Andrews University

Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary

THE CONCEPT OF ULTIMATE REALITY ACCORDING TO HINDUISM,

BUDDHISM AND ISLAM: A CHRISTIAN RESPONSE

A Paper
Presented in Partial Fulfillment
Of the Requirements of the Course
Seminar in World Religions

by
Silvano Barbosa dos Santos

December 2013

1  
 
 INTRODUCTION

The concept of Ultimate Reality is present in all world religions, even though

they all deeply differ from the Christian doctrine of God. A superficial look at the

theme or a pluralist view of salvation could conclude that it is just a question of

terminology and there is no real gain in pointing out the exclusive claims of the

Christian faith in regards to the reality of God.

It is true that some similarities can be observed when a comparative analysis is

made among those religions. However, they should not be used as an excuse for us to

cling to our points of agreement and to gloss over the huge gulf that exists in the way

that Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims and Christians perceive the ultimate reality. When

we talk about the divine, essentially speaking, we are not talking about the same

being. In fact, despite of many similarities, there are irreconcilable differences in our

understanding of the Supreme Being and our relationship with him. Therefore, those

differences should be addressed if we are truthfully willing to share our faith.

The different names for the Ultimate Reality as used by the world religions are

intrinsically associated with highly developed conceptions shaped by many centuries

of deep reflexions in regards to He who we call God. As it will be evidenced, the

majority of them are in sharp contrast to God’s self-disclosure as reveled in the Bible.

The way human beings perceive the ultimate reality deeply affects all

dimensions of their existence and at the end may affect their eternal destiny.

Therefore, it should be considered of extreme importance to make known to every

people, tribe and nation all the truth that God was pleased to reveal about himself in

2  
 
his Word. This paper is an attempt to analyze the concept of God in Hinduism,

Buddhism and Islam in order to present a Christian response to it.

The Doctrine of God According to Islam

The Muslim faith has been identified and well recognized by its highly

developed conception of the One and Only God. For a long time, it has been

perceived as a response of submission and obedience to the will of the One who has

unrivaled, unsharable and unattainable position, the true God, whom Muslims call

Allah. But how it became so?

The Development of the Islamic Absolute Monotheism

By the time of Muhammad’s birth in Mecca in A.D. 570, the religion of his

family had become a consistent expression of polytheism. The principal deities were

al-Uzzah (power), al-Lat (the goddess), and Mahah (fate), all female deities who

were considered daughters of a high god known as Allah. Some groups combined

these three goddesses into a single goddess figure who served as a partner to Allah.

This beliefs were particularly strong among the tribe to which Muhammad and his

family belonged, known as the Quraysh, who were the guardians of the Kabah

(meaning “cube”), a central shine where the images of these gods were kept.1

The population of Arabia in the seventh-century were composed not only by

indigenous Bedouins but also by Jews and Christians. For sure, their monotheism,

which stood in sharp contrast to the surrounding religious scenario, made a significant

impact in the early stages of development of Islam.

                                                                                                                       
1
 See Timmothy C. Tennent, Christianity at The Religious Roundtable (Grand Rapids: MI,
Baker Academic, 2002), 142.

3  
 
 It is also important to remark the presence and influence of a group of Arabs

known as the Hanifs, the “pure ones.” In A.D 570, they had existed already for over a

century and believed that the Kabah was originally a shrine to the one true God. They

also believed that a certain stone within the shrine known as the Black Stone, was the

central stone that Abraham used to build an altar to the one God. Furthermore, they

were expecting the appearance of a prophet who would restore the Kabah to its

original, monotheistic purity. It was within this context and under these influences

that Muhammad, and years later, Islam, were born.

The origin of the Islamic movement can be dated to the year A.D 610, on the

twenty-seventh day of the Arab month of Ramadan. According to Muhammad, as he

was meditating one night in a cave on Mt. Hira, he received a vision of the angel

Gabriel, who commanded him to “recite in the Name of thy Lord!”2 The content to be

recited would be provided by Gabriel himself who would tell him the exact words that

was to be written without error to the people.3 The result is what nowadays is known

as the Qur’an, which means “recitation,” and is considered the sacred scripture of

Islam. The main purpose of these revelations was to transmit to the people the

message of the absolute oneness of God. This central message can be found in the

Qur’an in Surah 112:1-4 and says: “Allah is one, the eternal God. He begot none, nor

was he begotten. None is equal to him.”

As Muhammad began to fulfill his call and started preaching his monotheistic

message, initially he obtained some success. However, as time went by and the

religious and social order was being threatened, he suffered severe opposition,

                                                                                                                       
2
 Surah 96:1.
3
See Kenneth Cragg, The Event of The Qur’an (London: George & Unwin Ltd, 1971), 26.

4  
 
especially from those who belonged to his own tribe, since they were the guardians of

the Kabah. It was during these days that Muhammad found support among Jews and

Christians who were already monotheistic. By A.D 615 the opposition against Him

was so strong that he had to flee to were nowadays modern Ethiopia is located, and

found protection under the Christian king, Negus.4

In A.D 622 he was invited to relocate the entire Islamic community in Yathrib.

The city was renamed Medina, and the Islamic movement began to grow and number

and strength until A.D 630 when the Muslims were able to come back and conquer

Mecca. Muslim tradition states that Muhammad entered the Kabah, destroying the

360 idols that was in there, except for the Black stone, which is believed to be

brought in by Abraham and Ismael themselves.5

Only two years after his return to Mecca, Muhammad died. Even though he

did no leave a clear successor, the Qur’an, which is believed to be the most important

miracle performed by him, remain exercising a catalytic power among the Muslim as

the basis for their beliefs, practices and ideologies.

We now turn to the Qur’an in order to present its teachings on the doctrine of

God.

Allah As Defined By The Qur’an

For Muslims, Allah defines himself in the Qur’an as an absolute God. The

Qur’an states that Allah is an absolute unity, with no distinctions or associations.

                                                                                                                       
4
See Isma’il Ragi A. al Faruqi, The Life of Muhammad ( Philadelphia: PA, North America
Trust Publications, 1976), 115.
5
 Babriel Said Reynolds, The Emergence of Islam (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2012), 47-58.

5  
 
There are no eternal distinctions within God. This doctrine of tawhid is the first and

most important doctrine of Islam.

God has no partners, no equal, but is totally other, distinct, unique. All the
other beliefs of Islam start from this basic premise – it is the key to the faith, and
without genuinely believing this in the depths of one´s heart and mind, one cannot be
a Muslim.6
The affirmation that there is only one God, the Almighty, the Supreme, came

to become the essential identity of the Muslim Religion. To associate partners with

Allah is to commit shirk and is regarded as the unpardonable sin. The Qur’an declares

that, “Never has Allah begotten a son, nor is there any other god besides him. … He

that invokes another God besides Allah – a god of whose divinity has no proof – his

Lord will bring him to account.”7 Muhammad openly rebukes the Christian position

when he declares, 8

People of the Book, do not transgress the bounds of your religion.

Speak nothing but the truth about Allah. The Messiah, Jesus the son of Mary,
was no more than Allah’s apostle and his word which he conveyed to Mary: a
spirit from him. So believe in Allah and his apostles and do not say: “Three.”
Forbear, and it shall be better for you. Allan is but one God. Allah forbid that
he should have a son!9

Shiite Muslims believe that not even His attributes can be observed separately.

It would be incompatible with divine unity. For if there are distinct attributes in God

and each one of them are divine, then there would be multiple divine things, and all of

                                                                                                                       
6
R. W. Maqsood, Islam (London: Collins, 2008), 48.
7
 Surah 23: 91, 117.
8
See Timmothy C. Tennent, Christianity at The Religious Roundtable (Grand Rapids: MI,
Baker Academic, 2002), 142.
9
Surah 4:171.

6  
 
them would deserve to be considered a divinity, what would directly contradict the

Muslim creed ‘There is no God but God’. 10

Timothy Tennant, in the book Christianity At The Religious Roundtable,

points out that the recognition of God’s attributes would also imply divisions or

distinctions within the essence of God, which would violate the divine simplicity.

