I briefly wanted to share the preliminary introduction of my forthcoming book with the title “Issaradīpani” (Eng.: “Explanatory Work about God”) that will critique the Abrahamic religions and their notions of an eternal, tri-omni (all-loving, all-knowing, all-powerful) creator God from a Buddhist and general philosophical perspective. I initially planned to merely write a paper on the topic but decided that it may be worth it to delve a bit deeper into it. Will take a while to complete … I would be happy to receive constructive feedback or pointers about literature that you think may be relevant. Thank you! Later, I will add the reference list as well …
Table of Contents
Introduction
Buddhist monks (bhikkhū) in the order of the Theravāda [1] tradition dress markedly different from what is common for laity, following the monastic rules laid down by the Buddha. When they navigate public spaces in Western countries – with their long, draping robes – they inevitably attract attention that may vary greatly in character. A few people understand what it is all about, whereas a substantial number commits relatively minor category mistakes in that they perceive us to be Shaolin monks who can fight real good (we don’t train in fighting at all, though) or as belonging to the Hare Krishna order. Fewer people actually can’t at all make out what we are or what we represent, perhaps thinking that we are some kind of oddball vagabonds wearing women’s clothes.[2] Sad but true, a fraction of people is decidedly ill-disposed, even belligerent. However that may be, important for the purposes of this publication, among those who recognize that our garments signal a religious or spiritual affiliation, there is a number of conservatives or fundamentalists[3] belonging to one of the so-called Abrahamic religions (so far only Christians and Muslims)[4] that like to take a meeting as an opportunity to proselytize – in the majority of instances, cordially.
This particular class of believers, with their characteristic scriptural literalism, typically has faith in an eternal, supreme creator God as articulated in classical theism,[5] at least in part. They often ask me questions along these lines: “Do you know (such a perfect) God, and do you want a living relationship with him?”; “Would you like to go to heaven?” According to their own testimony, their goal with these inquiries is to have me participate in the eternal paradise that their faith professes, promised to those that turn to their version of belief, code of ethics, etc., and have me avoid everlasting damnation at the same time, a fate awaiting those choosing a path that runs counter to what is laid out in their creed.[6] Such proselytizing attempts are the main impetus for writing this book, alongside a personal interest in the grand-scale mysteries of the universe, for example, whether or not a supreme deity is the mainspring of the cosmos.
Objectives
A major objective of this writing is, plain and simple, to streamline potential future interactions with the mentioned type of theist devotees, facilitating a more effective encounter by being able to refer to the material presented here, without the need to reiterate the relevant points for each and every unique correspondence. I am, furthermore, keen on deepening my own understanding of the Buddhist and philosophical arguments in disfavor of theistic beliefs while, at the same time, being also intrigued by the statements and responses offered by the opposition. In any case, having zoomed in on (a) the primary and secondary aims the book reaches for, I would now like to provide also (b) some background to (as well as various definitions of) words and concepts that are relevant for the discussions at hand, and, lastly, give (c) a short overview of the structure of this book before laying out the details in the main chapters.
