International Buddhist Society of Pennsylvania
Sadaham Sevana Meditation Center
Question 1: Buddha and Buddhism do not believe in God. Has anybody ever proved that God does not exist? What is the basis for discarding God? From D.V. Mangla
Answer: The initial question that must be addressed is the definition of “God,” an English word that corresponds to Allah in Islam and to multiple names in Hinduism: Brahman, Paramatma, Ishwara, specific deities such as Vishnu and Ganesh, and Avatars such as Krishna and Rama. The plural form “gods” is the usual English translation for devas (“radiant ones”). Buddhism includes belief in devas and includes concepts which can be interpreted as God, but which do not meet all the descriptions of God in most religions.
The Theravada Buddhist scriptures, called the Tripitaka or the Pali Canon, mention many devas and brahmas (devas of higher spiritual evolution) who are on the path to final liberation (Nirvana), and thus are not yet fully enlightened. They must take births as humans or continue living as devas for some time to further purify themselves and exhaust their karmas before attaining Nirvana. Theravada Buddhists believe that devas can provide protection and assistance, but cannot purify humans.
The Tripitaka does not refer to any deva or brahma who is eternal. The scriptures describe the lifespan of a deva in the thousands or millions of earth’s years, and include the story of a Buddha advising a brahma named Baka that he was erroneous in his belief that he was eternal. See, Majjhima Nikaya 49. However, devas and brahmas described in Theravada Buddhist scriptures correspond more to angels, or grama-devas, guardians and minor deities of Hinduism than to the mahadevas, principal Hindu devas worshipped in temples. In modern Buddhist culture, perhaps as a result of cultural mixing between Hindus and Buddhists and the human need for devotion and divine assistance, principal Hindu devas including Vishnu, Ganesh, “Kataragama” (an appearance of Karthikeya in Sri Lanka), Lakshmi and Saraswati are worshipped by many Buddhists in small shrines sometimes adjacent to Buddhist temples. In keeping with Buddhist doctrine, however, even these mahadevas are presumed not to be eternal.
Buddhists believe that devas are not eternal and do not believe in one “Creator God” due to the Buddhist doctrine of dependent origination (in Pali, “samuppada”), that everything that exists is a result of causes, or conditions (and not the will of one being), and that everything that arises must end due to causes or conditions. That is, everything that exists is impermanent, and is subject to change. Therefore, every being, including every deva and every Buddha, is impermanent and ceases to exist upon attaining Nirvana. In addition, Buddhists point to the scientific explanation of the beginning of the universe that does not depend on God, and that the Buddha’s description (see, Agganya Sutta in Digha Nikaya 27:10) of the cycles of the universe evolving and being destroyed is consistent with the scientific view.
Consistency regarding eternity and the impermanence of devas can be found, however, between the teachings of Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta. Any name and form, including that of a deva, can only have meaning in the relative world, i.e., the world of time, space, and causation. In Absolute Reality, that is, upon attainment of Moksha (final liberation) or Nirvana, name and form do not have meaning, that is they do not exist, because Moksha/Nirvana is not limited by space, time and causation. A deva is defined in Hinduism as a certain manifestation, embodiment or emanation of Divinity (God) with a name and nonphysical form, existing in a higher loka (plane). The meanings of the words “manifest,” “embody” and “emanate” imply a beginning and thus an end to its existence, and therefore one can reason that a deva is impermanent. Yet, we also must consider that human reasoning and understanding is limited, and cannot comprehend Divinity or express it in words, much less place limits or conditions on it. Although the Buddhas and the Dharma manifest in and disappear from the world at certain times in each world cycle (kalpa), there will never be a time when another Buddha will never arise again or when the Dharma disappears forever. Similarly, some aspects of Divinity, or mahadevas, may manifest in each world cycle, and become unmanifest at the dissolution of the world at the end of each cycle. These cycles of manifestations of mahadevas are thus endless (ananta). In Buddhism the manifestations are not “eternal” but rather are deemed “impermanent” because there are changes, causation, beginnings (or “rebirths”) and endings. In both Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta, nevertheless, Absolute Reality, Ultimate Truth, or Nirvana has no beginning, no end, and no change, and is beyond time (but is not “eternal,” which involves time). In Advaita Vedanta, Absolute Reality or Ultimate Truth is called Brahman, defined as unmanifest God (not to be confused with Brahma, a deva who has a form).
A point of consistency is also found between the teachings of Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta regarding the idea of a Creator God. There is no particular being who is a Creator of the universe either in Buddhism or in Advaita Vedanta. The concept of a Creator generally assumes that the Creator is separate from the Creation. Advaita Vedanta, however, teaches that in reality, Brahman alone exists and allows the universe to appear within Itself, i.e. appears as the many beings and objects in the world, and that Brahman is formless, unknowable by the mind, without qualities or attributes, the one all-pervading whole, all-comprehensive witness of the universe. There is no separation between Brahman and the universe, thus no subject (creator) and object (creation). This concept also explains the endless cycles of the universe referenced in Vedic and Buddhist texts, but in addition explains the Vedic concept of Divine power as the force motivating the evolution and destruction of the universe, and dispels the doubt that the evolution in the world could have occurred merely by random chance.