Second, attributes are difficult to conceive apart from perceptions of corporeality. To

think of a judge, for example, conjures up the physical image of a judge sitting in a

courtroom. This kind of corporality is, in their view, contrary to the proper

understanding of the divine essence. Finally, it implies a knowability and self-

revelation of God, which may convey the mistaken idea that we can perceive the inner

life of Allah.11 For them, tawhid means you cannot distinguish between Allah’s

essence and his attributes. The usage of such terms will only result in dividing Allah’s

essence into smaller, identifiable eternal pieces. All descriptions of Allah’s attributes

are only the result of our own inability to describe the full singularity of Allah’s

oneness.

At the same time, the Sunni Muslims, which composes about 86 per cent of

the Muslim population worldwide, believe that Allah’s attributes can be understood

apart from his essence. For them, the fact that the Qur’an, which is Allah’s self-

revelation, is filled with declarations about his attributes, is an indication of that

reality. Furthermore, the Qur’an itself is another evidence of that fact. For, if the

Qur’an, having been revealed by Allah, cannot be seen apart from his eternal essence,

                                                                                                                       
10
J. Jomier, How to Understand Islam (New York: The Crossroad Publishing Company,
1989), 38.
11
 Timmothy C. Tennent, Christianity at The Religious Roundtable (Grand Rapids: MI, Baker
Academic, 2002), 149.

7  
 
then there would be two eternal realities – Allah and the Qur’an – and that would

contradict the doctrine of tawhid.

Muslims believe that God is far away to the point of being completely beyond

our reaching and understanding. That is why Muslims have been accused of teaching

and practicing a harsh monotheism that makes it impossible for human beings to have

a close I –thou relationship between God and men.

It is easier to understand this form of monotheism when we look at the

religious context in which Muhammad established Islam. As we have seen, the

religion of Arabia in the seventh-century was a mixture of polytheism and animism.

The citizens of Mecca were ready to worship Allan as long as there was a place for

their deities to be worshiped alongside. Thus, facing polytheism at one side and

Christian Trinitarianism at the other, he decides to shut the door to any conception of

God that might compromise His absolute unity.

Muslim View of The Christian Doctrine of Trinity

It is clear to the Muslim believer that the Christian God is not Allah.

Throughout the history of Islam, Muslims have rejected the doctrine of Trinity.

Christians are seen as contributors to the expansion of polytheism. For them, the

Christian doctrine of Trinity is interpreted as the worshiping of three Gods (either

God the Father, Jesus and Mary or Father, Jesus and Holy Spirit). It is considered

confusing and contradictory when compared with the pure Islamic view of Allah,

which is so simple that even a child can understand. This evidence is confirmed by the

8  
 
fact that it is relatively rare to meet a Christian who is able to explain the doctrine of

Trinity without slipping into some form of modalism12 or tritheism.

The usage of the terms father and son to refer to God are seen as wholly

inappropriate and even blasphemous. “In all the 23 years of revelation to

Muhammad, did God ever use the name ‘Father’ of Himself”.13 For them, the term

father undeniably conveys the idea of physical generation or procreation linked with a

concept of corporeality, and this is an unacceptable way to speak about Allah.14 The

Qur’an teaches that “He begot none, nor was he begotten.”15 Muslims also see the

terms father and son as inappropriate because they involve the idea of temporal

sequence and that would contradict Qur’an’s teaching that Allah is the eternal God.16

The concept of eternal distinctions within the Trinity doesn’t make sense to

them and is perceived as contradictory. They reason that, if it is so, the father must be

distinguished by certain qualities that differentiate him from the Son, the Son must be

distinguishable from the Spirit and so forth. If such distinctions cannot be made, then

the three would merely be different names for the same reality, which is modalism,

long condemned as heresy by Christian orthodoxy. If this distinctions can be made,

than it means that there are qualities in one person of the Trinity that cannot be

                                                                                                                       
12
 Modalism states that the father, Son and Holy Spirit are successive revelations of the same
person. The son and Holy Spirit are only modes of the Father.
13
R. M. A Allen, and S. M. Toorawa. Islam: A Short Guide to the Faith (Grand Rapids, Mich:
William B. Eerdmans Pub, 2011), 49.
14
 I. Mark Beaumont, Christology in Dialogue With Muslims (Eugene: OR, WIPF & STOCK,
2005), 8.
15
Surah 112:3.
16
Surah 112:2.

9  
 
applied to other members of the Trinity. Yet, the three are called God, which means

the fullness of being, lacking nothing.17

When it comes to the Christian teaching of God and his incarnation, Muslims

perceive it as an illogical and self-destructive conception, since it states that God did

and did not become incarnate. This conclusion is based on the thought that, if the

father is God and he has not nor will become incarnate, and the son is God and he did

become incarnate, then how can God simultaneously be the one who became

incarnate and the one who has never become incarnate?18 For them it cannot be

reconciled apart from tritheism. Even though Jesus is recognized as a great prophet,

he is seen as no more than that. He is a true messenger of God, but Christians became

idolatrous as they began to call him the Son of God. That has made him “another god

besides Allah.”19

Another objection to the Incarnation is based on their understanding of Allah’s

immutability. For, if Allah incarnate, he became something he previously was not and

that would clearly contradict his immutability. Allah cannot be subject to change,

because all change must be for better or for worse and that cannot apply to Allah since

he is perfect.

One of the strongest points of disagreement to the belief in the incarnation is

the death of Christ on the cross. How can God die? To state that would be considered

a crystal clear, not deniable and explicit form of blasphemy. The refutation of this

concept is made through the usage of the syllogism: God cannot die; Jesus died on the

                                                                                                                       
17
Timmothy C. Tennent, Christianity at The Religious Roundtable (Grand Rapids: MI, Baker
Academic, 2002), 162.
18
Iden, 162.
19
Surah 5:116.

10  
 
cross; therefore, Jesus is not God. If Christians accept the first two statements, they

cannot deny the third.20

There is another branch of Islam known as Sufism which emphasizes a kind of

mystical union between Allah and the worshiper. For them, the focus must be on the

relationship with Allah and the believer’s heart condition. One well-known Sufi saint,

al-Hallaj, advocated the ability to enter in a mystical union with God to the point that

the distinction between Creator and creation disappeared.21 They believe Christians

should not be concerned in developing a mental conception of God or in doing a

highly exhausting mental exercise trying to explain the internal differentiations within

His being. What really matters is tasting God’s being by becoming one with Allah in a

way that goes beyond all discussions about Him. To limit the understanding of God to

a set of statements is to pass over the wonderful experience of encountering Him in

the heart.

It is necessary however to emphasize that most of what Muslims have been

rejecting is not the actual Christian teaching on the Trinity but a distorted idea of it.

Most of the conceptions nurtured by them about the Christian understanding of God

are also rejected by the Christian orthodox tradition. It is important to notice that the

majority of the Christians with whom Muhammad had contact with, defended Arian,

Adoptionist, Nestorian, and Monophysite positions that had already been rejected by

the council of Chalcedon in A.D 451. However, there are also objections to the actual

Christian doctrine of Trinity, which Muslims believe contradict pure monotheism.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   
20
Timmothy C. Tennent, Christianity at The Religious Roundtable (Grand Rapids: MI, Baker
Academic, 2002), 185.
21
Ibid, 150.
 

11  
 
Therefore, it is necessary to clarify the real Christian orthodox position on the

doctrine of God.

The Doctrine of God: A Christian Response

As Seventh - day Adventist Christians, we have, along with the Christian

orthodox tradition, many points of agreement with Muslims, when it comes to

compare our views of God and Allah. Both religions acknowledge the absolute reality

of God. 22 For the Muslims, Allah is the omnipotent, omniscient, prescient and

transcendent creator. He is the center of everything that is and our very existence is

dependent upon him. He controls the events of history and through his prophets,

calls us to worship and give glory to him. He cannot be reproduced or worshiped by

the means of a statue or idol. That is blasphemy. The absolute majority of the Muslim

believers agree with us that his attributes, as reveled in our scriptures, are a self-

disclosure of his being and can be used to name Him. We are in total agreement with

all this conceptions.

