Copyright Ian Ellis-Jones - all rights reserved - for information only

1. GOD IN BUDDHISM
By The Rev. Dr Ian Ellis-Jones
Member Pastor, Unitarian Ministries, Columbia, South Carolina, United States of America
It is often said, especially by Buddhists, that Buddhism is “atheistic” or “non-
theistic”. Often this is said in order to promote Buddhism as a sensible religious
or spiritual alternative to the monotheistic religions such as Christianity, Judaism
and Islam with which many Westerners have become disillusioned.
Before addressing the question of whether Buddhism is “atheistic” or “non-
theistic” one must bear in mind that there are as many, if not more, different
denominations, sects and schools of and in Buddhism as there are in
Christianity. There are enormous differences between Theravāda Buddhism, of
which there are a number of different schools, on the one hand, and Mahāyāna
Buddhism, of which there are almost countless schools and sects, on the other.
In some schools or sects of Buddhism you will find “gods” of various kinds as well
as notions and concepts that, we will see, are very similar to notions and
concepts of God that can be readily found in progressive Christianity including
but not limited to Unitarian Christianity.
We also need to be careful with this word “atheistic”. Atheism simply refers to the
lack or absence of theistic belief. Atheism may be strong or weak, philosophical
or practical, and so forth, but atheism does not require actual denial of the
existence of God or the possibility of there being any such existence. Atheism is
simply the lack or absence of theistic belief. Please note that, for present
purposes, the word "God" is used in its fairly traditional monotheistic sense to

2. 2
refer to some sort of supernatural personal or superpersonal being who is
omnipotent (all-powerful), omniscient (all-knowing), omnipresent (everywhere
present) and omnibenevolent (all-loving, notwithstanding the presence of evil and
suffering in the world of which God does not approve but which God allows,
whether as part of his active or passive will or otherwise), and with whom we can
make contact by means of prayer and meditation. Now that is a fairly
conservative definition or description of God, and progressive Christianity often
sees or describes God in other ways, such as “Love, “the ground of all being” or
even “Being” itself. The latter is not a new development in theology.
True, the historical Buddha, Shakyamuni (Śākyamuni) Buddha, was quite
agnostic as to the existence of God or gods in general. However, in looking at
Buddhism as a whole, or any religion for that matter, we must always remember
the sound advice of Krishnamurti who often said, “The word is not the thing.” The
word “God” is not God, and the question, “Do you believe in God?”, is next to
meaningless unless and until one defines or at least describes what one means
by the word “God”. The fact that a religion, or some school or sect within that
religion, does not use the word “God” does not necessarily mean that there is no
God or equivalent figure or concept in that religion. For starters, it is not at all
hard to find “gods” in Buddhist cosmology even if those gods are, for the most
part, said to be subject to the same laws that bind most, if not all, other sentient
beings.
Buddhism, with its cosmology, is essentially cyclical in nature, with sentient
beings contingent in nature, whereas the cosmology of the traditional
monotheistic religions is essentially linear, that is, there is a definite beginning to
all life and further all life will come to an end at some as yet unknown (or known
only to God) endpoint in the future. True, it is, that one finds no creator God in
Buddhism, at least not in the Judeo-Christo-Islamic sense of “creation”. However,
one can easily find in many of the Mahāyāna schools concepts of the Buddha as
pre-existing, and existing for the sake of all other sentient beings, as well as the
existence of many semi-divine beings who are very similar to Hindu gods.

3. 3
There are many concepts and ideas, and even beings or “Being” itself, in
Buddhism that are similar to broad Christian notions of God or the Divine nature.
First, there is Dharmakāya, which is the Truth Body of the Buddha, and the true
nature of final Buddhahood or the perfected state of our existence. Although not
a Divine Being as such, or even some absolutely existent permanent entity, this
body is said to be “empty”, and I will have more to say about the Buddhist
concept of “emptiness” shortly. The Dharmakāya is Ultimate Truth itself,
transcending space, time and form. Dharmakāya is atemporal and infinite. Being
boundless, it is said to be beyond all conceptual elaboration. Dharmakāya is said
to be even beyond existence and non-existence, unknown and unknowable, if
you like.” In short, Dharmakāya is not at all dissimilar to the “God beyond God” of
Paul Tillich. Thus, in The Heart Sutra we read:
Here, O Sariputra, form is emptiness and the very emptiness is form;
emptiness does not differ from form, form does not differ from
emptiness, whatever is emptiness, that is form; the same is true of
feelings, perceptions, impulses, and consciousness. Here, O Sariputra, all
dharmas are marked with emptiness; they are not produced or stopped,
not defiled or immaculate, not deficient or complete. Therefore, O
Sariputra, in emptiness there is no form nor feeling, nor perception, nor
impulse, nor consciousness
Secondly, one finds in the oldest texts of Buddhism Lord Buddha himself
referring to Brahmanic concepts such as Brahmayana (the so-called path to
Brahman or the Absolute) and “Brahmanhood” (said to be the Noble Eightfold
Path), and speaking of that which is “an unborn, unbecome, unmade world” that
is “incomposite”. Buddha even denied that an Arahant (an enlightened being) “is
not” after death, and it cannot be said that Buddha ever affirmed that “there is no
Self”. The further one goes back, the more difficult it becomes to distinguish early
Buddhism from Brahmanism. This should not come as a surprise, as the earliest
Christians were Jews and retained much of their Jewish identity and beliefs.