Definitions
Buddhism
The modern-day appellation “Buddhism” is a neologism, a newly coined word, having as such first come into use around 300 years ago (Reynolds & Hallisey, 1987/2005: 1087). The term is comprised of the Pāli/Sanskrit word “Buddha,” meaning “Enlightened One,” and the English suffix “-ism,” which means “doctrine,” “theory,” or “religion” (“-ism,” n.d.). “Buddhism” is used as an umbrella term that conceptually bonds primary and secondary religio-philosophical oral teachings or texts as well as the thought-worlds, practices, institutions, and values of the individuals, communities, and societies at large that have been and continue to be influenced (cf. Reynolds & Hallisey: 1087) by the moderately ascetic movement established by the Buddha during his 45 years of ministry. The words that the Buddha himself commonly used in parts of the early-Buddhist scriptures to refer to his religious system were “teaching and training” or “doctrine and discipline” (dhamma-vinaya; DN I: 165 [DN 8] – cf. Walshe, 1995: 157) as well as “dispensation” (sāsana), comprising the most fundamental parts of what we nowadays call “Buddhism.” His teaching activity lasted from about 531 BCE until his demise in 486 BCE,[7] falling within the Axial Age, which itself is part of the Iron Age[8] – in an area covering much of present-day middle and northern India of the Indo-Gangetic Plains. The message of Buddhism made waves as far as the ancient countries of Sunāparanta[9] (Skt.: Śroṇāparānta) and Avanti[10] (Lamotte, 1958/1988: 297). The primary iterations of Buddhism developed philosophically in highly divergent ways over the course of time and have geographically spread over a vast area (first in the Indo-Gangetic Plains but nowadays, nearly covering all of Asia) throughout the centuries and millennia. This developmental process was largely catalyzed by existing trade relations, missions, and pilgrimage, made possible via the existing interregional infrastructure at that time, such as the Silk Road (Assavavirulhakarn, 2010: 65, 68).
In the framework of this critique, I will take recourse to later manifestations of Buddhism as well as to parts of the early-, mainstream-, or common Buddhist traditions, schools, or ordination lineages. Along those lines, the research material that functions as the basis for our critique when considering the Buddhist context is sourced from the three main divisions of Buddhism that were recognizable throughout various historical epochs, even reaching into modernity with a solid, distinct, and living presence:[11]
- Theravāda Buddhism (est. ca. 3rd or 5th c. BCE).
- Mahāyāna Buddhism (est. ca. 1st c. CE).
- Vajrayāna Buddhism (est. ca. 6th c. CE).
(a) Theravāda Buddhism . The Pāli word Theravāda (“Doctrine of the Elders”) is composed of the words therā (“elders”) and vāda (“doctrine,” “school,” “teaching”). Theravāda , by and large, refers to the teachings or doctrines contained in the Pāli canon (i.e., the Tipiṭaka) and its commentaries as well as the particular school identity and culture that centers around them. Both canon and commentaries have been composed and transmitted in the Middle Indo-Aryan Pāli language and earlier organized, codified, and recited by the elder monks (therā) of the first two or three Buddhist councils (cf. Sp I: 39) that were convened in about 486 BCE, 386 BCE, and 250 BCE respectively, hence, Theravāda (cf. Gethin, 2012: 29, 42–3). The Theravāda is part of the Vibhajjavāda (“Doctrine [or ‘School’] of the Distinctionist”; cf. Bareau, 1955/2013: 167–83; cf. Crosby, 2004: 837; cf. Gethin: 35–8, 41; cf. Warder, 1970/2000: 264) and can, alongside the other early-Buddhist schools, furthermore be considered as a part of the Śrāvakayāna (“Vehicle of the Disciples”),[12] reflecting the emphasis that is placed on the attainment of sainthood (Pāli: arahantā – Skt.: arhantāḥ) and the attainment of nirvana (Pāli: nibbāna; Skt.: nirvāṇa) based upon the full comprehension of the Four Noble Truths and the practice of the Noble Eightfold Path in this very existence, primarily as disciples under a Perfectly Self-Enlightened Buddha (Pāli: sammāsambuddha). The term Śrāvakayāna is used especially in contradistinction with that of Mahāyāna (see below), the teachings of which predominantly revolve around the attainment of Perfect Self-Enlightenment as a Buddha. In any case, this distinction is only based upon differences in emphasis and certain parameters when it comes to that latter specific attainment.
The Theravāda is possibly the most conservative of the early-Buddhist schools[13] that have originated in India, being, furthermore, the only one that maintains a fully-fledged communal and textual structure into the present. According to the commentaries that accompany the Pāli canon as well as later Sri Lankan chronicles, Theravāda represents “original Buddhism” (Crosby, 2004: 837), standing for the orthodox recension and interpretation. During the first major split in the history of Buddhism, it parted ways with the Mahāsaṅghikas at about 346 BCE, some four decades after the second Buddhist council (ca. 386 BCE) in Vesālī (present-day Vaishali, Bihar, India; Bareau, 1955/2013: 31–2; cf. Bareau: 55, 205; Sujāto, 2012: 153).[14] Nowadays, the Theravāda prevails in Southeast Asia (Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, and Thailand; 1st or 2nd c. CE;[15] Assavavirulhakarn, 2010: 68; cf. Oberlies, 2006: 208) as well as Sri Lanka (ca. 3rd c. BCE) but also has a weaker presence in Bangladesh, China, India, Nepal, and Vietnam.
