THE BUDDHIST WORLDVIEW: Explanations for the modern Buddhist
These pages provide answers to common misconceptions about the Buddhist view of the universe. I am not writing to represent any particular Buddhist tradition or sect; instead I focus on general concepts that unite Buddhists but are clearly in contrast to the beliefs of other religions or materialists.
The Difference between a God and a Buddha
Buddhism is sometimes called an ‘atheist religion’, which gives it an apparent materialist taint which is the exact opposite of the quasi-mystical image it has acquired in popular culture. Obviously, the categorization of Buddhism will depend on your definition of "God". Some limit the word "God" to mean a creature sitting on a cloud in the sky, throwing lightning bolts at his enemies and locking anyone who dares question him into an eternal concentration camp of hellfire and brimstone. If Zeus/Jehovah/Odin/Allah/Huitzilopochti/whatever is the only type of creature that qualifies as a God, then the Buddha does not. In fact, the Buddhist Pali texts do describe Gods such as those worshipped in other religions, but with the unique (and to me, honest) assessment of such power-hungry, arrogant beings as irrelevant. Jealous Gods that desire worship, use force, and repeatedly try to devastate and repopulate the world (yet somehow never make it perfect and cannot convince even their own creations to stop sinning) are not Awake; they are not enlightened beings, and they need to listen to the Buddha as much as any of us mortals do before they spiral into self-destruction.
But, what about the Buddha himself? The answer that he is not a prophet, not a god, not a man, just Awake, is the traditional one. Buddhism appeals to rationalists and scientists because of statements that the Buddha was not a God, but this can be misleading, because in the Buddhist texts he does have ‘supernatural’ mental abilities and works miracles. In the Lotus Sutra (Mahayana tradition) the Buddha is described as a transcendent, immortal, all-knowing being, and the "historical Buddha" here on Earth was just a temporary human form he took on to help teach us. (Obviously, this view parallels several other religions’ beliefs.) In the Mahayana tradition there is a Buddha for every world, and often the statue in a Chinese temple is not actually the man who lived in India 2,500 years ago but one of the other Buddhas who create their own eternal heavens or ‘Pure Lands’. So, although Buddhists make a distinction between a Jealous God of power and punishment vs. an Awakened being or Buddha, certainly some of the characteristics of popular Buddhism appear to be very much like God-worship.
Of course, some Buddhists live in countries that persecute or outlaw all beliefs that are not "monotheistic" (Indonesia as an example forces the followers of tribal pagan or animistic religions to register as Muslim or Christian). When Buddhists have to name their ‘God’, they often do not name the historical Buddha or any being at all, but instead the boundless Buddha-Mind or Nirvana. If the word ‘God’ is defined not as a creature in the clouds but as the "Ultimate Reality", even if so beyond the reach of human imagination as to be nearly undescribable, then the word can obviously be applied to the Ultimate Reality of the Awakened Buddha-mind (or Nirvana). There is a certain level of discomfort among Buddhists about using the word ‘God’ for the obvious reason of the dual definitions: although the term can be expanded to mean Ultimate Reality, it will always be impossible to exclude the primitive ‘Zeus/Jehovah holding a lightning bolt’ image that comes up whenever the word is used.
A Savior who is not the Creator
One thing that is clear is that even those branches of Buddhism that see the Buddha himself as an eternal, all-knowing being do not see him as the Creator. This separation of the Creator from the Savior is unique to Buddhism, and is one key insight that eludes all theologians. The imperfection of the universe—and therefore, of the ‘Plan’ and the being that created it—is impossible to reconcile with any idea that the Buddha created the physical universe. If he had, the obvious question would be, "If you’re so smart and compassionate, why is everything so screwed up?" Other religions say that the world may have been created perfect, but it then fell into decay due to the actions of some of the created beings (humans, a fallen angel/the devil, etc.). This is nonsense—a perfect design cannot fall apart for any reason, that’s the definition of perfection. Entropy is what undermines a thoughtful scientist’s belief in God’s "Plan", not evolution or heliocentrism or the big bang theory. And how can an all-knowing God create sinful creations, except on purpose? A God would know every thought, every decision, every movement of every atom in the brain of every being he created. There is no such thing as "free will" in a creationist universe, and therefore no way any created being can be held responsible for the failed design of its Creator.
