GOD

“What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.”

― Christopher Hitchens, God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything

 

GOD is a peculiar sounding word. It is a word that is loaded with all sorts of meaning. To some it may be misleading because of the dogma and superstition attributed to it. For instance, in many Western religions the idea of God can evoke fear of retribution, a Punisher God that judges you and then sentences you to an everlasting hell. Others speculate that the English word ‘God’ derives from the German word to invoke or to call. It is also a version of the word ‘good.’ If GOD ‘the absolute’ is pure un-manifested awareness, then it is beyond good and evil, because in reality the empirical laws of the natural universe are not always desirable. Take for example when bad weather happens, you have natural disasters such as earthquakes, hurricanes, volcanic eruptions, etc. Therefore, good is not always a very accurate description.

Some speak about a belief in God, but say to ‘know’ means to perceive directly, to have direct cognition of. ‘Belief’ means to accept as true, genuine, or real. It is based on faith or arriving at this after some kind of mental cogitation or trust in someone else’s experiences.  They say that direct knowledge has nothing to do with belief, faith, conviction, or opinion.  As with the distinction between belief and direct knowledge, such as insight attained as a result of jhana (samadhi). It’s not based on secondary hearsay, doctrine, or scripture.

The Vedas say that God is an aspect of Brahman or existence, (sat), consciousness, (chit), and limitlessness, (ananda/bliss), and this is everything, both subject and object, the manifest and the un-manifest. This equation is also known as OM. The supreme ‘Lord,’ as it is called, is the Creator, the Sustainer, and the Destroyer. Brahma means ‘the creator and generator.’ Vishnu means the pervasive ‘operator and sustainer.’ Shiva symbolizes the transformation into elements through disintegration.

Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva are all aspects of the one God. Shiva can be interpreted as destruction, which in turn is the preparation for a new cycle of creation that goes on infinitely. However, every Indian tradition has its interpretation of this, and they don’t always agree. I once heard a tantric yoga teacher say that you could use the letters G for Generator/Creator, O for Vishnu the Operator, and D for Shiva the Destroyer, G O D.

Vedanta says that absolute truth can be ‘known’ through para vidya, higher knowledge, but cannot be described because it is beyond thoughts and senses. Only the empirical, conventional truth/reality can be described.

As far as worshiping Gods in the Theravada tradition, the Buddha was known as a teacher of gods and humans yet he never suggested worshiping or praying to a monotheistic God or gods. That’s why you won’t find any of this in the Theravada tradition or the Pali Canon.  Buddha did speak about Gods or Deva realms of existence, so he never denied that certain types of Gods exist. Such as the Great Brahma (Maha brahma), a deity whose delusion leads him to regard himself as the all-powerful and the creator of the universe.[1]  He said 'I, monk, am Brahma, the Great Brahma, the Conqueror, the Unconquered, the All-Seeing, All-Powerful, the Sovereign Lord, the Maker, Creator, Chief, Appointer and Ruler, Father of All That Have Been and Shall Be.' 

Maha brahma sounds identical to the God in some of the western traditions, but in any case, Buddha was more anti speculative than anti theistic. His teachings said to rid oneself of all the primitive rites and rituals, such as incantations, fire ceremonies, superstition, magic, prayers, and cruel animal sacrifices. These are seen as being one of the fetters to overcome ‘stream entry.’ Stream entry'  being the first stage of enlightenment on the ‘path’ to nirvana.

Some traditions indicate that the Buddha realized the same truth as was understood by many of the original Brahman and maharishis before him, but this is not true since he didn’t speak about ‘Brahman’ or non duality.

Buddha himself was said to be karmically a descendant of one of the Seven Rishis. What’s also interesting is that these mystical rishis were ascetics and yogis and practiced samadhi and all kinds of austerities. It seems that they did variations of jhana/samadhi. However, the Pali Canon does state that the Brahmic religious traditions of his day had deviated from the ancient ways. There were certain Brahmins of his time (not all) that were not living and practicing this path properly as the Rishis before them.[2]

Some claim that in the Mahavagga, the Buddha pays respect to Vashistha and other Rishis, who by severe penances acquired the power to see with the divine eye the ‘higher knowledges,’[3] and that he declared that the Veda was true in its original form and refused to pay homage to the altered version because he said that the true Veda had been altered by the priests of his day. (This doesn’t seem to be in the Pali Canon). However, he actually said the opposite when speaking about the Brahmin seeing ‘Brahma.’

