The Full Wiki

God in Buddhism: Wikis

Advertisements
  

Note: Many of our articles have direct quotes from sources you can cite, within the Wikipedia article! This article doesn't yet, but we're working on it! See more info or our list of citable articles.

Encyclopedia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Part of a series on

Buddhism


Dharma Wheel
Portal of Buddhism
Outline of Buddhism

History of Buddhism

Timeline - Buddhist councils

Major figures

Gautama Buddha
Disciples · Later Buddhists

Dharma or concepts

Four Noble Truths
Noble Eightfold Path
Three marks of existence
Dependent origination
Saṃsāra · Nirvāṇa
Skandha · Cosmology
Karma · Rebirth

Practices and attainment

Buddhahood · Bodhisattva
4 stages of enlightenment
Wisdom · Meditation
Smarana · Precepts · Pāramitās
Three Jewels · Monastics
Laity

Countries and regions

Schools

Theravāda · Mahāyāna
Vajrayāna

Texts

Chinese canon · Pali canon
Tibetan canon

Related topics

Comparative studies
Cultural elements
Criticism

Conceptions of God
Bahá'í
Buddhist
Christian
Hindu
Islamic
Jain
Jewish
Sikh
Zoroastrianism

Since the time of the Buddha, the refutation of the existence of a creator has been seen as a key point in distinguishing Buddhist from non-Buddhist views.[1] Buddhism is usually considered a religion, but is also commonly described as a "spiritual philosophy", because it generally lacks an absolute creator god. The Buddhist approach is empirical and based on experience. In the Four Noble Truths, the Buddha analyzed the problem of suffering, diagnosed its root cause and prescribed a method to dispel suffering. He taught that through insight into the nature of existence and the wisdom of "not-self" or "selflessness" (anatta) [2] all sentient beings following the noble eightfold path can dispel ignorance and thereby suffering. Hence Buddhism does not hinge upon the concept of a Creator God but upon the personal practice of ethics, meditation, and wisdom[3]. Buddhist philosophy can also be contrasted with Hindu ideas[4] of an ultimate Self, the definition of which varies between sects.

However, in some Buddhist traditions, veneration of the Buddha as a teacher of Dharma is significant and an important part of spiritual development. While according to Pali Buddhism, the Buddha rejected being deified, in some streams of Mahayana Buddhism Gautama Buddha is worshipped as 'an omnipotent divinity endowed with numerous supernatural attributes and qualities'.[5] and a number of Buddhist tantric scriptures promulgate the notion of Buddha as 'Primordial Lord', as the omnipresent and eternal foundation of all that exists.

Contents

The supernatural in Buddhism

While many Buddhist traditions do not deny the existence of supernatural beings (e.g., the devas, of which many are discussed in Buddhist scripture), it does not ascribe powers, in the typical Western sense, for creation, salvation or judgement, to the "gods". They are regarded as having the power to affect worldly events in much the same way as humans and animals have the power to do so. Just as humans can affect the world more than animals, devas can affect the world more than humans. While gods may be more powerful than humans, none of them are absolute (unsurpassed). Most importantly, gods, like humans, are also suffering in samsara, the ongoing cycle of death and subsequent rebirth. Gods have not attained nirvana, and are still subject to emotions, including jealousy, anger, delusion, sorrow, etc. Thus, since a Buddha shows the way to nirvana, a Buddha is called "the teacher of the gods and humans" (Skat: śāsta deva-manuṣyāṇaṃ). According to the Pali Canon the gods have powers to affect only so far as their realm of influence or control allows them. In this sense therefore, they are no closer to nirvana than humans and no wiser in the ultimate sense. A dialogue between the king Pasenadi Kosala, his general Vidudabha and the historical Buddha reveals a lot about the relatively weaker position of gods in Buddhism[6].

The Pali Canon also attributes supernatural powers to enlightened beings (Buddhas), that even gods may not have. In a dialogue between king Ajatasattu and the Buddha, enlightened beings are ascribed supranormal powers (like human flight, walking on water etc.), clairaudience, mind reading, recollection of past lives of oneself and others. Yet, according to the Buddha, an enlightened person realizes the futility of these powers[citation needed] and instead unbinds himself completely from samsara through discernment.

Attitudes towards theories of creation

Reflecting a common understanding of the Buddha's earliest teachings, Nyanaponika Thera asserts:

From a study of the discourses of the Buddha preserved in the Pali canon, it will be seen that the idea of a personal deity, a creator god conceived to be eternal and omnipotent, is incompatible with the Buddha's teachings. On the other hand, conceptions of an impersonal godhead of any description, such as world-soul, etc., are not excluded by the Buddha's teachings on Anatta, non-self or unsubstantiality. ... In Buddhist literature, the belief in a creator god (issara-nimmana-vada) is frequently mentioned and rejected, along with other causes wrongly adduced to explain the origin of the world.[7]

In addition, nowhere in the Pali Canon, are Buddhas ascribed powers of creation, salvation and judgement. In fact, Buddhism is critical of all theories on the origin of the universe[8] and holds the belief in creation as a fetter binding one to samsara. However, the Aggañña Sutta does contain a detailed account of the Buddha describing the origin of human life on earth. In this text, the Buddha provides an explanation of the caste system alternate to the one contained in the Vedas, and shows why one caste is not really any better than the other.[9] According to scholar Richard Gombrich, the sutta gives strong evidence that it was conceived entirely as a satire of pre-existing beliefs,[10] and he and scholar David Kalupahana have asserted that the primary intent of this text is to satirize and debunk the brahminical claims regarding the divine nature of the caste system, showing that it is nothing but a human convention.[11][12] Strictly speaking, the sutta is not a cosmogony, as in Buddhism, an absolute beginning is inconceivable. Since the earliest times Buddhists have, however, taken it seriously as an account of the origins of society and kingship.[10] Gombrich, however, finds it to be a parody of brahminical cosmogony as presented in the Rig Vedic "Hymn of creation" (RV X, 129) and BAU 1, 2.[13] He states: "The Buddha never intended to propound a cosmogony. If we take a close look at the Aggañña Sutta, there are considerable incoherencies if it is taken seriously as an explanatory account - though once it is perceived to be a parody these inconsistencies are of no account." In particular, he finds that it violates the basic Buddhist theory of how the law of karma operates.[10] However, scholar Rupert Gethin strongly disagrees, stating

While certain of the details of the Aggainia-sutta's account of the evolution of human society may be, as Gombrich has persuasively argued, satirical in intent, there is nothing in the Nikayas to suggest that these basic cosmological principles that I have identified should be so understood; there is nothing to suggest that the Aggafinia-sutta's introductory formula describing the expansion and contraction of the world is merely a joke. We should surely expect early Buddhism and indeed the Buddha to have some specific ideas about the nature of the round of rebirth, and essentially this is what the cosmological details presented in the Aggafifia-sutta and elsewhere in Nikayas constitute ... far from being out of key with what we can understand of Buddhist thought from the rest of the Nikayas, the cosmogonic views offered by the Aggañña Sutta in fact harmonize very well with it . .I would go further and say that something along the lines of the Aggañña myth is actually required by it.[14]

In Buddhism, the focus is primarily on the effect the belief in theories of creation and a creator have on the human mind. The Buddhist attitude towards every view is one of critical examination from the perspective of what effect the belief has on the mind and whether the belief binds one to samsara or not.

