Is Buddhism an Atheistic Religion? - VoiceTube: Learn English through videos!

Subtitles section Play video

If you'd like to learn more about Buddhist supernatural beings, check out our upcoming class on Hungry Ghosts at religionforbreakfast.eventbrite.com.
According to Buddhist tradition, around 2,500 years ago in India, two young priests were debating the most direct path to union with Brahma, the Hindu creator god.
Reaching an impasse, they decided to get a third opinion.
A third opinion from the Awakened One himself, the Buddha.
After listening carefully to their arguments, the Buddha asked,
Well, has anyone back to the seventh generation of teachers seen Brahma with their own eyes?
No, Master Gautama, they admitted.
Since apparently no one had met Brahma face to face, the Buddha declared their goal laughable, vain, and empty.
This story is recorded in the Tevijja Sutta, an early Buddhist text from around the 2nd century BCE.
And it sounds kind of atheistic, right?
As in, the Buddha is rejecting the notion of a creator god with a capital G.
There's a widespread assumption that Buddhism is fundamentally an atheistic religion, or maybe not a religion at all, but a way of life, or a set of practices that you could do without any appeal to the supernatural.
Even big-name atheists like Sam Harris have found a lot of value in Buddhist ideas and practices, even while at the same time rejecting its supernatural claims.
So, can we call Buddhism atheistic?
Well, no, for the most part.
As we saw in the Tevijja Sutta, the Buddha rejected the notion of a supreme creator god, and taught there was no ultimate beginning to the universe.
But he did not reject the existence of gods in general, and other supernatural beings.
In these early centuries, the Buddhist pantheon included many Indian supernatural figures, and as it spread to other cultures and regions, the veneration of local deities and spirits was often integrated into Buddhism.
But the importance or role of these supernatural beings can differ a lot depending on the form of Buddhism.
The two major branches of Buddhism are Theravada and Mahayana.
Theravada, meaning the teaching of the elders, is the oldest surviving Buddhist school, and is primarily practiced in Southeast Asian countries such as Sri Lanka, Thailand, and Cambodia.
It emphasizes the teachings of the Buddha found in the Pali Canon, and generally maintains a more reserved approach to the role of deities and supernatural beings in the pursuit of enlightenment.
Mahayana Buddhism, on the other hand, which means the great vehicle, emerged around the 1st century BCE, and is widely practiced across East Asian countries like China, Japan, and Korea.
Mahayana introduced new scriptures and concepts, including the idea of bodhisattvas, compassionate beings who postponed their enlightenment to help all sentient beings.
In Mahayana traditions, these bodhisattvas, along with various Buddhas and other divine beings, play a more active role in the spiritual lives of practitioners.
Devotional practices directed toward these beings are an integral part of the path to enlightenment.
People often venerate or pray to them for guidance and protection, which can make them appear more god-like in their attributes and functions.
In recent years, there's also been a growing interest in what's called secular Buddhism, especially in Western countries.
Secular Buddhists identify as Buddhist and engage in Buddhist practices, but may themselves be metaphysical naturalists, meaning they don't believe in any supernatural phenomena.
This approach to Buddhism focuses on the practical and philosophical aspects of the Buddha's teachings, while downplaying or reinterpreting the supernatural elements found in traditional Buddhist cosmology.
So, acknowledging this diversity, let's start by exploring how Buddhist scriptures describe the universe and the gods within it.
According to Buddhist cosmology, the universe is populated by mortal gods called devas, a Sanskrit and Pali word literally meaning radiant one or shining one.
The word is distantly related to the English word divinity, as part of the Indo-European language family.
But these devas are not all-knowing, they are not all-powerful, and they are not eternal.
They're more like the universe's fancy VIPs, but they're stuck in the cycle of rebirth along with humans, animals, and ghosts.
And it's possible for a human to be reborn as a deva as a result of their virtuous actions.
Now, this gets complicated, so buckle up.
Devas exist in three realms.
From lowest to highest, we first have Kamadhatu, the realm of desire.
Then there's Rupadhatu, the realm of subtle materiality, also known as the realm of form.
And then there's Arupadhatu, the immaterial or formless realm.
These realms are located on and above the center of the Buddhist universe, Mount Meru.
This is the vertical axis of the entire universe in Buddhist cosmology.
Stretching up from the summit of Mount Meru and in the sky above it are layers of heavens.
31 realms stacked upon each other, 26 of which are devalokas, realms of existence where devas live.