Some also say that many of the Brahmin priests had been corrupted and stopped practicing the ascetic ways and did not know how to see with the ‘divine eye’ because they had been seduced with gifts of gold, cows, land, and sacrificing of animals offered to them by their kings. To maintain their lineage, land, lifestyles, and societal statuses, they also were no longer celibate. Buddha wanted everyone to have equal access to this truth without having to belong to a Brahmin family or to understand Sanskrit. He was said one becomes a Brahmin (holy/perfected) by one’s practice and actions, not by birth. 

Another question that is interesting is the theory of evolution. The Vedas don’t mention evolution in the same scientific context as Charles Darwin did. Some of the Upanishads do say that the hardcore evidence is all around us. Vedanta says that this universe is filled to the brim with intelligence and knowledge. The universe is the nature and manifestation of knowledge and the ‘designer’ is existence (unlimited consciousness).

THERAVADA BUDDHISM

Vedantins, like the Buddhists, say that this manifested aspect of existence destroys and creates itself (transforms itself) eternally in cycles (kalpas or eons) each of which can last for billions or trillions of years.[4] There is not a creator and a separate creation. It’s one and the same. There was not one big bang, but infinite big bangs one after another. These big bangs and contractions are beginning-less and never-ending. There will never be an end because there was never a beginning. Worlds simply come and go. Universes come and go. Galaxies come and go. Vedantins and Buddhists both say that in reality there is no such thing as death; there is only transformation.

The Agganna Sutta gives a very different account of the creation of the universe, as exemplified by the Rig Veda’s Hymn of Purusa, which sought to justify the social hierarchy of that time based on a creation myth.[5]  Some say this was a satire of the Brahmanical culture of its time and their creation myths, but the Agganna Sutta says that when the Buddha was once asked about the beginning, he said that this universe contracts and expands and during that time of expansion, and that beings are born in the ‘Abhassara Brahma’ realm.39 This is one of the heavenly angelic-type spiritual realms of the devas.[6] He said these beings that live there are ‘mind-made’ and manifested as ‘thought form beings,’ conceptual beings, and they feed on nothing, no food at all, but ‘delight.’ He says they are self-luminous, shining, and radiating light like stars, and that they gloriously move through the air and stay like that for a very long time.

From a cosmological perspective you could say that these are actually stars. And these spiritual star-like beings from the Abhassara Brahma realm, which have also died there, are reborn into this earthly realm where they also exist and feed on nothing but delight, still self-luminous and gloriously floating through the air. And at this time, there was no Moon or Sun or night and day, and these star-like beings had no names or identity as female or male. The creatures were only known as creatures.

At that period, known as Vasettha, there was just one mass of water, and all was darkness . . . blinding darkness. And sooner or later, after a very long period of time, savory earth spread itself over the waters where those beings were. It looked just like the skin that forms itself over hot milk as it cools. This ‘skin’ was endowed with color, smell, and taste. It was the color of fine ghee or heated butter and it was very sweet, like pure wild honey. Some of the beings of light (the Abbhasaras) were of curious nature and began to dive down and taste this earth's rich, sweet-like substance and discovered that it tasted delicious. They ate this earth’s substance voraciously and called the other Abbhasaras, who were still flying above the earth, to join in the feast.

“As the being stuffed themselves with sweet-tasting earth, their bodies became coarser. Some of them were handsome, but others were ugly. The handsome ones despised the ugly ones and became arrogant, and as a result the sweet earth disappeared. And they were all very sorry.”  [7]

“Then a fungus, something like a mushroom, grew, and it was wonderfully sweet. So they began stuffing themselves again, and again their bodies grew coarser. And, again, the more handsome ones grew arrogant, and the fungus disappeared. After that they found sweet creepers, with the same result.”[8]

Over time these self-luminous creatures made from light (or awareness) became stuffed with these new types of food, other plant-like matters like rice and beans also began to grow and they would they feed on this.

