![\"\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/moonpointer.com\/new\/wp-content\/uploads\/2009\/08\/1.jpg?resize=95%2C147\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
I read in a Buddhist mailing list that Karen Armstrong’s new book ‘The Case for God’, which is somewhat apologetics for the ‘invisible ruler’, surprisingly ended with a paragraph on the Buddha. I checked it out at a bookstore. Here it is:<\/span><\/p>\n Excerpt: <\/strong>One day a Brahmin priest came across the Buddha sitting in contemplation under a tree and was astonished by his serenity, stillness and self-discipline. The impression of immense strength channelled creatively into an extraordinary peace reminded him of a great tusker elephant. ‘Are you a god, sir?’ the priest asked. ‘Are you an angel… or a spirit?’ No, the Buddha replied. He explained that he has simply revealed a new potential in human nature. It was possible to live in this world of conflict and pain at peace and in harmony with one’s fellow creatures. There was no point in merely believing it; you would only discover its truth if you practised his method, systematically cutting off egotism at the root. You would then live at the peak of your capacity, activate parts of the psyche that normally lie dormant, and become fully enlightened human beings. ‘Remember me,’ the Buddha told the curious priest, ‘as one who is awake.’<\/p>\n Comments: <\/strong>Am not sure if Armstrong read a little too much into the incident, though what she wrote above is generally in line with the Buddha’s teachings. You can see the Dona Sutta, which records the actual event at http:\/\/accesstoinsight.org\/tipitaka\/an\/an04\/an04.036.than.html<\/a> The Buddha didn’t discover a ‘new potential in human nature’; what he awakened to was a timeless potential within all sentient beings – Buddha-nature. To clarify, the Buddha in the sutta denied being a human, albeit being a perfected human being. He defined himself instead as an ‘awakened’ one – a Buddha. ‘Fully enlightened human beings’ are thus not mere humans. I think it is significant that her book ended with the above passage – for several reasons:<\/p>\n (1) <\/strong>‘The Case for God’ subtly became a case against gods, because the Buddha said he was awakened, and thus beyond all notions of unawakened gods. I browsed the index and there are a few other mentions of the Buddha in the rest of the book. Am not sure if they require clarification- yet. Below are bestseller books from last year, which present ‘cases against God’.<\/span><\/p>\n
\n(2)<\/strong> There was emphasis that belief in Buddha-nature (though not spelled out explicitly as so) is useless if its reality is not realised via practice of the Buddha’s teachings – to sever the root of delusion. Suddenly, this becomes a case for urging practice of Buddhism – that beyond god-centric beliefs.
\n(3)<\/strong> ‘Cutting off egotism at the root’ became the ideal. However, in god-centric beliefs, the one apparently with the greatest ego is often the Godhead, when he commands respect and condemns those lacking it to eternal damnation. This is the opposite of universal compassion proposed by the Buddha – since such superlative egotism perpetuates a ‘world of conflict and pain’ that is not ‘at peace and in harmony with one’s fellow creatures.’<\/span><\/p>\n