Truth
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Truth is most often used to mean being in accord with
fact or
reality,
[1]
or fidelity to an original or to a standard or ideal.
[1]
The commonly understood
opposite of truth is
falsehood,
which, correspondingly, can also take on a logical, factual, or ethical
meaning. The
concept
of truth is discussed and
debated in several contexts, including
philosophy
and
religion.
Many human activities depend upon the concept, where its nature as a concept is
assumed rather than being a subject of discussion; these include most (but not
all) of the
sciences,
law, and
everyday life.
Various theories and views of truth continue to be debated among scholars,
philosophers, and theologians.
[2]
Language and words are a means by which humans convey
information
to one another and the method used to determine what is a "truth" is
termed a
criterion of truth. There are
differing claims on such questions as what constitutes truth: what things are
truthbearers
capable of being true or false; how to define and identify truth; the roles
that faith-based and empirically based
knowledge
play; and whether truth is
subjective or
objective,
relative or
absolute.
Definition and etymology
The English word
truth is derived from
Old
English tríewþ, tréowþ, trýwþ,
Middle
English trewþe, cognate to
Old
High German triuwida,
Old
Norse tryggð. Like
troth, it is a
-th
nominalisation of the adjective
true (Old English
tréowe).
The English word
true is from Old English (
West Saxon)
(ge)tríewe,
tréowe,
cognate to
Old
Saxon (gi)trûui,
Old
High German (ga)triuwu (
Modern
German treu "faithful"),
Old
Norse tryggr,
Gothic
triggws,
[3]
all from a
Proto-Germanic *trewwj-
"having
good faith", perhaps
ultimately from PIE *dru- "tree", on the notion of "steadfast as
an oak" (e.g., Sanskrit "dru" tree).
[4]
Old Norse
trú,
"faith, word of honour; religious faith, belief"
[5]
(archaic English
troth "loyalty,
honesty, good faith", compare
Ásatrú).
Thus, 'truth' involves both the quality of "faithfulness, fidelity,
loyalty, sincerity, veracity",
[6]
and that of "agreement with
fact or
reality", in Anglo-Saxon
expressed by
sōþ (Modern English
sooth).
All Germanic languages besides English have introduced a terminological
distinction between truth "fidelity" and truth
"factuality". To express "factuality",
North Germanic opted for nouns
derived from
sanna "to assert, affirm", while continental
West Germanic (German and
Dutch) opted for continuations of
wâra "faith, trust, pact"
(cognate to Slavic
věra "(religious) faith", but influenced by
Latin
verus).
Romance
languages use terms following the Latin
veritas,
while the Greek
aletheia,
Russian
pravda
and South Slavic
istina have separate etymological origins.
Major theories
The question of what is a proper basis for deciding how words, symbols,
ideas and beliefs may properly be considered true, whether by a single person
or an entire society, is dealt with by the five most prevalent substantive
theories listed below. Each presents perspectives that are widely shared by
published scholars.
[7][8][9]
However, the substantive theories are not universally accepted. More
recently developed "
deflationary" or
"minimalist" theories of truth have emerged as competitors to the
older substantive theories. Minimalist reasoning centres around the notion that
the application of a term like
true to a statement does not assert
anything significant about it, for instance, anything about its
nature.
Minimalist reasoning realises
truth as a label utilised in general
discourse to express agreement, to stress claims, or to form general
assumptions.
[7][10][11]
Substantive theories
Correspondence theory
Correspondence theories emphasise that true beliefs and true statements
correspond to the actual state of affairs.
[12]
This type of theory stresses a relationship between thoughts or statements on
one hand, and things or objects on the other. It is a traditional model tracing
its origins to
ancient Greek philosophers
such as
Socrates,
Plato,
and
Aristotle.
[13]
This class of theories holds that the truth or the falsity of a representation
is determined in principle entirely by how it relates to "things", by
whether it accurately describes those "things." An example of
correspondence theory is the statement by the thirteenth century
philosopher/theologian
Thomas Aquinas:
Veritas est
adaequatio rei et intellectus ("Truth is the equation [or adequation]
of things and
intellect"),
a statement which Aquinas attributed to the ninth century
neoplatonist
Isaac Israeli.
[14][15][16]
Aquinas also restated the theory as: "A judgment is said to be true when
it conforms to the external reality".
[17]
Correspondence theory centres heavily around the assumption that truth is a
matter of accurately copying what is known as "
objective
reality" and then representing it in thoughts, words and other
symbols.
[18]
Many modern theorists have stated that this ideal cannot be achieved without
analysing additional factors.
[7][19]
For example, language plays a role in that all languages have words to
represent concepts that are virtually undefined in other languages. The
German
word
Zeitgeist
is one such example: one who speaks or understands the language may
"know" what it means, but any translation of the word apparently
fails to accurately capture its full meaning (this is a problem with many
abstract words, especially those derived in
agglutinative languages).
Thus, some words add an additional parameter to the construction of an accurate
truth
predicate. Among the philosophers who grappled with this problem is
Alfred
Tarski, whose
semantic theory is summarized
further below in this article.
[20]
Proponents of several of the theories below have gone further to assert that
there are yet other issues necessary to the analysis, such as interpersonal
power struggles, community interactions, personal biases and other factors
involved in deciding what is seen as truth.
Coherence theory
For coherence theories in general, truth requires a proper fit of elements
within a whole system. Very often, though, coherence is taken to imply
something more than simple logical consistency; often there is a demand that
the propositions in a coherent system lend mutual inferential support to each
other. So, for example, the completeness and comprehensiveness of the
underlying set of concepts is a critical factor in judging the validity and
usefulness of a coherent system.
[21]
A pervasive tenet of coherence theories is the idea that truth is primarily a
property of whole systems of propositions, and can be ascribed to individual
propositions only according to their coherence with the whole. Among the
assortment of perspectives commonly regarded as coherence theory, theorists
differ on the question of whether coherence entails many possible true systems of
thought or only a single absolute system.
Some variants of coherence theory are claimed to describe the essential and
intrinsic properties of
formal systems in logic and
mathematics.
[22]
However, formal reasoners are content to contemplate
axiomatically
independent and sometimes mutually contradictory systems side by
side, for example, the various
alternative geometries. On the
whole, coherence theories have been rejected for lacking justification in their
application to other areas of truth, especially with respect to assertions
about the
natural world,
empirical
data in general, assertions about practical matters of psychology and society,
especially when used without support from the other major theories of truth.
[23]
Coherence theories distinguish the thought of
rationalist
philosophers, particularly of
Spinoza,
Leibniz, and
G.W.F.
Hegel, along with the British philosopher
F.H.
Bradley.
[24]
They have found a resurgence also among several proponents of
logical positivism, notably
Otto
Neurath and
Carl Hempel.
Constructivist theory
Social constructivism holds
that truth is constructed by social processes, is historically and culturally
specific, and that it is in part shaped through the power struggles within a
community. Constructivism views all of our knowledge as
"constructed," because it does not reflect any external
"transcendent" realities (as a pure correspondence theory might
hold). Rather, perceptions of truth are viewed as contingent on convention,
human perception, and social experience. It is believed by constructivists that
representations of physical and biological reality, including
race,
sexuality,
and
gender,
are socially constructed.
Giambattista Vico was among
the first to claim that history and culture were man-made. Vico's
epistemological
orientation gathers the most diverse rays and unfolds in one axiom –
verum
ipsum factum – "truth itself is constructed".
Hegel and
Marx were
among the other early proponents of the premise that truth is, or can be,
socially constructed. Marx, like many critical theorists who followed, did not
reject the existence of objective truth but rather distinguished between true
knowledge and knowledge that has been distorted through power or ideology. For
Marx, scientific and true knowledge is "in accordance with the dialectical
understanding of history" and ideological knowledge is "an
epiphenomenal expression of the relation of material forces in a given economic
arrangement".
[25]
Consensus theory
Consensus theory holds that
truth is whatever is agreed upon, or in some versions, might come to be agreed
upon, by some specified group. Such a group might include all human beings, or
a
subset
thereof consisting of more than one person.
Among the current advocates of consensus theory as a useful accounting of
the concept of "truth" is the philosopher
Jürgen
Habermas.
[26]
Habermas maintains that truth is what would be agreed upon in an
ideal speech situation.
[27]
Among the current strong critics of consensus theory is the philosopher
Nicholas
Rescher.
[28]
Pragmatic theory
The three most influential forms of the
pragmatic theory of truth
were introduced around the turn of the 20th century by
Charles Sanders Peirce,
William
James, and
John Dewey. Although there are
wide differences in viewpoint among these and other proponents of pragmatic
theory, they hold in common that truth is verified and confirmed by the results
of putting one's concepts into practice.
[29]
Peirce defines truth as
follows: "Truth is that concordance of an abstract statement with the
ideal limit towards which endless investigation would tend to bring scientific
belief, which concordance the abstract statement may possess by virtue of the
confession of its inaccuracy and one-sidedness, and this confession is an
essential ingredient of truth."
[30]
This statement stresses Peirce's view that ideas of approximation,
incompleteness, and partiality, what he describes elsewhere as
fallibilism
and "reference to the future", are essential to a proper conception
of truth. Although Peirce uses words like
concordance and
correspondence
to describe one aspect of the pragmatic
sign
relation, he is also quite explicit in saying that definitions of
truth based on mere correspondence are no more than
nominal definitions,
which he accords a lower status than
real definitions.
William
James's version of pragmatic theory, while complex, is often
summarized by his statement that "the 'true' is only the expedient in our
way of thinking, just as the 'right' is only the expedient in our way of
behaving."
[31]
By this, James meant that truth is a
quality, the value of which is
confirmed by its effectiveness when applying concepts to practice (thus,
"pragmatic").
John
Dewey, less broadly than James but more broadly than Peirce, held that
inquiry,
whether scientific, technical, sociological, philosophical or cultural, is
self-corrective over time
if openly submitted for testing by a community
of inquirers in order to clarify, justify, refine and/or refute proposed
truths.
[32]
Though not widely known, a new variation of the pragmatic theory was defined
and wielded successfully from the 20th century forward. Defined and named by
William Ernest Hocking, this
variation is known as "negative pragmatism". Essentially, what works
may or may not be true, but what fails cannot be true because the truth always
works.
[33]
Richard
Feynman also ascribed to it: "We never are definitely right, we
can only be sure we are wrong."
[34]
This approach incorporates many of the ideas from Peirce, James, and Dewey. For
Peirce, the idea of "... endless investigation would tend to bring about
scientific belief ..." fits negative pragmatism in that a negative
pragmatist would never stop testing. As Feynman noted, an idea or theory
"... could never be proved right, because tomorrow's experiment might
succeed in proving wrong what you thought was right."
[34]
Similarly, James and Dewey's ideas also ascribe truth to repeated testing which
is "self-corrective" over time.
Pragmatism and negative pragmatism are also closely aligned with the
coherence theory of truth in
that any testing should not be isolated but rather incorporate knowledge from
all human endeavors and experience. The universe is a whole and integrated
system, and testing should acknowledge and account for its diversity. As
Feynman said, "... if it disagrees with experiment, it is wrong."
[35]
Minimalist (deflationary) theories
Modern developments in the field of philosophy, starting with the relatively
modern notion that a theory being old does not necessarily imply that it is
completely flawless, have resulted in the rise of a new thesis: that the term
truth
does not denote a real property of sentences or propositions. This thesis is in
part a response to the common use of
truth predicates (e.g., that some
particular thing "...is true") which was particularly prevalent in
philosophical discourse on truth in the first half of the 20th century. From
this point of view, to assert that "'2 + 2 = 4' is true" is logically
equivalent to asserting that "2 + 2 = 4", and the phrase "is
true" is completely dispensable in this and every other context. In common
parlance, truth predicates are not commonly heard, and it would be interpreted
as an unusual occurrence were someone to utilise a truth predicate in an
everyday conversation when asserting that something is true. Newer perspectives
that take this discrepancy into account and work with sentence structures that
are actually employed in common discourse can be broadly described:
- as deflationary theories of truth, since they attempt to
deflate the presumed importance of the words "true" or truth,
- as disquotational theories, to draw attention to the
disappearance of the quotation marks in cases like the above example, or
- as minimalist theories of truth.[7][36]
Whichever term is used, deflationary theories can be said to hold in common
that "[t]he predicate 'true' is an expressive convenience, not the name of
a property requiring deep analysis."
[7]
Once we have identified the truth predicate's formal features and utility,
deflationists argue, we have said all there is to be said about truth. Among
the theoretical concerns of these views is to explain away those special cases
where it
does appear that the concept of truth has peculiar and
interesting properties. (See, e.g.,
Semantic
paradoxes, and below.)
In addition to highlighting such formal aspects of the predicate "is
true", some deflationists point out that the concept enables us to express
things that might otherwise require infinitely long sentences. For example, one
cannot express confidence in Michael's accuracy by asserting the endless
sentence:
Michael says,
'snow is white' and snow is white, or he says 'roses are red' and roses are red
or he says ... etc.
This assertion can also be succinctly expressed by saying:
What Michael
says is true.
[37]
Performative theory of truth
Attributed to
P. F. Strawson is the
performative theory of truth which holds that to say "'Snow is white' is
true" is to perform the
speech act of signaling one's
agreement with the claim that snow is white (much like nodding one's head in
agreement). The idea that some statements are more actions than communicative
statements is not as odd as it may seem. Consider, for example, that when the
bride says "I do" at the appropriate time in a wedding, she is
performing the act of taking this man to be her lawful wedded husband. She is
not
describing herself as taking this man, but actually doing so
(perhaps the most thorough analysis of such "illocutionary acts" is
J.
L. Austin, "
How to Do Things With Words"
[38]).
Strawson holds that a similar analysis is applicable to all speech acts, not
just illocutionary ones: "To say a statement is true is not to make a
statement about a statement, but rather to perform the act of agreeing with,
accepting, or endorsing a statement. When one says 'It's true that it's
raining,' one asserts no more than 'It's raining.' The function of [the
statement] 'It's true that...' is to agree with, accept, or endorse the
statement that 'it's raining.'"
[39]
Redundancy and related theories
According to the
redundancy theory of truth,
asserting that a statement is true is completely equivalent to asserting the
statement itself. For example, making the assertion that " 'Snow is
white' is true" is equivalent to asserting "Snow is white".
Redundancy theorists infer from this premise that truth is a redundant concept;
that is, it is merely a word that is traditionally used in conversation or
writing, generally for emphasis, but not a word that actually equates to
anything in reality. This theory is commonly attributed to
Frank
P. Ramsey, who held that the use of words like
fact and
truth
was nothing but a
roundabout way of asserting a
proposition, and that treating these words as separate problems in isolation
from judgment was merely a "linguistic muddle".
[7][40][41]
A variant of redundancy theory is the disquotational theory which uses a
modified form of
Tarski's
schema: To say that '"P" is true' is to say
that P. A version of this theory was defended by
C.
J. F. Williams in his book
What is Truth?. Yet another
version of deflationism is the prosentential theory of truth, first developed
by Dorothy Grover, Joseph Camp, and
Nuel
Belnap as an elaboration of Ramsey's claims. They argue that
sentences like "That's true", when said in response to "It's
raining", are
prosentences, expressions that
merely repeat the content of other expressions. In the same way that
it
means the same as
my dog in the sentence
My dog was hungry, so I fed
it,
That's true is supposed to mean the same as
It's raining
— if you say the latter and I then say the former. These variations do not
necessarily follow Ramsey in asserting that truth is
not a property, but
rather can be understood to say that, for instance, the assertion "P"
may well involve a substantial truth, and the theorists in this case are
minimizing only the redundancy or prosentence involved in the statement such as
"that's true."
[7]
Deflationary principles do not apply to representations that are not
analogous to sentences, and also do not apply to many other things that are
commonly judged to be true or otherwise. Consider the analogy between the
sentence "Snow is white" and the character named Snow White, both of
which can be true in some sense. To a minimalist, saying "Snow is white is
true" is the same as saying "Snow is white," but to say
"Snow White is true" is
not the same as saying "Snow
White."
Pluralist theories
Several of the major theories of truth hold that there is a particular
property the having of which makes a belief or proposition true. Pluralist
theories of truth assert that there may be more than one property that makes
propositions true: ethical propositions might be true by virtue of coherence.
Propositions about the physical world might be true by corresponding to the
objects and properties they are about.
Some of the pragmatic theories, such as those by
Charles Peirce and
William
James, included aspects of correspondence, coherence and
constructivist theories.
[30][31]
Crispin
Wright argued in his 1992 book
Truth and Objectivity that any
predicate which satisfied certain platitudes about truth qualified as a truth
predicate. In some discourses, Wright argued, the role of the truth predicate
might be played by the notion of superassertibility.
[42]
Michael Lynch, in a 2009 book
Truth
as One and Many, argued that we should see truth as a functional property
capable of being multiply manifested in distinct properties like correspondence
or coherence.
[43]
Most believed theories
According to a survey of professional philosophers and others on their
philosophical views which was carried out in November 2009 (taken by 3226
respondents, including 1803 philosophy faculty members and/or PhDs and 829
philosophy graduate students) 44.9% of respondents accept or lean towards
correspondence theories, 20.7% accept or lean towards deflationary theories and
13.8%
epistemic theories.
[44]
Formal theories
Truth in logic
Logic
is concerned with the patterns in
reason that can help tell us if a
proposition
is true or not. However, logic does not deal with truth in the absolute sense,
as for instance a
metaphysician does. Logicians
use
formal languages to express
the truths which they are concerned with, and as such there is only truth under
some
interpretation or truth within
some
logical system.
A logical truth (also called an analytic truth or a necessary truth) is a
statement which is true in all possible worlds
[45]
or under all possible interpretations, as contrasted to a
fact
(also called a
synthetic claim
or a
contingency)
which is only true in this
world as it has historically
unfolded. A proposition such as "If p and q, then p" is considered to
be a logical truth because of the meaning of the
symbols
and
words in it and not because of
any fact of any particular world. They are such that they could not be untrue.
Truth in mathematics
There are two main approaches to truth in mathematics. They are the
model
theory of truth and the
proof
theory of truth.
[46]
Historically, with the nineteenth century development of
Boolean algebra mathematical
models of logic began to treat "truth", also represented as
"T" or "1", as an arbitrary constant. "Falsity"
is also an arbitrary constant, which can be represented as "F" or
"0". In
propositional logic, these
symbols can be manipulated according to a set of
axioms and
rules of inference, often
given in the form of
truth tables.
