Buddhism and God
The following material comprises a resource pack on this theme.
It contains two translated suttas (discourses by the Buddha originating some 2540 years ago)
the Kalama Sutta
a questionnaire designed to illustrate the difficulties in agreeing on a definition of 'god'
some material on nibbana - the buddhist transcendent aspect
some notes below which link the material and a FAQ on Buddhism and God.
Buddhism and God - Notes
What is covered
First of all we will examine the Buddhist view of metaphysical questions and of dogma and doctrine by looking at two suttas from the Pali Canon. These two suttas clearly set the scene for our subsequent focus on the Buddhist position on god.
- The kalama
- The Cula-Malunkyovada Sutta
The Buddhist position on god
- Belief Questionnaire
- FAQ
Nibbana and the transcendent
- A discourse on Nibbana by Thanissaro Bhikkhu
- Some descriptions of Nibbana
Non –theism
The Kalama Sutta
- The important thing is to question and not blindly follow what others say. The world is full of people who want to tell us what we should think. We actually have our own human reflective capacity (wisdom) which we can develop and trust. This sutta makes it clear that we should not blindly follow scriptures or doctrines or dogma, but that we should investigate and test these things. The sutta then gives the yardsticks of greed, hatred and delusion as ways of testing things we read or hear.
The Cula-Malunkyovada Sutta
- Metaphysical questions can distract us from resolving our problems. Language enables us to ask many questions that are unanswerable or which even if answered do not really resolve our basic human difficulties.
Buddhist position on God
Questionnaire
Trying to define god is difficult.
We can have a very inspiring image in our mind; or an image of a grumpy old man on a cloud. Or we might just have a blank image – where we don’t know. Think of an image ….is this inspiring or disillusioning?
The point is that these are all mind images. Some are nice, some scary or wacky or whatever.
Mind images are conditioned by our upbringing; our surroundings; our age; our friends; our parents; whether we are hungry or bored; whether we have a pain in our leg, and millions of other things
So Buddhism points out that all mind images are uncertain, changeable, and that if we attach to them we suffer. This applies to all mind images, including our ideas about god. Taking refuge in things which are uncertain and changeable and part of the conditioned world is pretty risky. A bit like going to sea in a boat made of painted cardboard. For a while it might float quite well and we could get quite excited, but sooner or later it will get soggy and sink. This is a bit like getting taking refuge in mind objects – sooner or later they get soggy and sink – and if we are too attached to them, it feels like we are sinking too. How often have we really believed that we understood something, or thought we had found a perfect refuget…. And then somehow everything turned to ashes and fell apart?
Some mind objects form a very useful part of conventional reality. For example language. If we all agree that the sound ‘table’ means a table, then this is useful shorthand. Until we meet an eskimo who has his own conventions for language.
So conventions have a usefulness. Time is a convention. We agree on how we measure it, and all have watches, and this makes it possible for us to arrive at meetings at the same time or get up in time for breakfast.
As we found with our questionnaire, agreeing on what we mean by god is difficult. It is pretty hard for us all to agree on a conventional meaning. So what do we do?
We could continue to try to find a meaning that everyone can accept…..this continues a long tradition (read the History of God by Karen Armstrong).
We can take the view that this is like Malunkya who rather than get the arrow taken out of his arm wants to continue to speculate on that which cannot be resolved. So maybe we should not worry about what God means, but get on and lead good lives and aim for enlightenment.
Nibbana and the Transcendent
This is a bit tricky. But it might be understood by considering the space in a room. We normally focus our attention on the objects. But without the space the objects would not exist. The space could be considered to transcend the objects in the room – to provide them with existence and usefulness. The objects come and go. They can be destroyed, but the space is always here. We are trained and educated just to focus upon the objects and take the space for granted.
Nibbana is the Buddhist word for the spacious and enlightened mind. Where we are not completely caught up in the objects within our mind but are aware of the space also. According to the scriptures the enlightened mind is the greatest peacefulness and ease......perhaps this is why many Buddhist monks and nuns seem to radiate joy and ease.
Non-Theism
So…Buddhism does not use the idea of god in it’s teaching to refer to the transcendent
A good way of describing this is non-theistic.
Buddhism is not agnostic, because that implies an interest in the question of whether God exists. Buddhism is neither theistic nor atheistic since these are speculative and fixed positions.
----The End ---
FAQ on Buddhism and God
Q1. Do Buddhist believe in a creator God?
A. Buddhists can believe all sorts of things - there is no authority in Buddhism which checks or enforces certain specific beliefs. Buddhism encourages us to be aware of what our beliefs are and to understand these as being impermanent and conditioned mental formations. But it is true that the Buddha did not base any of his teachings on the idea of a creator God. He also made it clear that he was human and that his teaching was for humans ....and Gods. Gods (or devas) do feature in some Buddhist stories and teachings, but only as examples of other types of beings, who inhabit other realms, but who are also subject to birth, suffering and death.Q2. If Buddhism is not based upon God can it still be a religion?
A. This depends upon how we define ‘religion’, but in my opinion (and many other Buddhists), Buddhism is definitely a religion. I would define a religion as having to have a ‘transcendent’ element. So that Humanism is not a religion because it bases its approach purely on a materialistic and rational view - it believes that all that we can normally see and experience is all that exists.
The transcendent aspect of Buddhism is called nibbana (Pali) or nirvana (Sanskrit). The Buddha did not define this too much or personalise it or give it a gender, consequently Buddhism has avoided much of the conflict and interminable confusion that is associated with definitions of ‘God’. Buddhism is best described as ‘Non-theistic’. This means that it does not use ‘God’ to describe transcendent reality.
Q3. If there was no creator God how did the universe start? Surely it must have had an initial cause?
A. We do not know how the universe started and how we come to be in our situation. Scientists are constantly revising their theories, and have been for the whole of human history. Opting for the simplistic idea that something must have created the world looks to me like an inadequate answer that does not do justice to the incredible wonder and mystery of the world. Maybe the universe did not have a start? What created the creator God? If he has always existed then why could the universe not always have existed?
Q4. So it looks like the God idea does not really feature in Buddhism?
A. Well it depends how you define ‘God’. If you define it as the label for the realisation of ultimate truth (an interpretation that Christian and Islamic mystical traditions might agree with) then it is close to the Buddhist nibbana. If, however, ‘God’ is defined as some sort of objective real being, then this is of no real interest in traditional Buddhist practice. Some Tibetan traditions do pay more attention to spirits and deities. This is not a view which can be found in the original Buddhist scriptures, and even in the Tibetan tradition the Dalai Lama is trying to discourage practices involving spirits or deities.