That said, it is extremely difficult for the human mind to conceive of let alone have conviction that Brahman alone exists, or that there is a state beyond time and space. People have difficulty developing a desire to attain such an unknowable attributeless state. However, the paths to that state, such as morality, meditation, wisdom, devotion, selfless service and developing unconditional universal love, are more readily accepted by most people by associating the paths and the goal with the feeling that is familiar and most fulfilling to them: dualistic love, like that between parent and child. Love for God as a separate being who they can relate to like a parent leads to a strong desire for being close to God, pleasing God, and then unity with God. This love for God is developed by representations or appearances of the Divine in human form – Avatars such as Rama and Krishna, or divine messengers such as Jesus. According to Vedanta, once the person has followed this path and thereby develops purity of mind and wisdom, the desire for and understanding of Moksha naturally arises. A person’s understanding of Creation eventually develops from that of: a person-like God who created the Universe, to a formless God who is within and manifests everything in the Universe, and finally to the Absolute Reality which appears in relative reality as the Universe. So, the idea of a Creator God is not wrong but is an approach to understanding the Absolute Reality, or a way to perceive the Absolute Reality in relative reality.
On the Buddhist path, the approach to understanding Absolute Reality develops by training the mind to accept that everything in the world is impermanent and unfulfilling, and thus to develop detachment, equanimity, loving-kindness and compassion toward all other beings. In Buddhism, however, Absolute Reality is not said to manifest in relative reality, so there is no concept that can suggest an idea of Divinity creating the Universe. There is also no connection between man and the Absolute, and no reference to Avatars, so there is no concept of love for God (yet, according to the Vedanta teaching that all beings are manifestations of God, loving-kindness to all beings, which Buddhists practice, constitutes love for God!). In that context, Buddhists assert that God does not exist based on the teaching, “Purity and impurity depend on oneself; no one can purify another.” (See, Dhammapada 165). Reliance on praying to another being for purification, pardon or divine assistance is viewed by many Buddhists as a weakness, laziness, or emotional need for relief from fear and frustration. (See, Ven. S. Dhammika, Good Question, Good Answer pp. 19-20 (Buddhist Cultural Center 2000)). In support of this view, those Buddhists point to the following verses in the Dhammapada: “Driven only by fear do men go for refuge to many places – hills, woods, groves, trees and shrines . . . such indeed is no safe refuge . .. Not by resorting to such refuge is one released from all suffering. He who has gone for refuge to the Buddha, the Dharma and the Sangha penetrates with transcendental wisdom the 4 Noble Truths . . . [and] is released from all suffering.” (Dhammapada 188-192). The Tripitaka emphasizes that we purify ourselves by our own efforts, increasing our meritorious deeds, generosity, morality and meditation, which lead to insight and wisdom.
However, while Theravada Buddhists do not pray to another being for purification or Divine Grace, they go to temples and places of pilgrimage, view Buddha statues, dagobas, and Bodhi trees, and chant, which they consider as sacred and calming influences that clear the mind, and as purifying divine vibrations which generate noble thoughts, and enable insight and wisdom to arise. This is not different from divine vibrations generated from prayer, worship, devotional singing and temples of other religions. Furthermore, Buddhists practice transference of merit, as Buddhist scriptures indicate that spiritual merit can be given by a person to another being. For example, the merit of a person’s act of providing food for monks can result in the immediate rebirth of a preta (ghost) to a deva. The scriptures mention devas who assisted humans in their spiritual efforts, and who provided Buddha with necessities, and therefore indirectly helped humans attain purity. Merit and divine vibrations, protection and assistance from devas can be interpreted as Divine Grace, virtuous acts being that which draws the Divine Grace.
Another reason for asserting that God does not exist is the Buddha’s teaching of anatta, that there is no permanent self or soul. Buddhists reason that if there is no soul, then there is no God who created or originated a soul nor a God to which a soul merges.
The non-responses of the Buddha to questions about Atman (Divine Self), and his explanation for not responding, have been interpreted by many Buddhist scholars to mean that God does not exist. When asked by an ascetic Vacchagotta “Is there an Atman?” and then “Is there no Atman?” the Buddha stayed silent. When questioned by a disciple why he did so, the Buddha replied that if he had answered that there is a self, that he would be siding with the ascetics and Brahmins who hold the eternalist theory (sassata vaada), and then the Buddha asked, “would that be in accordance with my knowledge that all dhammas are without self?” (answer: no), and said if he had answered that there is no self, the questioner would have been more confused. (See, Samyutta Nikaya IV).
There are teachings of the Buddha which are ambiguous as to the existence of Atman (“Atta” in Pali). The Buddha taught “Attaa hi attano naatho” (See, Dhammapada 160) which is translated as “the self is the lord of one’s own self,” or “one is one’s own refuge.” The Buddha also taught “Attadiipa viharatha, attasarana ananyasarana . . . ,” translated as “Dwell with your self as an island (or lamp), make your self a refuge and with no one else as your refuge, with the Dharma as an island (or lamp), with the Dharma as your refuge, with no other refuge.” (See, Digha Nikaya 16:2:26, Samyutta Nikaya III verse 43). While many Buddhists interpret these teachings as an instruction not to rely on any being as one’s savior, these verses can also be interpreted as the Universal Self, Supreme Consciousness (Paramatman) is the guiding light and refuge, through the teachings of the Dharma. If “atta” or “self” is interpreted as the illusionary individual self, personality or ego, why would the Buddha advise to consider it as lord and sole refuge? The context of Dhammapada verse 160 is not a discussion of dependence on a deva or God, but is the story of a mother’s attachment to her son. (See, “Mother of Kumarakassapa,” printed in Ven. Weragoda Sarada Maha Thero, Treasury of Truth, Illustrated Dhammapada (Buddha Educational Foundation 1993).