It is also remarkable to see the similarities between several Biblical accounts

and its version as presented in the Qur’an. It is true that there are some variations on

the narratives, but it seems to be a clear attempt to identify Allah with the

monotheistic God of Christianity and Judaism. 23

                                                                                                                       
22
   In regards to the Seventh –Day Adventist position on the Doctrine of God, see F. Canale,
Handbook of Seventh-day Adventist Theology (HSDAC), (Hagerstown, MD: Heview and Herald
Publishing Association, 2000), 559.
 
23
 See for example the narrative of Creation (surah 25:59), fall (surah 20: 115-122), Exodus
(surah 26: 9-75), Allah gives the Ten Commandments (Surah 7:143-150), the ten commandments are
repeated ( Surah 24:55), the prohibition for making idols (Surah 4:116), the commandments to not to
covet (4:32) or murder (Surah 6:151) and honor father and mother (Surah 6:151). The narratives of
Noah building the ark (surah 11:25-49), king David’s adultery (surah 28:21-25), the queen of Sheba
visits Salomon ( Surah 27:22-44) and Jonah and the big fish (Surah 37:139-148) can also be found. The
variations on the narrative with major theological implications to the Christian message are Satan’s fall

12  
 
 Moreover, it is important to notice that there is not even a single depreciative

reference about Jesus all over the Qur’an. On the contrary, He is referred to in a most

respectful way.

At the same time, we also share other theological concepts as sin,

righteousness, divine judgment, heaven, forgiveness and mercy. All these concepts

have a huge impact on how Muslims understand God, his nature and his interactions

with this world.

However, these similarities should not be used as an excuse to gloss over the

huge gulf that exist in the way that we both perceive God and Allah. When we talk

about the divine, essentially speaking, we are not talking about the same being.

Besides, it does any good or justice to the Muslim to pass over this reality and simply

define them as anonymous Christians.24 As Seventh-Day Adventists, we would also

not appreciate to be defined as anonymous Muslims or even as an unaware and

involuntary Muslim, living in a preliminary stage of the truth as it is revealed in

Christianity, being unconsciously prepared for its fulfillment as it is in Islam.25

The reality is that despite of many similarities, there are irreconcilable

differences in our understanding of the Supreme Being and our relationship with him.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   
as a consequence of refusing to prostate before Adam during creation and Abrahams sacrifice of
Ishmael rather than Isaac.
24
 The Catholic theologian Karl Rahner claims that all religions should be considered
legitimate because of the Biblical teaching that all world is already reconciled in Jesus Christ (2 Cor.
5:19). Therefore, all humans are already saved in him. These people are called “anonymous
Christians”. For more, see Karl Rahner, The Church After The Council (New York, Herder and Herder,
1966), 62. For an evangelical view in the topic, see Terry Muck and Frances S. Adeney, Christianity
Encountering World Religions (Grand Rapids: MI, Baker Academic, 2009), 82-92.
25
 The fulfillment theology is based on the premise that all religions are valid and useful
because in fact they are used by God as a preliminary and preparatory stage for the full Truth as it is
revealed in Christianity. See, Veli-Matti Karkkainen, An Introduction To The Theology of Religions
(Downers Grove: IL, IVP Academic, 2003), 103-108. See also Timmothy C. Tennent, Christianity at
The Religious Roundtable (Grand Rapids: MI, Baker Academic, 2002), 19.

13  
 
Therefore, those differences should be addressed if we are truthfully willing to share

are faith.

The many theories attempting to explain God only evidences that human

wisdom cannot penetrate the divine. Depending in human wisdom alone to learn

about God is like using a magnifying glass to study the constellations. 26 That is way

Christianity is not based on a man’s search for God, but in God’s self-revelation to

man through the Bible.

We agree with our Muslim Sufi friends that God cannot be confined, limited

and reduced to mere statements but must be encountered personally. However, unlike

them, we emphasize that this experience must not be done at the expense of his Self-

revelation as presented in scripture. Without this solid ground we can easily slip

towards distortions created by the always present reality of Sin. This fact can be

confirmed as we observe that many Sufi saints went far beyond the historic traditional

Islamic message.

Seventh-Day Adventist Christians believe that knowing God is a matter of the

heart as much as a matter of the brain. It involves the whole intellect. God reveals not

only himself but also truths about his being for the very purpose of allowing us to get

to know, love and obey him. Abraham is called the friend of God because of his

personal experience with God, but that experience cannot be separated from the

content of the revelation that God gave to Abraham.27

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   
26
 Ministerial Association Seventh – Day Adventist Church, Seveth – Day Adventists
Believe…A Biblical Exposition of 27 Fundamental Doctrines (Hagerstown: Maryland, Review and
Herald Publishing Association, 1988), 17.
27
 Timmothy C. Tennent, Christianity at The Religious Roundtable (Grand Rapids: MI, Baker
Academic, 2002), 161.

14  
 
 Different from many surrounding nations, Israel believed there was only one

God. “You were shown these things so that you might know that the Lord is God;

besides him there is no other” (Deut. 4:35); “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the

Lord is one” (Deut. 6:4); “I am the Lord, and there is no other; apart from me there is

no God” (Isa. 45:5). At the same time, although the Old Testament does not explicitly

teaches that God is triune, it alludes to a plurality within the Godhead. At times, God

employs plural pronouns such as: “Let us make man in Our image” (Gen. 1:26);

“Behold the man has become like one of Us” (Gen. 3:22); “Come, let Us go down”

(Gen. 11:7). Various references distinguish the Spirit of God from God. In the

creation story “the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters”(Gen. 1:2).

Some texts speaks not only of the Spirit but include a third person when approaching

God’s work of redemption: “And now the Lord God [the Father], and His Spirit [the

Holy Spirit], have sent me [the Son of God]”(Isa 48:16); I [the Father] have put My

Spirit [the Holy Spirit] upon Him [the Messiah]; He will bring forth justice to the

Gentiles”(Isa 42:1).28 The same paradox can be seen in the scriptures of the New

Testament. The Gospel of John for example revels that the Godhead consists of God

the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. And there are several other

references to the unity of God (Mark 12:29; John 17:3; I Cor. 8:4-6; Eph. 4: 4-6; I

Tim. 2:5).

Therefore, when Christians use the term trinity, they are not referring to three

gods (either God the Father, Jesus and Mary or Father, Jesus and Holy Spirit). The

word means “tri-unity” and refers to the mystery of God the Father, God the Son and

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   
 
28
 Ministerial Association Seventh – Day Adventist Church, Seveth – Day Adventists
Believe…A Biblical Exposition of 27 Fundamental Doctrines (Hagerstown: Maryland, Review and
Herald Publishing Association, 1988), 22.
 

15  
 
God the Holy Spirit who are one and indivisible in essence and yet, are known

through three eternal distinctions (hypostases or persons).

When Christians use the word God, they are not referring to the Father only,

but to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. These are three eternal distinctions, not

temporary manifestations of the same person. God is relational in his very nature.

There is no distance between the persons of the triune God. They share the same

essence. The final authority resides in all three members. While the Godhead is not

one in person, God is one in purpose, mind, and character. 29This oneness does not

nullify the distinctions within the Godhead, nor the distinctions destroy the

monotheistic truth of scripture that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one God.

It is also necessary to remark that the distinction between Father and Son is

not related to sexual generation. Paternity can be understood in more than a biological

sense and not always is related to procreation. In the Bible, the terms Father and Son

refers to a spiritual, not a physical relationship. It does not imply physical corporality

or physical procreation.30 In fact, it refers to an eternal, co-equal relationship without

any temporal connotations. That is why Jesus prayed in the garden of Gethsemane: “

Father, glorify me in our presence with the glory I had with you before the world

began” (John 17:5). When the Bible says that Jesus is the Son of God, it means that,

He is the expression of the Divine among men, the revelation of the divine will, the

same thing Muslims believe the Qur’an is. The goal is that “all may honor the Son

just as they honor the Father”(John 5:23).

                                                                                                                       
29
For more, see F. Canale, Handbook of Seventh-day Adventist Theology (HSDAC),
(Hagerstown, MD: Heview and Herald Publishing Association, 2000), 559.
 