Of course, Christian and other theologians will continue to make up bizarre explanations for how free will can exist in the puppets and robots (which is all we would be in a creationist universe) created by an all-seeing God. But there is another fact that destroys the ‘perfect universe that decays’ idea. Free will is not enough to make a bad choice. If Adam and Eve (or any of us) had perfect knowledge and perfect judgment, then they could have all the free will in the world and never make a mistake. It is only because we were created imperfect that any of us can make errors, including errors in choosing the correct Savior. This is the ultimate flaw in the Christian mythology. The genesis stories even admit that Adam and Eve (or humanity, if read symbolically), were created ignorant of the difference between moral and evil acts. In nearly all religions, the Gods act frustrated with the sinfulness of their creations, and punish them or murder them and remake the world over and over again, yet never are satisfied for long before it all falls apart again. These Gods don’t even follow their own commandments. We don’t need to hold them up to the standards of the Buddha to see how imperfect they are—even by their own standards, or by modern secular human standards, most Gods are cruel, amoral, ego-driven creatures undeserving of the worship or praise they demand.
So, if the Buddha did not create the physical universe, what did? There is no First Cause in Buddhism. The Buddhist answer to the question, "If God created the world, where did God come from?" would be, "of course God was created as well". In fact, in a Buddhist worldview there are an infinite number of causes and conditions that create every instant, every world, every being, including Gods. Infinite causes creating more causes, stretching to infinity with no origin or end. Buddhism allows for an infinite number of different universes to exist, some before ours, some after, some in parallel but with completely different natural and supernatural laws. Ours is not the best, or the worst. There is no ‘design’ of our world. Because our world is imperfect (and every religion says this, otherwise why would we need to change our lives or join a religion?) even if there was a designer, he/she/it would be imperfect—and to a Buddhist, irrelevant. There is no need to know why we are here, other than pure scientific curiosity. This is why Buddhism is not threatened by discoveries that contradict myths about the creation of universes or living beings, or discoveries about the shape, position, and relative movement of the Earth in the universe. None of these things was key to understanding the Buddha’s message, since there is no need to worship the forces or creatures which created our imperfect world.
This is obviously a radical message—how can our creation not matter? Creationists try to say our world was ‘designed’ for us because we are adapted to life on Earth, and if physical laws were different our form of life could not exist. But it is obvious that a God could have created a better world for us. Over 99% of the universe (deep space) would be fatal to humans if we were suddenly created out there; so would stars, the interiors of planets, the surfaces of every planet we know of except one, and even on Earth’s surface we cannot naturally survive in the oceans, or lakes, or more than a few feet up in the air (because we would fall to our deaths due to gravity) or on glaciers, or on the tops of mountains, or in the middle of deserts, and even those few places we could survive on our own are often harsh. Our lives are temporary and full of suffering. Certainly a better world is possible even for our particular physical form. [Of course, one could say that our dangerous world and our short life-spans are "perfectly designed" for the purpose of allowing natural selection to act, killing off the poorly-adapted, favoring new offspring with new genetic combinations, which causes the evolution of new species—but this is hardly the explanation that most religions would want to hear].
Even beyond the idea that there could be a better world for beings of our particular biology, there is also the idea that there are better worlds for other forms of life. This does not have to only mean aliens in some other universe with completely different physical laws or dimensions. This idea also includes Heaven. Almost all religions have a Heaven, which is assumed to be perfect and a better place to be than where we are now. That alone proves that ‘where we are now’ is not perfect (because none of these religions claim that we are in Heaven right now). And leads back to the question of "If God can create a perfect world, why did he also create this imperfect one?" Is our pain and suffering a test, or a way for us to learn? Of course not. A God would already know our decisions from the moment he created us. And a God could find a way to teach us that did not involve pain and suffering. And as mentioned above the idea that suffering is due to the decay of the once-"perfect" world is insane—if God’s Plan did not include these things, it would mean the Plan has failed and the Creator is incompetent. The only reason pain and death would exist in a created world is if the Creator wanted them there. And that would make the Creator an evil creature. Incompetent or evil, or both (as many religions’ Gods seem to be if their holy books are read literally). Is there any wonder why Buddhists don’t want the Buddha to be called a God?
