If Buddha was an
atheist, why is Buddhism a religion?
Kush
Sareen, on Quora
So many people today have
assumed Buddha was an atheist and that buddhism is an atheistic religion. A man
like Gautam Buddha does not answer questions, he answers questioners. Buddha
denying god was said in a particular context, You must read the entire story to
understand -
“Once it happened: In the
morning a man asked Buddha, ‘Is there a God?’ and Buddha said, ‘No.’ And in the
afternoon another person asked, ‘Is there a God?’ and Buddha said, ‘Yes.’ And
by the evening a third person asked, ‘Is there a God?’ and Buddha kept quiet,
didn’t answer, remained silent.
Ananda, who was Buddha’s
chief disciple, was present on all three occasions. He was continuously behind
Buddha like a shadow—serving him, taking care of his body, looking after his
needs. He was very much puzzled: ‘In a single day Buddha has said there is no
God, Buddha has said there is a God, and Buddha has kept silent too, he has not
answered this way or that. These are the only three possibilities—all the
possibilities exhausted, in a single day? All the answers given.’ He could not
sleep; he tossed and turned, and Buddha asked, ‘What is the matter with you
tonight? Are you not tired or something?’
He said, ‘I don’t want to disturb you, but unless you answer me this question I don’t think I will be able to sleep. In the morning you said no, in the afternoon you said yes, and by the evening you remained silent, you didn’t answer—and the question was exactly the same!’
Buddha laughed and he said,
‘The person who had come early in the morning and had asked ‘Is there a God?’
was a theist, was a believer. He wanted me to say yes so that his belief could
become more strengthened—and I don’t strengthen people’s beliefs, because a
believing mind is never a seeing mind. To believe is to remain in darkness. I
wanted to shatter his belief. My answer had nothing to do with God; my answer
had something to do with that man. He was there just to accumulate a little
more evidence for his belief, so he could say to people that ‘Not only do I
believe that there is a God, but even Buddha says there is a God!’ He had not
come to understand. He simply wanted me to be a witness to HIS belief and his
belief is just out of fear, a conditioning taught by others. His belief is
nothing but a cover-up for his ignorance. I cannot be in any way a help to it.
I had to shatter it. I had to shout no, emphatically. And it helped. ‘Buddha
says no?’ Enquiry started in his being. Now he cannot be at rest with his
belief. He will have to come—you will see.’
And one day he came again,
and he said to Buddha, ‘You did it: since that time my worship has become
empty. Since that time I go to the temple, but the temple no longer has any
deity in it. Since that time I know it is only a belief. If you say God is not,
then who am I to say God is? You are so godly, you must be true. I have come to
enquire. Now I come to you without any belief. Now I come to you open—to seek,
to search. Now my question is not rooted in my knowledge.’
And Buddha said to Ananda,
‘The second person was an atheist—he believed that there is no God. He had come
in the same way as the first one: to have my support.’
His belief was as stupid as the first one’s, because to believe without knowing is to be stupid. Believe only when you have known, but then it is not a belief at all; it is a totally different experience. It is trust. It is not based on somebody else’s experience; it is your OWN experience. You are reborn in it. It is not Hindu, Christian, islamic—it is simply your experience. And even if the whole world says it is not so, you cannot deny it, your trust cannot be shaken.
‘The other person,’ Buddha said, ‘was an atheist, hence I had to say YES, and
emphatically I had to say yes.’
Ananda said, ‘And what about
the third?’
Buddha said, ‘He was neither a theist, nor an atheist, so neither was yes needed nor was no needed. He was really an innocent soul, a very pure heart. His question was not out of his a priori knowledge; his question was really innocent. His question was a quest, an enquiry. I had to remain silent—because that was my answer to him. And he understood it. Did you not watch: when I remained silent and closed my eyes, he also closed his eyes, and a great silence descended on him. And did you not observe?—when he went his eyes were shining, his eyes were like lit candles. And did you not observe?—when he left, he touched my feet, bowed down, thanked me, saying ‘You answered rightly,’ although I had not answered him at all. That man tasted something of my silence, imbibed something of my being. That man was the true seeker.’
Buddha said, ‘He was neither a theist, nor an atheist, so neither was yes needed nor was no needed. He was really an innocent soul, a very pure heart. His question was not out of his a priori knowledge; his question was really innocent. His question was a quest, an enquiry. I had to remain silent—because that was my answer to him. And he understood it. Did you not watch: when I remained silent and closed my eyes, he also closed his eyes, and a great silence descended on him. And did you not observe?—when he went his eyes were shining, his eyes were like lit candles. And did you not observe?—when he left, he touched my feet, bowed down, thanked me, saying ‘You answered rightly,’ although I had not answered him at all. That man tasted something of my silence, imbibed something of my being. That man was the true seeker.’
A true seeker does not need
a verbal answer: a true seeker needs something existential—a penetration of the
heart into the heart, a penetration of the soul into the soul. The real seeker
wants the Master to overlap him. The real seeker wants the Master to go into
his innermost core and stir the sleeping soul.”
-OSHO
Edit: I just wanted to make
it clear that this story is a story of Gautham Buddha being narrated by the
Indian guru and mystic OSHO. OSHO adds his own commentary and thus the
references to islam and christianity which came after the time of Buddha. I
apologize for any confusion.
Source: Quora
