Hinduism is said to have thousands of gods. I recall a discussion some time ago with an Indian friend, who suddenly claimed that Buddhism was much older than Hinduism. I got disturbed, because I remembered very well having learnt that Buddhism appeared 2,500 years ago as a reaction to the much older Hinduism and its caste system. I took me some time to find out what my friend meant. „Hinduism" is actually a concept the British introduced in the 18^th century when they colonised India. Indians just knew „religion," which might include worshipping Krishna, Shiva, or Vishnu, or perhaps Jesus, Mohammed, or other prophets. None is better than the others. The interesting thing is that all these gods are considered manifestations of "The One" or "The Wholeness," helpers to approach the Unknown, the Inconceivable. So Hinduism is in my eyes true monotheism!

It might come as surprise to many Westerners that Islam, which builds on Judaism and Christianity, has what might be called a „rational concept" of God. Allah is not a personalized god and can according to the Koran neither be fully understood nor perceived. His or its nature is not accessible to human beings and is beyond our conceptual world. Funnily enough, this acknowledging of a transcendent god is the same conclusion Buddhists as well as the mystics in the other monotheistic traditions (such as Meister Eckhart among the Christians and Spinoza among the Jews) arrived at.

Humanism focuses on human beings and their interactions. Tolerance, mutual esteem and respect for the individual are key messages. Some humanists are gathered in the Unitarian Church, a religious movement spun off from Christianity when it was unthinkable to be an atheist and not belong to a religious group. It roots go back to 17^th-century's Protestantism and the Enlightenment. Unfortunately, Unitarianism is not so widespread in Europe as in the United States, where several of the nation's founders were Unitarians. I feel a deep respect and affiliation with the Unitarians, who deny Christian dogmas such as the Trinity and the divinity of Jesus. This fact, that Unitarians reject the core beliefs of Christianity, makes them more like „pseudo-Buddhists in Christian robes" or „closet atheists" because they have kept some of the Christian Church's external framework and symbolism. Traditions are reassuring and the Unitarian Church might not be a bad solution for logically reflective people with a Christian background and a spiritual need.

For me, Buddhism is the religion best suited to the inquiring, rational thinking modern mind. A Buddhist is not required to mix spirituality with myths and fairy tales and can avoid stories with people walking on water, flying through the air and turning water into wine. Buddhism has its superstitious myths and legends too, but they play no important role; they are more meant as an aid to understanding something that cannot be described rationally, in a way similar to how music or poetry does it. An old Veda legend says:

Once upon a time, mankind's nature was divine. Because the human beings did not behave well, the gods decided to take away the divinity. They discussed where to hide it. „We must find a place they will never look." "What about the top of the highest mountain?" said one. „No, they go everywhere and will eventually search also there." "What about the deepest hole?" another god suggested. „No, man is so curious, he will look all over." "Now I know," said one. „We will hide the divine on the bottom of the deepest ocean." "No, even there he will go searching some day." The gods were really uncertain, until one of them suddenly said: „I know of a place where he will definitely not search: within his own heart." And this is where the Divine is still hidden this day today.

Buddhism has-as opposed to Christianity-no conflicts with the modern scientific view of the world. Because it is tolerant and free of dogmatic thinking everything can be questioned-even Buddha's own teachings-and one must only accept what one understands. Buddhism is very analytical and reminiscent in many ways of modern psychology. Liberation is achieved through insight and understanding, not through submission or blind faith. The most important insight in Buddhism is that everything is perishable, nothing is permanent, not even Buddhism, not even God.

Many people do not consider Buddhism a religion and call it atheistic because it apparently does not have a concept of god. This is not quite correct; it neither proscribes a particular god concept nor denies the existence of a god. It is left open to the individual to believe what he or she finds appropriate. In his teachings, Buddha avoided affirmative statements about god; if he was obliged, he preferred expression such as „the Unconditioned" or „The Ultimate Truth" He meant that the risk of saying something wrong was too high. To make assertions about god is for many Buddhists almost blasphemous! This view is interesting enough and also present in our Judaeo-Christian tradition. We find it in the 2^nd and 3^rd Mosaic laws „Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image or any likeness of any thing" and „Thou shalt not take the name of the lord thy god in vain."