They then became more like a ‘mind-made body’ (mano-maya-kaya) and were under the delusion that this is what they were. The mind manifested as flesh. And because you are what you eat, they literally resembled earth-like flesh, blood, gristle, and bones.

Over time they evolved from being just light or self-illuminating, neither male nor female, aromatic, and asexual, into being male and female creatures as their sex organs grew, so that they could easily fit. And their lust developed, and their passion and arousal for each other increased.

This is like the Buddhist cosmological theory of evolution, from the first stardust particles of light to creatures evolving out of a sort of cosmic soup. But there is more to this. There is also a karmic or ethical psychological level that Darwinism and science do not have.

 “And those beings who in those days indulged in sex were not allowed into a village or town for one or two months. Accordingly, those who indulged for an excessively long period in such immoral practices began to build themselves dwellings so as to indulge under cover.” [9]

Many of them as a result of all this sensual pleasure became addicted to sex, and began hording and growing more rice and food and kept it just for themselves. Before the hoarding, everything was shared. People would only take what they needed to subsist on and no more. But some started getting even more greedy and putting up fences, creating private property and hoarding and not sharing anymore the earth’s natural resources that belonged to everyone equally as a birth right, while others were going without. However, when there was a shortage of food, others began stealing food from others, who had more, and evil began to grow.

So then they elected leaders, to act as law enforcement, and politicians to stop this and to punish those that broke the law with sticks and stones. These were known as the Kshatriyas, the caste of warriors who were born to enforce this law, to stop others from invading their property and rice fields and crops and having union of the flesh with one another. However, over time, these leaders, politicians and warriors also became corrupt and allowed this evil to flourish.

The Buddha said, “Others chose to put aside unwholesome things and they built themselves leaf huts in the forest and engaged in meditation.” [10]

 ‘Meditate’ is the meaning of jhāyaka. The Jhayaka is one who meditates. The Jhayaka did not practice the gross types of sexual union but were pure-minded and practiced celibacy instead in order to be able to meditate. 

“Those that weren't too good at meditation settled in villages and wrote books about religion; these were the first Brahmins.” [11]

 “Those who do not meditate” refers to Ajjhayaka. At that time, an Ajjhayaka was regarded as a low designation, but now is regarded as the higher class for the Brahmins.[12]

Some of these Ajjhayaka were corrupted by pleasures, others corrupted by their minds, being envious of others and saying that they were of a higher class and so on. These types of ‘first Brahmins’ were not so good at jhana, meditation, but the ones who taught only about the Vedas, or were just ‘repeaters’ of their own private language, and of Sanskrit verses, hymns, songs, or mantras, were unable to attain nirvikalpa samadhi/jhana for themselves.

“Others became tradesmen, and this began the caste of Vaishyas, or merchants and landowners. The last group became hunters, laborers, and servants, and these became the lowest caste of Sudras.”[13] These were the first slaves that the higher, wealthier classes kept and put to work for them to do all their dirty work that they did not want to do themselves. Even today the majority of the world consists of Sudras and Vaishyas.

Almost 99 percent of the world’s wealth and resources is owned by 1 percent of the population. This is how greedy and gross it’s become, but Buddhist cosmology says it will end as a result, like the kalpas before, either through fire, water, or the wind element.

The Buddha said that, “Anyone from any caste might be virtuous or not. And anyone from any caste can walk the path and be liberated by insight, and such a person will attain Nirvana in this very life.”

However, today, the Sudras and Vaishyas, the merchants, landowners, traders, money-lenders, laborers, and business men that do have insights and see themselves as holy, do not practice meditation, nor live a life of wholesome renunciation and celibacy either. Many still engage in sexual union and go on as usual hunting and fishing, and not for food, but for more clients to teach their contemporary non-duality. Nor do they practice dana, meaning generosity, as did the Jhayaka, the meditators.