(b) Mahāyāna Buddhism . The Mahāyana – mahat (“great”, “eminent”); yāna (“vehicle”, i.e., in the sense of a method of arriving at knowledge) – is characterized by the creation of new canonical material in Sanskrit and revisions of early-Buddhist doctrines, most notably when it comes to the stages and practices of a bodhisattva (Pāli: bodhisatta, i.e., a Buddha-Aspirant) as well as the status of the Buddhist saints and Individually Enlightened Ones (Pāli: paccekabuddhā – Skt.: pratyekabuddhāḥ). The term has originally been one of self-appellation; however, the tradition is also known as the Bodhisattvayāna (“Vehicle of the Buddha-Aspirants”).
The concept of greatness as reflected in the designation Mahāyāna is grounded in the contrast between the elevated status of a Perfectly Self-Enlightened Buddha (establishing a world religion) that the tradition characteristically aims for and that of the Buddhist saints, which is the primary objective of the early-Buddhist schools and the only possible destiny attainable with certainty, according to parts of their scriptures. The Mahāyana first emerged in southern India out of the Mahāsaṅghika tradition between the 1st c. BCE and the 1st or 2nd c. CE (cf. Lamotte, 1984: 90; cf. Schopen, 2004: 492; cf. Warder, 1970/2000: 335) but is now dominant in China (1st c. CE; Zürcher, 1984: 193), Japan (6th c. CE; Heinemann, 1984: 212), Vietnam (6th c. CE; Swearer, 1987/2005: 1138), and Korea (4th c. CE; Buswell, 2005: 1170).[16]
(c) Vajrayāna Buddhism. With further creative endeavors (both textually and doctrinally), the final form of Buddhism to develop in India was the Vajrayāna (Skt., lit.: “Diamond [or ‘Thunderbolt’] Vehicle”) tradition, which is now the major branch of Buddhism in Mongolia (13th c. CE;[17] Atwood, 2005: 1148) and Tibet (7th c. CE; Kvaerne, 1984: 254) and arose, as a subset, itself from the Mahāyāna. It is sometimes called Tantrayāna (“Tantric Vehicle”), Mantrayāna (“Vehicle of the Mantras”), or Guhyamantrayana (“Vehicle of the Secret Mantras”; cf. Davidson, 2004: 875; cf. “Tantra,” 2014). Essential teachings and nomenclature center around the concept of the so-called perfections (Pāli: pāramiyo; Skt.: pāramitāḥ; standardly, either a list of six or ten), which are ethically and spiritually relevant qualities to be developed for attaining the state of Perfectly Self-Enlightened Buddhahood (in fact, any form of authentic Buddhist enlightenment), such as generosity, morality, samadhi, and wisdom. However, the crucial distinction to other forms within the Mahāyāna and the Theravāda as a whole lies in their assertions that distinctive ritual practices and objects such as mantras (Skt.: mantrāṇi),[18] mandalas (Skt.: maṇḍalāḥ),[19] mudras (Skt.: mudrāḥ),[20] esoteric initiations (Skt.: abhiṣekāḥ), certain visualization, and breathing techniques allow one to quickly attain Perfect Self-Enlightenment as a Buddha, even in this very life (Reynolds & Hallisey, 1987/2005: 1088; cf. Davidson: 875; “Tantra,” 2014); thus, it highlights the possibility for practitioners to circumvent the regular development of the perfections within the mandatory time frame.
