] 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.[18] 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.[6] 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.[6]

 
A depiction of the Buddha's defeat of Baka Brahma, a brahma god who mistakenly believed he was the all-powerful creator. Wat Olak Madu, Kedah, Malaysia.

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.[19] 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."[19]

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.[20]

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?[21]

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."[15]

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."[22]

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),[citation needed] 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".[5] Kapstein outlines this second line of argumentation as follows:[5]

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".[5]

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".[23] Nagarjuna makes several arguments against a creator God, including the following:[24]

  • "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 [cause] 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 [of all things], 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:[25]

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.[16] Furthermore, in his Letter to a Friend, he also rejects the idea of a creator deity:[26]

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).[27]

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 [on conditions]."[28]

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.[29]

Vasubandhu

 
Vasubandhu: Wood, 186 cm height, about 1208, Kofukuji Temple, Nara, Japan

The 5th-century Buddhist philosopher Vasubandhu argued that a creator's singular identity is incompatible with creating the world in his Abhidharmakosha.[30] 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".[31] 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.[31]

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).[32]

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?"[32] 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.[33]

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".[33]

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 [first] creation [of the world] (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."[33]

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."[34]

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:[35]

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.[36]

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.[37]

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.[38][5][39]

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.[40]

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).[1]

Mahayana and theism

 
Statue of the cosmic Buddha Vairocana, Shanhua Temple, Shanxi, China

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).[41][42]

Mahayana buddhology and theism

 
A Ming bronze of the Buddha Mahāvairocana, which depicts his body as being composed of numerous other Buddhas.

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".[43] 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.[44] In East Asian Buddhism, Buddhas are often seen as also having eternal life.[45] According to Paul Williams, in Mahayana, a Buddha is often seen as "a spiritual king, relating to and caring for the world".[46]

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).[47][48][49] Similarly, Geoffrey Samuel has compared Tibetan Buddhist Buddhology with the related view of panentheism.[50]

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".[49] 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".[49] 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.[51]

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.[52] Buddha-created worlds are termed "Buddha-fields" (or "pure lands"), and their creation is seen as a key activity of the Buddhas and bodhisattvas.[52]

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.[53][54][55][56][57][58][59] Some of these figures have also been involved in Buddhist–Christian dialogue.[54][55] 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.[60] In a similar fashion, some Buddhist thinkers, like Dennis Hirota and John S. Yokota, have developed Buddhist theologies that draw on process theology.[61]

East Asian Buddhism and theism

 
Womb World Mandala (Kongōkai Taizōkai mandara) with Mahāvairocana Buddha at the center, hanging scroll, Japan, 15th century.

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.[62] 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".[63] 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.[64]

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".[65] Similarly, Lin Weiyu writes that the Huayan school interprets Vairocana as "omnipresent, omnipotent and identical to the universe itself".[66] According to Lin, the Huayan commentator Fazang's conception of Vairocana contains "elements that approach Vairocana to the monotheistic God".[66] 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.[66]

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.[67][68][69] 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.[70]

Tantric Adi-Buddha theory and theism

 
Adi-Buddha Samantabhadra, a symbol of the ground in Dzogchen thought

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."[71]

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."[72] 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".[72]

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."[73]

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.[29] 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.[51]

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.)[74] 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).[75]

Adi-Buddha as non-theistic

 
A Kalachakra mandala, which symbolically depicts the entire universe as a divine field of Buddha activity.

The 14th Dalai Lama sees this deity (called Samantabhadra) as a symbol for ultimate reality, "the realm of the Dharmakaya – the space of emptiness".[76][52] 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."[52]

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".[52] 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".[52] 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."[52]

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.[77] 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".[78] 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.[78]

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.[79]

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."[80]

Modern Buddhist anti-theism

 
Ouyi Zhixu, a Chinese Buddhist figure of the Ming dynasty

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.[81][82]

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).[81]

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."[82]

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.[83] 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.[84]

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.[85] 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).[86]