In addition, from at least the time of
Hilbert's program at the turn
of the twentieth century to the proof of
Gödel's incompleteness
theorems and the development of the
Church-Turing thesis in the
early part of that century, true statements in mathematics were generally
assumed to be those statements that are provable in a formal axiomatic system.
[47]
The works of
Kurt Gödel,
Alan
Turing, and others shook this assumption, with the development of
statements that are true but cannot be proven within the system.
[48]
Two examples of the latter can be found in
Hilbert's problems. Work on
Hilbert's 10th problem led in
the late twentieth century to the construction of specific
Diophantine equations for
which it is undecidable whether they have a solution,
[49]
or even if they do, whether they have a finite or infinite number of solutions.
More fundamentally,
Hilbert's first problem was on
the
continuum hypothesis.
[50]
Gödel and
Paul Cohen showed that this
hypothesis cannot be proved or disproved using the standard
axioms of
set
theory.
[51]
In the view of some, then, it is equally reasonable to take either the
continuum hypothesis or its negation as a new axiom.
Semantic theory of truth
The
semantic theory of truth has
as its general case for a given language:
'P' is true if and
only if P
where 'P' refers to the sentence (the sentence's name), and P is just the
sentence itself.
Logician and philosopher
Alfred Tarski developed the
theory for formal languages (such as
formal
logic). Here he restricted it in this way: no language could contain
its own truth predicate, that is, the expression
is true could only
apply to sentences in some other language. The latter he called an
object
language, the language being talked about. (It may, in turn, have a truth
predicate that can be applied to sentences in still another language.) The
reason for his restriction was that languages that contain their own truth
predicate will contain
paradoxical sentences such as,
"This sentence is not true". As a result Tarski held that the
semantic theory could not be applied to any natural language, such as English,
because they contain their own truth predicates.
Donald Davidson
used it as the foundation of his
truth-conditional semantics
and linked it to
radical interpretation in a
form of
coherentism.
Bertrand Russell is credited with
noticing the existence of such paradoxes even in the best symbolic formations
of mathematics in his day, in particular the paradox that came to be named
after him,
Russell's paradox. Russell and
Whitehead attempted to solve
these problems in
Principia Mathematica by
putting statements into a hierarchy of
types,
wherein a statement cannot refer to itself, but only to statements lower in the
hierarchy. This in turn led to new orders of difficulty regarding the precise
natures of types and the structures of conceptually possible
type
systems that have yet to be resolved to this day.
Kripke's theory of truth
Saul
Kripke contends that a natural language can in fact contain its own
truth predicate without giving rise to contradiction. He showed how to
construct one as follows:
- Begin with a subset of sentences of a natural language that
contains no occurrences of the expression "is true" (or "is
false"). So The barn is big is included in the subset, but not
" The barn is big is true", nor problematic sentences
such as "This sentence is false".
- Define truth just for the sentences in that subset.
- Then extend the definition of truth to include sentences that
predicate truth or falsity of one of the original subset of sentences. So
"The barn is big is true" is now included, but not either
"This sentence is false" nor "'The barn is big
is true' is true".
- Next, define truth for all sentences that predicate truth or
falsity of a member of the second set. Imagine this process repeated
infinitely, so that truth is defined for The barn is big; then for
"The barn is big is true"; then for "'The barn is
big is true' is true", and so on.
Notice that truth never gets defined for sentences like
This sentence is
false, since it was not in the original subset and does not predicate truth
of any sentence in the original or any subsequent set. In Kripke's terms, these
are "ungrounded." Since these sentences are never assigned either
truth or falsehood even if the process is carried out infinitely, Kripke's
theory implies that some sentences are neither true nor false. This contradicts
the
Principle of bivalence: every
sentence must be either true or false. Since this principle is a key premise in
deriving the
Liar paradox, the paradox is
dissolved.
[52]
However, it has been shown by
Gödel
that self-reference cannot be avoided naively, since propositions about
seemingly unrelated objects can have an informal self-referential meaning; in
Gödel's work, these objects are integer numbers, and they have an informal
meaning regarding propositions. In fact, this idea - manifested by the
diagonal
lemma - is the basis for
Tarski's theorem
that truth cannot be consistently defined.
It has thus been claimed
[53]
that Kripke's system indeed leads to contradiction: while its truth predicate
is only partial, it does give truth value (true/false) to propositions such as
the one built in Tarski's proof, and is therefore inconsistent. While there is
still a debate on whether Tarski's proof can be implemented to every similar
partial truth system, none have been shown to be consistent by
acceptable
methods used in
mathematical logic.
Notable views
Ancient history
The ancient
Greek origins of the words
"true" and "truth" have some consistent definitions
throughout great spans of history that were often associated with topics of
logic,
geometry,
mathematics,
deduction,
induction, and
natural philosophy.
Socrates',
Plato's
and
Aristotle's
ideas about truth are seen by some as consistent with correspondence theory. In
his
Metaphysics, Aristotle
stated: "To say of what is that it is not, or of what is not that it is,
is false, while to say of what is that it is, and of what is not that it is
not, is true".
[54]
The
Stanford Encyclopedia
of Philosophy proceeds to say of Aristotle:
"(...) Aristotle sounds much more like a genuine correspondence
theorist in the Categories
(12b11, 14b14), where he talks of
"underlying things" that make statements true and implies that these
"things" (pragmata) are logically structured situations or facts
(viz., his sitting, his not sitting). Most influential is his claim in De
Interpretatione
(16a3) that thoughts are "likenessess" (homoiosis)
of things. Although he nowhere defines truth in terms of a thought's likeness
to a thing or fact, it is clear that such a definition would fit well into his
overall philosophy of mind. (...)"[54]
Very similar statements can also be found in Plato (Cratylus 385b2, Sophist
263b).
[54]
In Hinduism, Truth
is defined as "unchangeable", "that which has no
distortion", "that which is beyond distinctions of time, space, and
person", "that which pervades the universe in all its
constancy". The human body, therefore is not completely true as it changes
with time, for example. There are many references, properties and explanations
of truth by Hindu sages that explain varied facets of truth, such as the
national motto of India: "Satyameva jayate" (Truth alone wins), as
well as "Satyam muktaye" (Truth liberates), "Satya' is
'Parahit'artham' va'unmanaso yatha'rthatvam' satyam" (Satya is the
benevolent use of words and the mind for the welfare of others or in other
words responsibilities is truth too), "When one is firmly established in
speaking truth, the fruits of action become subservient to him ( patanjali
yogasutras, sutra number 2.36 ), "The face of truth is covered by a golden
bowl. Unveil it, O Pusan (Sun), so that I who have truth as my duty
(satyadharma) may see it!" (Brhadaranyaka V 15 1-4 and the brief IIsa
Upanisad 15-18), Truth is superior to silence (Manusmriti),
etc. Combined with other words, satya acts as modifier, like "ultra"
or "highest," or more literally "truest," connoting purity
and excellence. For example, satyaloka is the "highest heaven' and Satya
Yuga is the "golden age" or best of the four cyclical cosmic ages in
Hinduism, and so on.
Middle Ages
Avicenna
In
early Islamic philosophy,
Avicenna
(Ibn Sina) defined truth in his work
Kitab Al-Shifa
The Book of Healing, Book
I, Chapter 8, as:
"What corresponds in the mind to what is outside it."[55]
Avicenna
elaborated on his definition of truth later in Book VIII, Chapter 6:
"The truth of a thing is the property of the being of each thing
which has been established in it."[56]
However, this definition is merely a rendering of the
medieval
Latin translation of the work by Simone van Riet.
[57]
A modern translation of the original Arabic text states:
"Truth is also said of the veridical belief in the existence [of
something]".[58]
Aquinas
Reevaluating Avicenna, and also Augustine and Aristotle,
Thomas
Aquinas stated in his
Disputed Questions on Truth:
A natural thing, being placed between two intellects, is called
true
insofar as it conforms to either. It is said to be true with respect to its
conformity with the divine intellect insofar as it fulfills the end to which it
was ordained by the divine intellect... With respect to its conformity with a
human intellect, a thing is said to be true insofar as it is such as to cause a
true estimate about itself.
[59]
Thus, for Aquinas, the truth of the human intellect (logical truth) is based
on the truth in things (ontological truth).
[60]
Following this, he wrote an elegant re-statement of Aristotle's view in his
Summa I.16.1:
Veritas est adæquatio intellectus et rei.
(Truth is the conformity of the intellect to the things.)
Aquinas also said that real things participate in the act of being of the
Creator God
who is Subsistent Being, Intelligence, and Truth. Thus, these beings possess
the light of intelligibility and are knowable. These things (beings;
reality)
are the foundation of the truth that is found in the human mind, when it
acquires knowledge of things, first through the
senses, then
through the
understanding and the
judgement
done by
reason.
For Aquinas, human
intelligence
("intus", within and "legere", to read) has the capability
to reach the
essence
and
existence
of things because it has a non-material,
spiritual
element, although some moral, educational, and other elements might interfere
with its capability.
Changing concepts of truth in the Middle Ages
Richard Firth Green examined
the concept of truth in the later Middle Ages in his
A Crisis of Truth,
and concludes that roughly during the reign of
Richard II of England the very
meaning of the concept changes. The idea of the oath, which was so much part
and parcel of for instance
Romance literature,
[61]
changes from a subjective concept to a more objective one (in
Derek
Pearsall's summary).
[62]
Whereas truth (the "trouthe" of
Sir Gawain and the
Green Knight) was first "an ethical truth in which truth is
understood to reside in persons", in Ricardian England it
"transforms...into a
political truth
in which truth is understood to reside in documents".
[63]
Modern age
Kant
Immanuel
Kant endorses a definition of truth along the lines of the
correspondence theory of truth.
[54]
Kant writes in the
Critique of Pure Reason:
"The nominal definition of truth, namely that it is the agreement of
cognition with its object, is here granted and presupposed".
[64]
However, Kant denies that this correspondence definition of truth provides us
with a test or criterion to establish which judgements are true. Kant states in
his logic lectures:
"(...) Truth, it is said, consists in the agreement of cognition with
its object. In consequence of this mere nominal definition, my cognition, to
count as true, is supposed to agree with its object. Now I can compare the
object with my cognition, however, only
by cognizing it. Hence my
cognition is supposed to confirm itself, which is far short of being sufficient
for truth. For since the object is outside me, the cognition in me, all I can
ever pass judgement on is whether my cognition of the object agrees with my
cognition of the object.
The ancients called such a circle in explanation a
diallelon
. And actually the logicians were always reproached with this
mistake by the sceptics, who observed that with this definition of truth it is
just as when someone makes a statement before a court and in doing so appeals
to a witness with whom no one is acquainted, but who wants to establish his
credibility by maintaining that the one who called him as witness is an honest
man. The accusation was grounded, too. Only the solution of the indicated
problem is impossible without qualification and for every man. (...)"[65]
This passage makes use of his distinction between nominal and real
definitions. A nominal definition explains the meaning of a linguistic
expression. A real definition describes the essence of certain
objects and enable us to
determine whether any given item falls within the definition.
[66]
Kant holds that the definition of truth is merely nominal and, therefore, we
cannot employ it to establish which judgements are true. According to Kant, the
ancient skeptics were critical of the logicians for holding that, by means of a
merely nominal definition of truth, they can establish which judgements are
true. They were trying to do something that is "impossible without
qualification and for every man".
[65]
Hegel
Georg
Hegel distanced his philosophy from psychology by presenting truth
as being an external self-moving object instead of being related to inner, subjective
thoughts. Hegel's truth is analogous to the
mechanics
of a material body in motion under the influence of its own inner force.
"Truth is its own self-movement within itself."
[67]
Teleological truth moves itself in the three-step form of
dialectical
triplicity toward the final goal of perfect, final, absolute truth.
According to Hegel, the progression of philosophical truth is a resolution of
past oppositions into increasingly more accurate approximations of absolute
truth.
Chalybäus used the terms
"
thesis",
"
antithesis",
and "
synthesis"
to describe Hegel's dialectical triplicity. The "thesis" consists of
an incomplete historical movement. To resolve the incompletion, an
"antithesis" occurs which opposes the "thesis." In turn,
the "synthesis" appears when the "thesis" and
"antithesis" become
reconciled and a higher level
of truth is obtained. This "synthesis" thereby becomes a
"thesis," which will again necessitate an "antithesis,"
requiring a new "synthesis" until a final state is reached as the
result of reason's historical movement. History is the
Absolute Spirit moving toward
a goal. This historical progression will finally conclude itself when the
Absolute Spirit understands its own infinite self at the very end of history.
Absolute Spirit will then be the complete expression of an infinite
God.
Schopenhauer
For
Arthur Schopenhauer,
[68]
a
judgment
is a combination or separation of two or more
concepts.
If a judgment is to be an expression of
knowledge,
it must have a
sufficient reason
or ground by which the judgment could be called true.
Truth is the reference
of a judgment to something different from itself which is its sufficient reason
(ground). Judgments can have material, formal, transcendental, or
metalogical truth. A judgment has
material truth if its concepts are
based on intuitive perceptions that are generated from sensations. If a
judgment has its reason (ground) in another judgment, its truth is called
logical or
formal. If a judgment, of, for example, pure mathematics or
pure science, is based on the forms (space, time, causality) of intuitive,
empirical knowledge, then the judgment has
transcendental truth.
Kierkegaard
When
Søren Kierkegaard, as his
character
Johannes Climacus, ends his writings:
My thesis was,
subjectivity, heartfelt is the truth, he does not advocate for
subjectivism
in its extreme form (the theory that something is true simply because one
believes it to be so), but rather that the objective approach to matters of
personal truth cannot shed any light upon that which is most essential to a
person's life. Objective truths are concerned with the facts of a person's
being, while subjective truths are concerned with a person's way of being.
Kierkegaard agrees that objective truths for the study of subjects like
mathematics, science, and history are relevant and necessary, but argues that
objective truths do not shed any light on a person's inner relationship to
existence. At best, these truths can only provide a severely narrowed
perspective that has little to do with one's actual experience of life.
[69]
While objective truths are final and static, subjective truths are
continuing and dynamic. The truth of one's existence is a living, inward, and
subjective experience that is always in the process of becoming. The values,
morals, and spiritual approaches a person adopts, while not denying the
existence of objective truths of those beliefs, can only become truly known
when they have been inwardly appropriated through subjective experience. Thus,
Kierkegaard criticizes all systematic philosophies which attempt to know life
or the truth of existence via theories and objective knowledge about reality.
As Kierkegaard claims, human truth is something that is continually occurring,
and a human being cannot find truth separate from the subjective experience of
one's own existing, defined by the values and fundamental essence that consist
of one's way of life.
[70]
Nietzsche
Friedrich Nietzsche believed
the search for truth, or 'the will to truth', was a consequence of the
will
to power of philosophers. He thought that truth should be used
as long as it promoted life and the
will to power, and he thought
untruth was better than truth if it had this life enhancement as a consequence.
As he wrote in
Beyond Good and Evil,
"The falseness of a judgment is to us not necessarily an objection to a
judgment... The question is to what extent it is life-advancing,
life-preserving, species-preserving, perhaps even species-breeding..."
(aphorism 4). He proposed the
will to power as a truth only because,
according to him, it was the most life-affirming and sincere perspective one
could have.
Robert Wicks discusses Nietzsche's basic view of truth as follows:
"(...) Some scholars regard Nietzsche's 1873 unpublished essay,
"On Truth and Lies in a Nonmoral Sense" ("Über Wahrheit und Lüge
im außermoralischen Sinn") as a keystone in his thought. In this essay, Nietzsche
rejects the idea of universal constants, and claims that what we call
"truth" is only "a mobile army of metaphors, metonyms, and
anthropomorphisms." His view at this time is that arbitrariness completely
prevails within human experience: concepts originate via the very artistic
transference of nerve stimuli into images; "truth" is nothing more
than the invention of fixed conventions for merely practical purposes,
especially those of repose, security and consistence. (...)"
[71]
Whitehead
Alfred North Whitehead, a
British mathematician who became an American philosopher, said: "There are
no whole truths; all truths are half-truths. It is trying to treat them as
whole truths that plays the devil".
[72]
The logical progression or connection of this line of thought is to conclude
that truth can lie, since
half-truths are deceptive and
may lead to a false conclusion.
Nishida
According to
Kitaro Nishida,
"knowledge of things in the world begins with the differentiation of
unitary consciousness into knower and known and ends with self and things
becoming one again. Such unification takes form not only in knowing but in the
valuing (of truth) that directs knowing, the willing that directs action, and
the feeling or emotive reach that directs sensing."
[73]
Fromm
Erich
Fromm finds that trying to discuss truth as "absolute
truth" is sterile and that emphasis ought to be placed on "optimal
truth". He considers truth as stemming from the survival imperative of
grasping one's environment physically and intellectually, whereby young
children instinctively seek truth so as to orient themselves in "a strange
and powerful world". The accuracy of their perceived approximation of the
truth will therefore have direct consequences on their ability to deal with
their environment. Fromm can be understood to define truth as a functional
approximation of reality. His vision of optimal truth is described partly in
"Man from Himself: An Inquiry into the Psychology of Ethics" (1947),
from which excerpts are included below.
the dichotomy
between 'absolute = perfect' and 'relative = imperfect' has been superseded in
all fields of scientific thought, where "it is generally recognized that
there is no absolute truth but nevertheless that there are objectively valid
laws and principles".
In that respect,
"a scientifically or rationally valid statement means that the power of
reason is applied to all the available data of observation without any of them
being suppressed or falsified for the sake of a desired result". The
history of science is "a history of inadequate and incomplete statements,
and every new insight makes possible the recognition of the inadequacies of
previous propositions and offers a springboard for creating a more adequate
formulation."
As a result
"the history of thought is the history of an ever-increasing approximation
to the truth. Scientific knowledge is not absolute but optimal; it contains the
optimum of truth attainable in a given historical period." Fromm
furthermore notes that "different cultures have emphasized various aspects
of the truth" and that increasing interaction between cultures allows for
these aspects to reconcile and integrate, increasing further the approximation
to the truth.
Foucault
Truth, says
Michel Foucault, is
problematic when any attempt is made to see truth as an "objective"
quality. He prefers not to use the term truth itself but "Regimes of Truth".
In his historical investigations he found truth to be something that was itself
a part of, or embedded within, a given power structure. Thus Foucault's view
shares much in common with the concepts of
Nietzsche.