The Buddha declared that "it is not possible to know or determine the first beginning of the cycle of existence of beings who wander therein deluded by ignorance and obsessed by craving."[15] Speculation about the origin and extent of the universe is generally discouraged in early Buddhism.[16]

Advertisements

Theravada

Huston Smith describes early Buddhism as psychological rather than metaphysical.[17] Unlike theistic religions, which are founded on notions of God and related creation myths, Buddhism begins with the human condition as enumerated in the Four Noble Truths. Thus while most other religions attempt to pass a blanket judgement on the goodness of a pre-fallen world (eg. 'He then looked at the world and saw that it was good.' Book of Genesis, Old Testament, Christian Bible) and therefore derive the greatness of its Creator, Early Buddhism denies that the question is even worth asking to begin with [18]. Instead it places emphasis on the human condition of clinging and the insubstantial nature of the world. This approach is often even in contrast with many of the Mahayana forms of Buddhism. No being, whether a god or an enlightened being (including the historical Buddha) is ascribed powers of creation, granting salvation and judgement. According to the Pali Canon, omnipotence cannot be ascribed to any being. Further, in Theravada Buddhism, there are no lands or heavens where a being is guaranteed nirvana, instead he can attain nirvana within a very short time, though nothing conclusive could be said about the effort required for that. In this sense therefore, there is no equivalent of the Mahayana "Pure Land" or magical abode of Buddhas where one is guaranteed to be enlightened, in Early Buddhist tradition.

However, Theravada Buddhism does mention the 'Pure Abodes' (pali: Sudhavasasa) [19] in which Non-Returners (pali: Anagami) are born and there they attain Nibbana.

Mahayana

Mahayana Buddhism (like Theravada Buddhism) posits no Creator or ruler God. In the Avatamsaka Sutra it says, "If you want to understand all the Buddhas of the past, present, and future, then you should view the whole universe as being created by Heart."[20] In some major traditions of Mahayana Buddhism (the Tathagatagarbha and Pure Land streams of teaching) there is a notion of the Buddha as the omnipresent, omniscient, liberative essence of reality, and Buddhas are spoken of as generators of vast "pure lands", "Buddha lands", or "Buddha paradises", in which beings will unfailingly attain Nirvana.[citation needed]

Vajrayana

Tibetan schools of Buddhism all speak of two truths, absolute and relative. Relative truth is regarded as the chain of ongoing causes and conditions that define experience within samsara, and ultimate truth is synonymous with emptiness. There are many philosophical viewpoints, but unique to the Vajrayana perspective is the expression (by meditators) of emptiness in experiential language, as opposed to the language of negation used by scholars to undo any conceptual fixation that would stand in the way of a correct understanding of emptiness. For example, one teacher from the Tibetan Kagyu school of Buddhism, Kalu Rinpoche, elucidates: "pure mind cannot be located, but it is omnipresent and all-penetrating; it embraces and pervades all things. Moreover, it is beyond change, and its open nature is indestructible and atemporal."[21]

Veneration of the Buddha

Although an absolute creator god is absent in most forms of Buddhism, veneration or worship of the Buddha and other Buddhas does play a major role in all forms of Buddhism. While, in Buddhism all beings may strive for Buddhahood, striving to become a god or God in a monotheistic context (like in Abrahamic religions) would be futile or senseless, even heretical, due to a strict distinction between humanity and divinity. Throughout the schools of Buddhism, it is taught that being born in the human realm is best for realizing full enlightenment, whereas being born as a god presents one with too much pleasure and too many distractions to provide any motivation for serious insight meditation. Doctrines of theosis have played an important role in Christian thought, and there are a number of theistic variations of Hinduism where a practitioner can strive to become the godhead (for example Vedanta), but from a Buddhist perspective, such attainment would be disadvantageous to the attainment of nirvana.

In Buddhism, one venerates Buddhas and sages for their virtues, sacrifices, and struggles for perfect enlightenment, and as teachers who are embodiments of the Dhamma.[22]

In Buddhism, this supreme victory of the human ability for perfect gnosis is celebrated in the concept of human saints known as Arahants which literally means "worthy of offerings" or "worthy of worship" because this sage overcomes all defilements and obtains perfect gnosis to obtain Nirvana.

Professor Perry Schmidt-Leukel comments on how some portrayals of the Buddha within Western understanding deprive him of certain 'divine' features, which are in fact found in the earlier scriptures and in certain Eastern contexts. Schmidt-Leukel writes:

What a difference between the presentation of the Buddha within the genuine context of religious veneration, as in [the Doi Suthep Thai] temple, and the image of the Buddha - currently so widespread in the West - according to which the Buddha was simply a human being, free from all divine features! Indeed this modern view does not at all correspond to the description of the Buddha in the classical Buddhist scriptures.[23]

There's some uncertainty whether such worship has any effects beyond purely spiritual. East Asian doctrines, particularly the flavor of Zen popular in the West, teach that the Buddha and other Buddhas are immutable and therefore cannot or do not intervene in human affairs; at best, prayer to them may facilitate one's own enlightenment, even that due to conscious efforts of the one who prays rather than through the intervention of the supreme being. For that and other reasons, Buddha worship is rarely, if ever, practiced in Mahayana. Buddha worship is common among laymen in Theravada countries such as Thailand, and it often assumes forms more reminiscent of prayers to gods and saints in Christianity or pagan religions, where worshippers may ask Buddha for help in practical matters.

At the same time, this objection does not apply to worship of Bodhisattvas. Prayer to and meditation on Bodhisattvas such as Avalokitesvara are integral elements of Tibetan Buddhism.

Thought as creator

In Buddhism, there is no Supreme creator. Yet thoughts (or mind, perceptions, etc.; Pali manas, mano in combined form) are the causes and conditions of the way we view the world.[24]

The opening phrase of the Dhammapada expresses in a few words the most profound understanding in Buddhism of the role of thought in the creation of our perception of the things (dhamma) with which we construct our worldview. In modern parlance it expresses a psychology of phenomonologically ideal realism.

Manopubbaṅgammā dhammā

Manoseṭṭhā manomayā
Manasā ce paduṭṭhena

These words are of such integral importance to understanding the Buddhist view of the role of thinking in the construction of a worldview that no single English translation should be relied upon. For example, many English translations insert the pronoun "we" into the lines which does not appear in the original Pali. To demonstrate the variety of English translations:

We are what we think.

All that we are arises with our thoughts.
With our thoughts we make the world.

Preceded by perception are mental states.

For them is perception supreme.
From perception have they sprung.[25]

All mental phenomena are preceded by mind,

Mind is their master,
they are produced by mind.[26]

In Buddhism there is no "designer" who is outside of the design. The recognition of a "design" (i.e., pattern recognition at all levels of mentation, perception, mental complexes, etc.) is the function of manas (thinking mind) and is otherwise known in Buddhist psychology as the Sixth Consciousness. It is this role of the Sixth Consciousness in creating the fundamental patterns for the building blocks of a worldview that makes thought the "creator" of the world. All the notions we have about ourselves and our world are fundamentally incorrect notions that become the root cause of ignorance. In Buddhism, the term the world does not refer to an objective empirical world accepted as real, but to the process of objectification of a world that we experience. In Buddhism the world arises moment by moment, and no thing exists beyond the thought-moment of its existence, but that thinking makes it seem to be so by stringing together thought-moments (for example, using memory and associations) into a tapestry of the illusion of a world. So in Buddhism, the words the world refers to all this mass of stress created by the delusions of our thought-designs interpreting, configuring, and constructing the world of experience (i.e., the first Five Consciousnesses).