Why did I discuss all this? To show why the idea that the Buddha can be the Savior without being the Creator is such a breakthrough. Where we come from does not matter, it only matters where we are going.
Your next life can be as a worm...or as a suffering spirit in hell
It is often assumed that the worst thing that can happen to you in a Buddhist worldview, no matter how evil you act towards other people, is to be reborn as an animal. The best thing is to be reincarnated as a rich man, etc. Although these are the pop-culture notions of reincarnation portrayed by the western media, there are actually many different worlds in the traditional Buddhist view of this universe, and many different possible forms of life: physical beings with rational intelligence (such as humans) and physical beings driven by instinct (such as animals) but also spirit-beings with rational intelligence (Devas, Asuras, and gods, including the deities of other faiths) and spirit-beings driven by instinct and desire (Pretas, often nicknamed ‘hungry ghosts’ driven mad by their desires and inability to solve their issues). There are many worlds of greater pleasure (heavens) and worlds of greater pain (hells). There are even attempts to illustrate these various realms, although just like the Christians and Muslims the artists and poets who try to describe beautiful heavens and nightmarish hells get caught up in using physical forms and images from Earth that would have no real meaning in other universes or dimensions.
There is one important distinction between Buddhist hells and that of Christianity: Buddhism claims that the message of the Buddha is capable of reaching even beings in a hell, and converting them. There is even a Buddhist ‘saint’ (actually a ‘Bodhisattva’, one who is capable of reaching ultimate Nirvana but allows themselves to be repeatedly reborn to help others) named Ksitagarbha who volunteers to be reborn in hell-worlds to bring the light of compassion and mercy to beings there. Because of this, a Buddhist would say even the worst hells are indefinite but not infinite, because to say hell is infinite (as Christianity and some other religions do) is to admit there is an evil that cannot be defeated by the message of the savior, and a place that the savior’s message cannot reach. The most evil dictators may spend a trillion years in hell for every victim they murdered, but no being is so infinitely evil that they cannot be taught the truth (given an infinite amount of time and the infinite patience and compassion of a Buddha who chooses to do so).
Just as Hell is not a final destination, neither is Heaven. Buddhists believe that a rebirth in a heaven is good, but is not the ultimate goal. There is something beyond heavens and hells, life and death. Even the best heaven is still a ‘place’ where you ‘live’, trapped inside linear time even if you are immortal. Time and Location are aspects of the universe. In a Buddhist worldview, even an eternal life in a heaven filled with pleasure can be a trap—for the animalistic pursuit of pleasure is still an amoral, unenlightened path. Lifespans in the lesser heavens are temporary (if you only pursue pleasure in paradise you will eventually spiral into a form of destruction and Karma will return you to another life in another world, perhaps a worse one), and even the ‘Pure Lands’ (heavens in which a Buddha guides people to enlightenment) which are eternal, would only be a person’s home for an indefinite time, because even in heaven a being can choose not to be a slave to selfish pleasure and instead continue making progress towards Nirvana. Nirvana itself is not a heaven—it is not a place you live with a form, because it is beyond mere time and space.
Karma, Sin, and Fate
Across most religions, it is common to believe that what is happening to you is some form of divine punishment. The idea is dangerous because it leads to the rationalization for not helping people that "they deserve it". This is in opposition to the Buddha’s message of compassion. Compassion for someone who is suffering can relieve them of much of their pain—in effect, you can change the course of someone else’s negative Karma, giving them greater comfort (and, importantly, a new chance to use their time to learn and create positive Karmic effects). If bad Karma is the result of amoral actions in the past, then Buddhist compassion for all beings also obviously includes forgiveness. In fact, it is a forgiveness with no questions asked, a pure form of mercy for all life around you. Of course, because we are all interconnected, your compassion towards others may create a better future for yourself, not just because of this-world reciprocity (do unto others...) but because of the "equal and opposite" Karmic reaction along the network of connections between you and other beings. Many Buddhists believe that you can ‘transfer Merit’ ( your ‘good’ Karma) to others in need even by prayer (one reason that Buddhists pray). Of course, Karma deals with intentional moral acts, so doing ‘good’ deeds only to increase your own Merit or good Karma means you have missed the point of the Buddha’s advice.
