A Sinhala Buddhist Interpretation of God

“The "something" that cannot be "known" is manifested as the world as in the case of "Shiva Nartana" or the knowledge created by the mind. The "something" is the "unmanifested" and the world, meaning the knowledge (of the world) is the manifested. I believe that this "something" is the God, Brahman, Allah or Yehovah as the case may be. The "unmanifested" "something", for the convenience of the ordinary man, has been finally animated like so many other objects such as the sun that became the Surya Divya (Sun God).”
___________________________________

by Prof. Nalin de Silva

(March 14, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) I am interested in the concept of God from an epistemological point of view. My epistemology includes ontology as well and what follows is an interpretation of monotheism from a Sinhala Buddhist point of view. Even if none of the other Sinhala Buddhists agree with the interpretation given here it could be called a Sinhala Buddhist interpretation for the simple reason that it is based on what I have acquired from the Sinhala Buddhist culture.

As this is only an interpretation it is not a criticism of any one of the monotheistic religions. I am not sure whether this interpretation has been given earlier by anybody else and I would not be surprised even if a non Sinhala Buddhist has thought about it. There have been and there will be many interpretations of God or readings of God as some of the trendy western intellectuals and their followers would say, just as much there are many explanations of Nibbana.

What or Who is God? What is Nibbana? What is meant by Anicca Dukka Anatta? Do we have "knowledge" about these? Are they concepts? Though there are some people who would like to say that Nibbana could be expressed in words, they cannot express Nibbana using other words. Neither they could give any instance where Buddha has expressed Nibbana in terms of other concepts. These people try to show to the "scientific" westerners that Nibbana is not "transcendental" and attempt to subordinate Buddhism to western phenomenology and its various derivatives. Nibbana, Anicca Dukka and Anatta are not concepts that could be expressed using other concepts. If that is the case then all that one has to do is to express them in terms of other concepts and we would be in a position to understand them the way we understand any other concept such as "paradigm" or "deconstruction". Nibbana, Anicca Dukka and Anatta cannot be grasped with the mind and as such they do not belong to the corpus of knowledge. Anicca is not impermanence or "A-nicca". We all know what impermanence is but that does not make us Arhats. If impermanence was Anicca we would have attained Nibbana long time ago.

Knowledge comes in the form of concepts, theories, narratives, folk lore, myths, feelings etc., and they are all associated with the mind. If not for the mind there is no knowledge and I believe (I cannot help referring to "Mage Lokaya", especially to the second reprint, though some are irritated by the mention of its name) that all knowledge is constructed by the mind due to the ignorance or "avidya" of "anicca dukka anatta". I should add that even the mind is a construction of the mind due to "avidya". The apparent circularity of this statement has been explained in an unrefereed article entitled "Sinhala Bauddha Manasa", without foot notes and references, published in the "Irida Divaina". As knowledge is constructed by the mind it is relative to the mind. Further as the mind is very often conditioned by the culture the knowledge is relative to the culture. Finally as the sense organs are associated with knowledge, it is relative to the former. Thus knowledge is constructed by the mind and it is relative to the sense organs, the mind and the culture. Professors of Philosophy or Physiology should not jump to the conclusion that this epistemology is nothing but solipsism where only the existence of one's mind is recognised. For the information and hence knowledge of these ladies and gentlemen I must also add there is no mind as such and as mentioned above in this epistemology the mind is also created due to avidya. However all these, including the mind, are relative truths and our knowledge consists of these relative truths. This is not an absolute statement on "knowledge" and knowledge, including that particular statement and everything I write, is due to "avidya" and is relative.

Now the question is whether there is "anything" (I would not call it knowledge) that is not relative. Is there "anything" that is "beyond the mind" or that cannot be constructed (grasped) by the mind. The ancient philosophers would have deliberated on this and it appears that they had come to the conclusion that there was "something" beyond the mind. This should not be confused with the things in themselves of Kant and his a-priori knowledge. All that the ancient philosophers, the Rishis or the Prophets could do was to say that there was "something" beyond the mind and leave it at that. There was no way of explaining this "something". The moment one tries to explain this "something" one would be compelled to use concepts that have been formulated or constructed to express relative knowledge and the "something" would degenerate to concepts or relative truths. However, all the relative truths arise (or are constructed) due to ignorance of the "something" and in a sense are created by the "something". The "something" that cannot be "known" is manifested as the world as in the case of "Shiva Nartana" or the knowledge created by the mind. The "something" is the "unmanifested" and the world, meaning the knowledge (of the world) is the manifested. I believe that this "something" is the God, Brahman, Allah or Yehovah as the case may be. The "unmanifested" "something", for the convenience of the ordinary man, has been finally animated like so many other objects such as the sun that became the Surya Divya (Sun God).