It is noteworthy therefore that while creation in most other religions, as perceived by a person who objectifies themselves as a being, or separate entity, is the act of a divine being and viewed as a purely positive event, while in Buddhism, neither is creation divine nor is it only positive, but necessarily both positive and negative, plus and minus, in equal proportion. That is, when the undifferentiated mind (i.e., the Eighth Consciousnesses) discriminates itself (i.e., the functioning of the Seventh Consciousnesses), that discrimination is itself the activity of mind functioning in both plus and minus capacities. This discrimination function must necessarily include both poles of every "opposition" or "polarity" that is discriminated. When the thinking process (manas) then attempts to configure a design out of the multiplicity of oppositions, it naturally falls on or grasps at one side of the apparent opposition in distinction to the other side in order to create a sense of solidity or fixation to the world. By such "taking sides" or "one-sidedness", thinking makes itself appear supreme (seṭṭha) in its own world, thus the designation manoseṭṭhā in line two of the Dhammapada above. In the Buddhist view, liberation occurs when our thinking mind (manas) comes down off its self-created throne and sees that the world it creates is illusory and that all things or patterns (i.e., dhammas) are not other than discrimination of Mind as the waves are the discrimination of the ocean. This Mind that is discriminated is designated in positive language as the Tathagata, Dharmakaya, Tathagatagarbha, Buddha Nature, Suchness, Thusness, etc. and in negative language as Sunyata, Emptiness, Non-dual, No-Mind, etc.

The statement "From consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-&-form" repeatedly occurs throughout the Pali canons, indicating that the Buddha had meant the world physically arises from consciousness.[citation needed]

God in early Buddhism

In early Buddhism, the Buddha clearly states that "reliance and belief" in creation by a supreme being leads to lack of effort and inaction:[27] This is a significant hindrance in the path to liberation in the Buddha's view. It may be noted that the Buddha did not criticize veneration of the noble, veneration of the wise and learned, but only said that the belief in the existence of a creator God fetters the mind to samsara.

Having approached the priests & contemplatives who hold that...

'Whatever a person experiences... is all caused by a supreme being's act of creation,'
I said to them: 'Is it true that you hold that... "Whatever a person experiences... is all caused by a supreme being's act of creation?"'
Thus asked by me, they admitted, 'Yes.'

Then I said to them, 'Then in that case, a person is a killer of living beings because of a supreme being's act of creation. A person is a thief... unchaste... a liar... a divisive speaker... a harsh speaker... an idle chatterer... greedy... malicious... a holder of wrong views because of a supreme being's act of creation.'

When one falls back on creation by a supreme being as being essential, monks, there is no desire, no effort [at the thought], 'This should be done. This shouldn't be done.' When one can't pin down as a truth or reality what should and shouldn't be done, one dwells bewildered and unprotected. One cannot righteously refer to oneself as a contemplative. This was my second righteous refutation of those priests and contemplative who hold to such teachings, such views.

It is also noteworthy that gods in Buddhism have no role to play in liberation. Sir Charles Eliot describes god in early Buddhism as such[28]:

The attitude of early Buddhism to the spirit world — the hosts of deities and demons who people this and other spheres. Their existence is assumed, but the truths of religion are not dependent on them, and attempts to use their influence by sacrifices and oracles are deprecated as vulgar practices similar to juggling.

The systems of philosophy then in vogue were mostly not theistic, and, strange as the words may sound, religion had little to do with the gods. If this be thought to rest on a mistranslation, it is certainly true that the dhamma had very little to do with devas.

Often as the Devas figure in early Buddhist stories, the significance of their appearance nearly always lies in their relations with the Buddha or his disciples. Of mere mythology, such as the dealings of Brahma and Indra with other gods, there is little. In fact the gods, though freely invoked as accessories, are not taken seriously, and there are some extremely curious passages in which Gotama seems to laugh at them, much as the sceptics of the 18th century laughed at Jehovah. Thus in the [Pali Canon] Kevaddha Sutta he relates how a monk who was puzzled by a metaphysical problem applied to various gods and finally accosted Brahma himself in the presence of all his retinue. After hearing the question, which was "Where do the elements cease and leave no trace behind?" Brahma replies, "I am the Great Brahma, the Supreme, the Mighty, the All-seeing, the Ruler, the Lord of all, the Controller, the Creator, the Chief of all, appointing to each his place, the Ancient of days, the Father of all that are and are to be." "But," said the monk, "I did not ask you, friend, whether you were indeed all you now say, but I ask you where the four elements cease and leave no trace." Then the Great Brahma took him by the arm and led him aside and said, "These gods think I know and understand everything. Therefore I gave no answer in their presence. But I do not know the answer to your question and you had better go and ask the Buddha."

Even more curiously ironic is the account given of the origin of Brahma. There comes a time when this world system passes away and then certain beings are reborn in the "World of Radiance" and remain there a long time. Sooner or later, the world system begins to evolve again and the palace of Brahma appears, but it is empty. Then some being whose time is up falls from the "World of Radiance" and comes to life in the palace and remains there alone. At last he wishes for company, and it so happens that other beings whose time is up fall from the "World of Radiance" and join him. And the first being thinks that he is Great Brahma, the Creator, because when he felt lonely and wished for companions other beings appeared. And the other beings accept this view. And at last one of Brahma’s retinue falls from that state and is born in the human world and, if he can remember his previous birth, he reflects that he is transitory but that Brahma still remains and from this he draws the erroneous conclusion that Brahma is eternal.

Brahmins and communion with God

The Brahmins of the day apparently claimed that they were the link between humans and the devas. Often this would place the priestly class at an advantageous position. But the Pāli suttas dismiss the folly of those religious teachers who would lead others to what they themselves do not personally know, as "foolish talk", or "ridiculous, mere words, a vain and empty thing"[29].

Brahma in the Pali Canon

Brahma is among the common gods found in the Pali Canon. Brahma (in common with all other devas) is subject to change, final decline and death, just as are all other sentient beings in samsara (the plane of continual reincarnation and suffering). In fact there are several different Brahma worlds and several kinds of Brahmas in Buddhism, all of which however are just beings stuck in samsara for a long while. Instead of belief in such a would-be Creator God as Brahma (a benign heavenly being who is in reality not yet free from self-delusion and the processes of rebirth), the wise are encouraged to practise the Dharma (spiritual truth) of the Buddha, in which the Noble Eightfold Path are paramount and are said to bring spiritual Liberation and Awakening.

Other common gods referred to in the Canon

Many of the other gods in the Pali Canon find a common mythological role in Hindu literature. Some common gods and goddesses are Indra, Aapo (Varuna), Vayo (Vayu), Tejo (Agni), Surya, Pajapati (Prajapati), Soma, Yasa, Venhu (Visnu), Mahadeva (Siva), Vijja (Saraswati), Usha, Pathavi (Prithvi) Sri (Lakshmi) Kuvera (Kubera), several yakkhas (Yakshas), gandhabbas (Gandharvas), Nāgas, garula (Garuda), sons of Bali, Veroca, etc.[30] While in Hindu texts some of these gods and goddesses are considered embodiments of the Supreme Being, to early Buddhists this is a ridiculous idea. In the Buddha's view all gods and goddesses were bound to samsara. The world of gods according to the Buddha presents a being with too many pleasures and distractions.