Truth for Foucault is also something that shifts through various
episteme
throughout history.
[74]
Baudrillard
Jean Baudrillard considered
truth to be largely simulated, that is pretending to have something, as opposed
to dissimulation, pretending to not have something. He took his cue from
iconoclasts
who he claims knew that images of God demonstrated that God did not exist.
[75]
Baudrillard wrote in "Precession of the Simulacra":
The simulacrum
is never that which conceals the truth—it is the truth which conceals that
there is none. The simulacrum is true.
Some examples of simulacra that Baudrillard cited were: that prisons
simulate the "truth" that society is free; scandals (e.g.,
Watergate)
simulate that corruption is corrected; Disney simulates that the U.S. itself is
an adult place. One must remember that though such examples seem extreme, such
extremity is an important part of Baudrillard's theory. For a less extreme
example, consider how movies usually end with the bad being punished,
humiliated, or otherwise failing, thus affirming for viewers the concept that
the good end happily and the bad unhappily, a narrative which implies that the
status quo and established power structures are largely legitimate.
[75]
In medicine and psychiatry
There is controversy as to the truth value of a proposition made in
bad
faith self-deception, such as when a
hypochondriac
has a complaint with no physical symptom.
[78]
In religion: omniscience
In a religious context, perfect knowledge of all truth about all things
(omniscience) is regarded by some
religions,
particularly
Buddhism and the
Abrahamic religions (
Christianity,
Islam,
and
Judaism),
as an attribute of a
divine being.
[79]
In the Abrahamic view,
God
can exercise
divine judgment, judging the
dead on the basis of perfect knowledge of their lives.
[80][81]
বৌদ্ধ
মতে ঈশ্বরঃ
Gautama
Buddha rejected the existence of a
creator
deity,
[1][2]
refused to endorse many views on creation
[3]
and stated that questions on the origin of the world are not ultimately useful
for ending
suffering.
[4][5]
Buddhism,
instead, emphasizes the system of causal relationships underlying the universe
(
pratītyasamutpāda or
Dependent Origination) which constitute the natural order (
dhamma)
and source of enlightenment. No dependence of phenomena on a supernatural
reality is asserted in order to explain the behaviour of matter. According to
the doctrine of the Buddha, a human being must study nature (
dhamma
vicaya) in order to attain personal wisdom (
prajna) regarding the
nature of things (
dharma). In Buddhism, the sole aim of spiritual
practice is the complete alleviation of
stress in
samsara,
[6][7]
which is called
nirvana.
Some teachers tell students beginning
Buddhist meditation that the
notion of divinity is not incompatible with Buddhism,
[8]
and at least one Buddhist scholar has indicated that describing Buddhism as
nontheistic
may be overly simplistic;
[9]
but many traditional theist beliefs are considered to pose a hindrance to the
attainment of
nirvana,
[10]
the highest goal of Buddhist practice.
[11]
Despite this apparent nontheism, Buddhists consider
veneration
of the
worthy ones[12]
very important,
[13]
although the two main traditions of Buddhism differ mildly in their reverential
attitudes. While
Theravada Buddhists view the
Buddha as a human being who attained
nirvana
or
Buddhahood,
through human efforts,
[14]
some
Mahayana Buddhists consider
him an embodiment of the cosmic
Dharmakaya,
born for the benefit of others.
[15]
In addition, some Mahayana Buddhists worship their chief
Bodhisattva,
Avalokiteshvara,
[16]
and hope to embody him.
[17]
Some Buddhists accept the existence of beings in higher realms (see
Buddhist cosmology), known as
devas,
but they, like humans, are said to be suffering in
samsara,
[18]
and are not necessarily wiser than us. In fact, the Buddha is often portrayed
as a teacher of the gods,
[19]
and superior to them.
[20]
Despite this there are believed to be enlightened devas.
[21]
Some variations of Buddhism express a philosophical belief in an
eternal
Buddha: a representation of omnipresent enlightenment and a symbol
of the true nature of the universe. The primordial aspect that interconnects
every part of the universe is the clear light of the eternal Buddha, where
everything timelessly arises and dissolves.
[22][23][24]
Early Buddhism
As scholar Surian Yee describes, "the attitude of the Buddha as
portrayed in the
Nikayas
is more anti-speculative than specifically atheistic", although Gautama
did regard the belief in a creator deity to be unhealthy.
[25]
However, the
Samaññaphala Sutta placed
materialism and amoralism together with
eternalism
as forms of wrong view.
[25]
As Hayes describes it, "In the Nikaya literature, the question of the
existence of God is treated primarily from either an epistemological point of
view or a moral point of view. As a problem of epistemology, the question of
God's existence amounts to a discussion of whether or not a religious seeker
can be certain that there is a greatest good and that therefore his efforts to
realize a greatest good will not be a pointless struggle towards an unrealistic
goal. And as a problem in morality, the question amounts to a discussion of whether
man himself is ultimately responsible for all the displeasure that he feels or
whether there exists a superior being who inflicts displeasure upon man whether
he deserves it or not... the Buddha Gotama is portrayed not as an atheist who
claims to be able to prove God's nonexistence, but rather as a skeptic with
respect to other teachers' claims to be able to lead their disciples to the
highest good."
[26]
Citing the
Devadaha Sutta ('Majjhima Nikaya 101), Hayes remarks that
"while the reader is left to conclude that it is attachment rather than
God, actions in past lives, fate, type of birth or efforts in this life that is
responsible for our experiences of sorrow, no systematic argument is given in
an attempt to disprove the existence of God."
[27]
In the
Pāli Canon the Buddha tells
Vasettha that the
Tathāgata (the Buddha) was
Dharmakāya,
the 'Truth-body' or the 'Embodiment of Truth', as well as Dharmabhuta,
'Truth-become', 'One who has become Truth.'
[28][29]
The Buddha is equated with the Dhamma:
... and the Buddha comforts him, "Enough, Vakkali. Why do you want to
see this filthy body? Whoever sees the Dhamma sees me; whoever sees me sees the
Dhamma."
[30]
Putikaya, the "decomposing" body, is distinguished from the
eternal
Dhamma body of the Buddha and the
Bodhisattva
body.
Brahma in the Pali Canon
Brahma is among the common
gods found in the Pali Canon. Brahma (in common with all other devas) is
subject to change, final decline and death, just as are all other sentient
beings in
samsara (the plane of
continual reincarnation and suffering). In fact there are several different
Brahma worlds and several kinds of Brahmas in Buddhism, all of which however
are just beings stuck in samsara for a long while. Sir Charles Eliot describes
attitudes towards Brahma in early Buddhism as follows:
There comes a time when this world system passes away and then certain
beings are reborn in the "World of Radiance" and remain there a long
time. Sooner or later, the world system begins to evolve again and the palace
of Brahma appears, but it is empty. Then some being whose time is up falls from
the "World of Radiance" and comes to life in the palace and remains
there alone. At last he wishes for company, and it so happens that other beings
whose time is up fall from the "World of Radiance" and join him. And
the first being thinks that he is Great Brahma, the Creator, because when he
felt lonely and wished for companions other beings appeared. And the other
beings accept this view. And at last one of Brahma’s retinue falls from that
state and is born in the human world and, if he can remember his previous
birth, he reflects that he is transitory but that Brahma still remains and from
this he draws the erroneous conclusion that Brahma is eternal.
[31]
Other common gods referred to in the Canon
Many of the other gods in the Pali Canon find a common mythological role in
Hindu literature. Some common gods and goddesses are Indra, Aapo (
Varuna),
Vayo (
Vayu),
Tejo (
Agni),
Surya, Pajapati (
Prajapati), Soma, Yasa, Venhu
(
Viṣṇu),
Mahadeva (
Siva),
Vijja (
Saraswati),
Usha, Pathavi (
Prithvi),
Sri (
Lakshmi),
Kuvera (
Kubera),
several yakkhas (
Yakshas),
gandhabbas (
Gandharvas),
Nāgas,
garula (
Garuda),
sons of Bali, Veroca, etc.
[32]
While in Hindu texts some of these gods and goddesses are considered
embodiments of the Supreme Being, the Buddhist view is that all gods and
goddesses were bound to samsara. The world of gods according to the Buddha
presents a being with too many pleasures and distractions.
Abhidharma and Yogacara analysis
The Theravada
Abhidhamma tradition did not
tend to elaborate argumentation against the existence of God, but in the
Abhidharmakośa
of the
Sarvāstivāda,
Vasubandhu
does actively argue against the existence of a creator, stating that the
universe has no beginning.
[33]
The Chinese monk
Xuanzang studied Buddhism in
India during the 7th century CE, staying at
Nālandā
University. There, he studied the Consciousness Only teachings
passed down from
Asanga
and Vasubandhu, and taught to him by the abbot
Śīlabhadra.
In his comprehensive work
Cheng
Weishi Lun (Skt.
Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi Śastra), Xuanzang
refutes the Indian philosophical doctrine of a "Great Lord" (
Īśvara)
or a Great Brahmā, a self-existent and omnipotent creator deity who is ruler of
all existence.
[34]
According to one doctrine, there is a great, self-existent deity whose
substance is real and who is all-pervading, eternal, and the producer of all
phenomena. This doctrine is unreasonable. If something produces something, it
is not eternal, the non-eternal is not all-pervading, and what is not
all-pervading is not real. If the deity's substance is all-pervading and
eternal, it must contain all powers and be able to produce all phenomena
everywhere, at all times, and simultaneously. If he produces phenomena when a desire
arises, or according to conditions, this contradicts the doctrine of a single
cause. Or else, desires and conditions would arise spontaneously since the
cause is eternal. Other doctrines claim that there is a great Brahma, a Time, a
Space, a Starting Point, a Nature, an Ether, a Self, etc., that is eternal and
really exists, is endowed with all powers, and is able to produce all
phenomena. We refute all these in the same way we did the concept of the Great
Lord.
[35]
Mahayana and Vajrayana doctrines
In the
pramana
tradition,
Dharmakīrti advances a number
of arguments against the existence of a creator god in his
Pramāṇavārika,
following in the footsteps of Vasubandhu.
[36]
Later Mahayana scholars such as Śāntarakṣita and Kamalaśīla continued this
tradition.
[37]
Some Mahayana and
Dzogchen traditions of
Buddhism, however, do assert an underlying monistic 'ground of being' or
tathagatagarbha,
which is stated to be indestructibly present in all beings and phenomena. The
Tathagatagarbha Sutras, in
particular, enunciate this view.
Tathagatagarbha, Dharmakaya and God
Mahayana Buddhism, unlike
Theravada, talks of the mind
using terms such as "
the womb of the Thus-come One"
(
tathagatagarbha). The affirmation of emptiness by positive terminology
is radically different from the early Buddhist doctrines of
Anatta and
refusal to personify or objectify any Supreme Reality.
In the
tathagatagarbha tradition, the Buddha is on occasion
identified with the
Dharmakaya, Supreme Reality,
which possesses the god-like qualities of eternality, inscrutability and
immutability. In his monograph on the tathagatagarbha doctrine as formulated in
the only ancient Indian commentarial analysis of the doctrine extant - the
Uttaratantra
- Professor C. D. Sebastian writes of how the 'divinised' Buddha is accorded
worship and is characterised by a compassionate love, which becomes manifest in
the world in the form of salvific activity to liberate beings from suffering.
Sebastian stresses, however, that the Buddha thus conceived, although deemed
worthy of worship, was never viewed as synonymous to a Creator God:
"Mahayana Buddhism is not only intellectual, but it is also
devotional... in Mahayana, Buddha was taken as God, as Supreme Reality itself
that descended on the earth in human form for the good of mankind. The concept
of Buddha (as equal to God in theistic systems) was never as a creator but as
Divine Love that out of compassion (karuna) embodied itself in human form to
uplift suffering humanity. He was worshipped with fervent devotion... He
represents the Absolute (
paramartha satya), devoid of all plurality (
sarva-prapancanta-vinirmukta)
and has no beginning, middle and end... Buddha... is eternal, immutable... As
such He represents Dharmakaya."
—Professor C. D. Sebastian[38]
According to the Tathagatagarbha sutras, the Buddha taught the existence of
this spiritual essence called the tathagatagarbha or
Buddha-nature,
which is present in all beings and phenomena. B. Alan Wallace writes of this
doctrine:
"The essential nature of the whole of samsara and nirvana is the
absolute space (
dhatu) of the
tathagatagarbha, but this space is
not to be confused with a mere absence of matter. Rather, this absolute space
is imbued with all the infinite knowledge, compassion, power, and enlightened
activities of the Buddha. Moreover, this luminous space is that which causes
the phenomenal world to appear, and it is none other than the nature of one's
own mind, which by nature is clear light."
Wallace further writes on how the primal Buddha, Samantabhadra, who in some
scriptures is viewed as one with the
tathagatagarbha, forms the very
radiating foundation of both samsara and nirvana. Noting a progression within
Buddhism from doctrines of a mind-stream (
bhavanga) to that of the
absolutised
tathagatagarbha, Wallace comments that it may be too simple
in the light of such doctrinal elements to define Buddhism unconditionally as
"non-theistic":
"
Samantabhadra, the primordial
Buddha whose nature is identical with the
tathagatagarbha within each
sentient being, is the ultimate ground of
samsara and
nirvana;
and the entire universe consists of nothing other than displays of this
infinite, radiant, empty awareness. Thus, in light of the theoretical
progression from the
bhavanga to the
tathagatagarbha to the
primordial wisdom of the absolute space of reality, Buddhism is not so simply
non-theistic as it may appear at first glance."
Vajrayana views
In some Mahayana traditions, the Buddha is indeed worshipped as a virtual
divinity who is possessed of supernatural qualities and powers. Guang Xing
writes: "The Buddha worshiped by Mahayanist followers is an omnipotent
divinity endowed with numerous supernatural attributes and qualities ...[He] is
described almost as an omnipotent and almighty godhead."
[41]
The Buddhist scholar B. Alan Wallace has also indicated (as shown above)
that saying that Buddhism as a whole is "non-theistic" may be an
over-simplification. Wallace discerns similarities between some forms of
Vajrayana Buddhism and notions of a divine "ground of being" and
creation. He writes: "a careful analysis of Vajrayana Buddhist cosmogony,
specifically as presented in the Atiyoga tradition of Indo-Tibetan Buddhism,
which presents itself as the culmination of all Buddhist teachings, reveals a
theory of a transcendent ground of being and a process of creation that bear
remarkable similarities with views presented in Vedanta and Neoplatonic Western
Christian theories of creation."
[42]
In fact, Wallace sees these views as so similar that they seem almost to be
different manifestations of the same theory. He further comments:
"Vajrayana Buddhism, Vedanta, and Neoplatonic Christianity have so much in
common that they could almost be regarded as varying interpretations of a
single theory."
[43]
The Tibetan monk-scholar
Dolpopa of the Tibetan Jonang
tradition speaks of a universal spiritual essence or
noumenon (the
Buddha as
Dharmakaya)
which contains all sentient beings in their totality, and quotes from the
Sutra
on the Inconceivable Mysteries of the One-Gone-Thus:
"... space dwells in all appearances of forms .. similarly, the body of
the one-gone-thus [i.e. Buddha] also thoroughly dwells in all appearances of
sentient beings ... For example, all appearances of forms are included inside
space. Similarly, all appearances of sentient beings are included inside the
body of the one-gone-thus [i.e. Buddha as
Dharmakaya]."
[44]
Dolpopa further quotes Buddhist scripture when he writes of this unified
spiritual essence or noumenon as the 'supreme Over-Self of all continuums'
[45]
and as "Self always residing in all, as the selfhood of all."
[46]
Yogacara and the Absolute
Another scholar sees a Buddhist Absolute in Consciousness. Writing on the
Yogacara
school of Buddhism, A. K. Chatterjee remarks: "The Absolute is a non-dual
consciousness. The duality of the subject and object does not pertain to it. It
is said to be void (
sunya), devoid of duality; in itself it is perfectly
real, in fact the only reality ...There is no consciousness
of the
Absolute; Consciousness
is the Absolute."
[47]
While this is a traditional Tibetan interpretation of Yogacara views, it has
been rejected by modern Western scholarship, namely by Kochumuttom, Anacker,
Kalupahana, Dunne, Lusthaus, Powers, and Wayman.
[48][49][50]
Scholar
Dan
Lusthaus writes: "They [Yogacarins] did not focus on
consciousness to assert it as ultimately real (Yogācāra claims consciousness is
only conventionally real since it arises from moment to moment due to
fluctuating causes and conditions), but rather because it is the cause of the
karmic problem they are seeking to eliminate."
[49]
Zen and the Absolute
A further name for the irreducible, time-and-space-transcending mysterious
Truth or Essence of Buddhic Reality spoken of in some Mahayana and tantric
texts is the
Dharmakaya (Body of Truth). Of
this the
Zen Buddhist master
Sokei-An,
says:
[51]
...
dharmakaya [is] the equivalent of God ... The Buddha also speaks
of no time and no space, where if I make a sound there is in that single moment
a million years. It is spaceless like radio waves, like electric space -
intrinsic. The Buddha said that there is a mirror that reflects consciousness.
In this electric space a million miles and a pinpoint - a million years and a
moment - are exactly the same. It is pure essence ... We call it 'original
consciousness' - 'original
akasha' - perhaps God in the Christian sense.
I am afraid of speaking about anything that is not familiar to me. No one can
know what IT is ...
The same Zen adept, Sokei-An, further comments:
[52]
The creative power of the universe is not a human being; it is Buddha. The
one who sees, and the one who hears, is not this eye or ear, but the one who is
this consciousness.
This One is Buddha.
This One appears
in every mind.
This One is common to all sentient beings, and is God.
The Rinzai Zen Buddhist master, Soyen Shaku, speaking to Americans at the
beginning of the 20th century, discusses how in essence the idea of God is not
absent from Buddhism, when understood as ultimate, true Reality:
[53]
At the outset, let me state that Buddhism is not atheistic as the term is
ordinarily understood. It has certainly a God, the highest reality and truth,
through which and in which this universe exists. However, the followers of
Buddhism usually avoid the term God, for it savors so much of
Christianity,
whose spirit is not always exactly in accord with the Buddhist interpretation
of religious experience ... To define more exactly the Buddhist notion of the
highest being, it may be convenient to borrow the term very happily coined by a
modern German scholar, 'panentheism', according to which God is ... all and one
and more than the totality of existence .... As I mentioned before, Buddhists
do not make use of the term God, which characteristically belongs to Christian
terminology. An equivalent most commonly used is
Dharmakaya
... When the Dharmakaya is most concretely conceived it becomes the Buddha, or
Tathagata ...
