demarcation can be drawn between them, they are just like both ends of the Middle Way.
Florence Kluckhohn, an American anthropologist, once wrote that value orientations are complex but definitely patterned (rank ordered) principles, resulting from the transactional interplay of three analytically distinguishable elements of the evaluative process—the cognitive, the affective, and the directive elements which give order and direction to the ever-flowing streams of human acts and thoughts as these relate to the solution of "common human problems." She classified the relationship between man and nature into three types, namely, Subjugation-to-Nature, Harmony-with-Nature, and Mastery-over-Nature. It seems that the first can be applied to primitive peoples, the second to the Buddhists, and the third to the Christians. This classification cannot be taken for granted as the gradational development of culture from the first stage to the third, but is valid in so far as each man and his society are isolated from, or stand against others. Nowadays the people in different societies or nations are gradually intermingling with each other, and can hardly expand their possibilities without hurting others. Hereby, the mastery of man over or against others is almost impossible: the various ways of thinking and behavior patterns of people must find their places in the context of universal co-existence. At this time, the doctrinal assumption in regard to the differences, if not peculiarities, between religions is less significant than the adaptation of their teachings to our pertinent problems. World-wide secularization is the modern trend, and is in a sense favorable as an attempt to make us known the raison d'etre of true religion. However, if such adaptation means the complete surrender of religion to secularism, it leaves nothing but the destruction of all religiousness which is found in the consciousness and behavior of each religious follower.
Now is not the time to look at each other and discuss matters concerning the inferiorities and superiorities of religions, but to look upon something together which will give us the solution to save our divided and troubled world. Coincidentally speaking, the general theme of the Expo '70, which was held in Osaka, Japan, was "Progress and Harmony for mankind" which seems to be characteristic of Christianity and Buddhism. The synthesis of these seemingly contradictory concepts must be the guiding principle for a new spiritual civilization which we may anticipate in the near future. Until the time comes when the world becomes united, I believe that both religions will play an integral part, as told by British historian Arnold Toynbee, and that world citizens will become Christians when they believe in the progress of human life, and Buddhists when they appreciate the harmony of all life!
Chapter 4
Is Buddhism Atheism?
It has been generally regarded that Buddhism is a kind of atheism since it has no conception of God. Gautama Buddha denied the existence of God or any notion of God which is attributed to supernatural power. According to the definition in the Encyclopedia of Religion (Edited by Vergilius Ferm), "theism" is a philosophical term and connotes something more than mere contrast with polytheism. Its essential idea is that of a unitary, personal Being as the creative source or ground of the physical world, man and value, at once transcendent to nature and immanent in it. Theism is thus contrasted with deism, which implies the total transcendence of God to nature, and with pantheism, which by identifying God with nature becomes a doctrine of exclusive immanence. Atheism is, on the contrary, the denial that there is any god, no matter in what sense "god" is defined or the denial that there exists a being corresponding to some particular definition of god. Frequently but unfortunately, atheism is used to denote the denial of God as personal, and more particularly, of a personal God as defined in a particular creed.
Since the beginning of human history, theologians, philosophers, scientists, and even ordinary people have questioned the existence of God, and expressed their own idea about God. They defined the nature of God as (1) the Absolute Sovereign, (2) the "Alone", (3) the Creator, (4) the first cause, (5) the divine being, (6) the Omniscient, (7) the Ominipotent, (8) Transcendence, (9) Spirit, (10) Entity, (11) the Redeemer, (12) Immanent in the world, (13) Impersonal essence, (14) moral value, (15) Righteousness, (16) Ultimate Reality, (17) Being itself, and so on. There is no agreement on the definition and expression of God among them. However, those definitions can be classified more precisely into two, God and Godhead. God is the God of the Trinity, the Creator, and a personal being who can be described as good, powerful, loving, wise, and the like, and Godhead is the ground of all being, an infinite essence which can be qualified only as "Formlessness." Buddhism does not admit any god in the first sense, so it is called atheism. However, Buddhism admits the efficacy of Godhead as the ground of being, so it is not an atheism in a strict sense. More accurately speaking, Buddhists do not believe in the existence of a God who is defined and accepted by the Christians as a personal being and as a supernatural power.
It must be remembered that these arguments are only possible as a philosophical proposition, not as a religious one. As a philosophical proposition, there are four possible answers to the question of the existence of God: (1) God exists, (2) God does not exist, (3) the idea of God is nonsense, and (4) it is impossible to ascertain whether God exists or not.
First, God exists. There are many ways to prove this statement in direct or indirect ways. Decartes once said that the idea of God is an "idea Innata," that is, it is inherent in all men. History shows that many have been keeping in mind the idea of God. Therefore, God exists and has existed for man. The reason is that there could be no definition without the definition of it, namely, there is no smoke without fire.
Second, God does not exist. The denial seems to arise mainly from the fact that God is inconceivable and unknowable and accordingly the idea of God seems to be merely an illusion.
Third, the idea of God is nonsense, and the question does need to be investigated. If man knows it is nonsense, he is simply negating the discussion of the existence of God from the beginning.
And fourth, it is impossible to ascertain whether God exists or not. This is the skeptic's attitude toward everything. The skeptic tries to avoid any definite answer simply because he does not know what he has experienced.
As a philosophical proposition, we can say that in Buddhism there is a notion of Godhead and therefore it takes the position of No. 1, but as a religious proposition, we cannot say whether there is a Godhead or not. The existence of God or Godhead cannot be proved in a conceptual analysis. It is one's pure experience that grasps the depth of "being" and that becomes "being" itself when one becomes aware of it. So, if we dare to say which standpoint Buddhists would take in the philosophical and religious propositions combined, we would rather answer that "God exists and at the same time does not exist."
We generally think that words are absolute. We have never been able to break through this condition of understanding; it has been too imposing. But, as the Tao-te-ching says, "What is expressed is not the absolute fact." Religious expression starts with the fact that the word is only a symbol. It is one of the means which can, orally or through written words, be attached to one's whole experience. If religious experience is beyond logical reasoning, it is not contradicting to say, "God exists and at the same time does not exist." It is even possible to say, "God exists when we say 'God doesn't exist,'" and "God doesn't exist when we say, 'God exists.' "
Although it is possible to argue about the existence of a god as a philosophical proposition, it is impossible to ascertain its existence as a religious proposition. Religious experience is a purely subjective matter; the awareness of God cannot be demonstrated and transmitted to anyone else since it is a total experience. Meister Eckhart says, "Why dost thou prate of God? Whatever thou sayest of Him is untrue." Thomas Aquinas also said that everything he had written up to that time when he actually experienced God was a mere straw compared with the immediate knowledge which had been vouch-safed to him. Likewise, in Buddhism, direct and personal experience is the final text for knowing God or Buddha. There is no other way to prove his existence.
PART II
BUDDHISM IN HISTORY