To further understand these teachings, one must understand the definition of anatta (anatma), which is “non-self, non-ego, egolessness, impersonality.” (See, Ven. Nyanatiloka, Buddhist Dictionary, p. 16 (BPS 2004)). “The Anatta doctrine teaches that neither within the bodily and mental phenomena of existence, nor outside of them, can be found anything that in the ultimate sense could be regarded as a self-existing real ego-identity, soul or any other abiding substance.” (Ibid.) Therefore, it is said that “Mere suffering exists, no sufferer is found; the deeds are but no doer is there, Nirvana is but not the man that enters it; the path is but no traveler is seen.” (See, Visuddhi Magga XVI verse 90). The idea of self is also described as the feeling of “I am,” held to be a false idea. (See, Samyutta Nikaya III verse 89). Thus, the phrase “All dharmas are not-self (sabbe dhamma anatta ti) (See, Dhammapada 279) is explained as all things have no permanent and abiding substance, no persisting unchanging entity within them.
The Buddha reasons that we cannot have a self because we cannot fully control our form, feeling, perception, mental formations or sense-consciousness, that is, we cannot rid them of affliction or change them, and because they are impermanent. (See, Samyutta Nikaya III verse 59). The Buddha says that he does not see any possession that is eternal and changeless; that he does not see any doctrine of self that would not arouse sorrow; that if there is a self there must be what belongs to a self; that the teaching that after death “I” will be eternal and changeless is completely foolish; and that form, feeling perception, mental formations and sense-consciousness are all impermanent, subject to change, and not self. (See, Majjhima Nikaya 22:22-29). The notion of self, “I,” as referenced here by the Buddha, is described as having possession, belonging to, or control, i.e., “mine”; if there is “self” then there must be something other than “self.” This concept is does not contemplate a Universal Self (Paramatman).
The doctrine of Anatta essentially teaches that there is no separate or individual self. We form an idea of a static self (an “I am” feeling) based on the continuity of our body, mind, perceptions, memory, etc., but in fact these components are continually changing processes and are impermanent. Advaita Vedanta teaches that the self within, associated with, or superimposed on, a body is merely a reflection and essentially false, but that the Atman, which is Brahman, is the one Supreme Universal Self (Paramatman) which is by nature free from contact with anything. (See, Upadesha Sahasri of Sri Shankaracharya, pp. 21, 41, 238 (Swami Jagadananda, transl., Sri Ramakrishna Math)). A person cannot find this Atman either within bodily or mental phenomena or outside of them, and it is not an abiding substance. The Buddha apparently did not consider this concept of Atman or Brahman. The well-known translator of the Digha Nikaya states “There is no certain or even probable trace of the neuter Brahman in Pali scriptures.” (See, Maurice Walshe, The Long Discourses of the Buddha (Digha Nikaya), introduction p. 43 (Wisdom Publications 1995)). Therefore, the Theravada Buddhist scriptures do not address this teaching regarding Brahman, Paramatman, Supreme Universal Self or Absolute Consciousness, and do not negate it.
Furthermore, the Buddha’s reference to “Consciousness non-manifesting, boundless [or without end], luminous all around” (See, Digha Nikaya 11; Majjhima Nikaya 49), in addition to the verses quoted above from Dhammapada 160, Digha Nikaya 16:2:26, and Samyutta Nikaya III verse 43, seems to be consistent with these concepts.
The Buddha called the end of the path “Nirvana,” describing it as the highest bliss, unborn, unbecome, unmade, uncompounded, unageing, deathless, sorrowless (Dhammapada 204; Udana 8:3, Majjhima Nikaya 26:18), without relating it to anything imaginable or pre-conceived by the mind, such as self, soul, God or Brahman. Perhaps he did not relate Nirvana to the terms Brahman or Atman because imagination or pre-conception of what those terms mean would be inaccurate, being based on knowledge gathered by mere sensory input, particularly when, during his time, there was much religious controversy and misunderstanding and misuse of Vedic teachings.
If God, or Brahman, is defined as unconditioned, unchanging, beyond time, the highest bliss, Absolute Reality and Ultimate Truth, we find that Nirvana also fits that description. Thus, the goal of Nirvana can be equated with the goal of realization of Brahman. When the self is freed from all delusion, karma, and desire (tanha), then Nirvana, Moksha, or realization of (“merging with” or “union with”) Brahman occurs. That is, there is no self or individual consciousness. This concept is analogized to a bubble which bursts in water. The bubble as aggregated air is separate from the water until it bursts and is dissolved in water, just as the individual self (ego, ahamkara, clinging to the idea of a separate self) is destroyed upon attaining Nirvana/Moksha and is indistinguishable from and inseparable from Nirvana, or Brahman. Therefore, this concept of God is clearly present in Theravada Buddhist scriptures.
In addition, the concept of the Dharma-kaya, defined as the Ultimate Universal Truth-body and the principle of Enlightenment, is similar to the concept of God or Brahman. This concept is mostly mentioned in Mahayana Buddhism, but in the Theravada scriptures (see, Digha Nikaya 27:9) the Buddha referred to it, saying he was Dharma-kaya.