We do not know who the first monotheists were in the world. It could be the Philosophers who lived in the middle east, Persia or even Bharat. It is said that the ancient Jews were polytheists but became monotheists after coming into contact with the monotheistic ideas in Zoroastrianism, when they were in Babylonia. It could be that Zoroastrianism absorbed monotheism from Rishis in Bharat who had developed the concept of Brahman. What is interesting about the God, Brahman or Allah is their formlessness. Though it is said in the Old Testament that the God created the man in His image, it does not mean that the "God" has a physical "existence" or body similar to that of man. God, Allah or Brahman is "body less". It is true that in the Upanishads, Brahman is considered as both with a form and without it. This could be due to the fact that unlike in the case of Yehovah and Allah, Brahman is both the creator and the created. However, it was Shankaracharya who "formulated" a Nirgun Brahman without any "properties". The formlessness of the God, Yehovah and Allah has resulted in banning idol worshipping and making statues or drawing pictures of the "unmanifested" being forbidden. How could one formulate a concept of the "unmanifested". One could only give a name without formulating a concept and all that the ancients would say is that the "unmanifested" is present everywhere. The moment one tries to describe the "unmanifested" one gets into difficulties as something could be described only in terms of the manifested.

What is more interesting is the description of the creation of knowledge. In the Rig Veda as well as in the Genesis in the Old Testament it is said that in the beginning it was darkness and that the world was filled with water. Then gradually the world was created by the "unmanifested". Now how did the man come to "know" the world? In the Vedic religion it is due to Maya, which is described as "light", that was created by Brahman. Due to Maya the man is separated from the Brahman (strictly speaking, according to Advaitha Vedantha one cannot separate from Brahman as there is only Brahman.) and he "sees" the manifested. Thus the manifested is "known" due to Maya and we are in this sansaric journey due to Maya "creating" the "manifested". If not for maya we would be united with the "unmanifested". The "unmanifested" is thought to be the "ultimate reality".

According to the Old Testament, when Adam and Eve were in the garden of Eden the God asked them not to eat fruit from the tree that gives knowledge of what is good and bad. However, they were tempted by the snake and having eaten fruit from this particular tree they became aware that they were naked and were ashamed. Though the Old Testament refers to this particular tree as the tree that gives knowledge of good and bad, in general it could be said that it was the tree that gave knowledge. Adam and Eve before being ashamed were aware that they were naked after eating the forbidden fruit. It was just knowledge and not knowledge of good and bad. Though Adam and Eve would have known that there were trees and fruits and birds and other animals before they ate the forbidden fruit it could be said that, ignoring all the inconsistencies in the story, the eating of the forbidden fruit was the beginning of the "manifestation" of the world for them. Soon after, the "unmanifested" (God) sent Adam and Eve out of the Garden of Eden and put them in the "manifested" world to toil. The original sin is thus associated with knowledge and the "manifested" world and is not entirely different from the idea of Maya and toiling in sansara.

What is interesting is that it is the "manifestation" of a world from the "unmanifested" that makes us toil or suffer in the sansaric journey. The toiling and suffering would end when we unite with Brahman or go back to the paradise (heaven) when we would not be "manifesting" a world or knowledge. How does this differ from Sinhala Buddhism in particular or Theravada Buddhism in general. In Theravada Buddhism the "unmanifested" is not raised to the level of an absolute or ultimate "reality". Thus there is no need to "animate" the "unmanifested". The "manifested" is "created" due to "avidya" of anicca dukka anatta which are not concepts (if they are concepts then they belong to the manifested) just as much the "unmanifested" is not a concept. The "sathva" due to "avidya" suffer in the "sansaric journey" creating "sanskaras".

While in the monotheistic religions toiling or the sansaric journey is ended as a result of achieving a "higher" state of mind and thus uniting with the "unmanifested" or living in the heaven eternally, in Theravada Buddhism "one" attains Nibbana when "one" realises that there is no "one". "Anicca Dukka Anatta" has to be realised not by "somebody" but by "nobody". "One" gets the feeling or creates the knowledge of "oneself" due to avidya of "anicca dukka anatta". Having attained Nibbana there is nobody to live eternally or to be born again. It appears to me that "anicca dukka anatta" has been raised to the level of an "unmanifested" absolute in monotheism.

- Sri Lanka Guardian