Why did “God” create so many religions?
God did not create many religions in the world for them to hate
each other or for him to assign to eternal heaven his favoured
followers and condemn all other religionists to eternal hell for
not following his religion.
For God who is supposed to be almighty, all loving and all
embracing, this would be his biggest sin - not being able to love
everyone for what they are.
Man, and not God, made the many religions in the world. This
happened because man did not understand nature and the many
phenomena on earth. Not being able to relate and answer these
situations, man believed there must be a greater external force
beyond his comprehension that guides the earth. Thus, based on
differences and blind faith, many religions arose to fulfill man's
emotional need to reduce the dissonance.
God was mistakenly thought to have created everything - he had a
hand in everything - the creation of man, the earth, the universe,
sicknesses, earthquakes, rain, wind, etc. Over time, however, with
more discoveries by science, God’s originally vast ‘role in
creation’ is diminishing over time. God merely becomes God of the
Gaps - what man cannot explain with his limited frame of reference
or knowledge is attributed to God. As time passes, this gap becomes
narrower and narrower till one point where God will have no role to
play in man’s creation or destiny. Man created god and the many
different religions, not the other way round.
What is the difference between Rebirth and
Reincarnation?
You have asked an interesting question that addresses the
fundamental Buddhist and Hindu thinking on life after death.
There is a very great difference between reincarnation and
rebirth, although both concepts pertain to a being coming back to
life in an endless cycle of existences called
samsara.
In reincarnation, a person is made up of two real entities
called a body and a soul. In Hinduism, this body is made up of
material parts that break up at death and return to their original
state, to be reused again to make up other material parts. The
atman (soul) on the other hand,
comes from Brahman (in Hinduism, the
Creating Principle).
Once created, the soul is trapped within the material body and
because of maya it performs
kamma (good or bad actions) that
determines what kind of body the soul takes (human, animal or
spirit) after death. Good actions result in good births, and evil
actions result in births in unsatisfactory states. The aim is to
replace maya with
panna where one strives to free the soul
from the body and attain reunion with
Brahman in what is termed
mokkha (final release).
In Buddhism however, while the terms
samsara and
kamma are used to describe the actions
one performs which trap oneself in
samsara, it is ignorance of the real
nature of a person which causes him or her to act. Here ignorance
means mistaking a combination of mind and
matter for a personality or a self. What one
mistakes for a body is not made up of matter, but a combination of
a series of processes - solidity,
fluidity, heat and
motion.
We know from physics that what is called matter is really made
up of atoms which in the final analysis are simply energy in
constant motion. The ignorant mind mistakes this for real. This
explains why a body grows imperceptibly into a child, an adult and
an old man or woman. Everything is in a constant state of change.
What is mistaken for a permanent soul, on the other hand is termed
in Buddhism, mind. Mind is also another constantly
changing process of feeling, perception, mental habits and
consciousness. These too are always in a state of change and,
therefore, have no permanent reality. These two processes
(mind and matter) then act upon
each other, giving an illusion of a person, who in
reality does not exist.
A being, ignorantly thinks it is a real entity and acts,
thinking, "This is I, this is mine." Those actions lead to further
actions in a never-ending stream. At death, the
matter separates from the mind,
but the mind does not stop - it simply moves on, creates another
body, lives another life, dies and goes on.
What propels these processes from one life to the next is
craving, the will to live. What “dies,” because of the principle of
change, is not exactly what is “reborn” although there is a
continuity, just as in reality there is no body of water to call a
“river,” which is made of innumerable drops of water moving
endlessly. We conventionally call it a “river” although in reality
no such thing exists because it is always changing.
There is no permanent soul that goes from body to body.
Buddhists therefore say there is no reincarnation, merely a
continuation of a process of endless cycles of birth, life, death
and rebirth. When this process of becoming is stilled, we call it
Nibbana (the ultimate freedom) where
there is no more craving to live, so there is no more rebirth.