30
 Timmothy C. Tennent, Christianity at The Religious Roundtable (Grand Rapids: MI, Baker
Academic, 2002), 161.
 

16  
 
 This internal differentiation of the Trinity is clearly exemplified in the created

order. In nature, we discover that

The lower the degree of differentiation something has, the less unity it
has, meaning it is divisible or lacks the quality of indivisibility. For example,
a stone has little internal differentiation. If you split a stone, you have not
destroyed the essence of the stone. You have only created two smaller stones.
However, as you go up the chain of being and take, for example, a tiger and
cut it into two pieces, you do not get two smaller tigers. In the act of dividing
the tiger, you destroy the very essence of the tiger. A tiger, although a complex
and internally differentiated creature, has an indivisible essence. The more
intelligent a being is, the greater the differentiation and the more profound the
unity. A person possesses a mind, thoughts, and speech. He or she functions
as a unity despite of internal distinctions. The same point could be made about
the body, soul and spirit of a person. The fact that God himself has internal
differentiation does not contradict his indivisibility.31

As the creator of everything that is, God transcends all things. At the same

time, it is precisely because of the fact that he is the creator that the wholly creation

reflects his glory (Ps. 19:3; Is. 6:3). Therefore, apart from his self-disclosure as

reveled in the Scriptures, the created order is the best resource given to us so we can

know and understand the divine.32 Even though God’s reality transcends us, he chose

to reveal himself in a way we can comprehend. The incapacity of the created order to

express him in his completeness does not mean it cannot reveal aspects of his being

at all. Otherwise, if the created order cannot be used to speak about God, we would

result in a total inability to say anything about him at all, and the logical result would

be that we would end up believing a being closer to the supreme deity of the Hindus

then the Allah of the Qur’an or the God of the Bible.

                                                                                                                       
31
 Timmothy C. Tennent, Christianity at The Religious Roundtable (Grand Rapids: MI, Baker
Academic, 2002), 158.
 
32
Ibid, 159.

17  
 
 It is precisely because of the internal differentiations of God, that it is possible

to realize the distinctions that exist between God’s essence and God’s actions.33 God

the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit share the very same essence and yet, each

person performs a particular task in the work of saving man. The sun is one in

essence but it shines light and heat. Even though light and heat are distinct, they have

the same source and share the same essence of the sun. Again, the different members

of the human body perform different tasks and yet are part of the same single body.

Eyes see and ears hear but both are essentially part of a single human being. Particular

members, perform particular functions at particular circumstances, however, it cannot

be said they are not part of the same body. Therefore, it is not illogical to suggest that

God’s essence is present in each person of the trinity. God’s indivisibility means that

every member of the Trinity is fully present in essence in every other member.34

Muslim tradition states that Speech is an eternal attribute of God.35 Therefore,

if this attribute can be seen as separated from God and reveled through the Qur´an,

then Jesus can also be considered the perfect revelation of God´s will to men without

breaking the principle the Oneness of Good.36 This aspect of His being is perfectly

compatible with the Muslim belief that God is beyond our perfect understanding.

However, in the incarnation of Jesus Christ, God has revealed to us not only

his will but also the full expression of his love for us. Far from blasphemy, the

                                                                                                                       
33
Timmothy C. Tennent, Christianity at The Religious Roundtable (Grand Rapids: MI, Baker
Academic, 2002), 160.  
 
34
 For more on the content of this paragraph,  see Don Mark Pontifex, Belief in the Trinity
(New York: Harper & Bros, 1954), 26.
35
 According to Muslim belief, the must clearly apparent of the divine attributes is the attitude
of Truth. See S.J.Smartha and J.B. Taylor, Christian-Muslim Dialogue (Geneva: World Council of
Churches, 1973), 44.
36
N. Geisler and A. Saleeb, Answering Islam, (Grand Rapdis: Baker Books, 2002), 138.

18  
 
incarnation is the greatest expression of God’s self-revelation. It doesn’t violate the

immutability, transcendence or oneness of God, because in the incarnation, the

second person of the Trinity took on human attributes without losing any of his divine

attributes. He fully participated in the divine nature of God. Yet, in the incarnation, he

took the very nature of a servant (Phi. 2:7). Although the two natures remained

separate, they functioned as one in the person of Jesus of Nazareth.37

In the incarnation, Jesus became subordinate, not ultimately but functionally,

not only to the Father but even to those who crucified him on the cross.38

Consequently, as the incarnate God-man, Jesus, was subject to pain, suffering and

even death on the cross. The death of Christ on the cross was the death of the person,

not the divine nature. In the incarnation, God is no longer a concept but the leaving

God, who created us and became fully identified with our experience because he

loves us and was willing to make his love manifest to humanity.

The Doctrine of God According to Buddhism

Unlike most religions, Buddhism do not believe in God, a Supreme Being that

created and rules the world. In fact, the emphasis in Buddhism is not in having faith in

an unknowable God but lies within the knowledge that focuses on transcending the
39
self. In Buddhism, more important than the concept of God are certain core

philosophical beliefs, most of them articulated by the Buddha himself - life is nothing

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   
37
 Timmothy C. Tennent, Christianity at The Religious Roundtable (Grand Rapids: MI, Baker
Academic, 2002), 160.
 
38
Ibid, 160.
39
 Constance Victoria Briggs, The Encyclopedia of God (Charlottesville: VA, Hampton Roads
Publishing Cpmpany, 2003), 42.

19  
 
but suffering and even pleasures ends in suffering, the impermanence of all things,

karma, nirvana and renunciation.40

Buddhism did not emerge from a religious vacuum. In fact, it started pretty

much as a reform movement within Hinduism. The Vedic religious world41 in which

the Buddha was born was one inhabited by numerous gods, many of whom were

personified forces of nature. Even though these deities were perceived as powerful

beings who were able to affect their lives awarding blessings or bringing misfortune,

humans were able to interact with them mostly by the means of offering sacrifices.

However, at certain point around the fifth century B.C, a new form of religious

conceptions emerged out of the Vedic tradition, a body of doctrines which came to

become known as Upanishads. These texts questioned the efficacy of the formal

sacrifice and introduced new ideas, many of which would eventually be adopted by

the Buddha: the cyclical idea of rebirth (samsara), the cosmic law of cause and effect

(karma), the concept of liberation (moksha) from the wheel of samsara through the

path of asceticism, and the importance of calming the mind through meditation

(yoga).42

In other words, the religious scenario in which Buddhism was born was very

similar to the one in which Islam was established: a mixture of polytheism and

animism. What The differentiate the two religious systems is that each one of them

proposed radically opposite solutions to that reality: Islam adopted what is considered

                                                                                                                       
40
See Jacob N. Kinnard, The Emergence of Buddhism (Mineapolis, Fortress Press, 2011), xii.
41
Hinduism is a foreign label for Bhahmanism, a religion based on a body of texts called the
Vedas that had developed orally beginning around 1500 B.C; this religious tradition is sometimes
named Vedic Tradition.
42
See Jacob N. Kinnard, The Emergence of Buddhism (Mineapolis, Fortress Press, 2011), 2.

20  
 
by many as a harsh, absolute monotheism in which is impossible to develop a loving

I-Thou relationship between the human and the divine; Buddhism, on the other hand,

walked to the opposite direction advocating the non-existence of God.

Being founded a thousand years apart from each other and about five hundred

years each from the event of the Cross, both of them are based on premises that shuts

the door for the acceptation of God’s greatest self-disclosure and most compelling

manifestation of love, as presented by Christianity in the life, death and resurrection

of Jesus Christ.

Historical Context of Buddhism

Although Buddhism holds that the man known as “the Buddha” is one in a

long lineage of enlightened beings – he is typically identified as the twenty-fourth

Buddha, preceded by Dipankara and followed by Maitreya, whose birth will signify

the end of the cosmos and the enlightenment of all beings – the life story of this

person sometimes referred to as the “historical Buddha” is at the very heart of

Buddhism. He is considered to be the model of the perfect human. What his life story

remarks is that he did not achieve the state of spiritual enlightenment as a gift from

some divine being. Instead, he made it by his own efforts, and Buddhism holds that

anyone who really cares can also attain perfect enlightenment.

The Buddha was born in 563 A.C into a Kshatriya family as a member of the

caste of warriors and kings and was given the name Siddhartha (“he whose goal will

be accomplished”) Gautama. According to the early Buddhist tradition, the Buddha’s

mother, Mahamaya, dreamed that a white elephant – a standard symbol in Indian

literature for royal power – implanted a fetus in her womb. She then discovered that

she was pregnant. After learning of his wife’s unusual pregnancy, Siddhartha’s father,

21  
 
a king of a small state, sought interpretation for the significance of his wife’s dreams.