Each layer has its own unique characteristics and is occupied by specific devas.
At the bottom of this cosmic layer cake are the six heavens of the lowest realm, the desire realm.
There's the heaven of the four heavenly kings, located on the upper slopes of Mount Meru.
On its summit is the heaven of the 33 devas, Trayastrimsa, which is ruled by the deva chakra, also known as Indra.
You might recognize him as a prominent Vedic god in the Rig Veda.
There's also the heaven of the contented, or Tushta, where the future Buddha Maitreya is believed to live.
And at the highest level of the realm of desire, you have the home to the malignant celestial king Mara.
So, yeah, there are a lot of devas, and we've only covered the entry-level heavens.
In the middle realm, Rupadhatu, or the form realm, you start running into the big leagues, the Brahma gods.
These devas have longer lifespans, bigger celestial bodies, and generally just more splendor.
While the devas of the lower heavens might live for a few hundred or thousand years, the devas of the higher heavens live for tens or hundreds of thousands of years.
In fact, years aren't even a useful unit of time when measuring the lifespan of these devas.
They live for kalpas, or eons.
The gods of the lower heavens eat food and have sex, while the gods of the upper realms don't eat and procreate simply by embracing, holding hands, or smiling at each other.
In fact, in one heaven, they procreate with a single glance.
So, watch your eye contact if you ever get reborn there. Things could get awkward.
And don't get me started with the devas residing in the highest realm, the immaterial realm.
Well, they don't even have bodies. Their existence is entirely mental.
They've transcended the physical world entirely, living in such a refined state that it's impossible to even say where they exist.
It's like trying to point to a thought or a dream. Where exactly is it?
But even these devas, devas at the highest pinnacle of immaterial existence, whose lives appear to be infinite, they cannot escape one fundamental truth of Buddhism.
Everything is impermanent.
No matter how long they live, no matter how splendid their bodies are, they don't possess a permanent essence.
They will eventually die and be reborn.
According to various sutras, there are five warning signs when a deva of the realm of desire is about to die.
Their garland of flowers begins to fade, their clothes and palace become dusty, they begin to sweat, their body becomes opaque and loses its shine, and their throne becomes uncomfortable.
Then before they die, they witness their next rebirth.
This alone is said to be absolutely excruciating.
Imagine you're a deva, you're living in absolute splendor, and now you're witnessing your next lifetime that will almost certainly be dramatically worse.
It's quite literally all downhill from here, down the slopes of Mount Meru.
Of course, unless they can hear the teachings of the Buddha and attain nirvana.
This is why the Buddha himself is often described as a teacher of gods and men.
So yes, Buddhism definitely acknowledges the existence of countless gods.
The question isn't whether they exist.
According to the scriptures, they do.
The question is, can humans interact with these beings?
And more importantly, can they assist us toward full liberation?
Which is, after all, the ultimate goal.
This is where regional differences matter.
From the Theravada perspective, the answer is not really.
While gods do exist, they can't do much to save us.
This is partly because the higher gods of the plane of formlessness are way beyond our reach.
Simply because these beings have no physical form or location.
They're entirely composed of mind.
Even the gods that occupy the 16 or so heavens of the form realm are also out of our league for the most part.
Sure, the Buddha and a few of his most talented students are said to have contacted them.
But for the rest of us mortals, not so much.
But even if we could somehow contact these higher gods, they can't really help us toward awakening.
Since, as we've said, they're also trapped in the cycle of death and rebirth.
In fact, the heavenly realms lack the proper conditions for awakening.
Put simply, life is too comfy there.
These gods are said to be compassionate, but they're prone to delusion.
For example, they might end up thinking that they are the eternal creator.
For example, consider a story found in the Kavata Sutta, a text from the Pali Canon.
In this text, the Buddha tells a story about a monk who ascends into the heavens, stopping at different heavens along the way, and asking the devas living there to answer his question about the ultimate nature of reality.
How and where do the elements fire, water, earth, and wind come to an end?
First, he ascends to the realm of the four great kings, which, as we've seen, is a lower heavenly realm on the slopes of Mount Meru.
And he asks the devas living there, friends, where do these four great elements cease without remainder?
They say, we also don't know, but there are the gods of the 33 who are higher and more sublime than we.
They should know.
So the monk continues to ascend through higher and higher heavens, the realm of the 33 gods, and then the Tushita gods.
And in each realm, the gods just don't know and keep giving him the runaround, sending him higher and higher up the heavenly chain.
