Question

How can we explain the non-existence of God in Buddhism?

 

Answer

The debate about the existence or non-existence of God has raged since the Buddha appeared. It is easy to say "God exists" or "God does not exist". However, these statements alone are enough to prove that God is not absolute, since he "is" or "is not". Now, the true absolute, the true aspect of things is outside the notions of being and non-being.

 

To try to answer the question about the proof of God's non-existence, I have chosen an excerpt from Nagarjuna's Treatise of the Twelve Gates, where he refutes the notion of an omnipotent God, especially in chapter 10.

 

Nagarjuna's rhetoric is difficult to follow for those of us in the Cartesian, Judeo-Christian, dualistic mindset. But at the same time, it is the foundation of the Buddhism of the Great Vehicle and its study is indispensable for understanding the Buddha's teaching.

 

SUMMARY

 

Who or what causes suffering in our world? Is it self-caused, caused by others, both self-caused and caused by others, or not caused? The author of the Treatise on the Twelve Gates denies these four possible ways of seeing the cause of suffering and says that there is no suffering. The term "self" here refers to both suffering itself and the Self (ātman or svapudgala). The term "other" refers to both the Self in the previous existence (parapudgala) and God the Creator (I'svara). The refutation of the existence of the Creator is the main theme of the tenth chapter, "The Creator."

 

Introduction

 

What is presented here is the theory of the negation of the creator deity found in the Treatise of the Twelve Gates, attributed to the Indian Buddhist scholar Nagarjuna (c. 150 - 250). The Twelve Gates is one of the founding documents of the Three Treatises school in Chinese Buddhism, which began with the translator Kumarajiva (344-413), but the controversy over the omnipotent deity or creator deity developed in the Twelve Gates received little attention in China.

 

In India, on the other hand, theistic thought, which began to surface as early as the first centuries BCE, gradually developed with the growth of Hinduism and began to influence various philosophical schools in the fourth and fifth centuries. In particular, those under the religious influence of this trend, such as the Nyaya and Vaisheshika schools, introduced the omnipotent deity into their doctrinal system and the controversy over this deity developed rapidly. Among them, Buddhists, who denied the existence of spiritual or material entities from the standpoint of the theory of conditioned production, could never accept such a theory of the transcendent as the cause and master of the world, as well as the theory of time as the cause, the absence of causality, fatalism, and the theory of the Atman (soul) as the constant being at the basis of human existence.

 

The development of intellectualism and logic within Buddhism gave rise to heated arguments with the Nyaya school, which also advocated intellectualism and logic.

 

 

About the "Treaty of the Twelve Gates

 

The 12 chapters of the "Treatise on the Twelve Gates" are intended to elucidate the teaching of the "emptiness of the dharmas", according to which all phenomena are caused by conditioned production, thus denying the existence of any fixed entity whatsoever. It also denies the appearance of effects from causes and, of course, the birth and unfolding of all things from an omnipotent deity or primordial substance as the first cause.

 

The negation of fixed causality is a theme throughout the Twelve Gates and is discussed in detail in Chapter 2, which examines the theory that effects exist before causes (the theory of effect in cause) and the theory that effects do not exist in cause (the theory of no effect in cause). The author of The Twelve Gates defends emptiness and non-knowledge by showing that as long as we take a fixed view of cause and effect, no matter where we stand, we will fall into contradiction. This argument naturally leads to the denial of the ultimate cause or substance, which leads to the denial of the omnipotent God in the tenth chapter.

 

The critique of the omnipotent Godhead is found in a section of chapter 10, "That Chapter Which Considers What Produces [Suffering]." The subject of this chapter is: "What is the origin of suffering, which is inevitable for man? Is it self-produced (done by oneself), produced by others, co-produced (done both by oneself and by others) or is it entirely uncaused?   

 

Of these, particular emphasis is placed on the denial of self-creation and third-party creation, arguing that suffering is neither derived from the individual self (atman) nor given by the omnipotent deity (I'svara).

 

The individual self (atman) is the subject of perception and consciousness, and is considered the subject of samsara, but from the point of view of the origin of suffering, which is the question at hand, the theories of self-creation and third-party creation are nothing more than the assertion that the individual self in the present or past life is the cause of the suffering experienced in the present.

