|
|
Ever since the 17th
century when the first news about Buddhism reached europe, that
religion has always been an object of special interest to all
scholars who occupied themselves with the comparative study of the
world’s great creeds. And this for several reasons. The biography
of the Buddha has always possessed a special human touch which
appealed strongly to the imagination and the sentiments of persons
susceptible to heroic deeds and moving feelings. The noble
principles of Buddhism have at all times won admiration from those
who believe in the inherent good in man.
Historians felt particularly
attracted by the changing
fate of a creed that had in the course of time won so many adherents
in many countries of Southern Asia,
but disappeared again from
many places where it had flourished for centuries. It is of special
interest to see what changing forms this religion assumed during the
two and a half thousand years of its existence and to observe how it
adjusted itself to the requirements of nations, the very names of
which were not even known to its founder.
If one considers the many
features in which Buddhism exists today one cannot help saying that
in this one system almost all ways of religious life have found
their expression, from the stern, sober, calm thoughts of ascetic
seekers for salvation to the highly emotional fervour of ardent
worshippers of world – redeeming saviours and from the lofty
speculations of mystics to the elaborate rites of magicians who try
to banish evil spirits with the help of their spells.
From the point of view of the philosophy of religion Buddhism deserves a
special interest because it makes dudious Kant’s assertion that
belief in God, in the immortality of the soul and in the freedom of
the will are the three great essential parts of the dogmatics of
every religion of a higher order.
Of course, the Buddha was a
partisan of the kiriyavada (belief
in the moral efficacy of action) and a strong opponent of teachers
who like Gosala Makkhaliputta said “there is no such thing as
exertion or labour or power or energy or human strength; all things
are unalterably fixed.”
But concerning the other two questions Buddhism takes a stand quite of
its own contrasting entirely with that of Hinduism, Christianity,
Islam and other faiths.
For
Buddhis
Macknowledges neither the
existence of permanently existing souls nor of a creator and ruler
of the universe.
This is a logical outcome of
its fundamental philosophical
conception. As a doctrine of becoming and uninterrupted flux it
cannot accept the idea of unchangeable substance; just as, according
to Buddhism, there is no matter which in itself is eternal though it
may change its forms over and over again, so there cannot be an
individual soul of everlasting life which takes up a new material
clothing in the course of its reincarnations. And just as there is
no everlasting personality so there can be no personal god, who
remains as an immovable pole
in the midst of changing
phenomena.
The only permanent force
that Buddhism believes in is the law that rules the universe and,
from elements of existence forms lumps of transitory character which
dissolve again and again to be replaced by others.
Although Buddhism denies the existence of permanent souls, it does not
deny the continuation of individual life after death, The basic idea
of its conception is that death
mens the end of a certain
individual A, because the component parts which had united to from
it dissolve, but the moral forces which a man or other being had
produced during his life become the cause of a new individual B who
is, so to say, the heir of the actions of A, so that he earns
compensation for his good and punishment for his bad deeds. It is,
therefore, that the new individual B is neither identical with the
old one (A) nor is it different
from A, because it emerges from it, just as the fire of the second part
of the night is the uninterrupted continuation of the fire that
burnt during the first part of it. It is not our task here to deal
with the different theories of the antarabhava
etc which have been devised to explain or to prove this theory.
In this connection it is sufficient for our purpose to establish the
fact that Buddhism is in full accordance with many other religions
in the supposition of a life after death in which all acts are
requited. The only difference between Buddhism and other Indian
religions consists in this that Buddhism gives a different
Philosophical interpretation In Practice it is in complete harmony
with all systems that accept a metempsychosis Instead of the theory
of an immutable permanent soul which from the nucleus of the
individual A in this existence and of the individual B in the next
existence, it offers a different view: every individual is a stream
of evanescent dharmas (physical and mental factors of existence)
arising in functional interdependence. Every new individual
existence is the flowing on of this stream.
This doctrine of reincarnation without the adoption of the belief in a
persistent soul – substance has always puzzled scholars and it has
been called a logical impossibility because it denies the identity
of the man who has done an action and of another man on whom it is
rewarded. But in truth it has quite the same metaphysical value as
the theory of a wandering permanent soul. Professor T.R.V. Murti
rightly says: “How does the acceptance of the atman
the unchanging permanent entity – explain karma, rebirth,
memory or personal identity more plausibly ? As the permanent soul
is of one immutable nature, it cannot have different volitions when
different circumstances call for different actions. … A changing atman
(soul) is a contradiction in terms, No atman – view has
accepted or can accept a changing self; for once we accept change of
the atman, we have no
valid argument to confine this change to definite periods, I e, it
remains unchanged for an appreciable stretch of time and then
changes. This would mean two different atmans.
Nor can we admit that one part of the atman,
changes while the other part is permanent. If the changing part
does belong to the atman as integrally as the other part, then we
would be having a supposedly unitary entity which has two mutually
opposed characteristics. This does violence to our conception of a
entity.”
When Buddha replaced the theory of a permanent soul substance by the
theory of a “mind – continuum” he tried to avoid the
difficulties inherent in the doctrine of ataman.
That his theory also conceals knotty points is evident. For, no
sufficient philosophical arguments can be adduced for things which
transcend the human faculty to demonstrate rationally matters that
are not accessible to our limited comprehension. The belief that
there is no continuation of any sort of life after the death of an
individual is also not strictly demonstrable, for the theory of a
matter out of which everything is produced is as equally an outcome
of speculation and of a certain “Weltanschauung” as the
different hypotheses concerning the soul or the mind – continuum.