Question 2: I understand that vinnana is the Fifth Aggregate and it is normally translated as consciousness. It is also one of the links of interdependent origination. My questions are: Is all consciousness, even Buddha-consciousness, an aggregate? If nirvana is the only thing outside the aggregates then does that mean nirvana is unconsciousness? This does not make sense to me. If ignorance is the cause of consciousness is it also the cause of Buddha-consciousness? Any help explaining this would be most appreciated. From Ernest
Answer: The five aggregates (khandhas) are just a classificatory grouping of different aspects and functions of a unit of consciousness. In that context, consciousness (viññana) is the basic cognition of an object, or rather, a flow of cognition of objects, conditioned to arise through the five senses, or though the subconscious mind. It is defined in the Samyutta Nikaya 22 of the Tripitaka (Pali Canon) as being divided into 6 categories: eye-consciousness, ear-consciousness, nose-consciousness, tongue-consciousness, body (tactile)-consciousness and mind-consciousness. These are in the realm of the senses. However, consciousness beyond the realm of the senses, in the “fine-material” realm,” in which the mind is concentrated and tranquil without the consciousness of the five senses, is classified into 4 (or 5) levels of absorption, called the Jhanas. Beyond the “fine-material realm” is the “immaterial realm” in which consciousness is classified in increasingly higher states as: boundless space, boundless consciousness, nothingness, and neither-perception-nor-nonperception. Beyond these high states of consciousness are the super-mundane moments of consciousness, which are experienced by a person when he attains the levels of purification at “stream-entry” (sotapanna), once-returning to birth (sakadagami), not-returning to birth (anagami), and arahat (totally purified). See, Visuddhi Marga Chapter X.
These highest states of consciousness occur in intervals between perception of sensory objects, as the bhavanga-citta (roughly translated as subconscious continuity or life-stream), is maintained.
Nirvana is not classified as consciousness or unconsciousness, because there is no entity or self, i.e. subject and object, to be conscious or unconscious in the state of Nirvana. Nirvana is the extinction of all delusion, including the delusion of the self as a form (body), mind or perceiver.
There is no cause of Buddha-consciousness, which we take to mean Bodhi, defined as enlightenment (Nirvana), awakening from delusion, supreme knowledge or omniscience. Consciousness along with craving and other defilements (impurities) arises from ignorance, and when these are extinguished completely, Nirvana (enlightenment) is attained, but not as a result or effect from a cause. By analogy, when clouds are removed, the sky is seen, although the sky was not caused by, did not arise as an effect from, removal of the clouds. Of course, this is not a perfect analogy, because it assumes a seer of the sky, a self separate from the sky.
Question 3: Buddha discarded the Vedic scriptures. Has anybody ever proved that the Scriptures are myths? Ved-Vyas correctly predicted about the birth of Buddha 3250 years before in Srimad Bhagwatam. How great he was? From D.V. Mangla
Answer: We are not aware that Buddha “discarded” the Vedic Scriptures. The Upanishads are not mentioned in the Theravada Buddhist scriptures, and it is not certain that the Buddha knew their teachings. (See, Maurice Walshe, The Long Discourses of the Buddha (Digha Nikaya), introduction p. 24 (Wisdom Publications 1995)). However, the Buddha disagreed with the practices common to ascetics and priests of his time, such as animal sacrifices, extreme asceticism, religious hypocrisy, and rituals done for personal boons. He pointed out to various ascetic teachers that they had not reached spiritual liberation despite their achievements in meditation. From the descriptions of Buddha’s meetings with ascetics and Brahmins, they had weaknesses such as arrogance, jealousy, hypocrisy, competitiveness, and/or desires for fame or supernatural powers (siddhis), indicating that even if they had some Vedic knowledge, they were not understanding or practicing it properly. They had intellectual knowledge but not the wisdom gained from direct experience of spiritual truths. For example, the Buddha said, “When these Brahmins learned in the three Vedas teach a path that they do not know and see, this cannot possibly be right . . . [T]hose Brahmins learned in the three Vedas who persistently neglect what a Brahmin should do, and persistently do what a Brahmin should not do, declare ‘We call on Indra, Soma . . .’ But that such Brahmins learned in the three Vedas who persistently neglect what a Brahmin should do . . . will, as a consequence of their calling, begging, requesting or wheedling, attain after death . . . to union with Brahma – that is just not possible.” (See, Digha Nikaya 13 verse 25, and translator’s notes and introduction (p. 43) indicating “union with Brahma” was not meant to indicate mystical “union with Brahman”; the Buddha refers to Brahma as having a face, therefore a form). As another example, the Buddha explains that Brahmins who declare that only the brahmanic hymns are true do not know that but merely honor the hymns due to faith and oral tradition. The Buddha distinguishes such faith from faith in a monk who is pure and has no greed, hate or delusion and teaches Dharma which leads to striving and realization of the supreme Truth. (See, Majjhima Nikaya 95).
The Buddha sought out individuals, including learned Brahmins, who could benefit from his teachings, so it may be inferred that he did not encounter persons who were Enlightened or close to Enlightenment on the Vedic path.
There is a verse, however, that might suggest that Vedic teachings do not lead to Enlightenment: the Buddha said that in any practice of Dharma in which there is no Eightfold Path, there is no ascetic who has attained any of the four stages of Enlightenment. (See, Digha Nikaya 16, verse 5:27). However, the Buddha did not say that only his teachings include the Eightfold Path, which leaves open the possibility that Vedic teachings which include the elements (albeit not the categorization) of the Eightfold Path also lead to full Enlightenment. Thus the Buddha did not discard the Vedas in this verse. The only part of the Eightfold Path which arguably is not entirely included within Vedic teachings is Right View, that is, understanding of the Four Noble Truths, suffering, craving, ignorance, karma, goodness (wholesomeness) and badness (unwholesomeness). The Buddha indicated that Right View eventually leads to Anatta, the extinction of “the underlying tendency to the view and conceit ‘I am,’ and by abandoning ignorance . . . he . . . makes an end to suffering.” (See, Majjhima Nikaya 9). To the extent that Vedic teachings can be found consistent with the Buddhist “Right View” and doctrine of Anatta (see question 2 above), this verse does not indicate that Vedic teachings do not lead to full Enlightenment.