Until finally, the monk encounters Brahma himself.
But Brahma tries to dodge the question, three times, each time bragging that he is the great Brahma, the conqueror, the all-seeing, the all-powerful, the creator.
And when the monk insists on an answer, Brahma then takes him aside.
These gods of the retinue of Brahma believe there is nothing that the great Brahma does not know.
That is why I did not say in their presence that I too don't know where the four great elements cease without remainder.
So he doesn't know everything, and he didn't want to admit it to save face in front of the other devas.
The Buddha tells this story to illustrate the limitations of seeking answers from the devas.
Even when a gifted monk consults even the supposed creator himself, they're generally unable to offer much help since their wisdom and insight are always inferior to the Buddha.
So humans have little use for these gods, especially when it comes to awakening.
This fits right in with the Buddha's teachings, that the ultimate goal of awakening can only be achieved through insight, wisdom, ethics, and self-cultivation through meditation.
The emphasis is on one's thoughts, words, and actions determining the course of rebirth.
That leaves us with the lower devas of the realm of desire.
These devas are closer to us humans, and they might be open to helping us if people share some of their good karma with them.
Examples of these gods include the aforementioned Chakra, the king of the Trayastrimsa heaven.
Also Maitreya, who will someday be reborn as the next Buddha.
And the also aforementioned four heavenly kings, the devas who preside over each of the four cardinal directions.
Even though the Pali Canon does not endorse worshipping them, you can find shrines to these devas at Theravada temples, or just around town.
For example, there are shrines to various devas around downtown Bangkok, where devotees make offerings, light incense, or pray, petitioning the deva for protection.
In fact, Chakra is one of the most popular devas in Thailand.
He's even on the flag of Bangkok and is the symbol of the Bangkok Metropolitan Administration, a symbol of service who embodies the role and figure of the mayor of Bangkok.
These devas are also sometimes invoked in Theravada ritual chants called paritta, the practice of chanting short verses from a sutra for protection.
This is a particularly popular practice among Theravada Buddhists at all sorts of events, including weddings, funerals, or house blessings.
One chant reads,
May there be for me all blessings,
May all the devas guard me well,
By the power of all the Buddhas,
Ever in safety may I be.
So devas may be called upon for protection, but notice the chant does immediately pivot to the Buddhas.
Of course, the way these gods are venerated varies quite a bit depending on where you are in the Theravada world.
Local deities and spirits get more attention in some countries compared to others.
So while devas can be called upon for a little extra help, enlightenment is still something you've got to work on for yourself.
Though this question of whether these devas truly exist might tell us more about our own assumptions of what counts as atheism in the first place.
The scholar Rupert Gethin points out that in a lot of Buddhist texts, devas lend themselves to a psychological interpretation in which they represent different mental states.
For example, in one set of teachings called the Vanasamhita within the Samhita Nikaya, there's a series of stories about devas visiting monks living in the forest, urging them not to be lazy.
The devas represent positive mental qualities to keep the monks motivated in their meditation practice.
In other texts like the Mara Samhita,
Mara shows up to tempt monks, nuns, and even the Buddha himself.
Mara personifies the five hindrances of Buddhism.
Sensory desire, ill will, sloth, worry, and doubt.
Dr. Gethin argues that this is not about demythologizing Buddhism.
In fact, these texts encourage the psychological interpretation of devas.
The text called the Sutta Nipata describes the armies of Mara in psychological terms.
Sensual desire is called your first army.
Discontent, your second.
Your third is called hunger and thirst.
Your fourth, craving.
Your fifth is called tiredness and sleepiness.
Your sixth, fear.
The point is, within Buddhist texts, we often find figurative or psychologized interpretations of Buddhist cosmology.
Descriptions of the god realms may be taken as literal descriptions of places and their literal inhabitants.
Other texts will often say that all cosmology is really just the projection of human minds.
So, many Buddhists throughout history have considered gods to be literal beings.
Others, most likely the philosophical types, interpreted the existence of the gods and heavens in more figurative or psychological terms.
And both can exist within the same tradition.
The impulse to determine whether Buddhists either did or did not believe in devas reveals a framework rooted in debates within Christian Europe, where distinctions between atheism and theism are clear-cut categories.
But such binary distinctions might not readily apply to Buddhism.
As we turn to Mahayana Buddhism, this binary is further blurred, with Mahayana's emphasis on bodhisattvas.
Compassionate beings who've reached a high level of enlightenment but postponed their final liberation to help all sentient beings.