God as a maintainer and the force behind the world

One of the views emerging in the time of the Buddha and seen even today was the view that even though the world was not created by a creator God[citation needed], there is a driving force, a guiding principle behind the workings of the world. As an example, in ancient India, some Hindu sects considered God to be the dispenser of the results of action. According to the Buddha, this view was very dangerous in two ways.

One of the primary reasons is that this places a limitation in ones understanding of the mechanism of karma. Understanding the mechanism of karma is central to the understanding the Dharma leading to the cessation of stress and hence to complete unbinding (nirvana). In fact, when the Buddha attained enlightenment, he first used his insightful awareness to view his past lives and the past and future lives of all other beings and observed the law of karma in action. Belief that a Supreme God is the force behind this law of nature places a significant road-block in spiritual progress, thus disabling the person from understanding the mechanism of karma, in terms of paticcasamuppada (or dependent causality).

The second reason the Buddha considered this notion as egregious is that this belief makes God a dispenser of the results of our actions. Given this, we could try to bribe God or as was common in those days and even today, one would worship God (or confess) to ask for forgiveness. According to the Buddha, this only makes a person irresponsible. If he were solely responsible for the results of his own actions (as he truly is) he will have no one to ask for pardon. The tendency of the human mind to look for such a God is mainly due to its tendency to indulge and yet expect to be forgiven. However, only when we understand that we are entirely responsible for our own actions, and that results accrue as a law of nature and not due to some benign or judgmental being, will we understand the importance of skillful action and reflection that leads to happiness and escape from samsara.

Another view quite popular today which was also present at the time of the Buddha in India was that God is the principle of the law of nature that causes events to occur in a causal manner. In this belief he is not considered a being whose behaviour could be influenced by human endeavour, but nevertheless was a personified image that 'governs' the world. However this is essentially an egregious personification of the laws of causality that the Buddha ascribed to the workings of the world. According to the Buddha, the law of causality could be described briefly as:

When this arises, that arises

When this ceases, that ceases.

A detailed exposition of the dependent causality was needed to understand the more subtle function of the mind-body complex of the human world. The law of causality is not intended to explain the workings of every single phenomenon in the world, but to understand the nature of samsara, the round of birth and death and karma. Personifying this law of nature into a God is of no special benefit as seen from the Buddhist standpoint.

Mahayana and tantric mystical doctrines

Mahayana Buddhism, unlike Theravada, talks of Mind — using terms such as "the womb of the Thus-come One" — in a manner that is mistaken[citation needed] by some to indicate an "eternal entity". Such positive statements arose as a way to relate to the common misunderstanding of emptiness as nothingness, that is a nihilistic view of reality. The affirmation of emptiness by positive terminology appears quite radical when compared with early Buddhism's avoidance of "atman" and "god" terminology. Theravada, the oldest surviving school of Buddhism, generally does not subscribe to the idea of referring to the emptiness of mind with positive terminology. According to the Pali Canon, there is no eternal, all-pervading entity that is the source of all energy. Several Theravada scholars criticize the Mahayana scholars as having resorted to the same Vedantic ideas of eternal entities that the Buddha had rejected. From the Mahayana view, to the extent that any Mahayana practitioner actually asserts an "eternal entity" then this Theravada criticism is warranted[citation needed]. However, also from the Mahayana view, the Theravada criticism of Mahayana's use of postitive terminology as an assertion of "eternal entity" is itself a misperception of Mahayana and of Buddha's teaching[citation needed].

Professor C.D. Sebastian writes in his study of tathagatagarbha doctrine that Mahayana Buddhism is not merely intellectual, but also encompasses the sphere of devotion. Buddha is taken as the Supreme Reality - a kind of God who assumed human form in order to benefit all humanity:

'Mahayana Buddhism is not only intellectual, but also it is devotional ... in Mahayana, Buddha was taken as God, as Supreme Reality itself that descended on the earth in human form for the good of mankind. The concept of Buddha (as equal to God in theistic systems) was never as a creator but as Divine Love that out of compassion (karuna) embodied itself in human form to uplift suffering humanity. He was worshipped with fervent devotion... He represents the Absolute (paramartha satya), devoid of all plurality (sarva-prapancanta-vinirmukta) and has no beginning, middle and end ... Buddha ... is eternal, immutable ... As such He represents Dharmakaya.'[31]

Tathagata and Dharmakaya as God equivalents

In some Mahayana traditions, the Buddha is indeed worshipped as a virtual divinity who is possessed of supernatural qualities and powers. Dr. Guang Xing writes: "The Buddha worshipped by Mahayanist followers is an omnipotent divinity endowed with numerous supernatural attributes and qualities ...[He] is described almost as an omnipotent and almighty godhead."[32].

Buddhist scholar, Dr. B. Alan Wallace, has also indicated that saying that Buddhism as a whole is 'non-theistic' may be an over-simplification. Wallace discerns similarities between some forms of Vajrayana Buddhism and notions of a divine 'ground of being' and creation. He writes: 'a careful analysis of Vajrayana Buddhist cosmogony, specifically as presented in the Atiyoga tradition of Indo-Tibetan Buddhism, which presents itself as the culmination of all Buddhist teachings, reveals a theory of a transcendent ground of being and a process of creation that bear remarkable similarities with views presented in Vedanta and Neoplatonic Western Christian theories of creation.'[33] In fact, Wallace sees these views as so similar that they seem almost to be different manifestations of the same theory. He comments: 'Vajrayana Buddhism, Vedanta, and Neoplatonic Christianity have so much in common that they could almost be regarded as varying interpretations of a single theory.' [34]

Vedantic statements regarding an invariant substratum are, however, rejected by the Buddha of the earliest scriptures as "pernicious views."[35] In fact, regarding attempts of Brahmins to merge with a professed eternal substratum (known as Brahman), the Buddha stated that such people were worrying about something that is "non-existent" (asati).[36] Western analogues of aspects the thought of the Buddha as recorded in the earliest texts have only developed in modern times.[37] In particular, early Buddhism has been compared to process philosophy (which existed in ancient Greece, but was eclipsed in Western thought by substance-attribute ontology until modern times)[38], phenomenology,[39] and deconstructionism.[40][41]

According to the tathagatagarbha sutras, the Buddha also taught the existence of a spiritual essence called the tathagagatagarbha or Buddha-nature, which is present in all beings and phenomena. Dr. B. Alan Wallace writes of this doctrine:

'the essential nature of the whole of samsara and nirvana is the absolute space (dhatu) of the tathagatagarbha, but this space is not to be confused with a mere absence of matter. Rather, this absolute space is imbued with all the infinite knowledge, compassion, power, and enlightened activities of the Buddha. Moreover, this luminous space is that which causes the phenomenal world to appear, and it is none other than the nature of one's own mind, which by nature is clear light.'[42]

Another scholar sees a Buddhist Absolute in Consciousness. Writing on the Yogacara school of Buddhism, Dr. A. K. Chatterjee remarks:

'The Absolute is a non-dual consciousness. The duality of the subject and object does not pertain to it. It is said to be void (sunya), devoid of duality; in itself it is perfectly real, in fact the only reality ...There is no consciousness of the Absolute; Consciousness is the Absolute.'[43]