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

References

  1. ^ a b c d e Harvey, Peter (2019). "Buddhism and Monotheism", p. 1. Cambridge University Press.
  2. ^ Taliaferro 2013, p. 35.
  3. ^ 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.
  4. ^ Schmidt-Leukel (2006), pp. 1-4.
  5. ^ a b c d e f Kapstein, Matthew T. The Buddhist Refusal of Theism, Diogenes 2005; 52; 61.
  6. ^ a b c d Harvey 2013, p. 36-8.
  7. ^ Schmidt-Leukel (2006), p. 9.
  8. ^ B. Alan Wallace, "Is Buddhism Really Non-Theistic?". Snow Lion Newsletter, Volume 15, Number 1, Winter 2000. ISSN 1059-3691.
  9. ^ Zappulli, Davide Andrea (2022). Towards a Buddhist theism. Religious Studies, First View, pp. 1 – 13. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0034412522000725
  10. ^ Keown, Damien (2013). "Encyclopedia of Buddhism." p. 162. Routledge.
  11. ^ Bhikkhu Bodhi (2005). "In the Buddha's Words: An Anthology of Discourses from the Pali Canon." p. 37. Simon and Schuster.
  12. ^ Hayes, Richard P., "Principled Atheism in the Buddhist Scholastic Tradition", Journal of Indian Philosophy, 16:1 (1988:Mar) pgs 5-6, 8
  13. ^ Hayes, Richard P., "Principled Atheism in the Buddhist Scholastic Tradition", Journal of Indian Philosophy, 16:1 (1988:Mar) p. 2.
  14. ^ Hayes, Richard P., "Principled Atheism in the Buddhist Scholastic Tradition", Journal of Indian Philosophy, 16:1 (1988:Mar) pp. 9-10
  15. ^ a b c Narada Thera (2006) "The Buddha and His Teachings," pp. 268-269, Jaico Publishing House.
  16. ^ a b Westerhoff, Jan. “Creation in Buddhism” in Oliver, Simon. The Oxford Handbook of Creation, Oxford University Press, Oxford, forthcoming
  17. ^ Harvey 2013, p. 37.
  18. ^ a b Harvey 2013, p. 36-37.
  19. ^ a b Nichols, Michael D. (2019). "Malleable Mara: Transformations of a Buddhist Symbol of Evil," p. 70. SUNY Press.
  20. ^ Harold Netland, Keith Yandell (2009). "Buddhism: A Christian Exploration and Appraisal", pp. 184 - 186. InterVarsity Press.
  21. ^ Harold Netland, Keith Yandell (2009). "Buddhism: A Christian Exploration and Appraisal", pp. 185 - 186. InterVarsity Press.
  22. ^ Narada Thera (2006) "The Buddha and His Teachings," p. 271, Jaico Publishing House.
  23. ^ 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.
  24. ^ Hsueh-li Cheng (1982). Nagarjuna's Twelve Gate Treatise, pp. 93-99. D. Reidel Publishing Company
  25. ^ Lindtner, Christian (1986). Master of Wisdom: Writings of the Buddhist Master Nāgārjuna, pp. 26-27. Dharma Pub.
  26. ^ “bShes-pa'i springs-yig,” Skt. “Suhrllekha” by Nagarjuna , translated by Alexander Berzin, studybuddhism.com
  27. ^ Schmidt-Leukel, Perry (2016). Buddhism, Christianity and the Question of Creation: Karmic or Divine? p. 25. Routledge
  28. ^ Fenner, Peter (2012). The Ontology of the Middle Way, p. 85. Springer Science & Business Media
  29. ^ a b 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.
  30. ^ Hayes, Richard P., "Principled Atheism in the Buddhist Scholastic Tradition", Journal of Indian Philosophy, 16:1 (1988:Mar.) pg 11-15.
  31. ^ a b de La Vallee Poussin & Sangpo (2012), p. 675
