Buddha's Teachings on God and Soul

Hello class, let us talk about Buddha's teachings on God and soul. So, as was mentioned in our introductory lecture, Buddhism is an Indian religion that was heavily influenced by Vedic Hindu ideology. However, because Siddhartha Gautama, or Buddha, came to criticize the Vedic worldview, his way of thinking ultimately served as a foundation for the creation of a new religion that is considered by many to be distinct from Hinduism. And one of Buddha's major disagreements with Hindu theologians is in regard to the existence of Brahman, or God, and Atman, or soul. That is, Buddha essentially argued that Brahman and Atman are illusory concepts that do not exist. So, why did Buddha make such an argument? What evidence is his argument based on? Well, these issues will be addressed in this presentation. Now, to aid us in better understanding Buddha's view on God and soul, let us recall some major tenets of Hindu theology proposed by Lord Krishna in the Bhagavad Gita. So, remember, according to Krishna, there exist two, I guess, what you would call like ultimate objects in the world. Brahman, which is an all-powerful, all-knowing creator God, and Atman, or the immortal soul, which, as you may remember, kind of derives from Brahman. So, Brahman is the source of all Atman. And further recall that Krishna argues that Brahman and Atman are eternal and indestructible. That is, Brahman and Atman are unborn, indestructible, and constant, or unchanging. So, nothing created these eternal entities, and nothing can destroy these entities. They have always existed and always will exist. Now, Buddha considers these eternal concepts to be absurd, because according to Buddha, it is impossible for something to be unborn and indestructible. Rather, everything in the world is subject to birth and death. So, for example, have you ever seen an eternal indestructible tree? Do there exist rocks that have never been created, that are unborn and have always been here? Well, no. I mean, when we look into the world, everything is subject to birth and death. It is impossible for anything to be unborn and indestructible in this world. So, therefore, for Buddha, it is impossible for eternal entities like Brahman and Atman to exist. Now, Buddha's argument against Brahman and Atman is based upon the Buddhist concept called dependent origin. And dependent origin is the argument that everything in the world depends upon another thing for its existence. So, for example, a tree does not create or sustain itself. Rather, it depends on many other factors, like rain, sunlight, and nutrients. But according to the Upanishads and Bhagavad Gita, Brahman and Atman do not depend upon anything else for their existence. They are uncreated, unborn, and self-sustaining, which, according to the law of dependent origin, is impossible. So, Buddha ultimately believed that there exists no Brahman, which is called his doctrine of Anicca, and there exists no Atman, which is called his doctrine of Anatman. So, according to the doctrine of no Brahman, there exists no permanent great spirit or creator gods. But rather, the world is merely an infinite cycle of cause and effect with no beginning and no end. And the doctrine of Anatman is the doctrine of no soul, that there exists no permanent spirit or Atman within living beings. So, human beings, for example, are merely aggregates, or a collection of parts, like matter, memories, thoughts, and feelings, that are constantly in a state of flux and change. So, essentially, there is nothing constant about human beings. We have no ego. Every moment we acquire a new self or identity, as we experience subtle changes in our bodies and in our mental state. So, for example, are you the same person now that you were when you were 12? And will you still be the same person 12 years from now? Chances are not. That is, we experience subtle changes every day, which transform us into different people over time. So, again, for Buddha, there is nothing permanent about us. We're in a constant state of flux and change. So, clearly, Buddhism is what we call a non-theistic religion, doubting the existence of intelligent, self-aware creator God, and even doubting the existence of a soul. So, one question for us to consider is the following. Because Buddha argues against the existence of God and the soul, and seemingly anything ultimate or absolute, should it be considered a religion? Or, is Buddhism merely a life philosophy? So, again, just a question for us to consider this week.