Mahayana Buddhists view these bodhisattvas not merely as abstract role models, but as powerful celestial beings who can be called upon for assistance and guidance.
And so devotional practices directed toward various bodhisattvas and buddhas are an integral part of the Mahayana path.
And these beings often appear godlike.
For example, the bodhisattva of compassion, Avalokiteshvara, is one of the most widely revered figures across the Mahayana world, and is conceptualized as a cosmic being.
One Mahayana sutra even claims that the Hindu gods Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva emanated from Avalokiteshvara, and images of him can be found in Buddhist temples throughout Asia.
Other prominent bodhisattvas include Manjushri, who is associated with wisdom, and Kshitigarbha, who's believed to assist beings in the hell realms.
Amitabha Buddha is another central figure, especially in Pure Land Buddhism.
Amitabha Buddha resides in Sukhavati, one of several heavenly realms called a Pure Land, a place believed to exist outside of samsara where you can be reborn to pursue the bodhisattva path and achieve nirvana more easily.
Followers believe that by reciting Amitabha's name with sincere faith, they can be reborn in Sukhavati, though these practices are seen as complementary rather than a replacement for individual efforts toward wisdom and compassion.
In Mahayana Buddhism, the idea of skillful means, or upaya, is important for understanding the Buddha's teachings about devas.
The idea is that the Buddha tailored his teachings to fit the audience he was speaking to, which, for the cultural context of ancient India, involved devas.
So teachings and rituals regarding these beings are seen as practical methods to help people overcome their attachments and illusions.
It's also important to consider Tibetan Buddhism.
While technically part of the Mahayana branch,
Tibetan Buddhism has developed its own unique cosmology and practices.
In addition to the usual Mahayana caste of bodhisattvas and buddhas,
Tibetan Buddhism includes various beings, such as wrathful deities and personal meditation deities called yidams.
These fierce-looking beings are seen as powerful forces that can be harnessed for spiritual transformation.
Devotion to particular teachers called lamas is also a key feature of Tibetan Buddhism.
Lamas are often considered to be emanations of specific buddhas or bodhisattvas.
Tibetan cosmology also involves the tulku system.
In this system, certain lamas are recognized as rebirths of previous masters.
For example, the Dalai Lamas are believed to be emanations of Avalokiteshvara.
While individual awakening is still the ultimate goal,
Tibetan Buddhists actively engage with a rich pantheon of enlightened beings and spiritual powers as part of their path.
So if Buddhist cosmology is packed with gods, buddhas, cosmic bodhisattvas, and other supernatural beings, then why is Buddhism so often seen as atheistic?
This goes back to the second half of the 19th century and the colonial encounter between Europe and Asia.
Back then, European and American scholars and enthusiasts reimagined the Buddha as a great reformer whose religion required no dogma, no faith, no divinely inspired scriptures, no ritual, no worship of images, no god.
But here's the thing.
Many of these scholars were working from a very limited selection of Buddhist texts and with little to no direct experience with living Buddhist communities.
They created a version of Buddhism that they deemed to be pure or original while dismissing the local Buddhist traditions of 19th century Asia as inauthentic or corrupted.
For example, the English anthropologist Thomas Huxley lamented that the original purity of the Buddha's teachings was sullied by an admixture of foreign superstitions.
Another English scholar, Thomas Rhys Davids, wrote that Buddha has not escaped the fate that has befallen the founders of other religions and is now under the mass of miraculous tales which have been handed down regarding him.
By dismissing these local devotional practices and traditions, scholars like Huxley and Davids perceive Buddhism as a system which knows no god in the Western sense, to quote Huxley.
In their eyes, this made Buddhism uniquely compatible with science since both postulated that the universe is governed by natural laws.
They positioned Buddhism as the opposite of what they found problematic about Christianity, a religion that requires divine intervention into history.
Ironically, this new version of Buddhism, largely a product of European colonialism and European intellectual trends, was then exported back to Asia and adopted by several Asian Buddhist reformers.
These reformers saw this reinterpretation of Buddhism as a way to defend and revive their religion in the face of the challenges posed by colonialism and Christian missionaries.
They used the branding of Buddhism and science to push back against negative stereotypes that were being spread by Christian missionaries, stereotypes that Buddhism is primitive, superstitious, or idolatrous.
By framing Buddhism as a rational, empirical, and scientifically-minded tradition, these Asian reformers aimed to restore Buddhism's prestige and relevance in a world that was rapidly modernizing.
