In contrast to this notion of a personal God some modern
theologians have interpreted the term "God" as representing some
kind of abstract principle of good (or "ground of being). This view
was first developed in the ancient Indian Upanishads where God is
equated with an abstract principle (Brahman). The ancient Indian
philosophers could entertain such a view because they also had a
theory of karma, which really does away with the need for a
personal God. Buddhists too have a theory of karma, which is
different from that of the Hindus, and which even more
unequivocally dispenses with the need for a Deity. The use of the
term "God' to denote an abstract reality by monotheistic
theologians who have no theory of karma is difficult to justify;
one suspects that this is merely a device to explain away the
contradictions that arise from the notion of a personal God. In
fact the actual practice of theistic religion proceeds as if God is
a real person of some kind or other.
Just as Buddhism rejects the notion of a Supreme God it also
rejects the notion of an abstract God-principle operating in the
universe. The notion of Brahman (in the neuter) is not discussed at
all in the Buddhist texts, and even in India it may well be a
post-Buddhist development resulting from the attempt to reconcile
the belief in God(s) with the powerful critique of the Buddha. It
is therefore the attitude of Buddhism to the notion of a supreme
personal God animating the Universe that we must consider.