  32. ^ a b de La Vallee Poussin & Sangpo (2012), p. 676.
  33. ^ a b c de La Vallee Poussin & Sangpo (2012), p. 677.
  34. ^ de La Vallee Poussin & Sangpo (2012), p. 678.
  35. ^ Cook, Francis, Chʿeng Wei Shih Lun (Three Texts on Consciousness Only), Numata Center, Berkeley, 1999, ISBN 978-1-886439-04-7, pp. 20-21.
  36. ^ 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.
  37. ^ Hayes, Richard P., "Principled Atheism in the Buddhist Scholastic Tradition," Journal of Indian Philosophy, 16:1 (1988:Mar.) pg 12
  38. ^ Hayes, Richard P., "Principled Atheism in the Buddhist Scholastic Tradition," Journal of Indian Philosophy, 16:1 (1988:Mar.) pg 14
  39. ^ "Śaṅkaranandana" in Silk, Jonathan A (editor in chief). Brill’s Encyclopedia of Buddhism Volume II: Lives.
  40. ^ 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.
  41. ^ Getty, Alice (1988). The Gods of Northern Buddhism: Their History and Iconography, p. 41. Courier Corporation.
  42. ^ Chryssides, George D. (2012). Historical dictionary of new religious movements (2nd ed.). Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield. p. 251. ISBN 9780810861947.
  43. ^ Guang Xing (2005). The Three Bodies of the Buddha: The Origin and Development of the Trikaya Theory. Oxford: Routledge Curzon: pp. 1, 85
  44. ^ Williams, Paul, Mahayana Buddhism: The Doctrinal Foundations, Routledge, 2008, p. 240, 315.
  45. ^ Williams, Paul, Mahayana Buddhism: The Doctrinal Foundations, Routledge, 2008, p. 315.
  46. ^ Williams, Paul, Mahayana Buddhism: The Doctrinal Foundations, Routledge, 2008, p. 27.
  47. ^ 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.
  48. ^ Rambelli, Fabio (2013) A Buddhist Theory of Semiotics. London: Bloomsbury Academic.
  49. ^ a b c Duckworth, Douglas (2015). Buddha-nature and the logic of pantheism. In Powers, J (ed.), The Buddhist World. London: Routledge, pp. 235–247
  50. ^ 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.
  51. ^ a b Neumaier, Eva K. "Buddhist Forms of Belief in Creation", In Schmidt-Leukel (2006) Buddhism, Christianity and the Question of Creation. 1st Edition. Routledge.
  52. ^ a b c d e f g 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
  53. ^ Gu, L (2005) Dipolarity in Chan Buddhism and the Whiteheadian God. Journal of Chinese Philosophy 32, 211–222.
  54. ^ a b McDaniel, J.B.B. (2003). Double Religious Belonging: A Process Approach. Buddhist-Christian Studies 23, 67-76. doi:10.1353/bcs.2003.0024.
  55. ^ a b Cobb Jr, John B. (2002). "Whitehead and Buddhism – Religion Online". Retrieved 12 March 2023.
  56. ^ Odin, Steve (1982). Process Metaphysics and Hua-Yen Buddhism: A Critical Study of Cumulative Penetration vs. Interpretation. State University of New York Press.
  57. ^ Griffin, David R. (1974). Buddhist Thought and Whitehead's Philosophy. International Philosophical Quarterly 14 (3):261-284.
  58. ^ Shen, Vincent. Whitehead and Chinese Philosophy: The Ontological Principle and Huayan Buddhism's Concept of shi in Handbook of Whiteheadian Process Thought. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110333299.1.613