On the other hand,
Kōshō Uchiyama explicitly
stated in
From the Zen Kitchen to Enlightenment that Buddhism has no
god.
The fundamental difference between Buddhism and other religions is that
Buddhism has no God or gods before whom people bow down in return for some
peace of mind. The spirit enmeshed in the Buddha's teachings refuses to offer a
god in exchange for freedom from anxiety. Instead, freedom from anxiety can
only be found at that point where the Self settles naturally upon itself.
[54]
Primordial Buddhas
Theories regarding a self-existent immutable substantial "ground of
being" or substrate were common in India prior to the Buddha, and were
rejected by him: "The Buddha, however, refusing to admit any metaphysical
principle as a common thread holding the moments of encountered phenomena
together, rejects the
Upanishadic notion of an
immutable substance or principle underlying the world and the person and
producing phenomena out of its inherent power, be it 'being',
atman,
brahman,
or 'god.'"
[55]
In later Mahayana literature, however, the idea of an eternal,
all-pervading, all-knowing, immaculate, uncreated and deathless Ground of Being
(the
dharmadhatu, inherently linked to the
sattvadhatu, the realm
of beings), which is the Awakened Mind (
bodhicitta) or
Dharmakaya
("body of Truth") of the Buddha himself, is attributed to the Buddha
in a number of Mahayana sutras, and is found in various tantras as well. In
some Mahayana texts, such a principle is occasionally presented as manifesting
in a more personalised form as a primordial buddha, such as
Samantabhadra,
Vajradhara,
Vairochana,
and
Adi-Buddha,
among others.
In Buddhist tantric and Dzogchen scriptures, too, this immanent and
transcendent Dharmakaya (the ultimate essence of the Buddha’s being) is
portrayed as the primordial Buddha, Samantabhadra, worshipped as the primordial
lord. In a study of
Dzogchen,
Sam
van Schaik mentions how Samantabhadra Buddha is indeed seen as ‘the
heart essence of all buddhas, the Primordial Lord, the noble Victorious One,
Samantabhadra’.
[56]
Schaik indicates that Samantabhadra is not to be viewed as some kind of
separate
mindstream, apart from the mindstreams of sentient beings, but
should be known as a universal nirvanic principle termed the Awakened Mind (
bodhi-citta)
and present in all.
[57]
Schaik quotes from the tantric texts,
Experiencing the Enlightened Mind of
Samantabhadra and
The Subsequent Tantra of Great Perfection Instruction
to portray Samantabhadra as an uncreated, reflexive, radiant, pure and vital
Knowing (gnosis) which is present in all things:
The essence of all phenomena is the awakened mind; the mind of all Buddhas
is the awakened mind; and the life-force of all sentient beings is the awakened
mind, too … This unfabricated gnosis of the present moment is the reflexive
luminosity, naked and stainless, the Primordial Lord himself.
[58]
The
Shingon
Buddhist monk, Dohan, regarded the two great Buddhas,
Amida
and
Vairocana,
as one and the same
Dharmakaya Buddha and as the
true nature at the core of all beings and phenomena. There are several
realisations that can accrue to the Shingon practitioner of which Dohan speaks
in this connection, as James Sanford points out: there is the realisation that
Amida
is the
Dharmakaya
Buddha, Vairocana; then there is the realisation that Amida as Vairocana is
eternally manifest within this universe of time and space; and finally there is
the innermost realisation that Amida is the true nature, material and
spiritual, of all beings, that he is 'the omnivalent wisdom-body, that he is
the unborn, unmanifest, unchanging reality that rests quietly at the core of
all phenomena'.
[59]
Similar God-like descriptions are encountered in the
All-Creating King
Tantra (
Kunjed Gyalpo Tantra), where
the universal Mind of Awakening (in its mode as "Samantabhadra
Buddha") declares of itself:
[60]
I am the core of all that exists. I am the seed of all that exists. I am the
cause of all that exists. I am the trunk of all that exists. I am the
foundation of all that exists. I am the root of existence. I am "the
core" because I contain all phenomena. I am "the seed" because I
give birth to everything. I am "the cause" because all comes from me.
I am "the trunk" because the ramifications of every event sprout from
me. I am "the foundation" because all abides in me. I am called
"the root" because I am everything.
The
Karandavyuha Sutra presents
the great bodhisattva, Avalokitesvara, as a kind of supreme lord of the cosmos.
A striking feature of Avalokitesvara in this sutra is his creative power, as he
is said to be the progenitor of various heavenly bodies and divinities.
Alexander Studholme, in his monograph on the sutra, writes:
The sun and moon are said to be born from the bodhisattva's eyes, Mahesvara
[Siva] from his brow, Brahma from his shoulders, Narayana [Vishnu] from his
heart, Sarasvati from his teeth, the winds from his mouth, the earth from his
feet and the sky from his stomach.'
[61]
Avalokitesvara himself is linked in the versified version of the sutra to
the first Buddha, the Adi Buddha, who is 'svayambhu' (self-existent, not born
from anything or anyone). Studholme comments: "Avalokitesvara himself, the
verse sutra adds, is an emanation of the
Adibuddha, or 'primordial
Buddha', a term that is explicitly said to be synoymous with
Svayambhu
and
Adinatha, 'primordial lord'."
[62]
The Primordial Buddha is ultimately both the individual mind and the
immanent ominpresent enlightenment of the macrocosmical reality. The individual
and external phenomena being seen as interdependent.
Eternal Buddha of Shin Buddhism
In
Shin Buddhism,
Amida
Buddha is viewed as the eternal Buddha who manifested as Shakyamuni in
(Lumbini) Nepal and who is the personification of Nirvana itself. The Shin
Buddhist priest, John Paraskevopoulos, in his monograph on Shin Buddhism,
writes:
'In Shin Buddhism, Nirvana or Ultimate Reality (also known as the
"Dharma-Body" or
Dharmakaya in the original Sanskrit) has
assumed a more concrete form as (a) the Buddha of Infinite Light (
Amitabha)
and Infinite Life (
Amitayus)and (b) the "
Pure
Land" or "Land of Utmost Bliss" (
Sukhavati),
the realm over which this Buddha is said to preside ... Amida is the Eternal Buddha
who is said to have taken form as Shakyamuni and his teachings in order to
become known to us in ways we can readily comprehend.'
[63]
John Paraskevopoulos elucidates the notion of Nirvana, of which Amida is an
embodiment, in the following terms:
... [Nirvana's] more positive connotation is that of a higher state of
being, the dispelling of illusion and the corresponding joy of liberation. An
early Buddhist scripture describes Nirvana as: ... the far shore, the subtle,
the very difficult to see, the undisintegrating, the unmanifest, the peaceful,
the deathless, the sublime, the auspicious, the secure, the destruction of
craving, the wonderful, the amazing, the unailing, the unafflicted, dispassion,
purity, freedom, the island, the shelter, the asylum, the refuge ... (
Samyutta
Nikaya)
[64]
This Nirvana is seen as eternal and of one nature, indeed as the essence of
all things. Paraskevopoulos tells of how the
Mahaparinirvana Sutra
speaks of Nirvana as eternal, pure, blissful and true self:
In Mahayana Buddhism it is taught that there is fundamentally one reality
which, in its highest and purest dimension, is experienced as Nirvana. It is
also known, as we have seen, as the Dharma-Body (considered the ultimate form
of Being) or "Suchness" (
Tathata in Sanskrit) when viewed as
the essence of all things ... "The Dharma-Body is eternity, bliss, true
self and purity. It is forever free of all birth, ageing, sickness and
death" (
Nirvana Sutra)
[65]
To attain this Self, however, it is needful to transcend the 'small self'
and its pettiness with the help of an 'external' agency, Amida Buddha. This is
the view promulgated by the
Jodo Shinshu founding Buddhist
master,
Shinran Shonin. John
Paraskevopoulos comments on this:
Shinran's great insight was that we cannot conquer the self by the self.
Some kind of external agency is required: (a) to help us to shed light on our
ego as it really is in all its petty and baneful guises; and (b) to enable us
to subdue the small 'self' with a view to realising the Great Self by awakening
to Amida's light.
[66]
When that Great Self of Amida's light is realised, Shin Buddhism is able to
see the Infinite which transcends the care-worn mundane. John Paraskevopoulos
concludes his monograph on Shin Buddhism thus:
It is time we discarded the tired view of Buddhism as a dry and forensic
rationalism , lacking in warmth and devotion ... By hearing the call of Amida
Buddha we become awakened to true reality and its unfathomable working ... to
live a life that dances jubilantly in the resplendent light of the Infinite.
[67]
Devas and the supernatural in Buddhism
While Buddhist traditions do not deny the existence of supernatural beings
(e.g., the
devas, of which many are
discussed in
Buddhist scripture), it does
not ascribe powers, in the typical Western sense, for creation, salvation or
judgement, to the "gods". They are regarded as having the power to
affect worldly events in much the same way as humans and animals have the power
to do so. Just as humans can affect the world more than animals,
devas
can affect the world more than humans. While gods may be more powerful than
humans, Buddhists believe none of them are
absolute, and like humans, are
also suffering in
samsara,
the ongoing cycle of death and subsequent rebirth. Buddhists see gods as not
having attained
nirvana,
and still subject to emotions, including jealousy, anger, delusion, sorrow,
etc. Thus, since a Buddha is believed to show the way to nirvana, a Buddha is
called "
the teacher of the gods and humans"
(Skrt:
śāsta deva-manuṣyāṇaṃ). According to the Pali Canon the gods have
powers to affect only so far as their realm of influence or control allows
them. In this sense therefore, they are no closer to nirvana than humans and no
wiser in the ultimate sense. A dialogue between the king Pasenadi Kosala, his
general Vidudabha and the historical Buddha reveals a lot about the relatively
weaker position of gods in Buddhism.
[68]
Though not believing in a creator God, Buddhists inherited the Indian
cosmology of the time which includes various types of 'god' realms such as the
Heaven of the Thirty-Three, the Four Great Kings, and so on. Deva-realms are
part of the various possible types of existence in the
Buddhist cosmology. Rebirth as
a deva is attributed to virtuous actions performed in previous lives. Beings
that had meditated are thought to be reborn in more and more subtle realms with
increasingly vast life spans, in accord with their meditative ability. In
particular, the highest deva realms are pointed out as false paths in
meditation that the meditator should be aware of. Like any existence within the
cycle of rebirth (
samsara),
a life as a deva is only temporary. At the time of death, a large part of the
former deva's good karma has been expended, leaving mostly negative karma and a
likely rebirth in one of the three lower realms. Therefore, Buddhists make a
special effort not to be reborn in deva realms.
It is also noteworthy that devas in Buddhism have no role to play in
liberation. Sir Charles Eliot describes God in early Buddhism as follows:
The attitude of early Buddhism to the spirit world — the hosts of
deities and demons who people this and other spheres. Their existence is
assumed, but the truths of religion are not dependent on them, and attempts to
use their influence by sacrifices and oracles are deprecated as vulgar
practices similar to juggling.
The systems of philosophy then in vogue were mostly not theistic, and,
strange as the words may sound, religion had little to do with the gods. If
this be thought to rest on a mistranslation, it is certainly true that the
dhamma had very little to do with devas.
Often as the Devas figure in early Buddhist stories, the significance of
their appearance nearly always lies in their relations with the Buddha or his
disciples. Of mere mythology, such as the dealings of Brahma and Indra with
other gods, there is little. In fact the gods, though freely invoked as
accessories, are not taken seriously, and there are some extremely curious
passages in which Gotama seems to laugh at them, much as the sceptics of the
18th century laughed at Jehovah. Thus in the [Pali Canon] Kevaddha Sutta he
relates how a monk who was puzzled by a metaphysical problem applied to various
gods and finally accosted Brahma himself in the presence of all his retinue.
After hearing the question, which was "Where do the elements cease and
leave no trace behind?" Brahma replies, "I am the Great Brahma, the
Supreme, the Mighty, the All-seeing, the Ruler, the Lord of all, the
Controller, the Creator, the Chief of all, appointing to each his place, the
Ancient of days, the Father of all that are and are to be."
"But," said the monk, "I did not ask you, friend, whether you
were indeed all you now say, but I ask you where the four elements cease and
leave no trace." Then the Great Brahma took him by the arm and led him
aside and said, "These gods think I know and understand everything.
Therefore I gave no answer in their presence. But I do not know the answer to
your question and you had better go and ask the Buddha."
[31]
The Pali Canon also attributes supernatural powers to enlightened beings
(Buddhas), that even gods may not have. In a dialogue between king Ajatasattu
and the Buddha, enlightened beings are ascribed supranormal powers (like human
flight, walking on water etc.), clairaudience, mind reading, recollection of
past lives of oneself and others.
[69]
Attitudes towards theories of creation
Reflecting a common understanding of the Buddha's earliest teachings,
Nyanaponika
Thera asserts:
From a study of the discourses of the Buddha preserved in the Pali canon, it
will be seen that the idea of a personal deity, a creator god conceived to be
eternal and omnipotent, is incompatible with the Buddha's teachings. On the
other hand, conceptions of an impersonal godhead of any description, such as
world-soul, etc., are excluded by the Buddha's teachings on Anatta, non-self or
unsubstantiality. ... In Buddhist literature, the belief in a creator god
(issara-nimmana-vada) is frequently mentioned and rejected, along with other causes
wrongly adduced to explain the origin of the world.
[70]
In addition, nowhere in the Pali Canon are Buddhas ascribed powers of
creation, salvation and judgement. In fact, Buddhism is critical of all
theories on the origin of the universe
[71]
and holds the belief in creation as a fetter binding one to samsara. However,
the
Aggañña Sutta does contain a
detailed account of the Buddha describing the origin of human life on earth. In
this text, the Buddha provides an explanation of the
caste system
alternate to the one contained in the Vedas, and shows why one caste is not
really any better than the other.
[72]
According to scholar Richard Gombrich, the sutta gives strong evidence that it
was conceived entirely as a satire of pre-existing beliefs,
[73]
and he and scholar David Kalupahana have asserted that the primary intent of
this text is to satirize and debunk the
brahminical claims regarding
the divine nature of the caste system, showing that it is nothing but a human
convention.
[74][75]
Strictly speaking, the sutta is not a cosmogony, as in Buddhism, an absolute
beginning is inconceivable. Since the earliest times Buddhists have, however,
taken it seriously as an account of the origins of society and kingship.
[73]
Gombrich, however, finds it to be a parody of brahminical cosmogony as
presented in the
Rig Vedic "
Hymn
of Creation" (RV X, 129) and
BAU 1, 2.
[76]
He states: "The Buddha never intended to propound a cosmogony. If we take
a close look at the Aggañña Sutta, there are considerable incoherencies if it
is taken seriously as an explanatory account - though once it is perceived to
be a parody these inconsistencies are of no account." In particular,
Gombrich finds that to view the Aggañña Sutta as a truthful account violates
the basic Buddhist theory of how the law of karma operates, as Gombrich argues
that beings cannot possibly be born in a realm (Streaming Radiance) higher than
the Maha Brahma realm only to fall back to such a low realm of existence on
Earth, and eventually succumb to sense craving as the first beings in a
re-evolved human realm.
[77]
However, scholars Rupert Gethin and Brahmana Metteyya strongly disagree with
Gombrich's complete dismissal as satire of the Aggañña Sutta.
[78][79]
Gethin states:
While certain of the details of the Agganna-sutta's account of the evolution
of human society may be, as Gombrich has persuasively argued, satirical in
intent, there is nothing in the Nikayas to suggest that these basic cosmological
principles that I have identified should be so understood; there is nothing to
suggest that the Agganna-sutta's introductory formula describing the expansion
and contraction of the world is merely a joke. We should surely expect early
Buddhism and indeed the Buddha to have some specific ideas about the nature of
the round of rebirth, and essentially this is what the cosmological details
presented in the Agganna-sutta and elsewhere in Nikayas constitute ... far from
being out of key with what we can understand of Buddhist thought from the rest
of the Nikayas, the cosmogonic views offered by the Aggañña Sutta in fact
harmonize very well with it . .I would go further and say that something along
the lines of the Aggañña myth is actually required by it.
[79]
In the Aggañña Sutta the Buddha advises Vasettha that whoever has strong,
deep rooted, and established belief in the Tathagatha, he can declare that he
is the child of
Bhagavan,
born from the mouth of Dhamma, created from Dhamma, and the heir of Dhamma.
Because the titles of the Tathagatha are: The Body of Dhamma, The Body of
Brahma, the Manifestation of Dhamma, and the Manifestation of Brahma. That
resonates well with the later Mahayana doctrine, though preceding it.
In Buddhism, the focus is primarily on the effect the belief in theories of
creation and a creator have on the human mind. The Buddhist attitude towards
every
view is one of critical
examination from the perspective of what effect the belief has on the mind and
whether the belief binds one to samsara or not.
The Buddha declared that "it is not possible to know or determine the
first beginning of the cycle of existence of beings who wander therein deluded
by ignorance and obsessed by craving."
[80]
Speculation about the origin and extent of the universe is generally
discouraged in early Buddhism.
[81]
Theravada
Huston
Smith describes early Buddhism as psychological rather than
metaphysical.
[82]
Unlike theistic religions, which are founded on notions of God and related
creation
myths, Buddhism begins with the human condition as enumerated in the
Four Noble Truths. Thus while
most other religions attempt to pass a blanket judgement on the goodness of
a
pre-fallen world (e.g. 'He then looked at the world and saw that it
was good.'
Book of Genesis,
Old
Testament,
Christian Bible) and
therefore derive the greatness of its Creator, Early Buddhism denies that the
question is even worth asking to begin with.
[83]
Instead it places emphasis on the human condition of clinging and the
insubstantial nature of the world. This approach is often even in contrast with
many of the Mahayana forms of Buddhism. No being, whether a god or an
enlightened being (including the historical Buddha), is ascribed powers of
creation, granting salvation and judgement. According to the Pali Canon,
omnipotence
cannot be ascribed to any being. Further, in Theravada Buddhism, there are no
lands or heavens where a being is guaranteed nibbana (Skt. "
nirvana")
except in the
Anāgāmi realms in the Pure
Abodes (Pali: Sudhavasasa), which according to the historical Buddha require
removal of the first five
fetters (belief in permanent
self, skeptical doubt about the Dhamma, clinging to rites and rituals, sensual
lust, and hatred). In Early Buddhism there is no equivalent to the Mahayana
"Pure Land" or magical abode of Buddhas where one is guaranteed to be
enlightened by simply reciting the Amitabha mantra before death without
removing any of the 10
fetters that bind us to
saṃsāra.