Conservatism & Fundamentalism
Within the confines of the present text, “conservative” and “fundamentalist” largely refers to religious attitudes and observances that are based upon a view that affirms the literal inerrancy, purity, and historical accuracy of the relevant Abrahamic scriptures, which goes hand in hand with a hardline sequestering from external influences as well as the rejection of and opposition to text-critical studies or the claim that such endeavors confirm the mentioned scriptural infallibility and exactitude (cf. “Conservative Evangelicals,” 1997; cf. “Fundamentalism,” 1997; cf. Harwazinski, 2006: 765–6). Furthermore, as the term itself suggests, fundamentalism implies taking a firm stance upon or a return to the fundamental truths of any given religion (“Fundamentalism,” 1997). Despite the negative connotations it may evoke, fundamentalism can, in the right communal and doctrinal context, be endowed with highly positive markers, for example, when it comes to the categorical adherence to non-violence (ahiṃsā) as advocated in Theravāda Buddhism (or Jainism).
The Encyclopedia of Religion sees fundamentalism as “a subspecies of evangelicalism. … following the principle of ‘literal where possible’; biblical prophecies, especially, are taken to refer to real historical events. This approach yields a rather detailed account of all human history, which is divided into seven dispensations, or eras, of differing relation-ships between God and humanity (such as the Dispensation of Innocence in Eden or the Dispensation of Law, from Moses to Christ)” (Marsden & Svelmoe, 2005: 2887, 2889). However, “to avoid overtones of closed-mindedness, Christians in the Fundamentalist tradition often prefer to be called Conservative Evangelicals” (“Fundamentalism,” 1997).
For conservative and radicalized Islam, the term “Islamism” has been suggested since the concept of fundamentalism has its origin in the Christian faith (Harwazinski: 768), although the coinage “Islamic fundamentalism” has been put on the table as well (“Fundamentalism,” 1997). Arabic equivalents for “fundamentalism” or words that imply association with such are salafiyya (السلفية) and uṣūliyya (الأصولية). Whatever the label we may use, the underlying concept largely remains unaffected. In some cases, militancy is a defining characteristic (Harwazinski: 769).
Classical Theism
The conservative strands of the Abrahamic religions are, at least in part, philosophically nested in classical theism, which can also be further divided into perfect being theology and first-cause theology. Whereas “theism”[21] refers here to a worldview that centers around a creator God that transcends the cosmos with everything in it (Bertocci, 1987/2005: 9102), the qualifier “classical” stands, in our context, for the particular theology of such classical thinkers as Philo of Alexandria, Augustine of Hippo, Al-Kindi, and Thomas Aquinas that argue for a God that is invested with the qualities listed below (cf. Koons, 2023: 26; cf. Leftow, 1998: 98–9; cf. “Theism, classical,” 2006). However, the expression “classical theism” as such cannot be found in any of their works but has commonly been used within the last couple of decades by the exponents and detractors of classical theism alike (Feser, 2023: 9).
- Necessary existence (i.e., inability for nonexistence).
- Primal causal agency (i.e., state of being the first and ultimate creator and sustainer of the entire order of being or cosmos).
- Aseity (i.e., absolute self-sufficiency or independence).
- Simplicity (i.e., lack of composite parts).
- Timelessness (i.e., perpetuity or eternalness).
- Immutability (i.e., inability to change).
- Impassibility (i.e., inability to suffer).
- Omniscience (i.e., absolute knowledge).
- Omnipotence (i.e., absolute power).
- Omnibenevolence (i.e., absolute goodness).
- Omnipresence (i.e., state of being present everywhere).
The first three-mentioned terms in the last block above make up the three so-called “omni” attributes, the reason behind the fact that there is oftentimes a shorthand reference to a tri-omni or triadic God. Whereas some of the qualities in the first two blocks have led to a fair amount of controversy between classical and nonclassical theology, the characteristics in the last mentioned are, for the most part, uncontentious (cf. Koons, 2023: 26). In fact, the majority of “theists agree that God is […] the ‘supreme self’ or person—omniscient, omnipotent, and all good” (Wainwright, 2020), being the “ultimate reality in the order of being and the ultimate explanation of things in the order of discovery” (Feser, 2023: 11).