  59. ^ 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.
  60. ^ Ingram Paul O (2011). The Process of Buddhist-Christian Dialogue, pp. 34-35. ISD LLC.
  61. ^ 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.
  62. ^ Cook, Francis Harold (1977). Hua-yen Buddhism: The Jewel Net of Indra, pp. 90-91. Pennsylvania State University Press.
  63. ^ Cook, Francis Harold (1977). Hua-yen Buddhism: The Jewel Net of Indra, p. 91. Pennsylvania State University Press.
  64. ^ Cook, Francis Harold (1977). Hua-yen Buddhism: The Jewel Net of Indra, pp. 91-94. Pennsylvania State University Press.
  65. ^ Thich Nhat Hanh (26 June 2015). "Connecting to Our Root Teacher, the Buddha". Plum Village. Retrieved 24 March 2023.
  66. ^ a b c 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
  67. ^ Eliot, Charles (2014). Japanese Buddhism, p. 340. Routledge.
  68. ^ Hajime Nakamura (1992). A Comparative History of Ideas, p. 434. Motilal Banarsidass Publ.
  69. ^ Masaharu Anesaki (1915). Buddhist Art in Its Relation to Buddhist Ideals, p. 15. Houghton Mifflin.
  70. ^ Teeuwen, M. (2014). [Review of the book A Buddhist Theory of Semiotics: Signs, Ontology, and Salvation in Japanese Esoteric Buddhism, by Fabio Rambelli]. Monumenta Nipponica 69(2), 259-263. doi:10.1353/mni.2014.0025.
  71. ^ 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.
  72. ^ a b 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/
  73. ^ Duckworth, Douglas. "Tibetan Mahāyāna and Vajrayāna", In Emmanuel, Steven M. (ed). (2013) A Companion to Buddhist Philosophy. Wiley-Blackwell, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
  74. ^ Alexander Studholme, The Origins of Om Manipadme Hum: A Study of the Karandavyuha Sutra, SUNY, 2002, p. 40
  75. ^ Alexander Studholme, The Origins of Om Manipadme Hum: A Study of the Karandavyuha Sutra, SUNY, 2002, p. 12
  76. ^ The Dalai Lama (2020). Dzogchen: Heart Essence of the Great Perfection. p. 188. Shambhala Publications.
  77. ^ Norbu & Clemente, 1999, p. 94.
  78. ^ a b Norbu & Clemente, 1999, p. 233.
  79. ^ Wallace, Vesna (2001). The Inner Kalacakratantra: A Buddhist Tantric View of the Individual, p. 18. Oxford University Press.
  80. ^ 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.
  81. ^ a b Meynard, Thierry (2017). Beyond Religious Exclusivism: The Jesuit Attacks against Buddhism and Xu Dashou’s Refutation of 1623. Journal of Jesuit Studies.
  82. ^ a b Foulks, Beverley. Duplicitous Thieves: Ouyi Zhixu’s Criticism of Jesuit Missionaries in Late Imperial China. Chung-Hwa Buddhist Journal (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
  83. ^ Elison, George (1988). Deus Destroyed. Cambridge: Council on East Asian Studies, Harvard University. pp. 154–155. ISBN 0-674-19962-6.
  84. ^ Ananda, Jason; Storm, Josephson (2012). The Invention of Religion in Japan, p. 50. University of Chicago Press.
  85. ^ Paramore. Kiri (2010). Ideology and Christianity in Japan, p. 8. Routledge.
  86. ^ 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.