Question 4: Buddhism believes in rebirth, after birth, sanskaras and the law of Karma. But it does not believe in the existence of the soul, i.e., Jivatma. How will you explain it without acceptance of the soul? What takes birth after death? What is death? Who does the karmas in our life? With whom the karmas/sanskaras goes after death to next life? Who is responsible for karmas? Who gets Nirvana? Who am I? From D.V. Mangla
Answer: Buddhism teaches that t human is just an aggregate of body, feelings, perceptions, volitions and consciousness arising from sensory input that is continually changing based on causes and effects. Birth arises due to the force of karma from past lives, and of tanha (craving or clinging), which is an impurity arising from ignorance. Theravada scriptures indicate that a flow of energy including karmas, some memories, desires, intellectual, moral and spiritual development (including aspirations for spiritual progess) and tendencies (sanskaras) transmit from one birth to the next. The flow or continuum of life is called bhavanga sota, and the flow of subconsciousness is called bhavanga chitta. Death is the passing away of the body, but Theravada scriptures do not describe in detail or name exactly what passes from one life to the next. Instead, the Buddha taught about the constant process of birth and death occurring from moment to moment. We are not the same person from one life to the next, nor is it another person who arises in the next life. (See, Milindapañha, and Visuddhi Magga XVII verses 163-173, comparing continuity of rebirth of a human to continuity of a fruit bearing a seed which grows and eventually bears another fruit). Similarly, we are not the same person from one moment to the next because our bodies’ cells and other qualities and our thoughts, perceptions and feelings have changed – arisen and passed away. Nor are we the same person as an infant, a child, an adult, and an elderly person, although there is some continuity.
There is no permanent static individual self, only an illusion of a self, based on this continuity. This continuous flow of energy engages in actions which cause the seeds of the results, which will ripen at some point in time as the vipaka, or result of the action, either in the same birth or in a future birth. When the flow of energy becomes totally purified, free of all desires and clinging (which can only happen when ignorance is banished), and all karmas are extinguished, then Nirvana occurs and the illusionary individual self is extinguished. There is no “self” which is separate from Nirvana to “get” Nirvana. If the flow of energy is not totally purified, it takes a birth as a deva, human, animal, preta, asura or in a hell-world, depending on the karmas.
The Buddha taught his students to analyze and understand the illusion of the self. Similarly, Ramana Maharishi taught students to investigate what is “I,” to be aware of each idea of who we are and see that it is false.
Mahayana Buddhists teach inter-being, which means interconnectedness, interdependence and interpenetration of all beings, self that is co-existent with all beings and things that exist, which teaching may be the insight or experience of those individuals who are approaching realization of the Universal Self (Paramatma).
Question 5: What is the Buddhist concept of life after death?
Answer: When the body dies, the karmic volition (sankhara) or wholesome and unwholesome energies resulting from the wholesome and unwholesome acts (karmas) done, transmit to a rebirth in one of the realms (planes of existence): heavenly world, human world, animal kingdom, ghost realm, asura-realm or hell-world. Those who are dying may see signs of destiny (gati-nimitta): if a person is destined to be reborn in a hell-world he may see flames of fire; if he is destined to be reborn in a ghost-realm (preta-loka) he may experienced an utter darkness; if he is destined to be reborn as a animal he may visualize a thick forest; if he is destined to be reborn as a human he may see the color of blood, such as a red carpet; if he is destined to be born in a heaven world he may visualize white color or divine worlds. These signs may be seen as a dream or a vision, on the day of death, up to a week before death, or in a flash before the vital principle (praana) is completely extinguished from the body. One must have a sufficient amount of wholesome karma from past lives to be born in a heavenly world or as a human. If one is reborn as a human, his level of beauty, health and wealth, attributes and experiences is determined by the karmas from past lives, which reflect the levels of greed, hate and delusion.
Question 6: In Theravada Buddhism, is there a concept of an existence after death and before birth in one of those realms, similar to the Tibetan concept of Bardo?
Answer: There is some evidence that there is such an existence, from the inference in the Karaniyametta Sutta to the term “sambhavesi”, translated as those beings who are coming to birth or looking for something. There is a concept of antharabhava, taken to mean “in-between births.” Also, in the Theravada Buddhist practice of transferring merit to someone who has recently died, there is an assumption that the departed person still has memory of his or her life and is looking for merit from friends and relatives to enable birth in a heavenly world or as a human in good circumstances.
Question 7: For 3 years now I meditate a daily minimum of 30 minutes – I am without a teacher, which is why I am asking your advice. My practice is on the “here and now” of the breath and has become very fruitful in the last months. Meditation has been deep and calm and spans of one-pointedness have reached 15 minutes and longer. Contemplating the Buddha’s teachings through the day has become a solid practice for me and wisdom has been building in meditation and also rises throughout the day. As of late, I have been having odd experiences of awareness, in that strong awareness establishes itself in the head in different areas, like behind the eyes or inside the brain. Sometimes headaches arise with these sensations and also feelings of dissociation and parallel awareness of zooming out of the body. Further, after meditation I have also experienced severe and long-lasting dizziness. Also, visions of image and color form with the eyes closed and all these occurrences are a bit unnerving and, at night, can keep me from coming to rest. Have I made a wrong turn along by path or are these reactions of an unruly mind? Can you please advise. From Brian (Pennsylvania)
Answer: The strong awareness on certain areas in or around the head, and headache, and dizziness after meditation, means that your mind has pulled in energy beyond its capacity and is resisting. The mind is not prepared by long-term dharma practice to hold that much energy, so your mind resists, resulting in headache. Or, you are trying by sheer will-power to eliminate impure thoughts, such as fear. Your meditation practice should include more metta (loving-kindess) and mindfulness (not only of the breath) to avoid these sensations. Your concentration should be balanced with awareness/mindfulness (sati). Metta meditation helps open the heart chakra, which balances the energy generated from concentration.