While this is a traditional Tibetan interpretation of Yogacara views, it has been rejected by modern Western scholarship, namely by Kochumuttom, Anacker, Kalupahana, Dunne, Lusthaus, Powers, and Wayman..[44][45][46] Scholar Dan Lusthaus writes: "They [Yogacarins] did not focus on consciousness to assert it as ultimately real (Yogācāra claims consciousness is only conventionally real since it arises from moment to moment due to fluctuating causes and conditions), but rather because it is the cause of the karmic problem they are seeking to eliminate."[45]

According to the earliest Buddhist scriptures, the Buddha placed the belief in an unchanging consciousness on par with denying the necessity of the practical foundation of monasticism, celibacy. The Buddha says of a monk holding the former view that this misunderstanding "both damages himself and generates much demerit."[36] Gombrich writes: "A fundamental difference between the Buddha's view and the Upanishadic view is that the Buddha never confused epistemology with ontology ... The Buddha did not reify consciousness. Vinnana is one of the five khandha, and is a process, not a thing: consciousness is always consciousness of".[47] The clearest statement that consciousness is simply a process is the description of it as "dependently originated" (paticca-samuppanna).[36]

A further name for the irreducible, time-and-space-transcending mysterious Truth or Essence of Buddhic Reality spoken of in some Mahayana and tantric texts is the Dharmakaya (Body of Truth). Of this the Zen master (Zen Buddhism is a Mahayana school), Sokei-An, says:[48]

... dharmakaya [is] the equivalent of God ...

The Buddha also speaks of no time and no space, where if I make a sound there is in that single moment a million years. It is spaceless like radio waves, like electric space - intrinsic. The Buddha said that there is a mirror that reflects consciousness. In this electric space a million miles and a pinpoint - a million years and a moment - are exactly the same. It is pure essence ... We call it 'original consciousness' - 'original akasha' - perhaps God in the Christian sense. I am afraid of speaking about anything that is not familiar to me. No one can know what IT is ...

The same Zen adept, Sokei-An, further comments:[49]

The creative power of the universe is not a human being; it is Buddha. The one who sees, and the one who hears, is not this eye or ear, but the one who is this consciousness. This One is Buddha. This One appears in every mind. This One is common to all sentient beings, and is God.

The Rinzai Zen Buddhist master, Soyen Shaku, speaking to Americans at the beginning of the 20th century, discusses how in essence the idea of God is not absent from Buddhism, when understood as ultimate, true Reality:[50]

At the outset, let me state that Buddhism is not atheistic as the term is ordinarily understood. It has certainly a God, the highest reality and truth, through which and in which this universe exists. However, the followers of Buddhism usually avoid the term God, for it savors so much of Christianity, whose spirit is not always exactly in accord with the Buddhist interpretation of religious experience ... To define more exactly the Buddhist notion of the highest being, it may be convenient to borrow the term very happily coined by a modern German scholar, 'panentheism', according to which God is ... all and one and more than the totality of existence .... As I mentioned before, Buddhists do not make use of the term God, which characteristically belongs to Christian terminology. An equivalent most commonly used is Dharmakaya ... When the Dharmakaya is most concretely conceived it becomes the Buddha, or Tathagata ...

Primordial Buddhas

Theories regarding a self-existent "ground of being" were common in India prior to the Buddha, and were rejected by him: "The Buddha, however, refusing to admit any metaphysical principle as a common thread holding the moments of encountered phenomena together, rejects the Upanishadic notion of an immutable substance or principle underlying the world and the person and producing phenomena out of its inherent power, be it 'being', atman, brahman, or 'god.'"[51]

In later Mahayana literature, however, the idea of an eternal, all-pervading, all-knowing, immaculate, uncreated and deathless Ground of Being (the dharmadhatu, inherently linked to the sattvadhatu, the realm of beings), which is the Awakened Mind (bodhicitta) or Dharmakaya ("body of Truth") of the Buddha himself, is attributed to the Buddha in a number of Mahayana sutras, and is found in various tantras as well. In some Mahayana texts, such a principle is occasionally presented as manifesting in a more personalised form as a primordial buddha, such as Samantabhadra, Vajradhara, Vairochana, and Adi-Buddha, among others.

In some Buddhist tantric and Dzogchen scriptures, too, this immanent and transcendent Dharmakaya (the ultimate essence of the Buddha’s being) is portrayed as the primordial Buddha, Samantabhadra, worshipped as the primordial lord. In a study of Dzogchen, Dr. Sam van Schaik mentions how Samantabhadra Buddha is indeed seen as ‘the heart essence of all buddhas, the Primordial Lord, the noble Victorious One, Samantabhadra’[52]. Dr. Schaik indicates that Samantabhadra is not to be viewed as some kind of separate mindstream, apart from the mindstreams of sentient beings, but should be known as a universal nirvanic principle termed the Awakened Mind (bodhi-citta) and present in all.[53] Dr. Schaik quotes from the tantric texts, Experiencing the Enlightened Mind of Samantabhadra and The Subsequent Tantra of Great Perfection Instruction to portray Samantabhadra as an uncreated, reflexive, radiant, pure and vital Knowing (gnosis) which is present in all things:

‘The essence of all phenomena is the awakened mind; the mind of all buddhas is the awakened mind; and the life-force of all sentient beings is the awakened mind, too … This unfabricated gnosis of the present moment is the reflexive luminosity, naked and stainless, the Primordial Lord himself.’[54]

In the Mahavairocana Sutra, the essence of Vairocana, who is viewed in that scripture as the supreme Buddha, is said to be symbolised by the letter "A", which is claimed to reside in the hearts of all beings and of which Buddha Vairocana declares that "[the mystic letter ‘A’] is placed in the heart location:[55]

it is Lord and Master of all,

and it pervades entirely
all the animate and inanimate.
'A' is the highest life-energy ...

The text refers to Vairocana Buddha as the "Bhagavat" ("Blessed One," a term traditionally linked in Indian discourse with "the Divine"), "Master of the Dharma, the Sage who is completely perfect, who is all-pervasive, who encompasses all world systems, who is All-Knowing, the Lord Vairocana".[56]

The Tantric text, The Sarva-Tathagata-Tattva-Samgraha, characterizes Vairocana as follows:

He is universal Goodness, beneficial,

destroyer [of suffering], the great Lord of Happiness, sky womb, Great Luminosity ... the great All-perceiving Lord ... He is without beginning or end ... [He is] Vishnu [God] ... Protector of the world, the sky, the earth ... The elements, the good benefactor of beings, All things ... the Blessed Rest, Eternal ... The Self of all the Buddhas ... Pre-eminent over all, and master of the world.

The Shingon Buddhist monk, Dohan, regarded the two great Buddhas, Amida and Vairocana, as one and the same Dharmakaya Buddha and as the true nature at the core of all beings and phenomena. There are several realisations that can accrue to the Shingon practitioner of which Dohan speaks in this connection, as Dr. James Sanford points out: there is the realisation that Amida is the Dharmakaya Buddha, Vairocana; then there is the realisation that Amida as Vairocana is eternally manifest within this universe of time and space; and finally there is the innermost realisation that Amida is the true nature, material and spiritual, of all beings, that he is 'the omnivalent wisdom-body, that he is the unborn, unmanifest, unchanging reality that rests quietly at the core of all phenomena'.[57]

Similar God-like descriptions are encountered in the All-Creating King Tantra (Kunjed Gyalpo Tantra), where the universal Mind of Awakening (in its mode as "Samantabhadra Buddha") declares of itself:[58]

I am the core of all that exists. I am the seed of all that exists. I am the cause of all that exists. I am the trunk of all that exists. I am the foundation of all that exists. I am the root of existence. I am "the core" because I contain all phenomena. I am "the seed" because I give birth to everything. I am "the cause" because all comes from me. I am "the trunk" because the ramifications of every event sprout from me. I am "the foundation" because all abides in me. I am called "the root" because I am everything.