Classical theism has “dominated Western philosophy and theology for most of their history” and has its origins “in scripture and in Greek philosophy, especially the Neo-Platonic and Aristotelian traditions” (Feser, 2023: 9). Notable proponents throughout antiquity and the Middle Ages include the following. Judaism: Philo of Alexandria (first century BCE) and Moses Maimonides (1138–1204 CE); Christianity: Irenaeus (ca. 130–202 CE), Clement of Alexandria (ca. 150–215 CE), Augustine of Hippo (354–430 CE), Anselm of Canterbury (1033–1109 CE), and Thomas Aquinas (ca. 1225–1274 CE); Islam: Al-Kindi (ca. 801–873 CE), Averroes (1126–1198 CE), and Avicenna (ca. 980–1037 CE) (cf. Feser: 9; cf. “Theism, classical,” 2006). It became Christian orthodoxy at a time when the Roman Empire was on the decline (fifth century CE) (Leftow, 1998: 98). “In contemporary philosophy of religion, its most prominent advocates are Thomists [i.e., the school of thought that is centered around the teachings of Thomas Aquinas], both Catholic and Protestant” (Feser: 9). Eastern Orthodoxy, non-Thomist scholasticism, and some factions within current philosophy argue for or on the basis of classical theism as well (Feser: 9).
Structure & Limitations
Both early primary and later secondary Buddhist scriptures are witness to numerous philosophical encounters with certain theistic creeds (in vogue at that time and during various ages throughout history) that held, alongside other things, to a notion of God similar to the one espoused by classical theism; Western philosophy has dealt with this issue perhaps even more extensively than Buddhism. Mainly from such Buddhist and philosophical vantage points, the present book outlines, explores, and, finally, critiques such conservative and classical theistic views and claims, arguing at least partially against the logicality of the God idea as professed by classical theism as a whole and the fundamentalist divisions of Abrahamic theology in particular.
Briefly outlined, the main issues that, as far as I am able to ascertain, call into question the veracity of the mentioned classical attributes of God (or its existence altogether) as well as its fundamentalist scaffoldings are:
- Universal impermanence and interdependence.
- The existence of evil or suffering in the world.
- The moral failures of the scriptural God (e.g., omnicide).
- Divine hiddenness (i.e., revelation only to a minority).
- The inherent nature of living organisms.
The book concludes, in the last analysis, that the God of scripture (under the conservative or fundamentalist lens) and the theology of classical theism is either non-existent or lacks the central qualities he’s commonly attributed with – either one of them, two or more in combination, or all of them collectively. Alongside their negative and contradictory aspects that are laid out here, this is taken to discredit the relevant scriptures as the supreme arbiters that they are touted to be by many a conservative believer.[22] However, this treatise will only tap into some of the currents of classical theistic doctrine and conservatism but does not take into account alternative versions (e.g., developmental theism, open theism, or process theism) that modify one or the other of the cardinal attributes mentioned in the last section under the heading “Classical Theism.” I’ll also introduce selected Buddhist and philosophical accounts as the overall more persuasive alternatives, albeit standing on an equal logical footing in some cases.
My intention is certainly not to depreciate the positive aspects of the mentioned factions of the Abrahamic religions – I myself have significantly benefited from a number of their teachings, particularly from those contained in the meditative or so-called mystical traditions.[23] The parallels in some philosophical aspects (for example, morality) and the realms of meditative development are oftentimes striking, having enriched my understanding that is primarily nested within the Theravāda Buddhist tradition; however, discussions of several of those aspects have already been offered elsewhere by others and fall outside the scope of the present book. Translations from the Pāḷi are my own and refer to the latest (2008) digital editions of the Chaṭṭhasaṅgāyana (“Sixth Buddhist Council”), issued by the Ministry of Religious Affairs, Myanmar.