The feeling of leaving the body is a hindrance in meditation. Some people experience this involuntarily during meditation. Instead of the mind becoming still, it gets identified with or at least curious about the subtle (pranic) or “astral” body. While some people may take this to be a sign of success or power on the spiritual path, it is a distraction which often leads to spiritual pride, and does not help progress in purifying the mind, attaining Nirvana or absorption in the Jhanas. Keep your consciousness expanded, fully aware. For example, do vipassana meditation, mindfulness of the body only, or meditation on infinite space. If you feel the sensation of leaving the body, slowly open your eyes and move your body, bring your awareness to the floor and the pull of gravity, and do standing or walking meditation for awhile.
Restlessness and seeing color and images with eyes closed while attempting to go to sleep at night indicate either energy which remains from a strong concentration in an evening meditation, or, if you did not meditate in the evening, then a large amount of energy being continually generated from your meditation. If it is from your evening meditation, then try doing metta meditation and/or progressive relaxation and mindfulness of the whole body in the evening, with no intense concentration. If not from evening meditation, and if the energy is uncomfortable, causing hyper-sensitivity, fast heart rate, insomnia, inner trembling, underarm perspiration, and/or “jumpiness,” then these symptoms can get worse and lead to other negative symptoms over time. This is the result of generating more energy (from intense concentration) than the system’s level of purity can handle. That is, too much intense concentration without enough purification of the mind. In that regard, more balance is needed: dana (generosity) and seela (morality) must be balanced with bhavana (meditation), and mindfulness should be emphasized over concentration. Generosity means offering to others (family, needy people, students, monks, etc.) of our time, talents, effort, intellect and any other resources we have, with humility and selflessness, and without thought of reward. Morality includes practicing metta (loving-kindness to all beings), karuna (compassion), mudita (enjoyment of others’ happiness and success) upeksha (equanimity), right speech, right effort, tolerance, forbearance, fortitude, humility, patience and other values. Along with contemplating the teachings must come many tests in practicing them – being faced with real challenges in our day-to-day activities – which takes time. Being aware of the many tests we receive and our reactions to them is of great spiritual benefit.
Question 8: I am not interested in living a highly disciplined life like a monk. Without being too hedonistic, I want to enjoy life, like participating and competing in sports, learning, enjoying nature and yoga, and gain some good karma or at least neutral karma. Is this an appropriate Buddhist path? From Darin
Answer: The Buddha says, “Better than living a lazy life for a hundred years without making effort, is to live for one single day strongly making effort.” Dhammapada 112. As is commonly said, “Aim high. Aiming low is a crime.” The actions, words and thoughts we have now create our future, according to the Law of Karma. If you make little effort, you will have little benefit. Surely as a student if you told your parents you just want to make mediocre grades in school, and don’t want to make the effort to get high grades, they would be upset. As an employee, if you tell your employer that you just want to get the basic work done and you don’t want to make the effort to do excellent work, you may get fired. So, we generally try very hard for success in school and in our careers. But, those efforts are just to earn money, respect and perhaps fame until we retire or pass away. The efforts we make now to accumulate merit or good karma will determine our health, career, success, happiness and all other aspects of life in the future – including future births. So, you can see that these efforts are more important than efforts in school or at our jobs. As the Buddha says, “Wake up! Be diligent! Lead a righteous life. He who lives practicing the Dharma lives happily in both this world and the next.” Dhammapada 168.
We cannot take for granted that our future will be as fortunate as it is now, and that we therefore need not work hard to improve it. We have no way of knowing what our past karmas are from many past births, and when results of past bad karmas will be experienced. Everyone has a load of negative past karmas that will result in difficulties such as failures, humiliation, loss, grief, oppression, disease and accidents at some points in our future. If we have not developed strong virtues such as fortitude, detachment, patience, tolerance, and compassion, we may find ourselves unable to cope, developing depression, anger, vengeance, or self-destructive behaviors, all of which may lead to words and actions that are extremely bad karmas. It is difficult and slow to climb a steep mountain, but very easy and fast to fall down it; similarly, spiritual progress takes a lot of effort and many lifetimes, but a spiritual fall can happen easily in a matter of seconds and lead to disastrous results. Even if we don’t end up in a disaster, our inability to cope well with difficulties will increase negative emotions, words and actions, reduce meritorious actions and further darken our future. Developing strong virtues, morality or sila (in Pali language) is our insurance against such failure, which is referenced by the Buddha as falling into the mud of evil. As the Buddha says, “Delight in diligence! Guard well your thoughts. Pull yourself out of the mud of evil, just as an elephant pulls himself out of the mud.” Dhammapada 327.
On the other hand, we cannot push ourselves into a level of discipline that we are not yet ready for. Sometimes people practice certain external disciplines, such as celibacy, dietary restrictions, or shunning certain activities, material comforts or goods, in part for impure reasons of competitiveness, perfectionism, spiritual pride, enhancing self-image, or desire for certain benefits. The internal discipline of eliminating negative thoughts of anger, envy, greed, pride and selfishness, and increasing virtues, that is, purifying the mind, is the important practice. External disciplines are methods of self-control to support the inner discipline. When we observe our activities with very honest and careful discrimination as to whether they lead us toward purity or impurity we can determine which external disciplines and which enjoyments are appropriate for us. And, we have to determine for ourselves how much time to spend on enjoyments and activities which we find are not of any spiritual benefit. Keep in mind that it is a spiritual benefit to fulfill our duties for family, job and community. To enjoy nature, learning, sports and yoga are healthy for the mind and body. These activities, as well as fulfilling our duties, increase our peace and happiness. A peaceful, happy and balanced mind leads to better meditation, mindfulness, insight and progress on the spiritual path.