His royal sages predicted that the child would be a boy and he would be destined for

greatness – either inheriting his father’s kingdom or leaving his home and family to

became a great religious leader.43

Because of the sages prediction, his father, Shuddhodana, worried that he

would take the course of the renouncer rather than of a great ruler, kept him confined

to the palace and made sure that the young Siddhartha could only experience the best

of life. He married a beautiful young woman named Yashodhara and twenty-nine

became the father of Rahula.44

Buddhist tradition affirms that despite of his father’s effort to keep him from

seeing any evidence of the four elements that could induce his interest in religion, the

gods of Hinduism, who are also trapped in samsara and thus in need of the Buddha’s

teaching, got involved in the situation. One day, as he was having a chariot ride in the

countryside, they assumed the forms of the four banished influences and Siddhartha

saw successively an old man on the verge of death, a man with a disfiguring disease,

a funeral procession for a decomposing corpse and a monk displaying the serenity of a

life of renunciation.

From that time on Siddhartha began to realize that everything was

impermanent and the life of luxury he was heaving would end in death and decay.

Whatever and whoever he was treasuring now would end up as refuse, including

himself.

                                                                                                                       
43
 See Jacob N. Kinnard, The Emergence of Buddhism (Mineapolis, Fortress Press, 2011), 17.
44
Winfried Corduan, Neighboring Faiths ( Downers Grove: Illinois, 2012), 313-316.

22  
 
 Now, almost thirty years old he decides to leave his life of comfort and his

family to leave a life of complete austerity. He went out into the world in search of the

cause of human suffering and its liberation. After seven years of self-mortification,

while sat under a fig tree, Siddhartha found enlightment. He had become a Buddha, an

“awakened one”. From that time on, the new Buddha arouse, accepted food and

started to teach others the way of enlightment. He continued to do for many decades.

He died in 483 A.C after eating a spoiled piece of pork that someone had

inadvertently given to him as an offering.

Buddhist Teachings and the Concept of Ultimate Reality

Traditionally, the Buddha’s teachings is known as the Dharma. What Buddha

discovered under the fig tree was that the secret to enlightment lay in a middle way

that avoids all extremes. The problem with existence lay in becoming attached to

what is impermanent, whatever it is. That is ignorance. The key is true knowledge, or

true enlightment, which is attained by letting go all the attachments. The Dharma

includes the four noble truths, the eightfold path, and the doctrines of dependent

arising and no-self.

The first noble truth is about suffering; it affirms that indeed, everything is

suffering. What one regards as pleasure will cause suffering when it ceases to exist. In

other words, we may call it a kind of suffering which appears in the guise of pleasure.

Therefore this life must be regarded as consisting entirely of suffering.45 Second, the

origin of all suffering is desire. A longing for being or nonbeing. Life is only an

illusory attachment to the self and to material things as if they were permanent. This

                                                                                                                       
45
 Wing-Tsit and Charles A. Moore, The Essenctials of Buddhist Philosophy (Hawaii: Hanolulu, Office
Appliance Co. Ltd., 1956), 23.

23  
 
ignorance leads humanity to egoistical actions, from which he must purity himself

through a number of rebirths. Third, the truth about suppressing all desires. By

distancing oneself from all things and extinguishing all desires, one achieves nirvana.

Fourth, the truth about the eightfold path46 that leads to the end of suffering or

nirvana.47

It is only when one have internalized the truths of the impermanence of all

things and the unreality of the self that enlightment is reached and nirvana is

experienced. Nirvana is not nothing or nonbeing, but neither is it anything that has

being. It is considered beyond humans categories of existence or thoughts. It is a

dimension transcending time and space and words and thoughts can only describe

what can be found in time and space. Because it is beyond time it is not affected by

aging or dying, therefore it is eternal. Because it is beyond space, there is no

causation, no boundary, no concept of self or no-self, it is infinite. 48

The doctrine of dependent arising is the way the Buddha explained how we

experience the world as reality. Life is beginningless, it has no ultimate origin, for the

cause ever becomes the effect and the effect becomes the cause, and in the circle of

cause and effect a first cause of beginning is inconceivable.49 Birth is followed by

death and death is followed by birth. Birth and death are two phases of the same life

process. It states that everything in the entire world arises because it is linked to

something else. Every physical or mental phenomena can be explained by this law,

                                                                                                                       
46
 The eightfold path describes eight areas in life that must be brought under complete control in order
to extinguish all desire. They are right views, right thought, right speech, right conduct, right
livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness and right meditation.
47
 Lawrence E. Sullivan, Religions of The World (Minneapolis, Fortress Press, 2013), 83.
48
 Winfried Corduan, Neighboring Faiths ( Downers Grove: Illinois, 2012), 319.  
 
49
 Kenneth W. Morgan, The Path of the Buddha (New York, The Ronald Press Company, 1956), 77.

24  
 
which is a law in itself and needs no lawgiver. Thus, life is trapped into a cycle that

never ends and is sustained by ignorance, karmic predisposition, consciousness, name

and form, the five senses and mind, contact, feeling and response, craving, grasping

for an object, action toward life, birth and old age and death. Liberation is achieved by

breaking one of the one of the links in this chain. According to the Buddha, the two

weakest links are ignorance and craving. In order to be set free from the binds of

samsara, this cycle of death and re-birth, one must find a way of stopping generating

karma. If it is actions what creates karma, then the solution is to eliminate all actions.

It is well recognized that it is extremely difficult to stop all action. First it is necessary

to be removed from the distractions of the common life and spouse a simple life,

away, in the forest. Second, the life must be focused in meditation (yoga) and

philosophical introspection as a means to sop craving.

As the Buddha analyzed the mind, he concluded that all existing beings are

made up of mental qualities, nothing else. He reasons that if all the parts are removed

from the cart, what remains in the cart? The answer is nothing and yet, the

combination of this parts are called a cart. The doctrine of anatman or no-soul was

defined as one of the three fundamental characteristic of all existence came to be a

core doctrine of Buddhist thought.

This doctrine is a very intentional refutation of two central beliefs of the Hindu

Upanishads: that there is a soul that serves as the ground for all beings, and that

ultimately, the soul is Brahman. In contrast, Buddha denies the existence of both

because both represent a source of permanence. 50

                                                                                                                       
50
 Timmothy C. Tennent, Christianity at The Religious Roundtable (Grand Rapids: MI, Baker
Academic, 2002), 92.
 

25  
 
 It is important to remark that by the time the Buddha started developing his

philosophy, the Hindu tradition considered the Vedas as revealed text. They had not

been composed but rather orally revealed to humans by the gods. Therefore, the

Vedas were not written but “heard” and remembered and transmitted for successive

generations of brahmis. They were considered absolute authority, infallible truth and

were expected to exist forever, being protected and perpetuated by the brahmis51,

who were the only authorized humans to hear and read the Vedic verses and perform

the Vedic rituals.

In the early Vedic period, probably beginning something around 1500, the

gods were considered the creators and preservers of the cosmos. Gradually, the

religious emphasis shifted to the centrality of the sacrifice to the point of considering

it as re-creation of the cosmos on the human level. It was this entire religious order

that came to be challenged by the Buddha.

The result is that, in Buddhism, there is no ultimate reality but the Dharma

itself, which is the way to stop generating karma, achieving enlightment and

consequently, the only way for liberation from the wheel of samsara.

Doctrinal Developments and The Concept of Ultimate Reality

In the following years after the death of the Buddha in 483 B.C his disciples

were divided into two main groups. The first one holds the earliest corpus of the

Buddhist teachings, known today as the paly Canon, which is divided into three major

divisions named as tripitaka, or three baskets. They keep a more conservative form of

Buddhism that insists that enlightment is an individual journey requiring monastic

                                                                                                                       
51
The Vedic religious world was hierarchical: the gods were at the top of this hierarch (being also
divided into several hierarchical divisions), and below was the human realm, formally divided into four

26  
 
life and devotion to the historic Buddha. They were pejoratively labeled as the

Hinayana or “Little Vehicle and are known as the school of Theravada (Way of the

Elders).52

However, by the time of Christ, another major tradition was raising and that

represents the vast majority of Buddhists today. This was a protest movement against

the more conservative Buddhism. They called themselves Mahayana meaning “great

Vehicle.” They emphasized that instead of aiming to be released from the wheel of

samsara, Buddhists should focus on becoming a bodhisattva, who refuses nirvana and

liberation to assist others in their path towards enlightment.