 

First, I will present the contents of chapter 10 in a modern translation, and then, after confirming the issues raised by this chapter, I will discuss the denial of the omnipotent deity.

 

 

Presentation of the subject

 

Suffering is created "by itself", "by others", "by both", "without cause"; these statements are irrational. In other words, suffering does not exist.

 

Denial of self-production

 

It is not true that suffering is self-created. For it is not possible for a thing to be self-made, even if it tries to make itself exist. Just as consciousness cannot recognize itself and the finger cannot touch itself, so it cannot be said that suffering is self-made.

 

Denial of production by a third party

 

Nor is it true that suffering is created by others. How could others create suffering?

 

[The objector] asks. We call "others" the various external conditions. Because various conditions create suffering, they are indeed created by others. Why do you say that [suffering] is not created by others?

 

[The speaker] answers. If we call the various conditions "others," then suffering is created by the various conditions.

 

Since this suffering is born of various conditions, its nature is these various conditions.

 

If the various conditions are its nature, how can we call them "others"?

 

For example, in the case of a clay jar, the clay is not considered the Other. Similarly, for example, in the case of a gold bracelet, gold is not considered the Other.

 

The case of suffering is exactly the same; the various conditions cannot be considered as other, simply because it arises from these various conditions.

 

And, secondly, these various conditions do not exist as their own nature either, so they cannot be established [autonomous and self-existent] by themselves. Therefore, it cannot be said that "effects arise from various conditions. As Nagarjuna explains in the Ode to the Middle Theory.

 

Even if the results arise from various conditions, these conditions do not themselves arise from themselves. If conditions do not arise from themselves, how can they give rise to effects?

 

Thus, suffering cannot be created from other sources.

 

Negation of co-production and non-causality

 

"Self-production and third-party production [both]" is also incorrect. For there are two errors here. If one says that suffering comes from oneself and at the same time from a third party, then there are two errors: one for "self-production" and the other for "production by a third party". Therefore, it is also incorrect to say that "both create suffering".

 

If "suffering arises without cause", this is also incorrect. For this notion contains many faults. Indeed, if there is no cause, every worldly and non-worldly act becomes meaningless.

 

Scriptural proof that suffering is empty.

 

In the 12th volume of the Miscellaneous Instructions of the Agama Sutras, it is written:

"The naked ascetic Kasyapa asked the Buddha this question. "Is suffering created by itself"? The Buddha remained silent and did not answer, "O Venerable One, if suffering is not created by itself, is it created by others"? Again, the Buddha did not answer. "In that case, is suffering created by itself and by others"? Again, the Buddha did not answer. "If so, then is suffering created without direct cause or auxiliary conditions"? Again, the Buddha did not answer.

 

Since the Buddha did not answer the four questions in this way, we must understand that "suffering is empty.".

 

 

Critique of the omnipotent divinity in the Treatise of the Twelve Gates.

 

 The denial of omnipotent divinity in the Treatise of the Twelve Gates contains various elements, but we will address the relationship between omnipotent divinity and human action.

 

 

The omnipotence of the divinity and human action

 

Let's look at the question of the omnipotence of the Godhead and human action (karma) or free will. If the omnipotent God is the creator of everything, then human actions and their consequences are also predetermined by the omnipotent God. Human efforts would be meaningless and life would be, from the human point of view, governed by pure chance.

 

Buddhist scriptures tell us that this problem already existed at the time of the Buddha's reign. For example, in the Brahma Net Sutra, we find the following commentary on the fifth of the sixty-two erroneous views.