This whole process of reinterpreting and reforming Buddhism is known as Buddhist modernism, and it had a huge impact on how Buddhism developed in the 20th century.
It led to a new emphasis on meditation, made Buddhist practice more accessible to the laity, and the emergence of new forms of Buddhism that were adapted to Western audiences.
One of the biggest names in this movement was Anagarika Dharmapala, a Sinhalese Buddhist reformist and member of the Theosophical Society.
He promoted the Buddha as a scientist and Buddhism as a religion compatible with modern science, in contrast with the perception of Jesus as a miracle-working healer and Christianity as an unscientific or speculative religion.
He also promoted Buddhist meditation as a science of the mind, as opposed to the so-called empty rituals of other religions.
He declared,
The message of the Buddha that I have to bring to you is free from theology, priestcraft, rituals, ceremonies, dogmas, heavens, hells, and other theological shibboleths.
His reforms focused on a few key elements, rejecting the authority of clergy, embracing individualism, adopting a rational and pragmatic approach to Buddhist teachings, throwing out the supernatural or magical aspects of Buddhism, and insisting that Buddhism is a philosophy rather than a religion.
Now scholars have noticed that Dharmapala's reform project made Buddhism sound a lot like Protestant Christianity infused with European Enlightenment values, promoting rationalism, individualism, anti-ritualism, anti-clericalism, with an emphasis on doctrine and scripture.
In fact, this version of Buddhism is often called Protestant Buddhism.
Throughout the 20th century,
Buddhism became increasingly visible to American audiences, and a secular form of Buddhism started to emerge from the roots of Buddhist modernism.
The Buddhist teacher and host of the Secular Buddhism podcast,
Noah Rashida, defines secular Buddhism as a non-dogmatic way of understanding and practicing Buddhism.
Secular Buddhism emphasizes a naturalistic interpretation of the Buddhist teachings, discarding or reinterpreting supernatural concepts like devas.
The self-identified secular Buddhist, Stephen Batchelor, conceptualized this as Buddhism 2.0, and he's published extensively on the topic, with titles like The Faith to Doubt,
Buddhism Without Beliefs.
Batchelor and other secular Buddhists argue that concepts like the law of karma, rebirth, and liberation from the cycle of samsara are not only irrelevant for modern practitioners, but that such beliefs actually undermine the true teachings of the Buddha.
The atheist author, Sam Harris, argued something similar.
Now, he doesn't identify as a secular Buddhist, but he embraces and has studied Buddhist-style meditation.
He invites his readers to consider a famous saying from the Chan Buddhist monk, Linji.
If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him.
Sounds extreme, but the statement is often interpreted to mean that we need to let go of attachments and external authorities if they prohibit us from attaining awakening, even if that attachment is to a respected teacher or doctrine.
Clinging to these things can actually hold us back.
For secular Buddhists, killing the Buddha means dispensing with many elements of religious Buddhism.
Harris writes, and considering what Buddhism can offer the world in the 21st century,
I propose that we take Linji's admonishment rather seriously.
As students of the Buddha, we should dispense with Buddhism.
The author and journalist Robert Wright similarly popularized a westernized secular Buddhism in his book, Why Buddhism is True, which synthesizes Buddhism with evolutionary psychology, claiming that Buddhist practices and teachings provide a practical way to alleviate the suffering rooted in our biology, psychology, and society at large.
Secular Buddhists accept and even encourage practices like meditation, because these are seen as offering something meaningful and even therapeutic without the need for religious belief or teachings.
And scholars over the years have studied this emphasis on meditation in westernized forms of Buddhism.
A two-year study conducted by a team led by the scholar Sarah Rahmani explored whether mindfulness meditation acts as a sort of secular religion for its practitioners, and they found that it often serves as a gateway to secular Buddhism.
The study found that mindfulness practitioners often move toward three positions, atheistic Buddhism, agnostic Buddhism, or a more spiritual but not religious outlook.
In their study, atheistic Buddhism refers to individuals who engage with Buddhist teachings in a naturalistic and pragmatic way while rejecting supernatural elements like karma and rebirth.
Agnostic Buddhism describes those who also follow Buddhist practices but remain uncertain or ambivalent about metaphysical beliefs.
They also use mindfulness to navigate existential concerns like death.
Those with a spiritual but not religious outlook often have negative views of traditional religion, but they report having transformative experiences during something like a meditation retreat, which lead them to believe in a higher realm or spiritual power, though they generally keep these beliefs private to maintain a secular appearance.