May 25, 2023
creator, buddhism, this, article, technical, most, readers, understand, please, help, improve, make, understandable, experts, without, removing, technical, details, march, 2023, learn, when, remove, this, template, message, generally, speaking, buddhism, relig. This 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 template message Generally speaking Buddhism is a religion that does not include the belief in a monotheistic creator deity 1 2 3 As such it has often been described as either non materialistic atheism or as nontheism though these descriptions have been challenged by other scholars since some forms of Buddhism do posit different kinds of transcendent unborn and unconditioned ultimate realities e g Buddha nature 4 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 saṃsara or cyclical rebirth Buddhism teaches that none of these gods is a creator or an eternal being though they can live very long lives 1 5 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 1 Buddhist texts also posit that mundane deities such as Mahabrahma are misconstrued to be creators 6 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 1 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 5 7 Buddhist anti theistic writings were also common during the modern era in response to the presence of Christian missionaries and their critiques of Buddhism In spite of 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 8 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 9 Contents 1 Early Buddhist texts 1 1 High gods who are mistaken as creator 2 The Problem of Evil in the Jatakas 3 Medieval philosophers 3 1 Madhyamaka philosophers 3 2 Vasubandhu 3 3 Other Yogacara philosophers 3 4 Theravada Buddhists 4 Mahayana and theism 4 1 Mahayana buddhology and theism 4 2 East Asian Buddhism and theism 4 3 Tantric Adi Buddha theory and theism 4 3 1 Adi Buddha as non theistic 5 Modern Buddhist anti theism 6 See also 7 References 8 BibliographyEarly Buddhist texts Edit The deva 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 Damien Keown notes that in the Saṃyutta Nikaya the Buddha sees the cycle of rebirths as stretching back many hundreds of thousands of eons without discernible beginning 10 Saṃyutta Nikaya 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 11 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 12 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 13 Hayes also notes that in the early texts the Buddha is not depicted as an atheist but more as a skeptic 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 14 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 Nikaya 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 issaranimmaṇahetu 15 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 15 In another early sutta Devadahasutta Majjhima Nikaya 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 16 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 Edit Further information Brahma Buddhism The high god Brahma is often seen as an object of devotion in Buddhism but he is not seen as a creator nor does he have eternal life This depiction of the deity is from the Erawan Shrine 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 6 However w hile being kind and compassionate none of the brahmas are world creators 17 In the Pali Canon Buddhism includes the concept of reborn gods 18 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 18 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 6 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 6 A depiction of the Buddha s defeat of Baka Brahma a brahma god who mistakenly believed he was the all powerful creator Wat Olak Madu Kedah Malaysia 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 19 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 19 The Problem of Evil in the Jatakas EditSome stories in the Buddhist Jataka collections outline a critique of a Creator deity that is similar to the Problem of Evil 20 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 21 The Pali Bhuridatta Jataka No 543 has the bodhisattva future Buddha state 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 15 In the Pali Mahabodhi Jataka 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 22 Medieval philosophers EditWhile Early Buddhism was not as concerned with critiquing concepts of God or isvara since theism was not as prominent in India until the medieval era citation needed 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 5 Kapstein outlines this second line of argumentation as follows 5 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 5 Madhyamaka philosophers Edit 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 23 Nagarjuna makes several arguments against a creator God including the following 24 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 cause 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 of all things 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 25 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 16 Furthermore in his Letter to a Friend he also rejects the idea of a creator deity 26 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 Bhaviveka c 500 c 578 also critiques the idea in his Madhyamakahṛdaya Heart of the Middle Way ch III 27 A later Madhyamaka philosopher Candrakirti 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 on conditions 28 Shantideva c 8th century in the 9th chapter of his Bodhicaryavatara 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 29 Vasubandhu Edit Vasubandhu Wood 186 cm height about 1208 Kofukuji Temple Nara JapanThe 5th century Buddhist philosopher Vasubandhu argued that a creator s singular identity is incompatible with creating the world in his Abhidharmakosha 30 He states AKB chapter 2 The universe does not originate from one single cause ekaṃ karaṇam which may be called God Supreme Lord isvara Self Puruṣa Primal Source Pradhana 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 31 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 31 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 32 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 32 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 33 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 33 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 first creation of the world adisarga 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 33 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 34 Other Yogacara philosophers Edit 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 Silabhadra In his work Cheng Weishi Lun Skt Vijnaptimatratasiddhi sastra Xuanzang refutes a Great Lord or Great Brahma doctrine 35 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 36 The 7th century Buddhist scholar Dharmakirti advances a number of arguments against the existence of a creator god in his Pramaṇavartika following in the footsteps of Vasubandhu 37 Later Mahayana scholars such as Santarakṣita Kamalasila Saṅkaranandana fl c 9th or 10th century and Jnanasrimitra fl 975 1025 also continued to write and develop the Buddhist anti theistic arguments 38 5 39 The 11th century Buddhist philosopher Ratnakirti 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 isvara isvara sadhana duṣaṇa 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 40 Theravada Buddhists Edit 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 1 Mahayana and theism Edit Statue of the cosmic Buddha Vairocana Shanhua Temple Shanxi China 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 41 42 Mahayana buddhology and theism Edit A Ming bronze of the Buddha Mahavairocana which depicts his body as being composed of numerous other Buddhas 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 43 In Mahayana a fully awakened Buddha such as Amitabha is held to be omniscient as well