Overview
I would like to start with an outline of the relevant doctrines about the underlying metaphysics and cosmology of the classical Abrahamian theists to establish that God is in fact seen by their orthodoxy as the tri-omni primordial creator, eternal and self-sufficient in his being. As a segue, I attempt to establish that God as depicted therein has the exact or roughly the same conceptions about morality than other religions and the common people, something that is important to deliberate upon before I level the perhaps most serious objection, the problem of evil in the world (of wickedness and suffering), moving on to deal with the related theme of the immature and/or evil nature of God, as revealed in the ancient scriptures. In each case, I will try to ascertain if the apologetics that the adherents of the Abrahamitic religions offer to defend these objections do hold water as justifications. Besides, I am going to introduce the reader to the uniquely Buddhist responses and show how they relate to these issues; they represent, I believe, the more cogent alternative.
References
-
Assavavirulhakarn, P. (2010). The ascendancy of Theravāda Buddhism in Southeast Asia . Silkworm Books.
-
Atwood, C. P. (2005). Buddhism: Buddhism in Mongolia. In L. Jones (Ed.), Encyclopedia of religion (Vol. 2, 2nd ed., pp. 1148–50). Macmillan Reference USA.
-
Bareau, A. (2013). The Buddhist schools of the small vehicle (A. Skilton, Ed.; S. Boin-Webb, Trans.). University of Hawaii Press (original work published 1955).
-
Bechert, H. (Ed.). (1991). The dating of the historical Buddha – Symposien zur Buddhismusforschung IV (Vol. I). Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen.
-
Bechert, H. (Ed.). (1992). The dating of the historical Buddha – Symposien zur Buddhismusforschung IV (Vol. II). Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen.
-
Bechert, H. (Ed.). (1997). The dating of the historical Buddha – Symposien zur Buddhismusforschung IV (Vol. III). Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen.
-
Bertocci, P. A. (2005). Theism. In L. Jones (Ed.), Encyclopedia of religion (Vol. 13, 2nd ed., pp. 9102–8). Macmillan Reference USA (original article published 1987).
-
Buswell, R. E. (2005). Buddhism: Buddhism in Korea. In L. Jones (Ed.), Encyclopedia of religion (Vol. 2, 2nd ed., pp. 1169–74). Macmillan Reference USA.
-
Conservative Evangelicals (1997). In J. Bowker (Ed.), The Oxford dictionary of world religions. Oxford University Press.
-
Crosby, K. (2004). Theravāda. In R. E. Buswell (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Buddhism (Vol. 1, pp. 836-41). Macmillan Reference USA.
-
Davidson, R. M. (2004). Vajrayāna. In R. E. Buswell (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Buddhism (Vol. 1, pp. 875–7). Macmillan Reference USA.
-
Dīghanikāyapāli (Vol. I of III; PDF file) (2008). Ministry of Religious Affairs (Myanmar).
-
Feser, E. (2023). What is classical theism? In J. Fuqua & R. C. Koons (Eds.), Classical Theism: New essays on the metaphysics of God (pp. 9–25). Routledge.
-
Fundamentalism (1997). In J. Bowker (Ed.), The Oxford dictionary of world religions. Oxford University Press.
-
Gethin, R. M. L. (2012). Was Buddhaghosa a Theravādin? Buddhist Identity in the Pali Commentaries and Chronicles. In P. Skilling, J. A. Carbine, C. Cicuzza, & S. Pakdeekham (Eds.), How Theravāda is Theravāda? Exploring Buddhist Identities (pp. 1–63). Silkworm Books.
-
Hartmann, J.-U. (2005). Buddhism: Buddhism in Central Asia. In L. Jones (Ed.), Encyclopedia of religion (Vol. 2, 2nd ed., pp. 1144–8). Macmillan Reference USA.
-
Harwazinski, A. M. (2006). Fundamentalism. In K. von Stuckrad (Ed.), The Brill dictionary of religion (Vols. I–IV). E. J. Brill.