In fact, the very idea of a "Buddha" living in any heaven abode is
not possible in Early Buddhism, as a "Buddha", by definition, is a
being that is no longer clinging to any material or immaterial existence upon
the death of the body (parinibbana).
[84]
The late Theravada philosophy states the principle of
Bhavanga
as the ground of being for all karmas. There are multiple Bhavanga streams
which are manifested and responsible for the individual minds and continuous
karmic streams.
Vajrayana
Tibetan schools of Buddhism speak of two truths, absolute and relative.
Relative truth is regarded as the chain of ongoing causes and conditions that
define experience within samsara, and ultimate truth is synonymous with
emptiness. There are many philosophical viewpoints, but unique to the Vajrayana
perspective is the expression (by meditators) of emptiness in experiential
language, as opposed to the language of negation used by scholars to undo any
conceptual fixation that would stand in the way of a correct understanding of
emptiness. For example, one teacher from the Tibetan
Kagyu school
of Buddhism, Kalu Rinpoche, elucidates: "...pure mind cannot be located,
but it is omnipresent and all-penetrating; it embraces and pervades all things.
Moreover, it is beyond change, and its open nature is indestructible and
atemporal."
[85]
Veneration of the Buddha
Although an absolute creator god is absent in most forms of Buddhism,
veneration or worship of the Buddha and other
Buddhas
does play a major role in all forms of Buddhism. In Buddhism all beings may
strive for Buddhahood. Throughout the schools of Buddhism, it is taught that
being born in the human realm is best for realizing full enlightenment, whereas
being born as a god presents one with too much pleasure and too many
distractions to provide any motivation for serious insight meditation.
Doctrines of
theosis have played an
important role in Christian thought, and there are a number of theistic
variations of Hinduism where a practitioner can strive to become the godhead
(for example
Vedanta),
but from a Buddhist perspective, such attainment would be disadvantageous to
the attainment of nirvana,since it may possibly be based on mental
reification. Some forms of
Buddhist meditation, however, share more similarities with the concept of
henosis.
In Buddhism, one venerates Buddhas and sages for their virtues, sacrifices,
and struggles for perfect enlightenment, and as teachers who are embodiments of
the
Dhamma.
[86]
In Buddhism, this supreme victory of the human ability for perfect gnosis is
celebrated in the concept of human saints known as
Arahants
which literally means "worthy of offerings" or "worthy of
worship" because this sage overcomes all defilements and obtains perfect
gnosis to obtain
Nirvana.
Professor Perry Schmidt-Leukel comments on how some portrayals of the Buddha
within Western understanding deprive him of certain 'divine' features, which
are in fact found in the earlier scriptures and in certain Eastern contexts.
Schmidt-Leukel writes:
What a difference between the presentation of the Buddha within the genuine
context of religious veneration, as in [the Doi Suthep Thai] temple, and the
image of the Buddha - currently so widespread in the West - according to which
the Buddha was simply a human being, free from all divine features! Indeed this
modern view does not at all correspond to the description of the Buddha in the
classical Buddhist scriptures.
[87]
জৈন
মতে ঈশ্বরঃ
Jainism
rejects the idea of a
creator deity responsible for
the manifestation, creation, or maintenance of this universe. According to Jain
doctrine, the universe and its constituents (soul, matter, space, time, and
principles of motion) have
always existed. All the constituents
and actions are governed by universal natural laws and an immaterial entity
like God cannot create a material entity like the universe. Jainism offers an
elaborate
cosmology, including heavenly
beings (
devas), but these beings are not viewed as creators; they are
subject to suffering and change like all other living beings, and must
eventually die.
Jains define godliness as the inherent quality of any soul characterizing
infinite bliss, infinite power,
Perfect
knowledge and Perfect peace. However, these qualities of a soul are
subdued due to
karmas of the soul. One who
achieves this state of soul through
right
belief, right knowledge and right conduct can be termed as god. This
perfection of soul is called
Kaivalya or
Bodhi.
A god thus becomes a liberated soul – liberated of miseries, cycles of rebirth,
world,
karmas and finally liberated of body as well. This is called
nirvana or
moksha.
If godliness is defined as the state of having freed one's soul from karmas
and the attainment of
enlightenment/Nirvana and a
god as one who exists in such a state, then those who have achieved such a
state can be termed gods/
Tirthankara. Thus,
Rishabha was god/
Tirthankara
but he was not the only
Tirthankara; there were many other
Tirthankara.
However, the quality of godliness is one and the same in all of them. Thus,
Jainism can be defined as
polytheist,
monotheist,
nontheist,
transtheist
or
atheist,
depending on one's definition of God.
Jainism does not teach the dependency on any
supreme
being for enlightenment. The Tirthankara is a guide and teacher who
points the way to enlightenment, but the struggle for enlightenment is one's
own. Moral rewards and sufferings are not the work of a divine being, but a
result of an innate moral order in the
cosmos; a
self-regulating mechanism whereby the individual reaps the fruits of his own
actions through the workings of the karmas.
Jains believe that to attain enlightenment and ultimately liberation from
all karmic
bonding
,
one must practice the ethical principles not only in thought, but also in words
(speech) and action. Such a practice through lifelong work towards oneself is
called as observing the
Mahavrata ("Great
Vows").
Gods can be thus categorized into embodied gods also known as
Tīrthankaras
and Arihantas or ordinary
Kevalin,
and non-embodied formless gods who are called
Siddhas.
Jainism considers the
devīs and
devas to be souls who dwell in
heavens owing to meritorious deeds in their past lives. These souls are in
heavens for a fixed lifespan and even they have to undergo reincarnation as
humans to achieve
moksa.
Arihants
Arihants, also known as
Kevalins,
are gods in embodied states who ultimately become
Siddhas, or
liberated souls, at the time of their
nirvana. An Arihant is a soul
who has destroyed all passions, is totally unattached and without any desire
and hence is able to destroy the four
ghātiyā karmas and attain
kevala
jñāna, or omniscience. Such a soul still has a body and four
aghātiyā karmas. An Arihant,
at the end of his lifespan, destroys his remaining aghātiyā karma and becomes a
Siddha.
Tīrthankaras
Tīrthankaras
(also known as
Jinas) are
Arhatas who are teachers and revivers
of the Jain philosophy. There are 24
Tīrthankaras in each time cycle;
Mahāvīra
was the 24th and last Tīrthankara of the current time cycle.
Tīrthankaras
are literally the ford makers who have shown the way across the ocean of
rebirth and transmigration and hence have become a focus of reverence and
worship amongst Jains. However it would be a mistake to regard the Tīrthankaras
as gods analogous to the gods of
Hindu pantheon despite the superficial resemblances
in Jain and Hindu way of worship.
[1]
Tīrthankaras like
Arhantas ultimately become
Siddhas on
liberation.
Tīrthankaras, being liberated, are beyond any kind of
transactions with the rest of the universe. They are not the beings who
exercise any sort of creative activity or who have the capacity or ability to
intervene in answers to prayers.
Siddhas
Ultimately all
Arihantas and
Tīrthankaras become
Siddhas.
A
Siddha is a soul who is permanently liberated from the transmigratory
cycle of birth and death. Such a soul, having realized its true self, is free
from all the
Karmas and embodiment. They are formless and dwell in
Siddhashila
(the realm of the liberated beings) at the apex of the universe in infinite
bliss, infinite perception, infinite knowledge and infinite energy.
The
Acāranga sūtra 1.197
describes
Siddhas in this way:
“
|
The liberated soul is not long nor small nor
round nor triangular nor quadrangular nor circular; it is not black nor blue
nor red nor green nor white; neither of good nor bad smell; not bitter nor
pungent nor astringent nor sweet; neither rough nor soft; neither heavy nor
light; neither cold nor hot; neither harsh nor smooth; it is without body,
without resurrection, without contact (of matter), it is not feminine nor
masculine nor neuter. The siddha perceives and knows all, yet is beyond
comparison. Its essence is without form; there is no condition of the unconditioned.
It is not sound, not colour, not smell, not taste, not touch or anything of
that kind. Thus I say.[2]
|
”
|
Siddhahood is the ultimate goal of all souls. There are infinite souls who
have become
Siddhas and infinite more who will attain this state of
liberation.
[d]
According to Jainism, the Godhood is not a monopoly of some omnipotent and
powerful being(s). All souls, with right perception, knowledge and conduct can
achieve self-realisation and attain this state.
[e]
Once achieving this state of infinite bliss and having destroyed all desires,
the soul is not concerned with the worldly matters and does not interfere in
the working of universe, as any activity or desire to interfere will once again
result in influx of karmas and thus loss of liberation.
Jains pray to these passionless Gods not for any favors or rewards but
rather pray to the qualities of the God with the objective of destroying the
karmas
and achieving the Godhood. This is best understood by the term
vandetadgunalabhdhaye
– i.e. "we pray to the attributes of such Gods to acquire such
attributes"
[f][3]
Heavenly Beings
Jainism describes existence of
śāsanadevatās and
śāsanadevīs,
the attendant Gods and Goddesses of
Tīrthankaras, who create the
samavasarana
or the divine preaching assembly of a
Tīrthankara. Such heavenly beings
are classified as:-
- Bhavanpatis – Gods dwelling in
abodes
- Vyantaras – Intermediary gods
- Jyotiskas – Luminaries
- Vaimānikas – Astral gods
The souls on account of accumulation of meritorious
karmas
reincarnate in heavens as demi-gods. Although their life span is quite long,
after their merit
karmas are exhausted, they
once again have to reincarnate back into the realms of humans, animals or hells
depending on their karmas. As these Gods themselves are not liberated, they
have attachments and passions and hence not worthy of worship. Ācārya
Hemacandra
decries the worship of such Gods –
“
|
These Gods tainted with attachment and
passion;
having women and weapons by their side, favour some and
disfavour some;
such Gods should not be worshipped by those who desire
emancipation”[4] |
”
|
Worship of such gods is considered as
mithyātva or wrong belief
leading to bondage of karmas. However, many Jains are known to worship such
gods for material gains.
Jain opposition to Creationism
Jain scriptures reject God as the creator of the universe. Ācārya Hemacandra
in the 12th century put forth the Jain view of the universe in Yogaśāstra:
[i]
This universe is not created nor sustained by anyone;
It is self-sustaining, without any base or support
Besides scriptural authority, Jains also resorted to
syllogism
and
deductive reasoning to refute
the creationist theories. Various views on divinity and the universe held by
the
vedics,
sāmkhyas,
mimimsas, Buddhists and other schools of thought were analysed, debated and
repudiated by the various Jain Ācāryas. However, the most eloquent refutation
of this view is provided by Ācārya
Jinasena
in
Mahāpurāna:
[j]
Some foolish men declare that creator made the world. The doctrine that the
world was created is ill advised and should be rejected.
If God created the world, where was he before the creation? If you say he
was transcendent then and needed no support, where is he now?
How could God have made this world without any raw material? If you say that
he made this first, and then the world, you are faced with an endless
regression.
If you declare that this raw material arose naturally you fall into another
fallacy, For the whole universe might thus have been its own creator, and have
arisen quite naturally.
If God created the world by an act of his own will, without any raw
material, then it is just his will and nothing else — and who will believe this
silly nonsense?
If he is ever perfect and complete, how could the will to create have arisen
in him? If, on the other hand, he is not perfect, he could no more create the
universe than a potter could.
If he is form-less, action-less and all-embracing, how could he have created
the world? Such a soul, devoid of all modality, would have no desire to create
anything.
If he is perfect, he does not strive for the three aims of man, so what
advantage would he gain by creating the universe?
If you say that he created to no purpose because it was his nature to do so,
then God is pointless. If he created in some kind of sport, it was the sport of
a foolish child, leading to trouble.
If he created because of the karma of embodied beings [acquired in a
previous creation] He is not the Almighty Lord, but subordinate to something
else
If out of love for living beings and need of them he made the world, why did
he not make creation wholly blissful free from misfortune?
If he were transcendent he would not create, for he would be free: Nor if
involved in transmigration, for then he would not be almighty. Thus the doctrine
that the world was created by God makes no sense at all,
And God commits great sin in slaying the children whom he himself created.
If you say that he slays only to destroy evil beings, why did he create such
beings in the first place?
Good men should combat the believer in divine creation, maddened by an evil
doctrine. Know that the world is uncreated, as time itself is, without
beginning or end, and is based on the principles, life and rest. Uncreated and
indestructible, it endures under the compulsion of its own nature.
The Jaina position on God can be summed up in the words of Anne Vallely:
Jainism is the most difficult religion. We get no help from any gods, or
from anyone. We just have to cleanse our souls. In fact other religions are
easy, but they are not very ambitious. In all other religions when you are in
difficulty, you can pray to God for help and maybe, God comes down to help. But
Jainism is not a religion of coming down. In Jainism it is we who must go up.
We only have to help ourselves. In Jainism we have to become God. That is the
only thing.
[5]
খৃষ্টান
মতে ঈশ্বরঃ
God in Christianity is the
eternal
being who
created and
preserves
the world. Christians believe God to be both
transcendent (wholly
independent of, and removed from, the material universe) and
immanent
(involved in the world).
[1][2]
Christian teachings of the immanence and involvement of God and his love for
humanity exclude the belief that God
is
of the same substance as the created universe
[3]
but accept that God's divine Nature was
hypostatically
united to human nature in the person of
Jesus
Christ, in an event known as the
Incarnation.
Early Christian views of God
were expressed in the
Pauline Epistles and the early
[4]
creeds,
which proclaimed
one God and the
divinity
of Jesus, almost in the same breath as in
1
Corinthians (
8:5-6):
"For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as
indeed there are many 'gods' and many 'lords'), yet for us there is but one God,
the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but
one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we
live."
[5][6][7]
"Although the Judæo-Christian sect of the
Ebionites
protested against this
apotheosis of Jesus,
[8]
the great mass of
Gentile Christians accepted
it."
[9]
This
began to differentiate
the Gentile Christian views of God from traditional Jewish teachings
of the time.
[5]
The theology of the
attributes and nature
of God has been discussed since the earliest days of Christianity,
with
Irenaeus
writing in the 2nd century: "His greatness lacks nothing, but contains all
things".
[10]
In the 8th century,
John of Damascus listed
eighteen attributes which remain widely accepted.
[11]
As time passed, theologians developed systematic lists of these attributes,
some based on statements in the Bible (e.g., the
Lord's
Prayer, stating that the
Father
is in
Heaven), others based on
theological reasoning.
[12][13]
The
Kingdom of God
is a prominent phrase in the
Synoptic
Gospels and while there is near unanimous agreement among scholars
that it represents a key element of the teachings of Jesus, there is little
scholarly agreement on its exact interpretation.
[14][15]
Although the
New Testament does not have a
formal doctrine of the
Trinity as such, it does
repeatedly speak of the Father,
the
Son, and the
Holy Spirit in such a way as
to "compel a
trinitarian understanding of
God." This never becomes a "
tritheism."
This does not imply three Gods.
[16]
Around the year 200,
Tertullian formulated a
version of the doctrine of the Trinity which clearly affirmed the divinity of
Jesus and came close to the later definitive form produced by the
Ecumenical Council of
381.
[17][18]
The doctrine of the Trinity can be summed up as: "The One God exists in
Three Persons and One Substance, as God the Father, God the Son and God the
Holy Spirit."
[19][20]
Trinitarians, who form the large majority of
Christians,
hold it as a core tenet of their faith.
[21][22]
Nontrinitarian denominations
define the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit in a number of different ways.
[23]
Development of the theology of God
Early Christian views of God
(before the
gospels were written) are
reflected in
Apostle Paul's statement in
1
Corinthians (
8:5-6),
written ca. AD 53-54, i.e., about twenty years after the
crucifixion of Jesus:
[5]
for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for
whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things
came and through whom we live.
Apart from asserting that there is but
one
God, Paul's statement (which is likely based on pre-Pauline
confessions) includes a number of other significant elements: he distinguishes
Christian belief from the Jewish background of the time by referring to Jesus
and the Father almost in the same breath, and by conferring on Jesus the title
of divine honor "Lord", as well as calling him
Christ.
[5][6]
[7]
In the
Book of Acts (
17:24-27)
during the
Areopagus sermon given by
Paul, he further characterizes the early Christian understanding:
[24]
The God that made the world and all things therein, he, being Lord of heaven
and earth
and reflects on the relationship between God and Christians:
[24]
that they should seek God, if haply they might feel after him and find him,
though he is not far from each one of us for in him we live.
The
Pauline Epistles also include
a number of references to the Holy Spirit, with the theme which appears in
1
Thessalonians (
4:8)
"…God, the very God who gives you his Holy Spirit" appearing
throughout his epistles.
[25]
In
John 14:26
Jesus also refers to "the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my
name".
[26]
By the end of the 1st century,
Clement
of Rome had repeatedly referred to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit,
and linked the Father to creation,
1
Clement 19.2 stating: "let us look steadfastly to the Father
and creator of the universe".
[27]
By the middle of the 2nd century, in
Against Heresies Irenaeus
had emphasized (
Book
4, chapter 5) that the Creator is the "one and only God"
and the "maker of heaven and earth".
[27]
These preceded the formal presentation of the concept of
Trinity
by
Tertullian
early in the 3rd century.
[27]
The period from late 2nd century to the beginning of the 4th century
(approximately 180-313) is generally called the "epoch of the
Great
Church" and also the
Ante-Nicene Period and
witnessed significant theological development, and the consolidation and
formalization of a number of Christian teachings.
[28]
From the 2nd century onwards,
western
creeds started with an affirmation of belief in "God the Father
(Almighty)" and the primary reference of this phrase was to "God in
his capacity as Father and creator of the universe".
[29]
This did not exclude either the fact the "eternal father of the universe
was also the Father of Jesus the Christ" or that he had even
"vouchsafed to adopt [the believer] as his son by grace".
[29]
Eastern
creeds (those we know come from a later date) began with an affirmation of
faith in "one God" and almost always expanded this by adding
"the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible" or
words to that effect.