Many participants in the study distanced themselves from traditional religion, but acknowledged how mindfulness helped them reconsider its value, often describing their practice as scientific spirituality.
But even though many, if not most, secular Buddhists reject literal interpretations of supernatural concepts like devas or karma, they still often interpret them in figurative or psychological terms, like karma being the habituation to certain kinds of brain states.
So, for example, actions motivated by hatred lead one to live in a hateful mind, and actions motivated by compassion lead one to live in a compassionate mind.
And this is not new within Buddhism.
As in the case of the gods, both literal and psychologized interpretations of doctrines like karma exist in pre-modern Buddhist texts as well.
Now, some have criticized these ideas in secular Buddhism as arrogant or condescending or recreating the Buddha in their own image by ignoring any textual or historical basis to the system.
Others have questioned if we can even still call it Buddhism after discarding so many elements of Buddhism classically defined.
But regardless, scholars of non-religion have started to study the movement over the past few years, examining its central claims and practices.
As I talk about my episode What is Atheism, non-religion is an unconventional term.
It refers to anything that is defined by its contrast or difference from religion, rather than by specific beliefs or practices.
In this sense, non-religion is more about what something is not than what it actually is.
Secular Buddhism consciously distinguishes itself from religious forms of Buddhism, and so it could be seen as a form of non-religion, shaped by its deliberate departure from a more traditional religious identity.
But this delineation between what is secular and what is religious is not a neutral distinction.
For many, it's a value judgment.
The distinction posits that secular Buddhism is a branch of Buddhism that is universal, individualistic, and not necessarily tied to any cultural context, though this is not really the case.
What's actually happening is they've traded one cultural context for another, a mostly secular, mostly white, and mostly western context that prioritizes a scientific spirituality.
A scientific spirituality that can promote mental and physical health, as well as self-acceptance, self-knowledge, and self-development.
So while Buddhism is often perceived as atheistic or non-theistic, this is clearly not the case for the vast majority of Buddhists throughout the vast majority of Buddhist history, if we're running with certain understandings of atheism.
Atheism takes several forms.
Some atheists are metaphysical naturalists, rejecting all supernatural phenomena, while others lack belief in God or gods, but still might hold to some sort of supernatural belief.
In any case, canonical Buddhist texts and the lived experiences of Buddhists across the world demonstrate that Buddhism has a rich and complex cosmology populated by tons of gods and other supernatural beings.
Though Buddhism does sometimes blur any strict binary we might try to impose between theism and atheism.
The common perception of Buddhism as atheistic is largely a product of the 19th and 20th century encounter between Buddhism and western modernity.
The development of Buddhist modernism, and later secular Buddhism, sought to present Buddhism as a rational, scientific, and philosophically sophisticated tradition, compatible with the values and intellectual currents of the modern West.
This modernist interpretation of Buddhism downplayed elements such as belief in the supernatural and devotional rituals, while emphasizing meditation and empirical investigation.
These ideas have profoundly affected the popular understanding and practice of Buddhism today.
However, it's crucial to recognize that these modernist and secularized forms of Buddhism represent just one facet of a much larger tradition.
Buddhism is not a monolithic entity, but an array of beliefs, practices, and cultural expressions, most of which include some form of supernatural entities.
Hey everyone, thanks for watching.
Now, devas are not the only supernatural being in Buddhist cosmology.
There are also beings called pretas, or more commonly known as hungry ghosts, who make up one of several categories of rebirth.
They're pitiful beings with tiny mouths and bloated stomachs whose state of extreme starvation results from being stingy and immoral in their previous life.
Today, Buddhists around the world engage with hungry ghosts in rituals like those conducted during the Ghost Festival in East Asian countries, when the ghosts emerge from the underworld to receive offerings of food from their relatives.
If you'd like to learn more about pretas, we're offering an upcoming class called
Who Are the Hungry Ghosts?
It'll be taught by the scholar of Buddhism,
Dr. Adina McNicol, who recently published an amazing book on pretas called Of Ancestors and Ghosts,
How Preta Narratives Constructed Buddhist Cosmology and Shaped Buddhist Ethics.
The class will be on November 4th at 1.30 p.m.
U.S. East Coast time.
Registration costs whatever you want, starting at one dollar.
I'll also be recording the class and sending the recording out to everyone who registers.
To sign up, head on over to religionforbreakfast.eventbrite.com
Thanks, everyone.