Stranger still appears to most observers that Buddhism denies the
existence of a creator and ruler of the world because for many
religious minds, especially in the Occident, religion is synonymous
with the belief in God. For this reason many theologians have said:
Buddhism is a philosophical or ethical system but no religion. This
however, is a very superficial subterfuge. For, judging from its
outward appearances as well as from its inner attitudes, Buddhism
exhibits all the marks observed in other religions. It has places of
worship, rites, and monasteries, and with its adherents it calls
forth purely religious feelings of devotion, piety , tranquillity of
mind etc It has its legends, relates wonders etc. and tells of
visions of heaven and hell. It even acknowledges a great number of
celestial beings who, although they have no eternal life, exist for
centuries and may give their worshippers worldly comfort and
happiness. All this makes it evident that to Buddhism the
appellation of religion cannot be denied. This shows that the
restriction of the term “religion” to the different kinds of
theism is too narrow. The ancient Romans to whom we owe the term
“religio” were no theists but adored a great number of gods and
did not differ in this respect from the Buddhists of to – day or
of former times. One can therefore only infer from this fact that
theism is one of the forms of religion and that the term
“religion” embraces a great number of varieties of beliefs As
Mohammedans and christians and a great part of the Hindus are
theists, some historians have thought that Buddhism, being a
religion of the highest order, must also be in one way or the other
theistic. The President of the World Fellowship of Buddhists, Prof.
Malalasekera, writes, in his article “Buddhism and the
Enlightenment of Man” in the Listener
(London, 7ch January 1954)
that a Buddhist does not
believe in a creator of the Universe : “If asked ‘How did Life
begin ?” he would ask in return ‘How did God begin?” , and the
late Professor Takakusu, a great scholar and a pious Mahayanist,
said in his work Essentials of Buddhist Philosophy (2nd
ed Honolulu 1949,p, 45) “Buddhism is atheistic – there is no
doubt about it.” That the Buddhists of bygone age were also
atheists can easily be ascertained from the great doctrinal works of
the Pali Canon and from the writings of the philosophers of the
Great Vehicle, I may refer the reader to the article “Atheism” (Buddhist)
by L. de La Vallee Pou sin in the Encyclopaedia
of Religion and Ethics, Vol
2, p. 184 and to my (German) book Buddhism and the Idea of God where
I have collected passages from Hinayana and Mahayana works. To the
quotations given there, may be added the Isvara
– kartrtva – nirakrti published by prof. F. W. Thoumas (JRAS
1905, p. 345 – 349)
So there can be no doubt whatever about the fact that Buddhism has been
atheistic for at least two thousand years. The stalwart champions of
theism eager to uphold their thesis that every highly developed
religion acknowledges the existence of God are not troubled by this
fact. They maintain the assertion that the Buddha did not say
anything against the existence of God. But this is clearly wrong.
For in the Buddha’s dialogues reported in the Pali canon there are
several passages in which he criticizes in a most outspoken way the
opinion that the world may have been created by God or may be
governed by him. So he said according to Anguttara
Nikaya 3, 61 (Vol 1, p. 74): “People who think that the will
of God (issara – nimmana) allots to men happiness and misery, must think
that men become murderers, thieves etc. by the will of God.” A
similar argument occurs also in the Jatakas (No. 528, V, P. 238; No.
543
VI. P. 208). In the Brahmajala
Sutta (Digha – Nikaya 1, 2,2 vol. 1., p. 17) Buddha propounds
even a theory as to how the wrong belief in a creator has arisen.
When the god Brahma was born at the beginning of a new age of the
world in a heaven prepared for him by his karma, unconscious of his
former existence, he wished to have companions When other beings
came into existence because of their karma he imagined that he had
created them by his will. The beings, in their turn, noticing that
Brahma existed before them thought that he had created them. So a
sort of primordial monotheism origlnated at the beginning of the
world by the error of Brahma and the first men.
The likvlihood that the Buddha was a religious teacher but did not
acknowledge the existence of God is further corroborated by the fact
that his contemporary Mahavira, the Trthankara of the lainas, took a
similar attitude. In India the Mimamsa philosophy and the classical
Sankhya propagated also the amsvara
– vada (I.e, a non – theistic doctrine) But religious
beliefs of this kind are not confined to India The Neo –
Confucianism of Chu His also denies that a personal God rules the
world, as did those ancient Greeks, Romans and Teutons for whom Fate
or Necessity reigned the cosmos and the life of man.
The thoughtful reader may ask how it is possible that so many religions
dissent from an opinion cherished by so many religious heroes like
Moses, Christ, Mohammed or the great Vaisnava and Saiva saints/ The
answer is that the idea of God is a very complex one. It combines
the ideas of a creator, ruler and destroyer of the universe with
those of an author of moral laws, of a just judge, of a helper in
need and a saviour of mankind. In Buddhism the same ideas are
distributed among several factors. The creation , rule and
destruction of the universe are ascribed to the Universal Law as are
the allotment of reward and punishment according to the
automatically working karma. As this law is immanent in the cosmos
there is no need of a Lawgiver. The revealers of this Law are the
Buddhas, who for this reason are venerated. The transitory devas (deities)
function as helpers in worldly troubles. Concerning the question of
salvation the Buddhist schools differ : for some of them it can be
reached only by man’s own endeavours, for other schools the grace
of the Buddha Amitabha is the expedient for salvation. The feelings
of devotion and reverence which the theistic religions concentrate
upon God, are turned towards the Buddhas as the sages who have shown
the way to Nirvana.
So the same ideas, impulses, instincts longings and hopes which
determine the theistic religions, are equally alive in Buddhism and
they are, above all things, the most essential feature of all
religions: the conception of awe 9 inspiring holiness and the sense
of the holy which is different from everything profane.
|