[29]
As time passed, theologians and philosophers developed more precise
understandings of the nature of God and began to produce systematic lists of
his attributes (i.e., qualities or characteristics). These varied in detail,
but traditionally the attributes fell into two groups, those based on
negation
(God is impassible) and those positively based on
eminence (God is
infinitely good).
[13]
Ian
Ramsey suggested that there are three groups and that some
attributes such as
simplicity and
perfection have a different
logical dynamic which from such attributes as
infinite goodness since
there are relative forms of the latter but not of the former.
[30]
Throughout the Christian development of ideas about God, the Bible “has
been, both in theory and in fact, the dominant influence” in the Western world.
[31]
Name
In Christian theology the name of God has always had much deeper meaning and
significance than being just a label or designator. It is not a human
invention, but has divine origin and is based on divine revelation.
[32][33]
Respect for the name of God is one of the
Ten
Commandments, which Christians teachings view not simply an
avoidance of the improper use of the name of God, but as a directive to exalt
it, through both pious deeds and praise.
[34]
This is reflected in the first petition in the
Lord's
Prayer addressed to
God
the Father: "Hallowed be thy Name".
[35]
Going back to the
Church Fathers, the name of
God has been seen as a representation of the entire system of "divine
truth" revealed to the faithful "that believe on his name" as in
John 1:12 or
"walk in the name of the Lord our God" in
Micah 4:5.
[36][37]
In
Revelation 3:12
those who bear the name of God are destined for Heaven.
John 17:6
presents the teachings of Jesus as the manifestation of the name of God to his
disciples.
[36]
John 12:27
presents the sacrifice of Jesus the
Lamb
of God, and the ensuing salvation delivered through it as the
glorification of the name of God, with the voice from Heaven confirming Jesus'
petition ("Father, glorify thy name") by saying: "I have both
glorified it, and will glorify it again" referring to the Baptism and
crucifixion of Jesus.
[38]
The Bible usually uses the name of God in the singular (e.g.,
Ex.
20:7 or
Ps.
8:1), generally using the terms in a very general sense rather than
referring to any special designation of God.
[39]
However, general references to the name of God may branch to other special
forms which express his multifaceted attributes.
[39]
Scripture presents many references to the names for God, but the key names in
the Old Testament are:
God the High and Exalted One,
El-Shaddai
and
Jehovah.
In the New Testament
Theos,
Kyrios and
Pater
(πατήρ i.e., Father in Greek) are the essential names.
[39]
Attributes and nature
The theological underpinnings of the attributes and nature of God have been
discussed since the earliest days of Christianity. In the 2nd century
Irenaeus
addressed the issue and expounded on some attributes, e.g., in his
Against
Heresis (
Book
IV, Chapter 19) stated: "His greatness lacks nothing, but
contains all things".
[10]
Irenaeus based his attributes on three sources: Scripture, prevailing mysticism
and popular piety.
[10]
Today, some of the attributes associated with God continue to be based on
statements in the Bible, e.g., the
Lord's
Prayer states that the Father is in Heaven, while other attributes
are derived by theological reasoning.
[12]
In the 8th century,
John of Damascus listed
eighteen attributes for God in his
An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith
(
Book
1, Chapter 8).
[11]
These eighteen attributes were divided into four groups based on time (e.g.,
being everlasting), space (e.g., being boundless), matter or quality and the
list continues to be influential to date, partially appearing in some form in
various modern formulations.
[11]
In the 13th century,
Thomas Aquinas focused on a
shorter list of just eight attributes, namely:
simplicity,
perfection,
goodness,
incomprehensibility,
omnipresence,
immutability,
eternity and
oneness.
[11]
Other formulations include the 1251 list of the
Fourth Lateran Council which
was then adopted at
Vatican I in 1870 and the
Westminster Shorter
Catechism in the 17th century.
[11]
Two attributes of God that place him
above the world, yet acknowledge
his involvement
in the world, are
transcendence and
immanence.
[1][2]
Transcendence means that God is eternal and infinite, not controlled by the
created world and beyond human events. Immanence means that God is involved in
the world, and Christian teachings have long acknowledged his attention to
human affairs.
[1][2]
However, unlike
pantheistic religions, in
Christianity God's being is not of the substance of the created universe.
[3]
Traditionally, some theologians such as
Louis
Berkhof distinguish between the
communicable attributes
(those that human beings can also have) and the
incommunicable
attributes (those that belong to God alone).
[40]
However, others such as
Donald Macleod hold that all
the suggested classifications are artificial and without basis.
[41]
There is a general agreement among theologians that it would be a mistake to
conceive of the essence of God existing by itself and independently of the
attributes or of the attributes being an additional characteristic of the
Divine Being. They are essential qualities which exist permanently in his very
Being and are co-existent with it. Any alteration in them would imply an
alteration in the essential being of God.
[42]
Hick suggests that when listing the attributes of God, the starting point
should be his
self-existence ("aseity") which implies that his
eternal and unconditioned nature. Hick goes on to consider the following additional
attributes:
Creator being the source of all that composes his creation
("creatio
ex nihilo") and the sustainer of what he has brought into being;
Personal;
Loving, Good; and
Holy.
[43]
Berkhof also starts with
self-existence but moves on to
immutability;
infinity, which implies
perfection eternity and
omnipresence;
unity. He then analyses a series of intellectual attributes:
knowledge-omniscience;
wisdom;
veracity and then, the moral attributes of
goodness
(including love, grace, mercy and patience);
holiness and
righteousness
before dealing finally with his
sovereignty.
[42]
Kingdom of God and eschatology
Kingship and Kingdom
The Christian characterization of the relationship between God and humanity
involves the notion of the "Kingship of God", whose origins go back
to the Old Testament, and may be seen as a consequence of the creation of the
world by God.
[14][44]
The "enthronement psalms" (
Psalms 45,
93,
96,
97-99)
provide a background for this view with the exclamation "The Lord is
King".
[14]
However, in later Judaism a more "national" view was assigned to
God's Kingship in which the awaited Messiah may be seen as a liberator and the
founder of a new state of Israel.
[45]
The term "
Kingdom of God"
does not appear in the Old Testament, although "his Kingdom" and
"your Kingdom" are used in some cases when referring to God.
[46]
However, the Kingdom of God (the Matthean equivalent being "Kingdom of
Heaven") is a prominent phrase in the
Synoptic
Gospels (appearing 75 times), and there is near unanimous agreement
among scholars that it represents a key element of the teachings of Jesus.
[14][15]
Yet,
R.
T. France points out that while the concept of "Kingdom of
God" has an intuitive meaning to lay Christians, there is hardly any
agreement among scholars about its meaning in the New Testament.
[15]
Some scholars see it as a Christian lifestyle, some as a method of world
evangelization, some as the rediscovery of charismatic gifts, others relate it
to no present or future situation, but the
world
to come.
[15]
France states that the phrase Kingdom of God is often interpreted in many ways
to fit the theological agenda of those interpreting it.
[15]
End times
Interpretations of the term Kingdom of God have given rise to wide ranging
eschatological
debates among scholars with diverging views, yet no consensus has emerged among
scholars.
[47][48][49]
From
Augustine
to the
Reformation
the arrival of the Kingdom had been identified with the formation of the
Christian Church, but this view was later abandoned and by the beginning of the
20th century the
apocalyptic interpretation of
the Kingdom had gained ground.
[47][49][50]
In this view (also called the "consistent eschatology") the Kingdom
of God did not start in the 1st century, but is a future apocalyptic event that
is yet to take place.
[47]
By the middle of the 20th century
realized eschatology which in
contrast viewed the Kingdom as non-apocalyptic but as the manifestation of
divine sovereignty over the world (realized by the
ministry
of Jesus) had gathered a scholarly following.
[47]
In this view the Kingdom is held to be available in the present.
[48]
The competing approach of
Inaugurated eschatology was
later introduced as the "already and not yet" interpretation.
[47]
In this view the Kingdom has already started, but awaits full disclosure at a
future point.
[48]
These diverging interpretations have since given rise to a good number of
variants, with various scholars proposing new eschatological models that borrow
elements from these.
[47][48]
Judgement
Hebrews 12:23
refers to "God the Judge of all" and the notion that all humans will
eventually "
be judged" is an
essential element of Christian teachings.
[51]
A number of New Testament passages (e.g.,
John
5:22 and
Acts
10:42) and later
credal confessions indicate that the task of
judgement is assigned to Jesus.
[51][52]
John 5:22
states that "neither does the Father judge any man, but he has given all
judgment unto the Son".
[51]
Acts 10:42
refers to the resurrected Jesus as: "he who is ordained of God to be the
Judge of the living and the dead."
[51]
The role played by Jesus in the judgement of God is emphasized in the most
widely used Christian confessions, with the
Nicene
Creed stating that Jesus "sits on the right hand of the Father;
shall come again, with glory, to judge the living and the dead; whose kingdom
shall have no end".
[53]
The
Apostle's Creed includes a
similar confession.
[53]
A number of gospel passages warn against sin and suggest a path of
righteousness to avoid the judgement of God.
[54]
For instance, the
Sermon on the Mount in
Matthew 5:22-26
teaches the avoidance of sin and the Parables of the Kingdom (
Matthew 13:49)
state that at the moment of judgement the angels will "sever the wicked
from among the righteous and shall cast them into the furnace of fire".
[54]
Christians can thus enjoy forgiveness that lifts them from the judgement of God
by following the teachings of Jesus and through a personal fellowship with him.
[54]
Trinitarianism
History and foundation
In
early Christianity, the
concept of salvation was closely related to the invocation of the "Father,
Son and Holy Spirit".
[55][56]
Since the 1st century, Christians have called upon God with the name
"Father, Son and Holy Spirit" in prayer, baptism, communion,
exorcism, hymn-singing, preaching, confession, absolution and benediction.
[55][56]
This is reflected in the saying: "Before there was a 'doctrine' of the
Trinity, Christian prayer invoked the Holy Trinity".
[55]
The term "Trinity" does not explicitly appear in the
Bible, but
Trinitarians believe the concept as later developed is consistent with biblical
teachings.
[21][22]
The
New
Testament includes a number of the usages of the three-fold
liturgical and
doxological
formula, e.g.,
2
Corinthians 1:21-22 stating: "he that establisheth us with you
in Christ, and anointed us, is God; who also sealed us, and gave [us] the
earnest of the Spirit in our hearts".
[21][58]
Christ receiving "authority and co-equal divinity" is mentioned in
Matthew 28:18:
"All authority hath been given unto me in heaven and on earth" as
well as
John 3:35,
John 13:3,
John 17:1.
[58]
And the Spirit being both "of God" and "of Christ" appears
in
Galatians 4:6,
the
Book
of Acts (
16:7),
John 15:26
and
Romans 8:14-17.
[58]
The general concept was expressed in early writings from the beginning of
the 2nd century forward, with
Irenaeus writing in his
Against
Heresies (
Book
I Chapter X):
[55]
"The Church
... believes in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven, and earth, and
the sea, and all things that are in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of
God, who became incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit".
Around AD 213 in
Adversus Praxeas (
chapter
3)
Tertullian provided a formal
representation of the concept of the
Trinity,
i.e., that God exists as one "substance" but three
"Persons": The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.
[59][60]
In defense of the coherence of the Trinity Tertullian wrote (
Adversus
Praxeas 3): "The Unity which derives the Trinity out of its own
self is so far from being destroyed, that it is actually supported by it."
Tertullian also discussed how the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and
the Son.
[59]
The
First Council of Nicaea in AD
325 and later the
First Council of
Constantinople in AD 381 defined the dogma "in its simplest
outlines in the face of pressing
heresies" and the version used thereafter dates
to 381.
[20]
In the 5th century, in the
west,
Saint Augustine expanded on
the theological development in his
On
the Trinity, while the major development in the
east
was due to
John of Damascus in the 8th
century.
[61]
The theology eventually reached its classical form in the writings of
Thomas
Aquinas in the 13th century.
[61][62]
Bernhard Lohse states that the doctrine of the Trinity does not go back to
non-Christian sources such as
Plato or
Hinduism
and that all attempts at suggesting such connections have floundered.
[63]
The majority of Christians are now Trinitarian and regard belief in the Trinity
as a test of true
orthodoxy of belief.
[55]
The doctrine
The doctrine of the Trinity is considered by most Christians to be a core
tenet of their faith.
[19][20]
It can be summed up as:
[19]
"The One God
exists in Three Persons and One Substance."
Strictly speaking, the doctrine is a mystery that can "neither be known
by unaided human reason", nor "cogently demonstrated by reason after
it has been revealed"; even so "it is not contrary to reason"
being "not incompatible with the principles of rational thought".
[62]
The doctrine was expressed at length in the 4th century
Athanasian
Creed of which the following is an extract:
[20][21]
We worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity;
Neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance.
For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the
Holy Spirit.
But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, is all one;
the Glory equal, the Majesty co-eternal.
Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit.
To
Trinitarian
Christians (which include
Catholic Christians,
Eastern Orthodox Christians,
and most
Protestant
denominations), God the Father is not at all a separate god from the Son (of
whom Jesus is the incarnation) and the
Holy
Spirit, the other Hypostases of the
Christian Godhead.
[64]
The 20th century witnessed an increased theological focus on the doctrine of
the Trinity, partly due to the efforts of
Karl
Barth in his fourteen volume
Church
Dogmatics.
[65]
This theological focus relates the revelation of the
Word of God to the Trinity,
and argues that the doctrine of Trinity is what distinguishes the
"Christian concept of God" from all other religions.
[65][66]
The Father
The emergence of Trinitarian theology of God the Father in
early Christianity was based
on two key ideas: first the shared identity of the
Yahweh of
the
Old
Testament and the God of Jesus in the
New
Testament, and then the self-distinction and yet the unity between
Jesus and his Father.
[67][68]
An example of the unity of Son and Father is
Matthew 11:27:
"No one knows the Son except the Father and no one knows the Father except
the Son", asserting the mutual knowledge of Father and Son.
[69]
The concept of fatherhood of God does appear in the Old Testament, but is
not a major theme.
[67][70]
While the view of God as the Father is used in the Old Testament, it only
became a focus in the New Testament, as Jesus frequently referred to it.
[67][70]
This is manifested in the
Lord's prayer which combines
the earthly needs of daily bread with the reciprocal concept of forgiveness.
[70]
And Jesus' emphasis on his special relationship with the Father highlights the
importance of the distinct yet unified natures of Jesus and the Father,
building to the unity of Father and Son in the Trinity.
[70]
The paternal view of God as the Father extends beyond Jesus to his
disciples, and the entire Church, as reflected in the petitions Jesus submitted
to the Father for his followers at the end of the
Farewell Discourse, the
night before
his crucifixion.
[71]
Instances of this in the Farewell Discourse are
John 14:20
as Jesus addresses the disciples: "I am in my Father, and you in me, and I
in you" and in
John 17:22
as he prays to the Father: "I have given them the glory that you gave me,
that they may be one as we are one."
[72]
In
Trinitarian
theology, God the Father is the "arche" or "principium" (
beginning),
the "source" or "origin" of both the Son and the Holy
Spirit, and is considered the eternal source of the Godhead.
[73]
The Father is the one who eternally begets the Son, and the Father eternally
breathes the Holy Spirit. The Son is eternally born from God the Father, and
the Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father,
[27][73]
and, in the Western tradition,
the Son.
Yet, notwithstanding this difference as to origin, Father is one with,
co-equal to, co-eternal, and
con-substantial
with the Son and the Holy Spirit, each Person being the one eternal God and in
no way separated, who is the creator: all alike are uncreated and omnipotent.
[27]
Thus, the Divine Unity consists of God the Father, with his Son and his Spirit
distinct from God the Father and yet perfectly united together in him.
[27]
Because of this, the Trinity is beyond reason and can only be known by
revelation.
[74][75]
Trinitarians believe that God the Father is not
pantheistic,
in that he not viewed as identical to the universe, but exists outside of
creation, as its Creator.
[76][77]
He is viewed as a loving and caring God, a Heavenly Father who is active both
in the world and in people's lives.
[76][77]
He created all things visible and invisible in love and wisdom, and man for his
own sake.
[76][77][78]
The Son
Since
early Christianity, a number
of
titles have been
attributed to Jesus, including,
Messiah
(
Christ)
and the
Son
of God.
[79][80]
Theologically, these are different attributions: Messiah refers to his
fulfilling the expected
Old Testament prophecies,
while Son of God refers to a paternal relationship.
[79][80]
God the Son is distinct from both Messiah and Son of God and its theology as
part of the doctrine of the Trinity was formalized well over a century after
those.
[80][81][82]
According to the
Gospels,
Jesus was conceived by the
Holy Spirit and
born
from
the Virgin Mary.
[83]
The Biblical accounts of Jesus' ministry include:
his
baptism,
miracles,
preaching,
teaching, and healing. The narrative of the gospels place
significant emphasis on the death of Jesus, devoting about one third of the
text to just seven days, namely the last week of the life of Jesus in
Jerusalem.
[84]
The core Christian belief is that through
the death and
resurrection of Jesus,
sinful
humans can be reconciled to God and thereby are offered salvation and the
promise of
eternal life.
[85]
The belief in the redemptive nature of Jesus' death predates the
Pauline
letters and goes back to the earliest days of Christianity and the
Jerusalem church.
[86]
The
Nicene
Creed's statement that "for our sake he was crucified" is
a reflection of this core belief.
[85]
The two Christological concerns as to how Jesus could be truly God while
preserving faith in the existence of one God and how the human and the divine
could be combined in one person were fundamental concerns from well before the
First Council of Nicaea (325).
[87]
However, the theology of "God the Son" was eventually reflected in
the statement of the
Nicene Creed in the 4th
century.
[88]
The
Chalcedonian Creed of 451,
accepted by the majority of Christians, holds that Jesus is
God incarnate and "
true
God and true man" (or both fully divine and fully human).
Jesus, having become fully human in all respects, suffered the pains and
temptations of a mortal man, yet he did not sin. As fully God, he defeated
death and rose to life again.
[89]
The
Third Council of
Constantinople in 680 then held that both divine and human wills
exist in Jesus, with the divine will having precedence, leading and guiding the
human will.
[90]
In mainstream Christianity, Jesus Christ as
God
the Son is the
second
Person of the Holy Trinity, due to his eternal relation to the first
Person (God as Father).
[91]
He is considered coequal with the Father and Holy Spirit and is
all
God and all human: the Son of God as to his divine nature, while as
to his human nature he is from the lineage of David.