 

"In the empty palace of the god Brahma, a creature is born. It desires a companion. The first creature, when other creatures are born, considers:

 

"I am the God Brahma. The Great Brahma, the Conqueror, the Invincible, the All-seeing, the Ruler, the Lord of All, the Author of All, the Creator, the Most Excellent Creator. Controller of all, Father of what belongs to the past and the future. These creatures were created by me. Because I used to think, "Oh, let other creatures come here too. So there was a strong desire in me, and so these creatures came. The later creatures mistakenly identify him as their creator, but later, born in this present world and gaining intuitive knowledge by practice, they say, "He is the creator of the world. He is Brahma, the conqueror, the father ...... of all things past and future. God Brahma, the Exalted One who created us, is constant, firm, eternal and unchanging, and will remain so forever. But we, who were created by Brahma, have come to this world with an impermanent, unstable, ephemeral and perishable nature".

 

There, the god Brahma is called the Lord of Creation (Jizaiten), which indicates that at that time the neutral name Brahman, originally the cosmic principle, was considered the personified (male) deity of the creation of the universe.

 

The Buddhist response to this type of thinking is that people kill or have wrong opinions because of God's creation (divine power). Buddhists argue that those who believe in the soundness of God's creation have no desire or effort to do what is right and what is wrong.

 

In other words, the objection is that if the causes of inequality in the world, such as happiness, unhappiness, good and evil, wealth and poverty, beauty and ugliness, are attributed to an omnipotent deity, then all human efforts and ethics to overcome inequality will be meaningless. This also leads to the question of why the omnipotent God imposes such injustice and inequality on his creatures. It is, after all, a question of karma, which is universal in Indian thought.

 

Why doesn't the omnipotent deity create only happy creatures?".

 

To this question, according to the Compendium of All Madhava Philosophy (14th century), the Nyaya school answers.

 

"To consider that the omnipotent God should have created happy beings is a mistake. Indeed, it is possible that the living beings to be created have already done good and bad deeds in previous lives, and that these deeds are in different states of maturation.

 

In other words, God's creation and man's individual actions (karma) are compatible. In this regard, Uddiyotakara uses the concept of "consideration" to state that each person receives the fruits of his or her actions, but the omnipotent deity performs the creations in consideration of those actions.

 

Mercy of the omnipotent divinity towards his creatures.

 

In connection with the "consideration", the question of the mercy of the omnipotent deity arises. It is emphasized that this deity has feelings of both hatred and love. However, there is an expression of derision in the Kusha ron that mocks this point.

 

"If the Almighty God creates creatures who are afflicted with many miseries in hell, or elsewhere and derives satisfaction from them, then it is better, at best, to return one's life to such an almighty."

 

Prajñākaramati's 8th century Treatise on Entering Bodhisattva Practice also states the following objection of the Middle Way school to believers in the omnipotent God.

 

If this "Almighty God" is merciful, what need does he have to create here the beings afflicted with these hells and the like. If he created the beings in this way, then his merciful nature could be verified by faith. But this is not the case. If it is said, "He strives to eliminate the fruits of the misdeeds that he himself created, how can he have the name of the Merciful?

 

The following is also found in the Mādhava's argument against the Nyāya school in the Compendium of All Philosophical Sciences.

 

If someone tells you that "it is because of his mercy that his activity is established," you should answer him in the following way: if this were the case, the omnipotent Godhead would create every living being as a happy thing and not as something full of suffering. For creating suffering creatures would be incompatible with compassion.

 

 

Conclusion.

 

The words of the Buddha are as follows.

 

"This bud was not created by itself, nor by others, nor by both [itself and others], nor embodied by Jizaiten (created at will by divine power), nor transformed by time, nor originating from a primordial nature, nor depending on a single cause, nor originating from any cause."

 

 

Thus, the Buddhist school of Medianity, especially Nagarjuna, based on the principle of conditioned production, rejects the various theories of world causation, including the theory of the Creator God. From the Buddhist point of view, the diversity of the world is based on karma. The first verse of chapter 4 of the Kusha-ron states.

 

The diversity of the world arises from karma (acts). These acts are the result of the will of the doer. Will is the act of the mind. What is done in this way is the act of speech and the act of the body.

 

In other words, our own physical, verbal and mental actions make the world diverse.

 

There is a passage from the Mahabharata that is often quoted by theists.

 

Living beings, being senseless, are unable to control their own suffering and pleasure. They are directed by the God, to go to heaven, or to the cave (hell).

 

Buddhists would have used "own karma" (acts) instead of "God".