as having other qualities such as infinite wisdom an immeasurable life and boundless compassion 44 In East Asian Buddhism Buddhas are often seen as also having eternal life 45 According to Paul Williams in Mahayana a Buddha is often seen as a spiritual king relating to and caring for the world 46 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 47 48 49 Similarly Geoffrey Samuel has compared Tibetan Buddhist Buddhology with the related view of panentheism 50 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 49 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 49 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 51 Jose Ignacio Cabezon 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 52 Buddha created worlds are termed Buddha fields or pure lands and their creation is seen as a key activity of the Buddhas and bodhisattvas 52 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 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 Some of these figures have also been involved in Buddhist Christian dialogue 54 55 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 60 In a similar fashion some Buddhist thinkers like Dennis Hirota and John S Yokota have developed Buddhist theologies that draw on process theology 61 East Asian Buddhism and theism Edit Womb World Mandala Kongōkai Taizōkai mandara with Mahavairocana Buddha at the center hanging scroll Japan 15th century 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 62 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 63 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 64 Thich 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 65 Similarly Lin Weiyu writes that the Huayan school interprets Vairocana as omnipresent omnipotent and identical to the universe itself 66 According to Lin the Huayan commentator Fazang s conception of Vairocana contains elements that approach Vairocana to the monotheistic God 66 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 66 The Shingon Buddhist view of the Supreme Buddha Mahavairocana 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 67 68 69 Fabio Rambelli terms it a kind of pantheism the main doctrine of which is that Mahavairocana 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 70 Tantric Adi Buddha theory and theism Edit Adi Buddha Samantabhadra a symbol of the ground in Dzogchen thought 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 saṃsara 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 71 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 72 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 72 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 73 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 29 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 51 Alexander Studholme also points to how the Karaṇḍavyuhasutra presents the great bodhisattva Avalokitesvara 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 74 Avalokitesvara 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 75 Adi Buddha as non theistic Edit A Kalachakra mandala which symbolically depicts the entire universe as a divine field of Buddha activity The 14th Dalai Lama sees this deity called Samantabhadra as a symbol for ultimate reality the realm of the Dharmakaya the space of emptiness 76 52 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 52 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 52 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 52 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 52 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 77 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 78 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 78 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 79 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 80 Modern Buddhist anti theism Edit Ouyi Zhixu a Chinese Buddhist figure of the Ming dynasty 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 81 82 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 81 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 82 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 83 The Zen monk Sessō Sōsai also wrote an important anti Christian work the Argument for the Extinction of Heresy Taiji Jashu 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 84 Later Japanese Buddhists continued to write anti theist critiques focusing on Christianity These figures include Kiyu Dōjin a k a Ugai Tetsujō 1814 91 who was a head of Jōdo shu who wrote Laughing at Christianity 1869 and Inoue Enryō 85 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 86 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 EditAmitabha 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 BuddhismReferences Edit a b c d e 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 a b c d e f Kapstein Matthew T The Buddhist Refusal of Theism Diogenes 2005 52 61 a b c d 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 https doi org 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 a b c Narada Thera 2006 The Buddha and His Teachings pp 268 269 Jaico Publishing House a b Westerhoff Jan Creation in Buddhism in Oliver Simon The Oxford Handbook of Creation Oxford University Press Oxford forthcoming Harvey 2013 p 37 a b Harvey 2013 p 36 37 a b 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 Nagarjuna 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 Nagarjuna 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 amp Business Media a b 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 a b de La Vallee Poussin amp Sangpo 2012 p 675 a b de La Vallee Poussin amp Sangpo 2012 p 676 a b c de La Vallee Poussin amp Sangpo 2012 p 677 de La Vallee Poussin amp 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 Saṅkaranandana 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 amp 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 a b c 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 a b Neumaier Eva K Buddhist Forms of Belief in Creation In Schmidt Leukel 2006 Buddhism Christianity and the Question of Creation 1st Edition Routledge a b c d e f g Cabezon Jose 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 a b McDaniel J B B 2003 Double Religious Belonging A Process Approach Buddhist Christian Studies 23 67 76 doi 10 1353 bcs 2003 0024 a b 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 https doi org 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 a b c LIN Weiyu 林威宇 UBC Vairocana of the Avataṃsaka Sutra 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 Review of the book A Buddhist Theory of Semiotics Signs Ontology and Salvation in Japanese Esoteric Buddhism by Fabio Rambelli 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 a b 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 Mahayana and Vajrayana In Emmanuel Steven M ed 2013 A Companion to Buddhist Philosophy Wiley Blackwell John Wiley amp 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 amp Clemente 1999 p 94 a b Norbu amp 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 a b Meynard Thierry 2017 Beyond Religious Exclusivism The Jesuit Attacks against Buddhism and Xu Dashou s Refutation of 1623 Journal of Jesuit Studies a b Foulks Beverley Duplicitous Thieves Ouyi Zhixu s Criticism of Jesuit Missionaries in Late Imperial China Chung Hwa Buddhist Journal 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 144Bibliography EditHarvey 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 Abhidharmakosa Bhaṣya 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 Retrieved from https en wikipedia org w index php title Creator in Buddhism amp oldid 1153283862, wikipedia, wiki, book, books, library,

article

, read, download, free, free download, mp3, video, mp4, 3gp, jpg, jpeg, gif, png, picture, music, song, movie, book, game, games.