As far as a creator god, Vedantins see it similar to Buddhism. Where it differs, they say that Brahma, a mind-made being, created this world. Buddha said this Brahma was the first Abharasara Brahma being. According to the Brahmajāla Sutta (Digha Nikaya.1), a Mahābrahmā is just another light being from the Ābhāsvara worlds and falls into a lower world through exhaustion of his karmic merits and is this time reborn alone in the Brahma-world. Forgetting his former existence as an Abharasara, he imagines himself to have come into existence without cause and then creates this world.

This is why the Buddha said there were other realms of existence outside of our awareness, but you could say this origin of the universe is just a cosmological parable, but it’s also a psychological parable showing how we went from being these refined beings of pure light, or awareness, to grosser beings greedily feeding on flesh and desire.

In any case, this is the reason the Buddha doesn’t even answer this question when asked about the origination; rather he simply says that the origin is ‘imponderable.’ He speaks of a dependent origination for rebirth and gives a way out of this that can lead to nirvana.

Some say Gaudapada (Adi Shankaras teacher, the tradition holds that he was Sankara’s ‘parama guru,’ the guru of his guru),  Adi Shankara borrowed this concept of ajatavada from the Buddha.  This is a controversial and sensitive matter for some Vedantin scholars. He said, “No jiva ever comes into existence. There exists no cause that can produce it. The supreme truth is that nothing ever is born.”[14] He of course means that the world is only ‘apparently’ born. That in essence ‘it’ is like a trick of the senses, or a mind-made maya, kind of like putting a DVD in your DVD player and taking it to be real until it plays out, all the while knowing that it was just a movie.

Vedantins see this somewhat differently but also similarly and say that this universe is God or the ‘Lord’ Ishvara, or Lord Brahma, and so is every single atom in it and this is the world of maya, illusion and is ever-changing. “He created all this, whatever is here. Having created it, into it, indeed, he entered. Having entered it, he became both the actual and the beyond, the defined and the undefined, both the founded and the unfounded, the intelligent and the unintelligent, the true and the untrue.” (Taittiriya Upanishad 2.6.1)

However, what doesn’t change is the Absolute or Para Brahman. By this they mean pure absolute awareness. But if you ask Advaitins to show you this invisible awareness, they will tell you that the reason you can’t see it or find it is because you are “looking for what is doing the looking.” Saint Francis also said that it is not a question of looking and finding; it’s a question of ignorance, as in the earlier analogy of looking for your spectacles when you are already wearing them on top your head.

The Vedantins say the stream of thoughts is only the changing reality and that it depends on ‘awareness’ to shine a light on this stream. They call this truth ‘Sat’ (absolute reality) because it is unchanging. This independent unchanging reality doesn’t need anything to exist and has always existed and was never born. They also make a clear distinction with this Ultimate Brahman and Brahma the creator god.

Where it differs a little from Buddhism, is that Buddhists don’t  claim this exists or call this Sat or truth, as an absolute or a higher reality, even without a world of objects, meaning thoughts, sensations, feelings, emotions, and sense perceptions.

However, no one has ever been able to “see” this absolute unconditioned awareness (Paramatman) They say that it can’t be seen with the mind because it’s not an object, but that it can be ‘known.’  One can ask, “How is it known? How can it be independent of all objects and thoughts? Can this be proven?” It can’t, but one can be pointed to it until one ‘realizes’ it for oneself.

Both Vedantins and Buddhists equate this ‘knowing’ aspect, if purified, with absolute unconditioned consciousness, but the Buddha never said to identify with this as a big knower, a big mind. He did use a similar expression of ‘neti, neti,’ meaning ‘not this, not this,’ an expression by the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad. The Buddha’s refrain of negation is “n’etam mama, n’eso ham asmi, na meso atta,” “this is not me, this is not who I am, this is not my self/Self.”

He did not go on to say you are both subject and object. He simply took the ‘you’ part out of the equation and left you with no ‘you’ at all, manifested or un-manifested, physical or metaphysical, nothing to hang your hat on or make a stake on, just this-ness, not so much a that-ness, nothing to make an ego out of.

On an absolute level, the Vedantin’s state that there is not a “we, you, he, she or them,” that on this level, “all is God” or non-dual awareness.

This differs with Theravada Buddhism. When asked about the existence of a higher God, Buddha answered in this way:

Through innumerable lives,

in this vortex of rebirth,

did I seek the creator of this grief-ridden world.