For them, there are three ways the Buddha can be manifest or known. The first

is the historical Buddha, which refers not only to Gautama but also to other Buddhas

who has appeared in history and is expected to appear again in the form of the final

Buddha, Maitreya. The second is the heavenly Buddha, who refers to transcendent

Buddhas who dwell in heavenly realms and when necessary project themselves into

the world in the form of historical Buddhas. The third and final body of Buddha is the

dharma-kaya. Dharma kaya is an all pervading principle, both transcendent and

immanent. It is the highest, ultimate principle in Mahayana and represents the essence

of the entire universe. 53 This concept of ultimate reality in Buddhism is what we have

closest to the Christian Doctrine of God. We know turn our attention to it.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   
classes, in which membership was determined solely by birth. At the top of this hierarchical social
structure were the sacrificial priests, the Brahmins.
52
 Robert C. Lester, Theravada Buddhism in South Asia (Ann Harbor: MI, The University of Michigan
Press, 1973), 66-83.
53
 Timmothy C. Tennent, Christianity at The Religious Roundtable (Grand Rapids: MI, Baker
Academic, 2002), 94.
 

27  
 
 Mahayana Buddhism has never achieved a consensus on the precise nature of

Dharma-Kaya. This tension gave birth to two major schools of interpretation: The

School of Madthyamika (middle way) and the School of Yagacara (mind only).

The School of Madthyamika, which is based on the teachings of Nargajuna,

states that there is no permanent reality in the universe since everything is void. It is

intended to be a middle ay position that transcends the dualistic language of being and

nonbeing. Therefore, Dharma-Kaya is not either the first cause of the universe or

some independent reality as the mind, as in Yagacara, or God, as in Christianity. For

them, any of these theories would clearly violates the doctrine of dependent arising

(interdependence of all things ruled by the impersonal law of cause and effect).

Everything is illusory and the only reality is emptiness.

At the same time, and the School of Yagacara (mind only) is built upon the

core traditional doctrines of the Buddha (Four noble truths and eightfold path) and the

teachings of Narganuja that there is no independent and permanent reality in the

universe, in order to conclude that all reality is ultimately located in the mind.

Everything including the Buddha and the Dharma is nothing more than a projection of

the mind.54For them, Madhayamika’s conception emptiness fails to recognize that this

could not be applied to the human mind, because if even the human is illusory and

void, tehn all reasoning must also be declared illusory. Therefore, their ultimate

reality is located only in the mind. Dharma-Kaya is the mental qualities, the

transcendent stream of consciousness that is the final explanation for everything. It is

not a transcendent God as well as the Buddha who walked on the earth. Ultimately,

these are all projections of the mind, nothing more.

28  
 
 Some wonder if these Buddhist teachings are another way of defining God, but

from an impersonal perspective. In reality, it is not another way of defining God but

another way of defining man. The Buddha did teach that there was that which is

eternal and unchanging, without form. However it is a force over and above an

individual, a huge Ego that commands the little ego. The truth is within them not

above them. There is no one to pray to. In Buddhism, the self is imagined as pearls,

which is obscured by layers of wrong feelings and choices, illusions of craving and

selfishness. The aim is to get in touch with the pearl within and seek to cleanse it.55

Buddhist Views on The Christian Doctrine of God

Both branches of Mahayana Buddhism explicitly reject the concept a personal

Being who created and sustain the universe since it presupposes a permanent,

independent existence.

For the school of Madhyamika, the Brahman of the Hindus, the Allah of the

Muslim and the God of the Christians must be all rejected for they are all based on

this same premise. At the same time, they also reject the nihilistic idea of nothingness.

In their view, Buddhism is the middle way alternative of emptiness for the extremes

of existence and non-existence.

Another argument used by the Madhyamika school in order to disbelieve the

Christian doctrine of God is based on the assentation that, since all existence involves

change and by definition God cannot change (since all changes are for better or for

worse), then God must not exist. For them, it is logically inconsistent to relate an

objective, unchanging God to a subjective, changing world.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   
54
 See  Edward J. Thomas, The History of the Buddhist Thought (New York, Barnes and Nobles, Inc.,
1951), 212-248.

29  
 
 The school of Yagacara in its turn rejects the Christian concept of God

because, for Christians, it is more than a projection from the stream of consciousness

we call mind. Christians talk about God and experience God and as separate, a distinct

reality when in their view, in reality, we are only experiencing the echo of our own

consciousness.

The Doctrine of God: A Christian Response

From a Seventh - day Adventist Christian point of view, both expressions of

Mahayana Buddhism as presented in the schools of Madhyamika and Yagacara,

explicitly rejects any notion of a personal and Almighty God, the creator and sustainer

of everything that is, and therefore it is difficult to find points of agreement with them

this regard.

In Christianity, God is fully immanent in his creation at the same time that he

transcends the universe. Everything is dependent upon him for its existence and yet,

he is self-existent. He defined himself as “I AM” what emphasizes his independence

and self- existence (Ex. 3:14).

We disagree to the Madhyamika concept of ultimate reality because it denies

any and all concepts of objective reality. Even the reality of human consciousness is

denied. In a single strike, they deny creature and creator leaving behind only a sea of

emptiness that will finally result in meaninglessness.56 It just can’t be avoided because

of the reality that if nothing has real existence, then nothing has meaning.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   
55
Kevin O’Donnell, Inside World Religions (Minneapolis, Fortress Press, 2007), 47.
56
 Timmothy C. Tennent, Christianity at The Religious Roundtable (Grand Rapids: MI, Baker
Academic, 2002), 102.

30  
 
 Concerning to the immutability of God, it doesn’t violate others of his

attributes as justice and love, which compels him to act in the world. The concept that

“to exit is to change” is true as long as the created order is concerned, but is doesn’t

applies to God, who is other than creation. Besides, the doctrine of immutability refers

to God’s essence and nature only and doesn’t requires he to be in separation from the

world in order to be in contact with the world. Immutability affirms that God’s

essential nature cannot change but is completely in connection with his other

attributes through which he has chosen to interact a changing humanity. The way he

deals with us throughout history vary while his character, purpose and essence

remains the same.

Many Buddhists from other schools take the Madhyamika concept of

emptiness as self-refuting because its philosophy is expressed using careful reasoning

and logical methodology. Yet, they claim that the mind is illusory. How would they

be convinced of their own rational argument unless the reality of reason is true?

However, the reality of reason or reasoning itself is not the ultimate reality.

The Christian God is not just an echo of the human mind, as the school of Yagacara in

its turn assumes. Christianity is all about a self-existing, eternal God, Who Are prior

to any act of creation. Therefore, the reality of God precedes any human being and
57
remains unaltered and unaffected after our death. Consequently, it is beyond any

                                                                                                                       
57
 Seventh-Day Adventist Christians believe that after death, human beings enter a state of
unconsciousness. They do not continue their existence in another level or in a different form. They
remain at rest until the Day when Jesus, who is the source of all life, returns to resurrect the dead and
give to each and every person on this planet their reward: eternal life or eternal death (Rom. 6:23; 1
Tim. 6:15, 16; Eccl. 9:5, 6; Ps. 146:3, 4; John 11:11-14; Col. 3:4; 1 Cor. 15:51-54; 1 Thess. 4:13-17;
John 5:28, 29; Rev. 20:1-10). In short, because of the reality of sin, which is a break in our relationship
with God that results in disobedience to his commands and leads death, life is nothing more than a
short period of time in which we are allowed to choose how we want to spend eternity. A
comprehensive explanation on the theme is beyond the scup of this study. In regards to the Seventh-
Day Adventist position on the state of the Man in death, see  Ministerial Association Seventh – Day
Adventist Church, Seveth – Day Adventists Believe…A Biblical Exposition of 27 Fundamental
Doctrines (Hagerstown: Maryland, Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1988),

31  
 
mind which temporarily (Even during existence, the mind of no new born baby and

many aged people are not able to apprehend the reality of God) is able to conceive

him. God is not a projection but a realization of the human mind. The same way that

the cellular differentiation within our bodies assures that, at certain point in our

existence, certain organs will grow and develop in order to be able to perform certain

vital functions, God created us in his own image and enabled our minds to mature to

the point of being able to realize all the evidences of his reality upon which we can

base our faith.