4. 4
Thirdly, some assert, with considerable justification, that the closest thing to
“God” in Buddhism are the previous Buddhas themselves. Theravāda Buddhism,
the oldest (subject to the early “Aryan Buddhism” referred to above) and most
naturalistic form of Buddhism, is sometimes practised with an emphasis on
venerating or even worshipping Arahants and folk gods. Further, in some
streams of Mahāyāna Buddhism the historical Buddha himself, although he never
claimed to be divine, is venerated, and in some places even worshipped, as an
omnipotent divinity who is said to be endowed with various supernatural
attributes and qualities.
Fourthly, some commentators say that the closest thing to God in Buddhism is
karma, from the perspective that Buddhism affirms that there are certain
immutable laws of the universe that involve the evolution of matter through
various natural cycles by means of rebirth.
Fifthly, others, such as Joseph Goldstein, have written that the closest thing to
God in Buddhism is the Dharma (or Dhamma), the Truth, Wisdom and Love
which enfolds the entire universe, the very Ground of Being itself, or, in the words
of the eminent Thich Nhat Hanh, the ground of “Inter-Being”, the latter being a
field of dynamic energy within which we live and move and have our being (cf
Acts 17:28).
Sixthly, we have the familiar so-called “Buddhist Trinity” in either or both of the
following:
• the Buddha, the Dharma, and the Sanga – the “Triple Gem” (or the “Three
Jewels”), being the three things that every Buddhist takes “refuge” in, that
is, holds on to, commits to spiritual discipline and practice, and constantly
“returns” to and “comes home” to,
• the Trikaya theory, comprising Dharmakāya (already referred to above,
being the true nature of final Buddhahood), Samhogakāya (an
intermediate state consisting of the Buddha’s embodiment in the form of a

5. 5
subtle energy), and Nirmanakāya (the full embodiment of the Buddha in
the form of a physical, tangible body, that is, a Buddha body of perfect
emanation, of which Shakyamuni Buddha is said to be a supreme
example).
Seventhly, there is in various Mahāyāna schools including but not limited to Zen
and Shinnyo-en the concept of “buddha nature”, a concept very similar to St
Paul’s concepts of “Christ in you, the hope of glory” (Col 1:27) and “one God
above all things, through all things, and in all things” (Eph 4:6). Our “buddha
nature” is that “divine spark” within each of us which, when nurtured and
cultivated, enables us to manifest as gods (cf Ps 82:6, Jn 10:34).
Finally (but not really finally, as I could go further and refer to other “God”
concepts and thought forms), we have the notion of shunyata (Śūnyatā).
Shunyata is a reference to the “emptiness” of true existence. It is not, as so many
ignorant conservative Christian apologists continue to assert, a state of
annihilation - they say the same thing about Nirvana (Nibbāna) – but a
supramundane state which is, quoting from the Vaipulya Sutra, “neither existing
nor extinct, neither permanent nor annihilated, neither identical nor differentiated,
neither coming nor going”. It is Ultimate Reality, “not defiled, not pure, not
increasing and not decreasing”. It is the voidness of all things and manifests itself
as infinite compassion and loving kindness (cf the Christian concept of God as
Love, cf 1 Jn 4:8).
We have a wonderful example, or personification, of this supramundane state of
shunyata in the figure of Quan Yin, the Mother of Mercy, which is one of the most
universally beloved of deities in the Buddhist tradition. Also known as Kwan Yin,
Kuan Yin, Quan'Am (Vietnam), Kannon (Japan), and Kanin (Bali), she is the
embodiment of compassionate loving kindness. As the Bodhisattva of
Compassion, she hears the cries of all beings. Quan Yin enjoys a strong
resonance with the Christian Mary, the Mother of Jesus, and the Tibetan
goddess Tara. The word "quan" means to hear. Normally, when we hear

6. 6
anything it gets mixed up with our ongoing mental and emotional activities and
attachments. However, when Quan Yin hears the cries and sufferings of the
world she does so out of a state of emptiness (shunyata). Only when there is this
state of emptiness in us can there be compassionate loving kindness. The
essence of emptiness is compassion, and this is the Buddhist view of the Sacred,
the Holy, or, if you like, the Divine ("God").
The historical Buddha is said to have exclaimed, “he who sees me sees the
Dhamma.” Likewise, Jesus is quoted as having said, “He who has seen me has
seen the Father” (Jn 14:9) and “He who sees me sees the One who sent me” (Jn
12:45). Both Buddha and Jesus taught a “Way” to be followed. Let me finish with
two quotations. The first quotation is from the Third Karmapa, a Tibetan master
of the 14th century. He is writing about the “buddha nature” and the relationship
between what has been variously referred to as both Dharmakāya and shunyata,
on the one hand, and the earthly, physical, manifest world on the other:
The cause is beginningless mind as such.
Though it is neither confined nor biased,
Due to the unimpeded play of that very [mind],
Empty in essence, lucid in nature,
And unimpeded in manifestation, it appears as everything.
The second quotation comes from the great 20 th century Protestant theologian
Professor Paul Tillich, who wrote:
It is as atheistic to affirm the existence of God as it is to deny it. God does
not exist as a being. God is the ground and power of being, and as such is
the answer to the question of being generally. Everything that is has both
its origin and its power to be in God.