Never did I find this creator unknown.

It is painful to be reborn again and again.

Oh creator, I have seen you!

You will never create again!

Your structure is dismantled,

The foundation is destroyed,

The mind has stopped creating.

The emotional urge has ceased.

In the suttas, the Buddha used the neuter noun ‘Brahman’ as a holy person in a conventional sense or in the way that the Upanishads used it.

He never specifically used the word ‘Para Brahman’ (absolute God) but did say that there wasn't anything such as an all knowing un-conditioned cosmic witness that exists outside the five aggregates.

Bhikkhu Bodhi says in his translation of the majjhima nikaya, [15]and in his book, In the Buddha’s Words, [16] what the Buddha did mention brahmabhuto, which means God becoming.

This would also indicate that the Buddha didn’t deny the concept of God(s); he just explained the various God(s) in a very different way and said that you can attain the God (deva) or Brahma realms after death.

So it’s incorrect to assume that Buddhism is atheistic. In reality it is neither atheistic or theistic as in a western all powerful creator God like Jehovah, but rather it is a path to answer the problem of human suffering and existence. He called the Ariyan Eightfold Path Brahmayana, or path leading to the realization of the life of the divine. There is an important distinction between Brahma (Brahma,Vishnu, Shiva) and Para Brahman (absolute God). The difference being that one represents a symbolic allegorical aspect of the creator God and the other is the ineffable Para Brahman or unconditioned reality.

In the Pali Suttas, the term Bhagava (universal teacher of gods and humans/awakened one) is used many times to refer to the Buddha. Evidence suggests that the Buddha never rejected the idea of a creator type Brahma. He acknowledged a non-eternal demigod or deva known as Baka, the Brahma that lived in a higher realm.[17] Baka believed that his world was a permanent everlasting reality and that he was immortal. He also believed that there were no higher worlds than his, until the Buddha proved him wrong through a feat of his psychic abilities. One of the reasons why the Buddha never said that there wasn’t a Brahma type God (omnipotent, omniscient, creator, all loving eternal being) was because if there was a God and it was all loving and all powerful, then why is there suffering?

Another misconception is if we become awakened, we will be like the historical Buddha? No, not exactly, because Gautama Buddha was considered an anuttara-samyak-sambodhi, meaning perfectly enlightened. Every human being has the potential to become awakened and even attain nirvana, but this isn’t so easy to do. What happens to a Buddha after death? The Pali texts say that when he was asked this question, he remained silent. The same way he did with other metaphysical questions of this nature. He called these the ‘imponderables,’ which are:

Is there an eternal entity like the Self (Atman)?

Is the world eternal?

Is the world finite?

Is the self identified with the body? And so on . . .

The reasons why the Buddha did not want to address these questions is because for one, the answers would not lead to detachment, right conduct, purification from lust, tranquilization of the mind, knowledge, direct insight, or nirvana. Therefore he would express no opinion on these. He stated, “It's just as if a man were wounded with an arrow thickly smeared with poison. His friends and companions, kinsmen and relatives, would provide him with a surgeon, and the man would say, ‘I won't have this arrow removed until I know whether the man who wounded me was a noble warrior, a priest, a merchant, or a worker.’ He would say, ‘I won't have this arrow removed until I know the given name and clan name of the man who wounded me... until I know whether he was tall, medium, or short... until I know whether he was dark, ruddy-brown, or golden-colored... until I know his home village, town, or city... until I know whether the bow with which I was wounded was a long bow or a crossbow... until I know whether the bowstring with which I was wounded was fiber, bamboo threads, sinew, hemp, or bark... until I know whether the shaft with which I was wounded was wild or cultivated... until I know whether the feathers of the shaft with which I was wounded were those of a vulture, a stork, a hawk, a peacock, or another bird... until I know whether the shaft with which I was wounded was bound with the sinew of an ox, a water buffalo, a langur, or a monkey.” He would say, “I won't have this arrow removed until I know whether the shaft with which I was wounded was that of a common arrow, a curved arrow, a barbed, a calf-toothed, or an oleander arrow.” The man would die and those things would still remain unknown to him.[18]