The famous astronomer Carl Sagan, an avowed atheist, liked to challenge religious leaders he met by asking them how they would act if it was proven that the core of their religion turned out wrong. This was, of course, only a provocative and hypothetical question, but the answers were very interesting. Most of the leaders said with more or less resentment that such a thing was completely impossible. According to Sagan, only one of them gave a sensible answer: The Dalai Lama. After having discussed for a while which scientific discovery would shake Buddhism the most, they agreed that it would probably be that reincarnation does not exist.(In countless conversations with Buddhist monks I have tried to understand what reincarnation is, and I slowly reach the conclusion that it does not exist, at least not in the form in which the term is generally understood. However, this is my problem and a different story altogether).

The Dalai Lama thought for a while and then he said with a subtle smile: „Well, then we have to change Buddhism." He added, however, that he considered such proof „very hard to deliver."

Buddhism has my deepest respect not only because of its humble attitude towards life and emphasis on compassion, insight and tolerance. It appeals to me also because it is founded on the same principles as the scientific method: experimenting and observing are the basis of all scientific endeavour. Science is noble in its purest form; it does not want to promote a particular position or opinion; it is only interested in the truth, even if it is unpleasant or disappointing. Scientific knowledge is neither static nor absolute as many people would like it to be, but mutates and adapts constantly: One physical law is replaced when another and better is discovered. Furthermore, physical laws are truly universal: Maxwell's equations are the same for engineers, Hindus and extraterrestrials, and both George W. Bush and Osama bin Laden must obey Newton's 2^nd law.

Is atheism a valuable alternative? Unfortunately the word has a negative meaning, probably because theists have fought those with different opinions by calling them heathens or atheists. To be an atheist simply means that one — contrary to the theist — does not believe in god. Most people who are atheists have accepted atheism out of choice, not out of ignorance or lack of alternatives. Unfortunately atheism offers no package solution and provides no explanation to the Three Fundamental Questions. Since the Big Bang theory first appeared, science has to a great extent answered the First Question: where from? I doubt it will ever be able to answer the Second: what for? But is it necessary to know the purpose of life? Many atheists say such a question is meaningless (Buddha said it is „inappropriate" and „meaningless speculation"), that it has the same relevance as asking what meaning the coffee cup next to my PC has. Life just is and does not pretend to have a meaning.

Does the atheist reject the existence of God? Some atheists are convinced that there is no god, others‑like me‑just find that the evidence is insufficient. And just as one cannot prove God's existence, one cannot disprove it. Therefore every „devoted" atheist must be an agnostic, which funnily enough is the same conclusion, the most spiritual people within Judaism, Christianity and Islam come to — the mystics, those who reach deepest into the understanding of the Divine.

What does it mean to „believe in God"? When discussing this question with Buddhists-or for that sake with atheists-one has to get used to defining precisely what is being discussed. When we use the three-letter word "god," the Judeo-Christian image automatically pops up in the minds of most of us. Other religions have other definitions. Which is the largest common denominator?In the late 11^th century, the Benedictine monk Amselm of Canterbury defined God as „that, where over nothing higher can be imagined." I think this is a definition theists, agnostics and atheists can agree upon. But can this „Nothing Higher" be defined further? Has It created the universe? Where did It come from itself? Does It interfere in human affairs? Has It written a book and sent us prophets? Has It declared some people chosen and others not? Does It order us to eat fish on Fridays and to wear hats on Sundays? One must relate to these questions when asked „Do you believe in God?"

Is it necessary to believe in God in order to live a moral life? Is it not true that religions encourage an altruistic and ethical lifestyle? Theists claim that their set of moral rules is given by their god. If there is no god to tell us to live a decent life, why do it at all? Atheists do not need a supernatural power to live a moral life; living a moral life can be just a natural thing or a choice. The Buddhist abbot and teacher Ajahn Sumedho says: „As a human being one has contrary to the animals the possibility of choosing — as a sacrifice to society — voluntarily to submit to certain rules such as not to take any living being's life, not to steal and not to lie."

Ajahn Sumedho once said in a speech that he would be very satisfied if for a start people would refrain from killing each another (never mind the animals) for the time being.

Po przeczytaniu tego tekstu, czytelnicy często wybierają też: Racjonalista.pl (PL) Religion as a Comfort?

Zobacz komentarze (3)..

Wyślij mailem..

Wersja do druku    PDF    MS Word