-
Heinemann, R. K. (1984). This world and the other power: Contrasting paths to deliverance in Japan. In H. Bechert and R. Gombrich (Eds.), The world of Buddhism (pp. 212–30). Thames & Hudson.
-
-ism (n.d.). In Merriam-Webster.com dictionary. Retrieved February 24, 2024. -ism Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster.
-
Koons, R. C. (2023). Does the God of Classical Theism exist? In J. Fuqua & R. C. Koons (Eds.), Classical Theism: New essays on the metaphysics of God (pp. 26–52). Routledge.
-
Kvaerne, P. (1984). Tibet: the rise and Fall of a monastic tradition. In H. Bechert and R. Gombrich (Eds.), The world of Buddhism (pp. 253–70). Thames & Hudson.
-
Lamotte, E. (1988). History of Indian Buddhism (S. Boin-Webb, Trans.). Peeters Press (original work published 1958).
-
Leftow, B. (1998). God, concepts of. In E. Craig (Ed.), Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy (pp. 93–102).
-
Marsden, G. M. & Svelmoe, W. L. (2005). Evangelical and fundamental Christianity. In L. Jones (Ed.), Encyclopedia of religion (Vol. 5, 2nd ed., pp. 2887–94). Macmillan Reference USA.
-
Oberlies, T. (2006). Buddhism. In K. von Stuckrad (Ed.), The Brill dictionary of religion (Vols. I–IV). E. J. Brill.
-
Reynolds, F. E. & Hallisey, C. (2005). Buddhism: An overview. In L. Jones (Ed.), Encyclopedia of religion (Vol. 2, 2nd ed., pp. 1087–1101). Macmillan Reference USA (original article published 1987).
-
Samantapāsādikā (Vol. I of IV; PDF file) (2008). Ministry of Religious Affairs (Myanmar).
-
Schopen. G. (2004). Mahāyāna. In R. E. Buswell (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Buddhism (Vol. 1, pp. 492–9). Macmillan Reference USA.
-
Sujāto (2012). Sects and sectarianism – The origins of Buddhist schools (Rev. 1st ed.). Santipada.
-
Swearer, D. K. (2005). Buddhism: Buddhism in Southeast Asia. In L. Jones (Ed.), Encyclopedia of religion (Vol. 2, 2nd ed., pp. 1131–44).
-
Ṭhānuttamo (2022). Nakkhattapadāni (stars/asterisms) and basic Buddhist calendrics: A simplified guide (2nd ed.). Sāsanārakkha Buddhist Sanctuary.
-
Theism, classical (2006). In D. J. Hill & R. D. Rauser, Christian Philosophy A–Z. Edinburgh University Press.
-
Wainwright, W. J. (2020). Concepts of God. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stan ford encyclopedia of philosophy.
-
Walshe, M. (Trans.) (1995). The long discourses of the Buddha: A translation of the Dīgha Nikāya. Wisdom Publications.
-
Warder, A. K. (2000). Indian Buddhism (Rev. 3rd ed.). Motilal Banarsidass (original work published 1970).
-
Zürcher, E. (1984). ‘Beyond the Jade Gate’: Buddhism in China, Vietnam, and Korea. In H. Bechert and R. Gombrich (Eds.), The world of Buddhism (pp. 193–211). Thames & Hudson.