Question 9: Tibetan Buddhists believe that being born in the human realm is extremely rare. Does Theravada Buddhism hold this belief? Tibetans believe that if one self-grasps I (ego) without purifying that negative Karma, then one will take rebirth in a lower realm. Could you please answer the first question and then give me some information on finding out what Theravada Buddhists believe in? from Steven Heilker
Answer: Theravada Buddhism also holds the belief that birth in the human realm is extremely rare, in light of the relatively short life on earth as a human (devas have much longer lives, in thousands or millions of earth-years) and the many different types of beings. Human life is also extremely precious because it has the most opportunities for spiritual development -- earning merit, developing virtues and gaining wisdom - than birth in any other realm, due to the many challenges, limitations and choices in human life. Rebirth in certain lower realms occurs when an individual has done negative deeds which are severe, repeated or done near the time of death. For example, one who acted extremely greedy may be reborn as a preta (hungry ghost), and one who has caused great suffering to others may be reborn in hell. Or, such people may be reborn as a human who is born blind, deaf, insane, driveling or in other states of loss. See Ven. Buddhagosa, Visuddhi Magga (The Path of Purification) Chapter 12 Para.133, 136, 163 (Bhikkhu Nanamoli, Transl.). People who have no faith, shame, or fear of wrongdoing, and who are lazy, unwise, and engage in misconduct are reborn in hell or as an animal. Majjhima Nikaya 110.
The delusion of having a permanent separate self is in almost everyone. The self-identification view, that is, believing that the body, feelings, perceptions, mental formations, and/or sense-consciousness are the self, disappears when one has attained the first level of Awakening, as a sotapanna, or stream-enterer, who has a maximum of seven more births until attaining Nirvana. Majjhima Nikaya 44:7-8. But the feeling “I am” does not totally disappear until one has become an arahant, one who is fully enlightened. Samyutta Nikaya XXII:89.
Question 10: It sounds like a lot of people are not going to take a human rebirth since money is usually the measuring stick on how successful one is in today's society. Am I right about this? Actually it has always been that way. Could you give me sources or root texts on the Theravada Tradition that explains the cosmology? From Steven Heilker
Answer: Attachment to money does not necessarily lead to rebirth in a lower realm; it depends on the whole character of the person. A person who is very attached to wealth may in his future life be born as a human to a wealthy family or attain wealth if he has enough good karma accumulated. The Buddha said that a person who has good conduct and who wishes to be reborn among wealthy people may be reborn there. Majjhima Nikaya 41:15-17, 120:3-5. The experience of wealth, and the subsequent discovery that it does not lead to happiness and peace, can lead a person to detachment and seeking peace through cultivation of virtue. Many wealthy people who met the Buddha renounced their wealth and family and were ordained as monks. On the other hand, taking what is not given, coveting wealth of others, or other misconduct of body, speech and mind, including waste and abuse of wealth, results in “states of deprivation, in an unhappy destination, in perdition, even in hell.” Majjhima Nikaya 13, 41:8, 10. See also, Majjhima Nikaya 46:15. You can access these sources at www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka
Question 11: I sponsor two little girls in Cartagena, Columbia. I have noticed that Buddhists do not support the welfare of children of different faiths (correct me if I'm wrong) and I find this troubling. Is this because other faiths self-grasp the ego which in turn usually leads people wanting fame and power and ultimately lead them to a lower rebirth? I understand karma and that some people are not going to get it in this life, but I still find it troubling for children not to be helped and at least exposed to Buddhism. It seems to me that if more Buddhist organizations would expose the philosophy of Buddhism, karma, emptiness etc, maybe more people would get it and accept the faith of karma and the teachings on emptiness. From Steven Heilker
Answer: There are many individual Buddhists who are genuinely practicing values of compassion, loving-kindness and selflessness and who pursue opportunities to help children, and adults, in many different contexts. We are not aware of any avoidance of charity to non-Buddhists. However, many foreign-born Buddhists have observed abuses (including religious conversion by pressure), dishonesty and corruption in charities and missionary work overseas, and may distrust such charities, and not wish to support or emulate them. Many Buddhist temples provide disaster relief, provide assistance to orphanages and schools, and engage in other charity work. Our sister temple in Sri Lanka, as well as many other Buddhist temples, shelters and supports orphans, and sheltered and supported tsunami refugees regardless of their faith.
The most visible and widespread form of Buddhist charity is offerings to monks, as there is a strong culture in Theravada Buddhism of generosity to monks. This is due to the teaching that the merit received is proportional to the spiritual quality of the recipient, i.e., the least merit is obtained from a gift to an animal, more is obtained from a gift to an immoral person, yet more is obtained from a gift to a virtuous person, even more is obtained from a gift to a saintly person, and the most merit is obtained from a gift to a Buddha. Majjhima Nikaya 142:5-6. The Buddha said “an offering made to the Sangha (monks or nuns) is incalculable, immeasurable.” Majjhima Nikaya 142:8. The assumption is that the gifts enable monks and nuns to survive and teach the Dharma to all, including children.
Another reason why Buddhist Theravada organizations do not use the same methods as other religions of propagating their faith is that monks have a tradition of going only where invited (with the exception of going from house to house for almsfood). Therefore laypersons are to arrange venues and opportunities for monks and nuns to teach Dharma.