What is the Buddhist attitude towards
homosexuality?
As human beings, we have bodies that crave for all kinds of
pleasures (not only sex) - for food, pleasant smells, sounds, etc.
If we deny ourselves these as being sinful, then we repress natural
desires. Instead of repressing these natural desires, we must seek
to understand how and why they arise and to realise that it is not
in our best interests to pander to physical desires. The victim of
maya (illusion) sees the body as
real and craves to satisfy a longing for
kama which covers all kinds of sensual
pleasure.
As the being matures spiritually, maya
is replaced with vidya
(knowledge) and panna
(wisdom). With spiritual maturity, the body is seen as an
illusion and the being naturally grows out of craving. Here we see
the spiritually advanced being renounces sex upon maturity, just as
a child stops playing with toys as he or she grows up.
There is nothing intrinsically wrong with sex. What is wrong is
attachment and slavery to it, in believing that indulgence in sex
can bring ultimate happiness. This is the problem with the
exploitation of sex by the mass entertainment industry today -
extending the myth that sex can bring lasting happiness.
The third of the Five Precepts we recite in daily Buddhist
practice is: “I undertake the training rule to refrain from sexual
misconduct.” First, we note that there is no compulsion, no fear of
punishment for infringement of any divine law but rather, when we
recognise the danger of attachment to sex, we freely take the steps
(training rule) to grow out of it, i.e. “I undertake.” In short,
homosexuality is no different from other forms of sexual activity.
They all have inherent dangers of increasing
tanha (craving) and must be avoided
through the development of Samma Ditthi
(Right Understanding) and by following the Majjhima
Patipada (Middle Path).
Is a Buddhist homosexual breaking the precept on
"avoiding sexual misconduct?"
What do we mean by "sexual misconduct?" Here we are referring
specifically to behaviour that harms the person who performs the
act, or the other party - not all sexual conduct. Sex is prohibited
to those who choose to be celibate e.g. monks or nuns. These
persons have voluntarily chosen to abstain from sex to better
concentrate on their spiritual progress. In a sexual relationship,
if the two parties are consenting adults, not under-aged, not
“attached” (legally or otherwise) to someone else, there is no harm
done.
In Buddhism, we do not consider any action "sinful" in the sense
that we transgress a divine commandment. We act wrongly because of
avijja (ignorance) and therefore
we commit an akusala kamma
(unskillful/bad action) that delays or interferes with our
spiritual progress. In our ignorance about the real nature of
things (in this case, our body) we act in ways that are detrimental
to us from a spiritual point of view. Understanding and wisdom will
help us refrain from harmful actions, both mental and physical.
In this connection, Buddhism does not recognise that marriage is
a divinely ordained institution that suddenly makes sex
permissible. Sex is a human activity that has nothing to do with
heaven and hell. You will notice that sexual restraint is one of
the Five Precepts observed by practising Buddhists. Killing is far
more serious because you can hurt another being more viciously. Sex
is a craving, just like craving for food, liquor, drugs, wealth,
power, etc. Attachment to any of these constitutes
akusala kamma because, if we really
understand the nature of our bodies and how craving works against
us, we will not indulge in it. Buddhism discourages any of these
forms of craving because they will tie us down more firmly to
samsara. Also, indulgence in sex can lead
to other evils like anger, jealousy, remorse and guilt.
If two members of the same gender fall in love with each
other, are they wrong?
You may see from the foregoing that Buddhism does not
see homosexuality as wrong and heterosexuality as right.
Both are sexual activities using the body, both are strong
expressions of lust which increase desire for life and therefore
trap us longer in samsara. When a couple
(whether a man and a woman, two men or two women) fall in love, it
arises out of the same human limitation of not seeing the body as
empty of any ultimate reality.
Does Buddhism condemn
homosexuals/homosexuality?