The Karandavyuha Sutra presents the great bodhisattva, Avalokitesvara, as a kind of supreme lord of the cosmos. A striking feature of Avalokitesvara in this sutra is his creative power, as he is said to be the progenitor of various heavenly bodies and divinities. Dr. Alexander Studholme, in his monograph on the sutra, writes:

'The sun and moon are said to be born from the bodhisattva's eyes, Mahesvara [Siva] from his brow, Brahma from his shoulders, Narayana [Vishnu] from his heart, Sarasvati from his teeth, the winds from his mouth, the earth from his feet and the sky from his stomach.'[59]

Avalokitesvara himself is linked in the versified version of the sutra to the first Buddha, the Adi Buddha, who is 'svayambhu' (self-existent, not born from anything or anyone). Dr. Studholme comments:

'Avalokitesvara himself, the verse sutra adds, is an emanation of the Adibuddha, or 'primordial Buddha', a term that is explicitly said to be synoymous with Svayambhu and Adinatha, 'primordial lord'.'[60]

That primordial Buddha, Ādibuddha (Adi-Buddha), figures prominently in the Kalachakra tantra. Ādibuddha is believed to be a primordial, self-existent, self-created Buddha who is the personification of Shunyata or emptiness [freedom from confining substance or conceptual graspability) enshrining the infinitely Knowing Mind of Great Compassion; all phenomena lack true separate existence yet still appear, and their basis is the undifferentiated and inconceivable Mind of Buddha (empty of all defects and ignorance). However, all these seemingly godlike figures (Samantabhadra, Vairochana, Vajradhara, etc.) are traditionally understood to be personifications of emptiness and compassion – the ungraspable, limitless, invisible, inconceivable, unimpeded benevolent Reality of Buddha-Mind and the true nature of all phenomena. Some Buddhists see the above quote from Samantabhadra Buddha as radically subjective psychology, while still others will insist that the words mean what they say and do communicate the sense of an actual sustaining force or spiritual essence behind and within all phenomena.

The Eternal Buddha of Shin Buddhism

In Shin Buddhism, Amida Buddha is viewed as the eternal Buddha who manifested as Shakyamuni in India and who is the personification of Nirvana itself. The Shin Buddhist priest, John Paraskevopoulos, in his monograph on Shin Buddhism, writes:

'In Shin Buddhism, Nirvana or Ultimate Reality (also known as the "Dharma-Body" or Dharmakaya in the original Sanskrit) has assumed a more concrete form as (a) the Buddha of Infinite Light (Amitabha) and Infinite Life (Amitayus)and (b) the "Pure Land" or "Land of Utmost Bliss" (Sukhavati), the realm over which this Buddha is said to preside ... Amida is the Eternal Buddha who is said to have taken form as Shakyamuni and his teachings in order to become known to us in ways we can readily comprehend.'[61]

John Paraskevopoulos elucidates the notion of Nirvana, of which Amida is an embodiment, in the following terms:

'... [Nirvana's] more positive connotation is that of a higher state of being, the dispelling of illusion and the corresponding joy of liberation. An early Buddhist scripture describes Nirvana as: ... the far shore, the subtle, the very difficult to see, the undisintegrating, the unmanifest, the peaceful, the deathless, the sublime, the auspicious, the secure, the destruction of craving, the wonderful, the amazing, the unailing, the unafflicted, dispassion, purity, freedom, the island, the shelter, the asylum, the refuge ... (Samyutta Nikaya)'[62]

This Nirvana is seen as eternal and of one nature, indeed as the essence of all things. Paraskevopoulos tells of how the Mahaparinirvana Sutra speaks of Nirvana as eternal, pure, blissful and true self:

'In Mahayana Buddhism it is taught that there is fundamentally one reality which, in its highest and purest dimension, is experienced as Nirvana. It is also known, as we have seen, as the Dharma-Body (considered as the ultimate form of Being) or "Suchness" (Tathata in Sanskrit) when viewed as the essence of all things ... "The Dharma-Body is eternity, bliss, true self and purity. It is forever free of all birth, ageing, sickness and death" (Nirvana Sutra)'[63]

To attain this Self, however, it is needful to transcend the 'small self' and its pettiness with the help of an 'external' agency, Amida Buddha. This is the view promulgated by the Jodo Shinshu founding Buddhist master, Shinran Shonin. John Paraskevopoulos comments on this:

'Shinran's great insight was that we cannot conquer the self by the self. Some kind of external agency is required: (a) to help us to shed light on our ego as it really is in all its petty and baneful guises; and (b) to enable us to subdue the small 'self' with a view to realising the Great Self by awakening to Amida's light.'[64]

When that Great Self of Amida's light is realised, Shin Buddhism is able to see the Infinite which transcends the care-worn mundane. John Paraskevopoulos concludes his monograph on Shin Buddhism thus:

'It is time we discarded the tired view of Buddhism as a dry and forensic rationalism , lacking in warmth and devotion ... By hearing the call of Amida Buddha we become awakened to true reality and its unfathomable working ... to live a life that dances jubilantly in the resplendent light of the Infinite.'[65]

God as manifestation of mind

One of the Mahayana Sutras, the Lankavatara Sutra, states that the notions of a sovereign God, Atman are figments of the imagination or manifestations of the mind and can also be an impediment to perfection as this leads to attachment to the concept of God:

All such notions as causation, succession, atoms, primary elements, that make up personality, personal soul, Supreme Spirit, Sovereign God, Creator, are all figments of the imagination and manifestations of mind.

No, Mahamati, the Tathágata’s doctrine of the Womb of Tathágata-hood is not the same as the philosopher’s Atman.[66]

Instead of a personal creator God, the sutra speaks of creative Mind, and of Suchness (tathata - universal Truth-as-it-is), which is defined as: "... this Suchness may be characterised as Truth, Reality, exact knowledge, limit, source, self-substance, the Unattainable".[67]

Moreover, the same sutra also sees the Buddha reveal that he is the unrecognised One who is actually being addressed when beings project from their unawakened minds notions of Divinity and address themselves to "God". The many names for such ultimate Being or Truth are in fact said by the Buddha to be unwitting appellations of the Buddha himself. He states:

The same can be said of myself as I appear in this world of patience before ignorant people and where I am known by uncounted trillions of names.

They address me by different names not realizing that they are all names of the one Tathagata.

Some recognize me as Sun, as Moon; some as a reincarnation of the ancient sages; some as one of "ten powers"; some as Rama, some as Indra, and some as Varuna. Still there are others who speak of me as The Un-born, as Emptiness, as "Suchness," as Truth, as Reality, as Ultimate Principle; still there are others who see me as Dharmakaya, as Nirvana, as the Eternal; some speak of me as sameness, as non-duality, as un-dying, as formless; some think of me as the doctrine of Buddha-causation, or of Emancipation, or of the Noble Path; and some think of me as Divine Mind and Noble Wisdom.

Thus in this world and in other worlds am I known by these uncounted names, but they all see me as the moon is seen in the water.