Footnotes
For details, see under “Definitions” below. ↩︎
I have been called “Satanist,” “asylum inmate,” “Quasimodo,” and “Tarzan.” ↩︎
For more on conservatism and fundamentalism as conceptualized in this book, refer to the section “Definitions” below. ↩︎
The Abrahamic religions are comprised of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, which all refer, in the last analysis, to the God of Abraham, the common Hebrew patriarch of these faiths. ↩︎
For details, see under “Classical Theism” in the section “Definitions” below. ↩︎
Some people try to differentiate here and may object: “My relationship with God is not a belief or a religion but a living participation and communication!” For the sake of simplicity, I would like to include such forms of self-identity and religious experience under conservative and fundamentalist religiosity, faith, spirituality, etc. I hope that you will indulge me for the time of this discussion. ↩︎
This dating of the Buddha’s ministry is based upon the so-called corrected long or southern chronology (as opposed to the standard long/southern and short/ northern chronologies; the former posits a date of 624/3 – 544/3 BCE for the lifetime of the Buddha, and the latter maintains that it falls between ca. 460 – 380 BCE). Even though modern scholarship has to date not been able to pinpoint an exact date, it suggests (for the most part) that Siddhattha Gotama’s birth occurred at some point in time between 490 and 450 BCE, with his demise being estimated to fall within the interval covered between 410 and 370 BCE (cf. Bechert, 1991; 1992; 1997). Be that as it may, “most of it seems to be predicated upon plain unfamiliarity with the symposium fathered by Narain (2003), which was preferring a date of about 480 BCE” (Ṭhānuttamo, 2022: 26). ↩︎
“Axial Age” refers to a period in parts of the ancient world (such as Persia, India, China, and the Greco-Roman world) that was marked by a shift or turn, as if on an axis, away from local concerns toward transcendence – the Buddha was a key figure of this era. ↩︎
The region surrounding (radius ca. 70 km) present-day Surendranagar, India. ↩︎
The region surrounding (radius ca. 100 km) present-day Pithampur, India. ↩︎
Despite a number of differences that prevail among themselves in terms of fundamental Buddhist doctrine, they just about uniformly reject the idea of a creator God as conceived of in the Abrahamic religions. ↩︎
About another label that is not seldom used to refer to the Śrāvakayāna : “Hīnayāna (literally, “inferior way”) is a polemical term, which self-described Mahāyāna (literally, ‘great way’) Buddhist literature uses to denigrate its opponents. As such, Hīnayāna is a designation that has no clearly identifiable external referent” (Crosby, 2004: 204). ↩︎
By the middle of the 1st c. BCE, the early Buddhist schools had reached a number of between 18 or 19 but comprised of a total of 25 or 26 in the 4th c. CE (Bareau: 40; Warder, 1970/2000: 277). “[…] the claim of the ‘Mahāvihāravāsins’ [i.e., Theravādins] in Ceylon [i.e., Sri Lanka] to be the original Sthaviravāda of the First Schism, as opposed to the Vātsīputrīyas, Sarvāstivādins and others [of the mainstream Buddhist schools] can be upheld” (Warder: 283). ↩︎
From the time of the third Buddhist council (circa 250 BCE), alongside the Sarvāstivāda, the Vibhajjavāda (a term that came to encompass several of the early Buddhist schools) had made inroads into numerous regions of what is nowadays called “Central Asia” (i.e., present-day Afghanistan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan). Buddhist presence altogether ceased during the 15th c. CE (cf. Hartmann, 2005: 1144; cf. Warder, 1970/2000: 325). ↩︎
Even though there is evidence for the presence of Theravāda Buddhism in those regions dating from these early periods, the present-day dominance began to solidify between the 11th and 13th cc. CE (Swearer, 1987/2005: 1135). ↩︎
The footing that Mahāyāna Buddhism had in Malaysia and Indonesia from about the 7th or 8th c. CE (Assavavirulhakarn, 2010: 107) is now lost. ↩︎
From the 4th c. CE, Chinese Mahāyāna Buddhism began to establish a presence. ↩︎
These are sacred chants. ↩︎
These are geometric configurations of symbols. ↩︎
These are symbolic or ritual gesture or poses, mostly performed with the hands. ↩︎
The term is formed by means of the Greek word theos (“god”) and the English suffix “-ism” (“doctrine,” “theory,” or “religion”; “-ism,” n.d.). ↩︎
To a meaningful extent, these objections also bear on other theistic religions that hold similar views about the nature of God (for example, Hinduism). ↩︎
Notable figures that I would like to appreciate are, among the Desert Fathers, Anthony of Egypt and Evagrius the Solitary; and, as part of German medieval mysticism, Meister Eckhart and Hildegard von Bingen. ↩︎