Buddhism does not condemn homosexuals in the same way as it does
not condemn any wrongdoing. We act through ignorance of the true
nature of things. Therefore, we are only guilty of
akusala kamma. We have no right to
condemn others. Our duty is to help others see that they are acting
out of ignorance, to show how real happiness can be gained. We have
no right to condemn those who think or act differently from us,
especially when we ourselves are slaves of sensual pleasure in
other forms. We know that when we point one finger at others, the
other three fingers are pointing at us.
In summary, homosexuality, like heterosexuality, arises from
ignorance. All forms of sex increase lust, craving and attachment
to the body. With wisdom, we learn to grow out of these
attachments. We do not condemn homosexuality as wrong and sinful,
but we do not condone it either, simply because it, like other
forms of sex, delays our deliverance from
samsara. With the Blessings of the Noble
Triple Gem.
Can we perform euthanasia for someone who has requested
it?
Let us begin by emphasising that the matter does not pertain to
gay lovers alone but to every creature that has life. Buddhists do
not classify homosexuals as separate from the rest of humanity. In
Buddhism, the taking of life for whatever reasons is not to be
condoned. However, if killing occurs as a result of an
unintentional, unmotivated act, then one is not held responsible
(e.g. if a blind man kills ants by stepping on them without being
aware that they are there). For the killing to be
kammically complete, entailing
retribution in this life or subsequent ones, many conditions must
be present viz,
1. There must be a living thing
2. Knowledge that it is a living thing
3. Intention to deprive that thing of its life
4. Effort to remove the life
5. Subsequent separation of the body from the life
All these conditions are fulfilled in the story you mentioned,
so the partner is responsible for having broken the first principle
and he must bear the kammic
responsibility for the deed. That said, we must now add that the
intention to kill can be motivated by compassion or by hatred,
which will of course determine the severity and the nature of the
kammic effect.
In the case of mercy killing, also known as euthanasia, which is
motivated by misguided compassion, the mind is not wholly polluted
in that situation. Thus the bad kammic
effect is reduced. It is a case of a wrong action done with a good
intention. The action however is still wrong. The more we pollute
the mind, the higher the degree of the bad effect.
If one murders an innocent person out of hatred or greed, then
of course the effect is severe. In the example you gave, the person
was motivated by compassion so the effect will be less severe.
Notice we said “less severe,” because there will be an effect,
although there will be mitigating circumstances. Also, we must
consider the value of the creative life which was deprived - is it
a mosquito or an animal like an elephant, a horse or a cow that is
especially useful?
The degree of effort taken and the intensity with which the mind
is engaged influences the severity. Naturally, the killing of a
human is most serious. Even then we must consider how innocent or
how useful the human being is – a parent or a monk are high on the
list. In your example, the person's consent was obviously given,
the motivation was compassion (though misguided), so while all the
conditions were met, the kammic effect is
significantly reduced. A doctor who performs mercy killing cannot
be put in the same category as say, a man who in cold blood murders
his mother to get her money.
What this means is that not all similar actions bear the same
kammic effect. The effects of weak
kammic actions may be eradicated or
counteracted by other good kamma so that
the effects of the bad kamma have no
chance to operate. In fact, only the harming of a
Buddha or the murder of
arahats (saints) and parents or causing a
split in the monastic order are considered to be so severe that it
is very difficult to escape the retribution. The effects of all
other kamma can be reduced by purifying
one's mind and actions - please refer to the story of
Angulimala. In the case of suicide or euthanasia,
we cannot make a blanket statement that all such actions are wrong
because the mental state at the time of the one who performs the
action must be taken into account. However, this is a complex issue
we cannot discuss fully here.
Finally, mercy killing is not merciful at all. It may at best be
referred to as a misguided sense of mercy, because depriving the
life of another is not our prerogative - the sufferer must bear his
own kamma patiently and with
understanding and we cannot act as executioner. If we cut short the
working of kamma in this life, we merely
postpone its completion to another life. With the Blessings of the
Noble Triple Gem.