[83][91][92][93]
More recently, discussions of the theological issues related to God the Son
and its role in the Trinity were addressed in the 20th century in the context
of a "Trinity-based" perspective on divine revelation.
[94][95]
The Holy Spirit
In mainstream
Christianity, the Holy Spirit
is one of the three divine persons of the
Holy
Trinity who make up the single
substance of
God; that is, the Spirit is considered to act in concert with and share an
essential nature with
God the Father and God the Son
(
Jesus).
[96][97]
The New Testament has much to say about the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit's
presence was especially felt following the ascension of Christ, although not to
the exclusion of an early presence as attested by the Old Testament and
throughout the New Testament.
[16]:p.39
The Christian theology of the Holy Spirit, or
pneumatology, was the last
piece of Trinitarian theology to be fully explored and developed, and there is
thus greater theological diversity among Christian understandings of the Spirit
than there is among understandings of the Son and the Father.
[96][97]
Within Trinitarian theology, the Holy Spirit is usually referred to as the
"Third Person" of the triune God—with the Father being the First
Person and the Son the Second Person.
[97]
The
sacredness
of the Holy Spirit is affirmed in all three
Synoptic
Gospels (
Matthew 12:30-32,
Mark 3:28-30
and
Luke 12:8-10)
which proclaim that
blasphemy against the Holy
Spirit is the
unforgivable sin.
[98]
The participation of the Holy Spirit in the tripartite nature of conversion is
apparent in Jesus' final
post-Resurrection
instruction to his disciples at the end of the Gospel of Matthew (28:19):
[99]
"make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the
Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit".
[100]
The Holy Spirit plays a key role in the
Pauline
epistles, to the point that their pneumatology is almost inseparable
from their Christology.
[101]
In the
Johannine writings, three
separate terms, namely
Holy Spirit,
Spirit of Truth and
Paraclete
are used.
[102]
Reflecting the
Annunciation in
Luke 1:35,
the early
Apostles' Creed states that
Jesus was "conceived by the Holy Spirit".
[103]
The
Nicene
Creed refers to the Holy Spirit as "the Lord and Giver of
Life" who with the Father and the Son together is "worshiped and
glorified".
[104]
While in the act of the
Incarnation,
God
the Son became manifest as the
Son
of God, the same did not take place for
God the Holy Spirit
which remained unrevealed.
[105]
Yet, as in
1
Corinthians 6:19 God the Spirit continues to dwell in bodies of the
faithful.
[105][106]
In Christian theology Holy Spirit is believed to perform specific divine
functions in the life of the Christian or the church. The action of the Holy
Spirit is seen as an essential part of the bringing of the person to the
Christian faith.
[107]
The new believer is "born again of the Spirit".
[108]
The Holy Spirit enables Christian life by dwelling in the individual
believers and enables them to live a righteous and faithful life.
[107]
He acts as Comforter or
Paraclete, one who intercedes,
or supports or acts as an advocate, particularly in times of trial. He acts to
convince unredeemed persons both of the sinfulness of their actions and
thoughts, and of their moral standing as sinners before God.
[109]
The Holy Spirit both
inspired the writing of the scriptures and now
interprets
them to the Christian and/or church.
[110]
Trinitarian differences
In
Eastern Orthodox
theology,
essence
of God being that which is beyond human comprehension and can not be defined
and or approached by human understanding.
[111]
Roman Catholic teachings are somewhat similar in considering the mysteries of
the Trinity as being beyond human reason.
[75]
However, differences exist in that in
Roman Catholic theology and
teaching, God the Father is the eternal source of the Son (begot the Son by an
eternal generation) and of the Holy Spirit (by an eternal procession
from
the Father and the Son) and the one who breaths the Holy Spirit with
and through the Son, but the Eastern Orthodox consider the Spirit to proceed
from the Father alone.
[112]
Most
Protestant denominations
and other mainstream traditions arising since the
Reformation, hold general
Trinitarian beliefs and theology regarding God the Father similar to that of
Roman Catholicism. This includes churches arising from
Anglicanism,
Baptist,
Methodism,
Lutheranism
and
Presbyterianism. Likewise,
The
Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church describes the Trinity as
"the central dogma of
Christian theology".
[113]
However, a precise representative view of Protestant Trinitarian theology
regarding "God the Father", etc., is more difficult to provide, given
the diverse and less centralized nature of the various Protestant churches.
[113]
Nontrinitarianism
Some Christian traditions reject the doctrine of the Trinity, and are called
nontrinitarian.
[114]
These groups differ from one another in their views, variously depicting Jesus
as a divine being second only to God the Father,
Yahweh of
the Old Testament in human form, God (but not eternally God), prophet, or
simply a holy man.
[114]
Some broad definitions of
Protestantism include these
groups within Protestantism, but most definitions do not.
[115]
Nontrinitarianism goes back to the early centuries of Christian history and
groups such as the
Arians,
Ebionites,
Gnostics,
and others.
[23]
These nontrinatarian views were rejected by many bishops such as
Irenaeus
and subsequently by the
Ecumenical Councils. The
Nicene
Creed raised the issue of the relationship between Jesus' divine and
human natures.
[23]
Nontrinitarianism was rare among Christians for many centuries, and those
rejecting the doctrine of the Trinity faced hostility from other Christians,
but the 19th century saw the establishment of a number of groups in North
America and elsewhere.
[115]
In
Jehovah's Witness theology,
only God the Father is the one true and almighty God, even over his Son Jesus
Christ. While the Witnesses acknowledge Christ's pre-existence, perfection, and
unique "Sonship" with God the Father, and believe that Christ had an
essential role in creation and redemption, and is the Messiah, they believe
that only the Father is without beginning.
[116]
In the theology of
God in Mormonism, the most
prominent conception of God is the Godhead, a divine council of three distinct
beings:
Elohim
(the Father),
Jehovah
(the Son, or Jesus), and the Holy Spirit. The Father and Son are considered to
have perfected, material bodies, while the Holy Spirit has a body of spirit.
Mormonism recognize the divinity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, but
believe they are distinct beings, united not in substance but in will and
purpose, and they are each omniscient, omnipotent, and omni-benevolent.
[117]
Other groups include
Oneness Pentecostals,
Christadelphians,
Christian Scientists, and
The
New Church.
কিছু কিছু রাজনৈতিক পণ্ডিত “গীতা” কে ভারতবর্ষের জাতীয় গ্রন্থের মর্যাদা দিতে চাইছেন এবং তারা এর পিছনে যে যুক্তি গুলি বানাচ্ছেন তা হলঃ
১) ভারতবর্ষের মাননীয় প্রধানমন্ত্রী নরেন্দ্র মোদী
যেহেতু মার্কিন প্রেসিডেন্ট ওবামা কে “গীতা” উপহার দিয়েছেন তাই “গীতা” ভারতবর্ষের জাতীয়
গ্রন্থ;
২) কার্বন ডেটিং পদ্ধতিতে প্রমাণ হয়েছে “গীতা”র বয়স
৫০০০ বছর;
১ নং যুক্তি মানতে হলে এটা মেনে নিতে হয় যে
মার্কিন প্রেসিডেন্টকে যা কিছু উপহার দেওয়া হবে তাই ভারতবর্ষের জাতীয় প্রতীক। সে
ক্ষেত্রে সমস্যা একটাই - মার্কিন প্রেসিডেন্ট ভারত সফরে আসার পর প্রধান মন্ত্রী
তাকে উত্তরীয় পড়িয়ে স্বাগত জানালে “উত্তরীয়” হবে ভারতের জাতীয় পোশাক, চন্দনের টিপ
পড়ালে তা হবে জাতীয় রূপসজ্জা (নাকি জাতীয় ফোঁটা), গলার মালা হবে জাতীয় মালা,
(মালার ফুলগুলি সব জাতীয় ফুল), যে ফুলের স্তবক তার হাতে তুলে দেওয়া হবে সেই ফুলগুলিও
ভারতের জাতীয় ফুল, যে যে মূর্তি যেমন
গণেশ, শিব, সরস্বতী ইত্যাদি তার হাতে তুলে দেওয়া হবে সেটি ভারতের জাতীয় দেবতা / মূর্তি (একটি দেশের কত
গুলি জাতীয় দেবতা / মূর্তি !) যে খাবার তিনি খাবেন সেটি জাতীয় খাবার, যে টয়লেটে
যাবেন সেটি জাতীয় টয়লেট, ইত্যাদি এবং ইত্যাদি ইত্যাদি। একটু চিন্তা করে দেখবেন – এত জাতীয় সামলানো যাবে তো ?
২ নং যুক্তি নিয়ে বলতে গেলে বলতে হয় কোন বস্তুর
প্রাচীনত্ব কার্বন ডেটিং পদ্ধতিতে প্রমাণ করা অবশ্যই যায় কিন্ত তার জন্য বস্তটির
অস্তিত্ব থাকতে হয়। তা হলে ওই বিশেষ গ্রন্থটি কোথায়, কার কাছে, কি ভাবে রাখা আছে ?
কোন একটি বিশেষ গ্রন্থের একটি কপির বয়স যদি ১০০ বছর বা তার বেশী হয় তাহলে তাকে ANTIQUE বলা হয়। সে
ক্ষেত্রে ৫০০০ বছরের পুরানো গ্রন্থটি অবশ্যই ANTIQUE এবং তার উপযুক্ত সংরক্ষণের ব্যবস্থা করা উচিত।
গ্রন্থটি কার কাছে আছে এবং কিভাবে আছে ? গ্রন্থটি অবিলম্বে সাংসদদের দেখানো হোক।
গ্রন্থটি কোন কাগজের উপর কি ধরণের কালিতে লেখা হয়েছিল – কি ভাবে তার বাঁধাই করা
হয়েছে, তার ভাষা কি ছিল (কারণ ভাষার বিবর্তনের ইতিহাস এতে সমৃদ্ধ হবে –
ভাষাতত্ববিদদের কাছে এর গুরুত্ব অপরিসীম) – তাই এ সম্পর্কিত তথ্য জন সমক্ষে আসা
উচিৎ। এ নিয়ে আরও কিছু প্রশ্ন আছে যথাঃ
১) কৃষ্ণ কুরুক্ষেত্রে অর্জুনকে যা উপদেশ
দিলেন তাই গীতা – ঠিক তো ? তা হলে গীতার
রচয়িতা কে ? কৃষ্ণ তো মুখে বললেন – তিনিই কি লিখলেন ? মেনে নেওয়া যায় কি – লড়াইয়ের
ময়দানে বসে একজন লিখে যাচ্ছেন ও পড়ে শোনাচ্ছেন ! অনুলেখক যদি কেউ থাকেন তিনি কে ?
২) গীতা যদি সবচেয়ে প্রাচীন গ্রন্থ হয় তাহলে বেদ
– উপনিষদ এ গুলো কি গ্রন্থ নয় ? যদি “হ্যাঁ” হয় তাহলে এদের রচনাকাল কি গীতা র পরে
? যদি “না” হয় তা হলে গীতা প্রাচীনতম গ্রন্থের মর্যাদা পায় কি করে ?
৩) এছাড়া “গীতা” হল
একটি মহাকাব্যের অংশ বিশেষ। একটি অংশ কি করে একটি সম্পূর্ণ গ্রন্থের মর্যাদা পায় ?
আশা করা যায় “গীতা”বিদ রা উপযুক্ত খিস্তি সহযোগে
আমার মনের অন্ধকার দূর করবেন। তাদের কেউ কেউ আমাকে “ভাম” বলবেন, কেউ বা কোন মৌলানা
আমাকে এ সব শেখাল জানতে চাইবেন, কেউ উপদেশ দেবেন নিজের ধর্মটা ভালো করে জানার, কেউ
বা পাকিস্থান / আফগানিস্থানে পাঠিয়ে দিতে চাইবেন, কেউ আমাকে _রামজাদা বলবেন, কেউ
বা ছেলে ঢুকিয়ে রেপ করতেও চাইবেন। আপনারা সব্বাই স্বাগত। এদের মধ্যে নিশ্চয়ই একজন –
দুজন কে পাব যারা পড়াশোনা করে যুক্তি দিয়ে লিখবেন। তাঁদের জন্যই আমার এই পোষ্ট। আর
যারা খিস্তি মারবেন তারা নিজের পরিচয় নিজেরাই প্রকাশ করবেন – তাঁদের আগাম অভিনন্দন
নিজের পরিচয় প্রকাশের জন্য।
@ Pritam Saha
ও @ Arijit Pal আমার প্রশ্ন গুলোর সাথে আবদুল কালাম বা আপনি বা বারাক ওবামার গীতা
পড়ার সম্পর্ক কোথায় একটু বুঝিয়ে দিন দেখি ? আমি যা প্রশ্ন করেছি তার যুক্তি দিয়ে উত্তর দিন না হলে এরকম
অপ্রাসঙ্গিক কথা লিখে সময় নষ্ট করবেন না একই কথা @ Barun
Pathak সম্পর্কেও বলছি। তার সাথে
আরও একটা কথা আমার
কাছে হিন্দু, মুসলিম, খৃষ্টান, মার্ক্স যে কোন মৌলবাদ সমান বিপদজনক। যে কোন দর্শনকে জানতে হলে পড়তে হয় আর পড়লে মৌলবাদ
আসে না। একথা স্বীকার করতে
আমার কোন দ্বিধা নেই যে হিন্দু দর্শন (ধর্ম নয়) পৃথিবীর অন্যতম সেরা
দর্শন। রামায়ণ ও মহাভারতের মাধ্যমে তৎকালীন সময়ের সামাজিক - অর্থনৈতিক - রাজনৈতিক পরিস্থিতি জানা যায় যেটা ইলিয়াড বা ওডিসি পড়ে জানা যায় না। কিন্ত তার সাথে গীতা কে ভারতের জাতীয় ধর্মগ্রন্থ
করার কোন অর্থ আছে কি ?
@ Shubham Karmakar ও @ Dëbāíñà Çhâkrâbørty আশা করি, আপনারা আপনাদের জন্মের আগে কি ছিলেন ও কোথায়
ছিলেন সেটা জানেন এবং মৃত্যুর পরে কোথায় যাবেন বা কি হবেন তাও জানেন। আমি জানি
না। আমি শুধু এইটুকু জানি যে প্রতিটি জীবন এক অন্ধকার থেকে এসে অন্য
অন্ধকারে মিলিয়ে যায়। মাঝখানের চেতন জগতে সে তার কাজটুকু করে যায়। এ
শিক্ষা আমি হিন্দু দর্শন (মনে রাখবেন ধর্ম
নয়) থেকেই পেয়েছি। গীতা গীতা নিয়ে না চেঁচিয়ে (মনে হয় গীতা
আপনার প্রেমিকা বা বোন) একটু পড়ুন আমার কথার
সমর্থনে যুক্তি গীতা র শ্লোকেই পাবেন। সেই অর্থে এই চেতন জগতে আমরা সবাই "বহিরাগত" আমরা স্বীকার করি বা না করি ! গীতা বলছে "তুমি আমার শরীর কে ধবংস
করতে পার কিন্ত আমার আত্মাকে নয়" অর্থাৎ মানুষের শরীর কালের নিয়মে
ধ্বংসপ্রাপ্ত হয় কিন্ত তার চিন্তাধারা তার দর্শন হয় না। এ কথা কে অস্বীকার করব কি
করে ? আমি যা লিখছি, গীতা ই আমাকে শিখিয়েছে।
ফলে জানুন ও পড়ুন। তারপর মন্তব্য লিখুন। জানি আমার এই কথায়
আপনাদের কিছু যাবে আসবে না, তবুও আমার কাছে হিন্দু, মুসলিম, খৃষ্টান, মার্ক্স যে কোন মৌলবাদ সমান বিপদজনক। যে কোন
দর্শনকে জানতে হলে পড়তে হয় আর পড়লে মৌলবাদ আসে না। একথা স্বীকার করতে আমার
কোন দ্বিধা নেই যে হিন্দু দর্শন (ধর্ম নয়) পৃথিবীর অন্যতম সেরা দর্শন।
রামায়ণ ও মহাভারতের মাধ্যমে তৎকালীন সময়ের সামাজিক - অর্থনৈতিক - রাজনৈতিক পরিস্থিতি জানা যায় যেটা ইলিয়াড বা ওডিসি পড়ে জানা যায় না। কিন্ত তার সাথে
গীতা কে ভারতের জাতীয় ধর্মগ্রন্থ করার কোন অর্থ আছে কি ? আর আমার লেখায় কোথায় আমি গীতার অস্তিত্ব নিয়ে সন্দেহ প্রকাশ
করেছি ? তাহলে তো আমাকে বেদ নিয়ে সন্দেহ প্রকাশ করতে হয় যা রচিত
হয়েছিল মুখে মুখে। আমার বক্তব্য একটি বিশেষ
কপির অস্তিত্ব নিয়ে যার কার্বন ডেটিং করা হয়েছে বলে দাবী করা হচ্ছে।
ধৈর্য ধরে পুরোটা পড়ুন। "Gita 5000 years er purono hok ba
50000000 years... Tar bani ki change hoyeche...khondate parben? Na parle boro
boro kotha bolben na! Ar khondate parle gita niye research korun." রামায়ণ ও মহাভারতের কটি রূপ আছে জানেন ? কম পক্ষে ১০০ টি। গীতার
কত ভাষ্য আছে তা গুনে বলা যায় না - WIKIPEDIA কেন কোথাও সম্পূর্ণ তথ্য নেই। ফলে প্রলাপ আমি নই আপনি বকছেন। আপনি আমার মূল প্রশ্নে আসুন। গীতা এবং তার
বক্তব্য নিয়ে আমার কোন কথা নেই কারণ শুধু ভারতের নয় মানবিক জীবন দর্শনের
একটি অংশ ধরা আছে গীতা র মধ্যে। সারা জীবন ধরে পড়লেও আমি গীতার সম্পূর্ণ
অর্থ বুঝে উঠতে পারব না এমনই গভীর সে দর্শন। আর হিন্দু দর্শন - ্রাম কৃষ্ণ দেব, সৈয়দ মুজতবা আলি, ম্যাক্স মুলার রম্যা রল্যা, রবীন্দ্রনাথ এমনকি
আইনস্তাইন যে দর্শনের তল খুঁজে পেলেন না তার তল আমার মত একজন অকিঞ্চিৎকর
মানুষ খুঁজে পাবে ? হাস্যকর ! একটি ঘটনা
বলি শুনুন - একজন মানুষ তার তিন ছেলেকে পাঠিয়েছে ব্রহ্মজ্ঞান
শিক্ষা করার জন্য। ১০ বছর অধ্যয়নের পর তিন ছেলে বাড়ি ফিরল। বাবা জিজ্ঞাসা
করলেন - "তোমরা একে একে বল
ব্রহ্ম কি?"