This ability to change Karma is a crucial difference between the Buddhist concept of the world and the worldviews that say our lives are controlled by "Fate" or "A Divine Plan". True, some things about your life you cannot change—you were born in this particular universe, on a planet called Earth, as a Homo sapiens, and therefore there are particular risks, fears, injuries, and burdens that you may or may not face. Most Buddhists credit Karma with determining your health and wealth, and some even say daily events can be the result of Karma. But being a human is an opportunity for making choices, for moral acts that will increase future good Karma ("Merit") or selfish behavior that will not. And it is not only your own future that you can change—as stated earlier, your moral acts of compassion (as well as selfish, amoral acts) are what create the world of the future for your children and those of others (and you as well upon rebirth). In the Buddhist worldview, we have as much part of creating the future as any gods or supernatural forces.
There is a clear distinction between Karma and Sin. Sin is disobedience against Jehovah or Allah or some other supernatural creature, who then punishes you. The Buddha does not give you bad Karma or punish you; in fact the Buddha and the Bodhisattvas even reach out to beings already in hell to give comfort and eventually teach them the truth (Bodhisattvas are Buddhas-to-be who volunteer to stay in the cycle of life and death in the physical world or even in hell-worlds to help others). Modern Christians try to make Sin and punishment sound more like Karma—they say stuff like, Sin is a ‘natural’ force that puts you in hell without God’s input and Jesus is just trying to reach out to you. They say this to make Jehovah and Jesus sound less cruel. Liberal Christians also now say that it is your moral acts, not your choice of which God to follow, that matters most in the next life. But never mistake Sin for Karma. In a universe where a Jealous God like Jehovah controls everything, it is that God that throws you into hell, and certain religions make it clear that disobedience and refusal to submit to the more powerful creature is the basic definition of Sin. Islam is all about submission to Allah; Christianity is all about worshipping Jesus, or else.
There is no moral component to Sin, as it is based on obedience to laws (just as there is no moral component to obeying a nation’s law to avoid punishment). A moral decision is distinct from a one made in the name of self-interest. Moral decisions require you to think about the comfort and safety of another individual, and put value in this even when that individual does not have any impact on your own comfort and safety (and your choice to value someone else’s life and wishes might even contradict your own desires). A capacity for moral decisions is what separates sentient beings from purely-instinctive animals. Religious belief does not make one moral at all—if your decisions are based on obeying a law to gain a reward (even heaven) or avoid a punishment (even hell), your choices are no more moral than those of a dog obeying its master. Similarily, acting ‘good’ in fear of negative Karma is not a moral choice, nor is altering your behavior to earn Merit or positive Karma. Concern for the next life (if you believe in one) is no less selfish than concern for your future in this life. This is why the Buddha stressed the intentions of acts as crucial. This is why changing our mental attitudes, and recognizing what biases our animal instincts bring to our decision-making process, are so important to a Buddhist. The Buddha emphasized morality, especially compassion, over worship or following the laws of Gods. And it is why the Buddhist path offers more than just a plan for getting enough good Karma for a trip to a heaven full of pleasure; it is a path that allows us to use our opportunities here on Earth to unlearn the mental habits taught to us by our evolution and become Awake, as the Buddha himself is Awake.
Buddhist symbols. There are various meanings assigned to these; for example, a Vajra is a Tibetan Buddhist symbol for a 'thunderbolt' of enlightenment; the wheel can represent the cycle of life and death in the physical world, but the symbol also represents the Dharma (Buddha's teachings) with eight spokes for the "eightfold path" that leads to awakening; the lotus (growing from the mud) symbolizes how we can rise above even the most difficult conditions in life. The 'Infinite knot' symbol [third from left in bottom row] demonstrates the interconnected nature of all things in the world. There are also various depictions of the Buddha in physical form; however the most well-known image, of a cheerful, chubby bald man, is not the historical Buddha, who was presumably rather slim since part of his quest was spent as an ascetic in the forest, but a Chinese folk image of a generous (=big-bellied, and sometimes carrying a money-purse) monk. Some sects believe there will be a future Buddha in our world ('Maitreya') and the 'happy fat man' icon is sometimes linked to him. The colorful banner below is a Buddhist flag placed in some temples.