The Buddhist reality, as expressed either by Madhyamika’ s external

impersonal principle of emptiness or Yagagacara’s internally subjective flow of
consciousness, cannot speak, see or hear. There is no possibility of a I-Thou
relationship. It cannot be addressed personally in prayer.

“In contrast, the Christian revelation concerning God is not about

emptiness but fullness (pleroma). As we enter into communion with God, we
realize that he is more than a part of the infinite chain of cause and effect.
Rather, through Jesus Christ we are brought into a personal knowledge of and
relationship with the leaving God who created the heavens and earth and who
enables us to share in his fullness. We are not being purged; we are being
filled.”58

In Jesus, we have Emmanuel, God with us. The true and living God who

created all things through his spoken word became a visible reality in the person of

Jesus Christ. He, who is not limited by time and space, limited himself as he entered

our reality in order to reveal himself not as an illusion or a mental projection but as a

fact recorded in history. Millions of Buddhists go daily to their shines and meditate

looking at images that are considered not reality but only illusory helpers on the path

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   
58
 Timmothy C. Tennent, Christianity at The Religious Roundtable (Grand Rapids: MI, Baker
Academic, 2002), 103.

32  
 
to enlightment. When we pray to Jesus, we are not talking to someone who is going to

be discarded sometime later on behalf of a greater truth. We are talking to the one

who is the “way the truth and the light” (John 14:6). Through the boldly death and

resurrection of Jesus, a path was open to everyone who is willing to enter a renewing

relationship with a God who is there.

The Doctrine of God According to Hinduism

Hinduism is better described not as a religion but as a religious culture. It was

the foreign term used to describe a whole set of religious beliefs and practices among

different people groups in India.59 Throughout more than three thousand five hundred

years of existence, their concept of God has gone through different phases and

emphasis, being characterized by monotheism, henotheism, polytheism and animism,

with aspects of each one of this beliefs in its present manifestation.

At the same time, not all religions present in India are to be considered

Hinduism. Buddhism and their denial of the creator God, for example, is considered

heretical, even being a reform movement the came from Hinduism.

Hinduism is mostly thought about throughout Christianity as the polytheistic

religion which has a pantheon of 330 million of gods. However, it would be a big

surprise to many Christians to realize that, actually, Hindus think of themselves a well

elaborated philosophy which teaches that there is only one ultimate reality, named

Brahman. While popular Hinduism seems to have no end to gods and goddesses, the

Upanishads, the scripture which originally was transmitted by oral tradition but that

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   
 
59
 Winfried Corduan, Neighboring Faiths ( Downers Grove: Illinois, 2012), 267.
 

33  
 
came to be written and attached to the earliest of the Hindu writings known as the

Vedas, affirms there is only One God.

The Hindu Concept of God

This paradox of the “one and the many” has been an important point of

tension for a long time in Indian theology. Among all the Indian traditions, those

schools of thought which focus on the Upanishads are known as Vedanta, meaning

“end of the Vedas.”60 Two prominent ones among them, the advaita (nondualism)

and the visistadvaita (modified nondualism), have developed the conclusions that

better expresses the Indian concept of God.

The Advaita School base its teachings on the reflexions of its most remarkable

thinker, Sankara. According to Sankara, this tension is resolved by the recognition

that the Upanishads speak of the supreme Absolute in two different levels of reality.

The highest level is known as nirguna Brahman. The lower level of reality is saguna

Brahman. On the highest nirguna level, Brahman is without (nir) attributes (guna).

Therefore, Brahman cannot be spoken of as having any attributes or relations.

Brahman is “non-connected with the world and devoid of all qualities.”61

At the same time, whenever the Upanishads speak of a multitude of different

Gods with various qualities or attributes, they are talking on a lower level of reality.

Therefore, when Brahman is referred to in this way, Brahman is with (sa) attributes

(guna). Sankara taught that a personal encounter with God is possible only at this

                                                                                                                       
60
 For a historical perspective on this process, see Willard G. Oxtoby, World Religions, Estern
Traditions (Don Mills, Otario: Oxford University Press, 1996), 29.
61
 Timmothy C. Tennent, Christianity at The Religious Roundtable (Grand Rapids: MI, Baker
Academic, 2002), 42.
 

34  
 
level. However, this God, which is referred to as isvara, is not an ultimate reality but

only an illusory, imperfect and limited human description of God. 62

On the other hand, the Visistadvaita school, based on the teachings of a thinker

named Ramanuja, vehemently rejects Sankara’s accommodation of the tension

between the one and the many. For him, Brahman encompass within itself all

plurality. All Hindu gods and goddess are placed within the one body of Braham. A

further development of this concept concluded that the many gods worshiped by the

Hindus are actually only manifestations of the one God, since in his view, no attribute

can ultimately exist apart from Brahman.

In short, for Sankara, differentiation is the essence of ignorance; for Ramanuja,

it is the basis for true knowledge.

The Hindu View on The Christian Concept of God

For Advaita Hinduism, the Christian doctrine of God is cannot accepted first

and foremost because of their view that human language is not an adequate mean for

describing true knowledge about God in the higher level, nirguna Brahman.63

Whatever qualities we attribute to God and present it as a propositional truth about

him, will have to be understood within the human framework of reference, for that is

what is known to us, and Advaitins insists that it is limited and cannot be trusted.

Brahman transcends description.

On the other hand, for the Visistadvaita Hindus, the Christian conception of

God should be rejected because of its claim that Jesus Christ was the only true self-

manifestation of God in human form and to the human race. His death has never been

                                                                                                                       
62
 Kirk Heriot, Understanding Each Other After 9-11 (Fort Brag: CA, Lost Coast Press, 2012), 19.  
63
 John A. Hutchison, Paths of Faith (New York, McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1969), 75.

35  
 
necessary for salvation and it is no more than one of many culturally accepted

conditioned responses to the ultimate which inspires devotion. There is no real

difference in worshiping Krishna, Jesus or in having a Sufi personal encounter with

Allah.

Besides, they believe the Christian doctrine of God cannot be accepted

because it differentiates creature and creator. For them, everything exists only within

the being of Brahman. We are Brahman’s body. In fact, it should not be considered as

a strange concept, since our doctrine of trinity states that Jesus, a full member of the

triune God, is the creator and yet, in his incarnation he exchanges his omnipresence

for two legs and walks among us. Therefore, he is no more than another avatar. Jesus

worshiping in the temple is also the lord of the temple. If Christians can accept that,

there is no reason for not accepting the all-embracing Hindu concept of God.

The Doctrine of God: A Christian Response

It might not be realized by many Christians, but there truly are important

points of agreement between the Hindu concept of God, as expressed by both, its

Advaita and Visistadvaita schools, and the Christian doctrine of God.

We totally agree with Sankara’s highly developed perception on the absolute

freedom and completeness of God and our inadequacy to perfectly describe him as he

really is. In fact, he was not obligated to create or incarnate in order to complete

something that was missing in him.64

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   
64
 Christian theology category that focus on God, as He is, apart from any act of creation or anything
else He has done for us, is defined as Aseity. For more see Thomas H. McCall, Which Trinity? Whose
Monotheism?(Grand Rapids: MI, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2010), 189.

36  
 
 However, Seventh-Day Adventist Christians would not sacrifice revelation on

behalf of completeness. Taken as it is, Advaita’ s conception of God will leave us

with a God who is unknown and unknowable. We can know or say nothing about God

because of the inadequacy of human language. At the same time, Brahman doesn’t

speak because no words can even begin to convey meaningful knowledge about him.