বড় ছেলে প্রায় ১ ঘণ্টা ধরে নানা রকম শ্লোকের মাধ্যমে বলে গেল, ২য় জন ও প্রায় তাই। ৩য় জন নীরব। বাবা বললেন - "কি হল কিছু বলছ
না কেন ?"
ছেলে বলে উঠল "আমি এত বছরে এত পড়েও জানতে পারলাম না ব্রহ্ম কি?"
বাবা সস্নেহে হাত
রাখেন তার মাথায় - "তুমিই কিছুটা বুঝতে পেরেছ
ব্রহ্ম কি। ব্রহ্ম মুখে বলা যায় না, তাকে অনুভব করতে হয় চেতনায়।" একই কথা
বিদ্যাসাগরের সাথে সাক্ষাতে শ্রী রামকৃষ্ণ বলছেন। বিদ্যাসাগর প্রশ্ন করছেন আচ্ছা ব্রহ্ম কি ? শ্রী রামকৃষ্ণ বলছেন - "পৃথিবীতে ব্রহ্মই একমাত্র
এমন, যা উচ্ছিষ্ট নয়।" সকলে অবাক। তিনি
ব্যখা করলেন "সব কিছু আমরা উচ্চারণ করতে পারি কিন্ত ব্রহ্মের স্বরূপ
উচ্চারিত হয় না কারণ যিনি ব্রহ্মজ্ঞান
লাভ করেছেন তিনি তা উচ্চারণ করার জায়গায় থাকেন না, তিনি অসীমানন্দে বিলীন হয়ে যান।" বিদ্যাসাগর অবাক হয়ে ভাবলেন "আমি এত পড়েছি কিন্ত এই ভাবে তো
অনুভব করিনি অথচ এই মানুষটি যিনি প্রথাগত শিক্ষায় শিক্ষিত নন, তিনি কি সহজ ভাবে আমাকে বুঝিয়ে দিয়ে গেলেন।" এই হচ্ছে
হিন্দু দর্শন @ Abhijit Debnath পৃথিবীর শ্রেষ্ঠ দর্শন।
আপনাদের হিন্দু ধর্ম নয়। আমি হিন্দু দর্শনের চির
অনুরাগী আছি - ছিলাম - থাকব। আপনাদের
কোন ব্যঙ্গ - কোন বিদ্রূপ আমাকে সেই পথ
থেকে সরাতে পারবে না আবার একই সঙ্গে সেই মহান দর্শনকে অসৎ উদ্দেশ্যে
ব্যবহার করে তাকে কলঙ্কিত করতে চাইবে (একটি বিশেষ রাজনৈতিক দল ও তার
অনুগামীরা যা করছে) তার প্রতিবাদ করব আমার কলমের যতটুকু ক্ষমতা আছে তা দিয়ে - সেখানেও আপনাদের কোন ব্যঙ্গ - কোন বিদ্রূপ
আমাকে সেই পথ থেকে সরাতে পারবে না।
কারণ সেই গীতা।
প্রশ্ন এলে উত্তর দেওয়া দায়িত্ব। একজন গীতা না পড়ে COMMUNIST MANIFESTO পড়ার কথা বলেছেন। বিনযের সাথে বলছি, আপনি / আপনারা ওটাও ভালো করে পড়ে উঠতে পারবেন না কারণ হিন্দু দর্শন সম্পর্কে জানতে হলে গীতা অবশ্য পাঠ্য। গীতার কত
ভাষ্য আছে তা
গুনে বলা যায় না -
WIKIPEDIA কেন কোথাও সম্পূর্ণ তথ্য নেই। গীতা এবং তার বক্তব্য নিয়ে আমার কোন কথা নেই কারণ শুধু ভারতের নয় মানবিক জীবন দর্শনের একটি অংশ ধরা আছে গীতা র মধ্যে। সারা জীবন ধরে পড়লেও আমি গীতার সম্পূর্ণ অর্থ বুঝে উঠতে পারব না এমনই গভীর সে দর্শন। আর হিন্দু দর্শন - রাম কৃষ্ণ দেব, সৈয়দ মুজতবা আলি, ম্যাক্স মুলার রম্যা রল্যা, রবীন্দ্রনাথ এমনকি আইনস্তাইন যে দর্শনের তল খুঁজে পেলেন না তার তল
আমার মত একজন অকিঞ্চিৎকর
মানুষ খুঁজে পাবে ? হাস্যকর
! গীতায় কৃষ্ণ বলছেন – “এ জগতে সব
কিছু নশ্বর আত্মা অবিনশ্বর। আগুন তাহাকে পোড়াতে পারে না”। এবার প্রশ্ন জাগে আত্মা কি ? উত্তর খুঁজে পাই মানুষের জীবনে। “আত্মা” কোন অশরীরী নয় “আত্মা” হল চেতনা। রবীন্দ্রনাথের নশ্বর দেহ পুড়ে ছাই হয়ে গেছে – নজরুল গেছে কবরে কিন্ত এঁদের লেখা ! আজও আমরা পড়ি “আজি হতে শতবর্ষ পরে, কে তুমি পড়িছ বসে বাতায়ন পারে আমার কবিতাখানি কৌতূহলভরে” অথবা “আজ সৃষ্টি সুখের উল্লাসে মোর মন হাসে, মোর প্রাণ হাসে, আজ
সৃষ্টি সুখের উল্লাসে” কিংবা “অবাক পৃথিবী, অবাক করলে তুমি, জন্মেই দেখি ক্ষুব্ধ স্বদেশ ভূমি” । আমরা খুঁজে পাই না কি এদের আত্মা কে ? আমাদের করে যাওয়া কাজ আমাদের
“আত্মা” তাই সে
অবিনশ্বর। আজ থেকে সহস্র বছর পরেও এদের লেখা নিয়ে আলোচনা চলবে গবেষণা চলবে যেমন আজ আমরা করে চলছি হরপ্পা – মহেঞ্জদড়োর
শিলালিপি নিয়ে। সেই মানুষ গুলো আজ নেই কিন্ত তাঁদের
“আত্মা” ? তাই শরীর নশ্বর আত্মা অবিনশ্বর। এই চেতনা হিন্দু দর্শন ছাড়া আর কোথায় আছে ? একটি ঘটনা বলি শুনুন -
একজন মানুষ তার তিন ছেলেকে পাঠিয়েছে ব্রহ্মজ্ঞান শিক্ষা করার জন্য। ১০ বছর অধ্যয়নের পর তিন ছেলে বাড়ি ফিরল। বাবা জিজ্ঞাসা করলেন -
"তোমরা একে একে বল ব্রহ্ম কি?" বড় ছেলে প্রায় ১ ঘণ্টা ধরে নানা রকম শ্লোকের মাধ্যমে বলে গেল, ২য় জন ও প্রায় তাই। ৩য় জন
নীরব। বাবা বললেন - "কি হল
কিছু বলছ না
কেন ?" ছেলে বলে উঠল
"আমি এত বছরে এত পড়েও জানতে পারলাম না ব্রহ্ম কি?"
বাবা সস্নেহে হাত রাখেন তার মাথায় - "তুমিই কিছুটা বুঝতে পেরেছ ব্রহ্ম কি। ব্রহ্ম মুখে বলা যায় না, তাকে অনুভব করতে হয় চেতনায়।" একই কথা বিদ্যাসাগরের সাথে সাক্ষাতে শ্রী রামকৃষ্ণ বলছেন। বিদ্যাসাগর
প্রশ্ন করছেন আচ্ছা ব্রহ্ম কি ? শ্রী রামকৃষ্ণ বলছেন - "পৃথিবীতে ব্রহ্মই একমাত্র এমন, যা
উচ্ছিষ্ট নয়।" সকলে অবাক। তিনি ব্যখা করলেন
"সব কিছু আমরা উচ্চারণ করতে পারি কিন্ত ব্রহ্মের স্বরূপ উচ্চারিত হয় না
কারণ যিনি ব্রহ্মজ্ঞান লাভ করেছেন তিনি তা উচ্চারণ করার জায়গায় থাকেন না, তিনি অসীমানন্দে বিলীন হয়ে যান।" বিদ্যাসাগর অবাক হয়ে ভাবলেন "আমি এত
পড়েছি কিন্ত এই
ভাবে তো অনুভব করিনি অথচ এই
মানুষটি যিনি প্রথাগত শিক্ষায় শিক্ষিত নন, তিনি কি সহজ ভাবে আমাকে বুঝিয়ে দিয়ে গেলেন।" এই হচ্ছে হিন্দু দর্শন পৃথিবীর শ্রেষ্ঠ দর্শন। হিন্দু ধর্ম নয়। প্রতিটি জীবন এক অন্ধকার থেকে এসে অন্য অন্ধকারে মিলিয়ে যায়। মাঝখানের চেতন জগতে সে তার কাজটুকু করে যায়। এ শিক্ষা আমি হিন্দু দর্শন (মনে রাখবেন ধর্ম নয়) থেকেই পেয়েছি। গীতা গীতা নিয়ে না চেঁচিয়ে (মনে হয় গীতা আপনার প্রেমিকা বা
বোন) একটু পড়ুন আমার কথার সমর্থনে যুক্তি গীতা র শ্লোকেই পাবেন। গীতা বলছে "তুমি আমার শরীর কে ধবংস করতে পার কিন্ত আমার আত্মাকে নয়" অর্থাৎ মানুষের শরীর কালের নিয়মে ধ্বংসপ্রাপ্ত হয়
কিন্ত তার চিন্তাধারা তার দর্শন হয়
না। এ কথা কে
অস্বীকার করব কি
করে ? আমি যা
লিখছি, গীতা ই আমাকে শিখিয়েছে। আমি হিন্দু দর্শনের চির অনুরাগী আছি - ছিলাম - থাকব। আপনাদের কোন ব্যঙ্গ
- কোন বিদ্রূপ আমাকে সেই পথ থেকে সরাতে পারবে না
আবার একই সঙ্গে সেই মহান দর্শনকে অসৎ উদ্দেশ্যে ব্যবহার করে তাকে কলঙ্কিত করতে চাইবে (একটি বিশেষ রাজনৈতিক দল
ও তার অনুগামীরা যা করছে) তার প্রতিবাদ করব আমার কলমের যতটুকু ক্ষমতা আছে তা দিয়ে - সেখানেও আপনাদের কোন ব্যঙ্গ
- কোন বিদ্রূপ আমাকে সেই পথ থেকে সরাতে পারবে না। কারণ সেই গীতা।
গীতার কত ভাষ্য আছে তা গুনে বলা যায় না - WIKIPEDIA
কেন কোথাও সম্পূর্ণ তথ্য নেই। গীতা এবং তার বক্তব্য নিয়ে আমার কোন কথা নেই কারণ শুধু ভারতের নয় মানবিক জীবন দর্শনের একটি অংশ ধরা আছে গীতা র মধ্যে। সারা জীবন ধরে পড়লেও আমি গীতার সম্পূর্ণ অর্থ বুঝে উঠতে পারব না এমনই গভীর সে দর্শন। আর হিন্দু দর্শন - রাম কৃষ্ণ দেব, সৈয়দ মুজতবা আলি,
ম্যাক্স মুলার রম্যা রল্যা, রবীন্দ্রনাথ এমনকি আইনস্তাইন যে
দর্শনের তল খুঁজে পেলেন না তার তল আমার মত একজন অকিঞ্চিৎকর মানুষ খুঁজে পাবে ?
হাস্যকর !
গীতা বলছে
"
অর্থাৎ মানুষের
শরীর কালের নিয়মে ধ্বংসপ্রাপ্ত হয় কিন্ত তার চিন্তাধারা তার দর্শন হয় না। এ কথা কে অস্বীকার করব কি করে ?গীতায় কৃষ্ণ বলছেন – “"তুমি আমার শরীর কে ধবংস করতে পার কিন্ত আমার আত্মাকে নয় এ জগতে সব কিছু নশ্বর আত্মা অবিনশ্বর। আগুন তাহাকে পোড়াতে পারে না”। এবার প্রশ্ন জাগে আত্মা কি ? উত্তর খুঁজে পাই মানুষের জীবনে। “আত্মা” কোন অশরীরী নয় “আত্মা” হল চেতনা। অর্থাৎ মানুষের
শরীর কালের নিয়মে ধ্বংসপ্রাপ্ত হয় কিন্ত তার চিন্তাধারা তার দর্শন হয় না। রবীন্দ্রনাথের নশ্বর দেহ পুড়ে ছাই হয়ে গেছে – নজরুল গেছে কবরে কিন্ত এঁদের লেখা ! আজও আমরা পড়ি “আজি হতে শতবর্ষ পরে, কে তুমি পড়িছ বসে বাতায়ন পারে আমার কবিতাখানি কৌতূহলভরে” অথবা “আজ সৃষ্টি সুখের উল্লাসে মোর মন হাসে, মোর প্রাণ হাসে, আজ সৃষ্টি সুখের উল্লাসে” কিংবা “অবাক পৃথিবী, অবাক করলে তুমি, জন্মেই দেখি ক্ষুব্ধ স্বদেশ ভূমি” । আমরা খুঁজে পাই না কি এদের আত্মা কে ? আমাদের করে যাওয়া কাজ আমাদের “আত্মা” তাই সে অবিনশ্বর। আজ থেকে সহস্র বছর পরেও এদের লেখা নিয়ে আলোচনা চলবে গবেষণা চলবে যেমন আজ আমরা করে চলছি হরপ্পা – মহেঞ্জদড়োর শিলালিপি নিয়ে। সেই মানুষ গুলো আজ নেই কিন্ত তাঁদের “আত্মা” ? তাই শরীর নশ্বর আত্মা অবিনশ্বর। এই চেতনা – এত গভীর চিন্তাধারা হিন্দু দর্শন ছাড়া আর কোথায় আছে ? এ কথা কে অস্বীকার করব কি করে ? সৈয়দ মুজতবা আলি বলছেন আজ যখন কাউকে দেখি স্বপ্ন ভরা চোখে উপনিষদ পাঠে নিমগ্ন মনে হয় এ ভারতীয় দর্শনের মূল রূপ খোঁজার চেষ্টায় নিরত এক জ্ঞান তপস্বী।
এই পৃথিবী তে প্রতিটি জীবন “বহিরাগত” কারণ জীবন কোথা থেকে আসে আর কোথায় মিলিয়ে যায় তার দিশা আজও কেউ দিতে পারে নি। এক অন্ধকার থেকে এসে আর এক অন্ধকারে মিলিয়ে যাওয়া মাঝখানে চেতন জগতের আনন্দ উপভোগ করা এই তো জীবন। এ দর্শন আমি গীতা পড়েই জেনেছি.
একটি ঘটনা বলি শুনুন - একজন মানুষ তার তিন ছেলেকে পাঠিয়েছে ব্রহ্মজ্ঞান শিক্ষা করার জন্য। ১০ বছর অধ্যয়নের পর তিন ছেলে বাড়ি ফিরল। বাবা জিজ্ঞাসা করলেন - "তোমরা একে একে বল ব্রহ্ম কি?" বড় ছেলে প্রায় ১ ঘণ্টা ধরে নানা রকম শ্লোকের মাধ্যমে বলে গেল, ২য় জন ও প্রায় তাই। ৩য় জন নীরব।
বাবা বললেন - "কি হল কিছু বলছ না কেন ?" ছেলে বলে উঠল "আমি এত বছরে এত পড়েও জানতে পারলাম না ব্রহ্ম কি?" বাবা সস্নেহে হাত রাখেন তার মাথায় - "তুমিই কিছুটা বুঝতে পেরেছ ব্রহ্ম কি। ব্রহ্ম মুখে বলা যায় না, তাকে অনুভব
করতে হয় চেতনায়।" একই কথা বিদ্যাসাগরের সাথে সাক্ষাতে শ্রী রামকৃষ্ণ বলছেন। বিদ্যাসাগর প্রশ্ন করছেন আচ্ছা ব্রহ্ম কি ? শ্রী রামকৃষ্ণ বলছেন - "পৃথিবীতে ব্রহ্মই একমাত্র এমন, যা উচ্ছিষ্ট নয়।" সকলে অবাক। তিনি ব্যখা করলেন "সব কিছু আমরা উচ্চারণ করতে পারি কিন্ত ব্রহ্মের স্বরূপ উচ্চারিত হয় না কারণ যিনি ব্রহ্মজ্ঞান লাভ করেছেন তিনি তা উচ্চারণ করার জায়গায় থাকেন না, তিনি অসীমানন্দে বিলীন হয়ে যান।" বিদ্যাসাগর অবাক হয়ে ভাবলেন "আমি এত পড়েছি কিন্ত এই ভাবে তো অনুভব করিনি অথচ এই মানুষটি যিনি প্রথাগত শিক্ষায় শিক্ষিত নন,
তিনি কি সহজ ভাবে আমাকে বুঝিয়ে দিয়ে গেলেন।" এই হচ্ছে হিন্দু হিন্দু ধর্ম নয়। আমি হিন্দু দর্শনের চির অনুরাগী আছি - ছিলাম - থাকব। আপনাদের কোন ব্যঙ্গ - কোন বিদ্রূপ আমাকে সেই পথ থেকে সরাতে পারবে না আবার একই সঙ্গে সেই মহান দর্শনকে অসৎ উদ্দেশ্যে ব্যবহার করে তাকে কলঙ্কিত করতে চাইবে (একটি বিশেষ রাজনৈতিক দল ও তার অনুগামীরা যা করছে) তার প্রতিবাদ করব আমার কলমের যতটুকু ক্ষমতা আছে তা দিয়ে - সেখানেও আপনাদের কোন ব্যঙ্গ - কোন বিদ্রূপ আমাকে সেই পথ থেকে সরাতে পারবে না। কারণ সেই গীতা।
শেষ কথা গীতাঞ্জলী “নোবেল” প্রাইজ না পেলেও আমি – বাঙালি গীতাঞ্জলী পড়ত, নোবেল পেয়েছে বলে পড়ে এটা কিন্ত নয়।