Question 12: Since all consciousness have their own reality, and the I (ego) is fictional (we make it up) how can anyone be totally right or totally wrong? If this is the case, how can anyone be sure that their perception of a certain religion is correct. This seems to go against Ultimate Truth. If one understands Ultimate Truth how can anyone's reality ultimately be correct? From Steven Heilker
Answer: Every person’s perception is deluded until he has reached Enlightenment, realized Ultimate Truth. An unenlightened person receives sensory input, and thoughts, feelings and knowledge arise based on such input, and that is his “reality.” Temporary flashes of insight into Truth may occur to a person, but imagination, ideas, illusions, logical conclusions and visions may also occur, and a person may not be able to distinguish insights into Truth from these other experiences. Perception and views are thus faulty to some degree until realization of Ultimate Truth occurs. It has been said that, until that time, a person’s perception of Truth is limited by what he is taught and what he has experienced and thus may appear to conflict with other persons’ perceptions, just as several blind men conflict in their perception of an elephant, where one man touches the leg and says an elephant is like a tree, another touches the ear and says an elephant is like a fan, and other touches the tail and says an elephant is like a rope. If we steadily develop our virtues and purity of mind, and practice mindfulness and meditation, we see our progress and gain faith that our understanding of how to practice religious teachings is correct. As our mind becomes purified by this practice, then we gain deeper insights and understanding as to the teachings of Truth which are referenced in religious scripture.
Question 13: In Vedanta, the Atma is the Ultimate Reality, which is never born and is the self of all beings. Is this the same Reality which Buddha became aware of termed “Buddha Nature”? from Michael Doyle
Answer: “Buddha Nature,” the English term for Buddhata (Buddha Principle), Buddhadhatu (Buddha Element), or Tathagatha garbha (Buddha source, matrix or womb), is a term used in Mahayana Buddhism to indicate the inherent Buddhahood of every sentient being, which is not to be achieved but instead to be uncovered, like the moon covered by clouds of impurities. These Buddhists derived their beliefs from Mahayana versions of the Mahaparinirvana Sutra which incorporated the term Buddha Nature (meaning the changeless true self of the Buddha), and the Tathagatha-garbha Sutra, Lankavatara Sutra, Srimala Sutra and Angulimaliya Sutra, which are Mahayana sutras. Vasubandhu, an Indian Buddhist teacher who lived around the fifth century C.E. and converted from Hinayana (Theravada) to Mahayana Buddhism, wrote a Treatise on the Buddha Nature, in which he equated the term Buddha Nature with emptiness (shunyata) and Nirvana. The Anunatvapurnatva nirdesa text states that the Tathagatha garbha is identified with Dharmakaya, which is defined as the Truth Body, the unmanifested aspect of the Buddha, beyond name and form. Some Chinese and Japanese schools of Buddhism teach that the goal of practice is to see the unity of all things in the world based on the commonality of Buddha Nature.
The definition of Buddha Nature varies among different schools of Buddhism. Some use the term to mean emptiness and a lack of abiding core self, that is, everything is empty of an enduring identity, since everything changes with time. Others use the term to mean a substantial presence with positive attributes such as bliss, purity and permanence, noting that the mind has precious qualities that manifest spontaneously. These various terms and the differences in definitions seem to indicate different approaches and perspectives of describing and understanding one and the same concept which is difficult for the human mind to comprehend.
In Theravada Buddhism, however, the term Buddha Nature is generally not mentioned. The Theravada path emphasizes heavily the need to eliminate the ego - the sense of individual self (I-ness) and ownership (feeling of “mine”). So, any notion that we have an individual self, such as “my” Buddha Nature or “my soul,” is discouraged. The mind is so tricky and stubborn that an attachment to such an idea can feed the ego and be very difficult to eradicate. This problem can easily be seen in persons who tend to deny or overlook their impurities. On the other hand, Buddhist practitioners who have different tendencies and needs may find the concept of “Buddha Nature” very helpful to progress on the path to Enlightenment.
In short, the term Buddha Nature appears at least in many contexts to correspond to the Sanskrit term “Atman” defined as the timeless, changeless True Self, which is perceived in the relative world to be “within” all beings, but which in reality is one omnipresent Paramatma. Buddha Nature does not mean Atta (in Pali) or Atman in the sense of an individual separate self.
Question 14: I am currently planning on starting a Buddhist organization on campus, and would like to ask you a few questions concerning altar supplies and customs in the IBSP’s tradition. Would you be able to provide me with any information on the basic composition of the altar, and possibly where I may be able to purchase such supplies? I am also curious about Buddha rupa (statue) suppliers. I understand that various traditions have a different representation of the Buddha and I find myself fond of the style of figure at your center. Where would I be able to find such a figure, or would I have to commission it from a supplier outside the country? Lastly, I am looking for clothing appropriate to uposatha (taking precepts) observance. I understand that white is the traditional color worn by the laity during this time and would like to know if there is a specific style of traditional clothing that is worn.
Answer: A Theravada Buddhist altar (more commonly referred to as a shrine) includes a Buddha statue, a lamp, incense, flowers and a bowl of fruit. It is good to have a small electric light (like a nightlight) that is on all the time, 24/7/365. The lamp is traditionally a brass oil-burning lamp that can be found in Asian (especially Indian) stores, but two decorative electric lamps (one on each side of the altar) and/or a candle (usually in the center, in front of the Buddha statue) are often used in this country. Flowers to be kept on the altar may be fake, but it is good to put fresh flowers also when available.
To purchase a Buddha statue, you can find beautiful ones in the
For Uposatha observance, men wear any white shirt, untucked, and white pants (or white dhoti/sarong, or kurta) and a piece of white cloth over the left shoulder and usually tied under the right arm at the hip. Women wear white dress, skirt or pants and any white shirt, and the piece of white cloth like the men.