The self-disclosure in history as revealed in the Bible, evidences that God not

only reveals himself but also truths about himself. The fact that we can’t perfectly

describe him does not mean we cannot say anything at all. Whenever he acted in

history, he did both and it all is communicated to us through words. God has chosen

to reveal himself in human language. Because scripture give us reliable knowledge of

God, we can be confident that God can be known, because he has chosen to reveal

himself to us.

At the same time, whereas Sankara refers to God as “it”, Ramanuja addresses

Brahman as “Thou”, and it is difficult to overestimate the whole different is makes in

our understanding and relationship with the Creator God. He also emphasizes our

dependence upon for our very existence. For Ramanuja, God is personal, salvation is

through grace and God is the object of worship and devotion. We commend

Visistadvaita Hinduism for that.

However, Ramanuja defends a form of relativism that is in radical contrast

with the revealed in scripture. All of the avatars (incarnations) of Visnu, the popular

Bhaktism (devotional worship) with its temples, images, holy places and pilgrimages

as well as goddesses are all included in the body of Brahman.65 In contrast, scripture

                                                                                                                       
65
 Timmothy C. Tennent, Christianity at the Religious Roundtable (Grand Rapids: MI, Baker
Academic, 2002), 56.
 

37  
 
revels a loving God, who demands no to be worshiped by the means of any object of

worship, and who revealed himself in history once for all in the person of Jesus of

Nazareth.

Visistadvaita Hinduism also fails to recognize that there is a huge abysm

between creature an creator. By affirming that ultimately anything exists outside the

being of Brahman, they make no distinction between the Brahman who receives

worship and devotees who offer the worship. The one who walks into the temple and

the one who is worshiped in the temple are all part of the body of Brahman.

The Christian doctrine of incarnation cannot be equated with conception, and

the main reason for that is the fact that whereas avatars are believed to be incarnations

of Siva, repeated endlessless throughout each cycle of history, incarnation is a unique

event in history. In fact, avatars are the result if mythology, but the incarnation is fully

historical. 66

Another crucial difference between the concept of avatars and the incarnation

is the fact that it is believed that they come as a result of accumulated karma,

therefore, it is not a free act of God. In Christianity, the incarnation is the result of

deliberate choice of God in order to reveal himself and save.

Finally, an avatar is a mixture of God and man. The Christian incarnation is

the union of two natures, divine and human, into one person, who is fully man and

yet, fully God.

38  
 
 CONCLUSION

The exposition of the doctrine of God according to Islam, Buddhism and

Hinduism and a Christian response as presented in this paper, was an attempt to

evidence that these world religions are fundamentally different in regards to their

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   
66
 Timmothy C. Tennent, Christianity at the Religious Roundtable (Grand Rapids: MI, Baker
Academic, 2002), 58.    

39  
 
understanding of the Ultimate Reality, despite of the several points of agreement that

was observed along the analysis.

The different names for God or ultimate reality as used by the different world

religions are not only a matter of terminology. They are intrinsically associated with

highly developed conceptions shaped by many centuries of deep reflexions in regards

to He who we call God. As it was evidenced, the absolute majority of them are in

sharp contrast to God’s self-disclosure as reveled in the Bible.

To glass over our differences and to cling to our points of agreement will only

prevent the Christian Church from truly fulfilling God’s commission as presented in

Mathew 28: 18-20. As Seventh-Day Adventist Christians, we believe it will also

prevent us from truly warning the world to “Fear God and give him glory, because

the hour of his judgment has come. Worship him who made the heavens, the earth, the

sea and the springs of water” (Revelation 14: 7).

A balanced approach to adherents of the World religions will begin by

remarking the points of agreement but will also earnestly long for an appropriate

opportunity to consistently present the difference of the Personal Being we worship

and serve. The realization of this truth will affect the entire existence of the believer,

showing a better way to live in this world and the best way for one to achieve the life

to come.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

40  
 
 Ahmed, Akbar S. Islam Today: A Short Introduction to the Muslim World. London: I.B.
Tauris Publishers, 1999.

Allen, Roger M. A., and Shawkat M. Toorawa. Islam: A Short Guide to the Faith. Grand
Rapids, Mich: William B. Eerdmans Pub, 2011.

Faruqi, Isma’il Ragi A. al. The Life of Muhammad. Philadelphia: PA, North America Trust
Publications, 1976.

Reynolds, Babriel Said, The Emergence of Islam (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2012.

O’Donnell, Kevin. Inside World Religions. Minneapolis, Fortress Press, 2007.

Rahner, Karl. The Church After The Council. New York, Herder and Herder, 1966.
Muck, Terry and Adeney, Frances S. Christianity Encountering World Religions.Grand
Rapids: MI, Baker Academic, 2009.

Cragg, Kenneth, The Event of The Qur’an. London: George & Unwin Ltd, 1971.

Gulley, Norman R., Systematic Theology, Prolegomena. Berrien Springs: MI, Andrews
University Press, 2003.

Beaumont, I. Mark, Christology in Dialogue With Muslims. Eugene: OR, WIPF & STOCK,
2005.

Briggs, Constance Victoria, The Encyclopedia of God.Charlottesville: VA, Hampton Roads

Publishing Cpmpany, 2003.

Canale, Fernando. Handbook of Seventh-day Adventist Theology (HSDAC). Hagerstown, MD:

Heview and Herald Publishing Association, 2000.

Choueiri, Youssef M. Islamic Fundamentalism: The Story of Islamist Movements. London:

Continuum, 2010.

Corduan, Winfried. Neighboring Faiths. Downers Grove: Illinois, 2012.

Du Pasquier, Roger, Unveiling Islam. Cambride: Redwood Books, 1992.

Elias, Jamal J. This Is Islam: From Muhammad and the Community of Believers to Islam in
the Global Community. Great Barrington, Mass: Berkshire Pub. Group, 2010.

Esposito, L. John. What Everyone Needs to Know about Islam. New York: Oxford University
Press, 2002.

Geisler, Norman and Saleeb, Abdul. Answering Islam. Grand Rapdis: Baker Books, 2002.

Hassan, Hassan Ibrahim. Islam, A Religious, Political, Social and Economic Study. Bagda:
The Times Printing, 1967.

Jomier, Jacques. How to Understand Islam. New York: The Crossroad Publishing Company,
1989.

Karkkainen, Veli-Matti. An Introduction To The Theology of Religions. Downers Grove: IL,

IVP Academic, 2003.

Khalil, Mohammad Hassan. Islam and the Fate of Others: The Salvation Question. Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 2012.

Kinnard, Jacob N. The Emergence of Buddhism. Mineapolis, Fortress Press, 2011.

41  
 
 Laude, Patrick. Universal Dimensions of Islam: Studies in Comparative Religion.
Bloomington IN: World Wisdom, Inc, 2011.

Lester, Robert C. Theravada Buddhism in South Asia. Ann Harbor: MI, The University of
Michigan Press, 1973.

Maqsood, Ruqaiyyah Waris. Islam. London: Collins, 2008.

McCall, Thomas H. Which Trinity? Whose Monotheism? Grand Rapids: MI, Wm. B.
Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2010.

Ministerial Association Seventh – Day Adventist Church. Seveth – Day Adventists Believe…A
Biblical Exposition of 27 Fundamental Doctrines.Hagerstown: Maryland, Review and Herald
Publishing Association, 1988.

Morgan, Kenneth W.The Path of the Buddha. New York, The Ronald Press Company, 1956.

Oxtoby, Willard G. World Religions, Estern Traditions. Don Mills, Otario: Oxford University
Press, 1996.

Pontifex, Don Mark. Belief in the Trinity. New York: Longmans, Green, 1954.

Qur’an.

Smartha, S.J. and Taylor, J.B. Christian-Muslim Dialogue.Geneva: World Council of

Churches, 1973.

Sullivan, Lawrence E. Religions of The World. Minneapolis, Fortress Press, 2013.

Tennent, Timmothy C.. Christianity at The Religious Roundtable. Grand Rapids: MI, Baker
Academic, 2002.

Thomas, Edward J. The History of the Buddhist Thought . New York, Barnes and Nobles, Inc.,
1951.

Tibi, Bassam. Islamism and Islam. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2012.

Wing-Tsit and Moore, Charles A. The Essenctials of Buddhist Philosophy. Hawaii: Hanolulu,
Office Appliance Co. Ltd., 1956.

42