Though they all honor, praise and esteem me, they do not fully understand the meaning and significance of the words they use; not having their own self-realization of Truth they cling to the words of their canonical books, or to what has been told to them, or to what they have imagined, and fail to see that the name they are using is only one of the many names of the Tathagata.

In their studies they follow the mere words of the text vainly trying to gain the true meaning, instead of having confidence in the one "text" where self-confirming Truth is revealed, that is, having confidence in the self-realization of noble Wisdom.[68]

In the "Sagathakam" section of the sutra (which contains some striking statements contradictory of earlier chapters of the sutra), one also reads of the reality of the pure Self (atman), which (while not identical to the atman of the Hindus) is equated with the Tathagatagarbha (Buddha-Essence):

The atma [Self] characterised with purity is the state of self-realisation; this is the Tathagatagarbha, which does not belong to the realm of the theorisers.[69]

This Tathagatagarbha is in the Lankavatara Sutra identified with the root or all-containing Consciousness of all beings, the Alaya-vijnana. This Tathagatagarbha-Alayavijnana is stated not to belong to the realm of speculation, but can be understood directly by

those Bodhisatva-Mahasattvas [great Bodhisattvas] who like you [Mahamati] are endowed with subtle, fine, penetrative thought-power and whose understanding is in accordance with the meaning ...[70]

Such an all-containing Buddhic Matrix (Tathagatagarbha) or basis of universal consciousness (Alayavijnana) has resonances with a conception of divinity which posits the latter as the underlying reality behind and within all things. This "Self" is in some Mahayana Buddhist scriptures and tantras equated with the original, primal, all-sustaining cosmic Buddha himself (viewed either as Samantabhadra or Mahavairochana).

Zen and The One Mind

The Zen Teachings of Huang Po gives a detailed description of the one mind, which can be argued is the essence of a God.

The Master said to me: All the Buddhas and all sentient beings are nothing but the One Mind, beside which nothing exists.

This Mind, which is without beginning, is unborn and indestructible.
It is not green nor yellow, and has neither form nor appearance.
It does not belong to the categories of things which exist or do not exist, nor can it be thought of in terms of new or old.
It is neither long nor short, big nor small, for it transcends all limits, measures, names, traces, and comparisons.
It is that which you see before you — begin to reason about it and you at once fall into error.
It is like the boundless void which cannot be fathomed or measured.
The One Mind alone is the Buddha, and there is no distinction between the Buddha and the sentient things, but that sentient beings are attached to forms and so seek externally for Buddhahood.
By their very seeking they lose it, for that is using the Buddha to seek for the Buddha and using mind to grasp Mind.
Even though they do their utmost for a full eon, they will not be able to attain to it.
They do not know that, if they put a stop to conceptual thought and forget their anxiety, the Buddha will appear before them, for this Mind is the Buddha and the Buddha is all living beings.
It is not the less for being manifested in ordinary beings, nor is it greater for being manifested in the Buddhas.

Devas

Though not believing in a creator God, Buddhists inherited the Indian cosmology of the time which includes various types of 'god' realms such as the Heaven of the Thirty-Three, the Four Great Kings, and so on. Deva-realms are part of the various possible types of existence in the Buddhist cosmology. Rebirth as a deva is attributed to virtuous actions performed in previous lives. Beings that had meditated are thought to be reborn in more and more subtle realms with increasingly vast life spans, in accord with their meditative ability. In particular, the highest deva realms are pointed out as false paths in meditation that the meditator should be aware of. Like any existence within the cycle of rebirth (samsara), a life as a deva is only temporary. At the time of death, a large part of the former deva's good karma has been expended, leaving mostly negative karma and a likely rebirth in one of the three lower realms. Therefore, Buddhists make a special effort not to be reborn in deva realms.

See also

References

  1. ^ B. Alan Wallace, Contemplative Science. Columbia University Press, 2007, pages 97-98.
  2. ^ No-Self or Not-self, Thanissaro Bhikku
  3. ^ Mahasi Sayadaw, Thoughts on the Dhamma, The Wheel Publication No. 298/300, Kandy BPS, 1983
  4. ^ Helmuth von Glasenapp, Vedanta and Buddhism: A comparative study The Wheel, Publication No. 2, Kandy, 1978
  5. ^ Dr. Guang Xing, The Three Bodies of the Buddha: The Origin and Development of the Trikaya Theory, RoutledgeCurzon, Oxford, 2005, p. 1
  6. ^ Kannakatthala Sutta, (MN-90)
  7. ^ " bBuddhism and the God-idea" by Nyanaponika Thera[1]
  8. ^ Brahmajala Sutta (DN 1)
  9. ^ M. Walshe: The Long Discourses of the Buddha, p. 407: "On Knowledge of Beginnings", Somerville, MASS, 1995.
  10. ^ a b c Richard Gombrich, How Buddhism began: the Conditioned Genesis of the Early Teachings. Continuum International Publishing Group, 1996, page 82.
  11. ^ Richard Gombrich, Theravada Buddhism: A Social History from Ancient Benares to Modern Colombo. Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1988, page 85: [2].
  12. ^ David J. Kalupahana, Mūlamadhyamakakārikā of Nāgārjuna: The Philosophy of the Middle Way. Reprint by Motilal Banarsidass Publ., 1991, page 61: [3]
  13. ^ Richard Gombrich, How Buddhism began: the Conditioned Genesis of the Early Teachings. Continuum International Publishing Group, 1996, page 81.
  14. ^ Gethin, Rupert. "Cosmology and meditation: from the Anganna Sutta to the Mahayana" in Williams, Paul. Buddhism, Vol. II. Routledge 2004. ISBN 0-415-33228-1 pgs 104, 126 [4]
  15. ^ David Kalupahana, Causality: The Central Philosophy of Buddhism. The University Press of Hawaii, 1975, page 111.
  16. ^ David Kalupahana, Causality: The Central Philosophy of Buddhism. The University Press of Hawaii, 1975, pages 111-112.
  17. ^ Smith, Huston (1991) [1958]. The World's Religions: Our Great Wisdom Traditions. HarperCollins. ISBN 0062508113. http://books.google.com/books?id=1G4eNRWYT6gC. Retrieved 2008-09-12. 
  18. ^ Life Isn't just suffering, Thanissaro Bhikku
  19. ^ Anāgāmi
  20. ^ Zen Master Wu Kwang, Stepping Off a One-Hundred Foot Flagpole,
  21. ^ Kalu Rinpoche, Kyabje (1997). Luminous Mind. Boston: Wisdom Publications. pp. 20–21. ISBN 0-86171-118-1. http://books.google.com/books?id=eWVgoVByVhcC. 
  22. ^ Johnson, Peter (2001). "The Ten Titles of the Buddha". http://www.tientai.net/teachings/dharma/buddha/10titles.htm. Retrieved 2008-09-12. 
  23. ^ Professor Perry Schmidt-Leukel, 'Buddha and Christ as Mediators of the Transcendent', in Buddhism and Christianity in Dialogue, ed. by Professor Perry Schmidt-Leukel, SCM Press, Norfolk, 2005, p. 152
  24. ^ Dhammapada, 1.1-3
  25. ^ Sacred Writings, Buddhism: The Dhammapada, Translated by John Ross Carter and Mahindha Palihawadana, pp. 13, 89. 1992. Quality Paperback Book Club, New York [5]
  26. ^ [6]
  27. ^ Tittha Sutta AN 3.61
  28. ^ Sir Charles Elliot. ""Hinduism and Buddhism: An Historical Sketch"". http://www.gutenberg.org/browse/authors/e#a4887. 
  29. ^ Digha-Nikaya No. 13, Tevijja Sutta
  30. ^ Mahasamaya Sutta, DN 20
  31. ^ Professor C. D. Sebastian, Metaphysics and Mysticism in Mahayana Buddhism: An Analytical Study of the Ratnagotravibhago-mahayanaottaratantra-sastram, Bibliotheca Indo-Buddhica Series 238, Sri Satguru Publications, Delhi, 2005, pp. 64-66
  32. ^ Guang Xing, The Three Bodies of the Buddha: The Origin and Development of the Trikaya Theory, RoutledgeCurzon, Oxford, 2005, pp.1 and 85
  33. ^ B. Alan Wallace, "Is Buddhism Really Non-Theistic?" Lecture delivered at the National Conference of the American Academy of Religion, Boston, Mass., Nov., 1999. sbinstitute.com/.../Is%20Buddhism%20Really%20Nontheistic_.pdf p. 1, accessed 14 August 2009
  34. ^ B. Alan Wallace, "Is Buddhism Really Non-Theistic?", p. 7
  35. ^ Hajime Nakamura, A History of Early Vedānta Philosophy: Part One. Reprint by Motilal Banarsidass Publ., 1990, page 139.
  36. ^ a b c Richard Gombrich, How Buddhism began: the conditioned genesis of the early teachings. Continuum International Publishing Group, 1996, page 47.
  37. ^ Richard Gombrich, [7].
  38. ^ Noa Ronkin, Early Buddhist Metaphysics. Routledge, 2005, pages 71-72.
  39. ^ Noa Ronkin, Early Buddhist Metaphysics. Routledge, 2005, page 5.
  40. ^ Noa Ronkin, Early Buddhist Metaphysics. Routledge, 2005, page 248.
  41. ^ Manu Bazzano, Buddha is dead: Nietzsche and the dawn of European Zen. Sussex Academic Press, 2006, pages 62-63: [8].
  42. ^ B. Alan Wallace, "Is Buddhism Really Non-Theistic?" Lecture delivered at the National Conference of the American Academy of Religion, Boston, Mass., Nov., 1999. sbinstitute.com/.../Is%20Buddhism%20Really%20Nontheistic_.pdf pp. 2-3
  43. ^ Dr. A. K. Chatterjee, The Yogacara Idealism, Motilal, Delhi, 1975, pp. 133-134
  44. ^ Empty Words: Buddhist Philosophy and Cross-Cultural Interpretation by Jay L. Garfield. Oxford University Press: 2001. ISBN 0-19-514672-7[9]
  45. ^ a b Dan Lusthaus, What is and isn't Yogacara. [10].
  46. ^ Alex Wayman, A Defense of Yogacara Buddhism. Philosophy East and West, Volume 46, Number 4, October 1996, pages 447-476. "Of course, the Yogacara put its trust in the subjective search for truth by way of a samadhi. This rendered the external world not less real, but less valuable as the way of finding truth. The tide of misinformation on this, or on any other topic of Indian lore comes about because authors frequently read just a few verses or paragraphs of a text, then go to secondary sources, or to treatises by rivals, and presume to speak authoritatively. Only after doing genuine research on such a topic can one begin to answer the question: why were those texts and why do the moderns write the way they do?"
  47. ^ Richard Gombrich, How Buddhism began: the conditioned genesis of the early teachings. Continuum International Publishing Group, 1996, page 43.
  48. ^ Zen Pivots, Weatherhill, NY, 1998, pp. 142, 146:
  49. ^ The Zen Eye, Weatherhill, New York, 1994, p. 41
  50. ^ Sermons of a Buddhist Abbot, by Soyen Shaku, Samuel Weiser Inc, New York, 1971, pp.25-26, 32
  51. ^ Noa Ronkin, Early Buddhist metaphysics: the making of a philosophical tradition. Routledge, 2005 , page 196.
  52. ^ Dr. Sam van Schaik, Approaching the Great Perfection: Simultaneous and Gradual Methods of Dzogchen Practice in the Longchen Nyingtig, Wisdom Publications, Boston, 2004, p. 55
  53. ^ Dr. Sam van Schaik, Approaching the Great Perfection, Wisdom Publications, Boston, 2004, p. 55
  54. ^ Dr. Sam van Schaik, Approaching the Great Perfection, Wisdom, Boston, 2004, p. 55
  55. ^ The Maha-Vairocana-Abhisambodhi Tantra, p. 331
  56. ^ Ibid., p. 355
  57. ^ Dr. James H. Sanford, 'Breath of Life: The Esoteric Nembutsu' in Tantric Buddhism in East Asia, ed. by Dr. Richard K. Payne, Wisdom Publications, Boston, 2006, p. 176
  58. ^ The Supreme Source, p. 157
  59. ^ Dr. Alexander Studholme, The Origins of Om Manipadme Hum: A Study of the Karandavyuha Sutra, SUNY, 2002, p. 40
  60. ^ Dr. Alexander Studholme, The Origins of Om Manipadme Hum: A Study of the Karandavyuha Sutra, SUNY, 2002, p. 12
  61. ^ John Paraskevopoulos, Call of the Infinite: The Way of Shin Buddhism, Sophia Perennis Publications, California, 2009, pp. 16 - 17
  62. ^ John Paraskevopoulos, Call of the Infinite: The Way of Shin Buddhism, California, 2009, p. 21
  63. ^ Paraskevopoulos, Call of the Infinite: The Way of Shin Buddhism, California, 2009, p. 22
  64. ^ John Paraskevopoulos, The Call of the Infinite: The Way of Shin Buddhism, California, 2009, p. 43
  65. ^ John Paraskevopoulos, The Call of the Infinite: The Way of Shin Buddhism, California, 2009, p. 81
  66. ^ Lankaavatar Sutra, Chapter VI
  67. ^ Suzuki, Lankavatara Sutra, p. 198
  68. ^ Lankavatar Sutra, Chapter XII Tathagatahood Which Is Noble Wisdom, translated by Suzuki and Goddard
  69. ^ (see Suzuki, op. cit. p. 282)
  70. ^ (op. cit. p. 193)

Literature

  • Fozdar, Jamshed K. (1995) [1973]. The God of Buddha. Ariccia (RM), Italy: Casa Editrice Bahá'í Srl. ISBN 8872140315. 
  • Goswami, Amit, The Self-Aware Universe, Tarcher, 1995 reprint, softcover, ISBN 0-87477-798-4
  • Hodge, Stephen (tr.) (2003). The Maha-Vairocana-Abhisambodhi Tantra. London, UK: Routledge Curzon. 
  • Martin, Michael, ed (2007). The Cambridge Companion to Atheism. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0521603676. http://books.google.com/books?id=tAeFipOVx4MC&hl=en&source=gbs_navlinks_s. 
  • Norbu, C.; A. Clemente (1999). The Supreme Source. New York, USA: Snow Lion Publications. 
  • Sokei-an, 1998, Zen Pivots, Weatherhill, New York, Tokyo.
  • Yamamoto, Kosho (tr.); Dr. Tony Page (ed. and revision) (1999-2000). The Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra. London, UK: Nirvana Publications. 

External links


Advertisements






Got something to say? Make a comment.
Your name
Your email address
Message