Why did “God” create so many religions?
God did not create many religions in the world for them to hate each other or for him to assign to eternal heaven his favoured followers and condemn all other religionists to eternal hell for not following his religion.
For God who is supposed to be almighty, all loving and all embracing, this would be his biggest sin - not being able to love everyone for what they are.
Man, and not God, made the many religions in the world. This happened because man did not understand nature and the many phenomena on earth. Not being able to relate and answer these situations, man believed there must be a greater external force beyond his comprehension that guides the earth. Thus, based on differences and blind faith, many religions arose to fulfill man's emotional need to reduce the dissonance.
God was mistakenly thought to have created everything - he had a hand in everything - the creation of man, the earth, the universe, sicknesses, earthquakes, rain, wind, etc. Over time, however, with more discoveries by science, God’s originally vast ‘role in creation’ is diminishing over time. God merely becomes God of the Gaps - what man cannot explain with his limited frame of reference or knowledge is attributed to God. As time passes, this gap becomes narrower and narrower till one point where God will have no role to play in man’s creation or destiny. Man created god and the many different religions, not the other way round.
What is the difference between Rebirth and Reincarnation?
You have asked an interesting question that addresses the fundamental Buddhist and Hindu thinking on life after death.
There is a very great difference between reincarnation and rebirth, although both concepts pertain to a being coming back to life in an endless cycle of existences called samsara.
In reincarnation, a person is made up of two real entities called a body and a soul. In Hinduism, this body is made up of material parts that break up at death and return to their original state, to be reused again to make up other material parts. The atman (soul) on the other hand, comes from Brahman (in Hinduism, the Creating Principle).
Once created, the soul is trapped within the material body and because of maya it performs kamma (good or bad actions) that determines what kind of body the soul takes (human, animal or spirit) after death. Good actions result in good births, and evil actions result in births in unsatisfactory states. The aim is to replace maya with panna where one strives to free the soul from the body and attain reunion with Brahman in what is termed mokkha (final release).
In Buddhism however, while the terms samsara and kamma are used to describe the actions one performs which trap oneself in samsara, it is ignorance of the real nature of a person which causes him or her to act. Here ignorance means mistaking a combination of mind and matter for a personality or a self. What one mistakes for a body is not made up of matter, but a combination of a series of processes - solidity, fluidity, heat and motion.
We know from physics that what is called matter is really made up of atoms which in the final analysis are simply energy in constant motion. The ignorant mind mistakes this for real. This explains why a body grows imperceptibly into a child, an adult and an old man or woman. Everything is in a constant state of change. What is mistaken for a permanent soul, on the other hand is termed in Buddhism, mind. Mind is also another constantly changing process of feeling, perception, mental habits and consciousness. These too are always in a state of change and, therefore, have no permanent reality. These two processes (mind and matter) then act upon each other, giving an illusion of a person, who in reality does not exist.
A being, ignorantly thinks it is a real entity and acts, thinking, "This is I, this is mine." Those actions lead to further actions in a never-ending stream. At death, the matter separates from the mind, but the mind does not stop - it simply moves on, creates another body, lives another life, dies and goes on.
What propels these processes from one life to the next is craving, the will to live. What “dies,” because of the principle of change, is not exactly what is “reborn” although there is a continuity, just as in reality there is no body of water to call a “river,” which is made of innumerable drops of water moving endlessly. We conventionally call it a “river” although in reality no such thing exists because it is always changing.
There is no permanent soul that goes from body to body. Buddhists therefore say there is no reincarnation, merely a continuation of a process of endless cycles of birth, life, death and rebirth. When this process of becoming is stilled, we call it Nibbana (the ultimate freedom) where there is no more craving to live, so there is no more rebirth.
What is the Buddhist attitude towards homosexuality?
As human beings, we have bodies that crave for all kinds of pleasures (not only sex) - for food, pleasant smells, sounds, etc. If we deny ourselves these as being sinful, then we repress natural desires. Instead of repressing these natural desires, we must seek to understand how and why they arise and to realise that it is not in our best interests to pander to physical desires. The victim of maya (illusion) sees the body as real and craves to satisfy a longing for kama which covers all kinds of sensual pleasure.
As the being matures spiritually, maya is replaced with vidya (knowledge) and panna (wisdom). With spiritual maturity, the body is seen as an illusion and the being naturally grows out of craving. Here we see the spiritually advanced being renounces sex upon maturity, just as a child stops playing with toys as he or she grows up.
There is nothing intrinsically wrong with sex. What is wrong is attachment and slavery to it, in believing that indulgence in sex can bring ultimate happiness. This is the problem with the exploitation of sex by the mass entertainment industry today - extending the myth that sex can bring lasting happiness.
The third of the Five Precepts we recite in daily Buddhist practice is: “I undertake the training rule to refrain from sexual misconduct.” First, we note that there is no compulsion, no fear of punishment for infringement of any divine law but rather, when we recognise the danger of attachment to sex, we freely take the steps (training rule) to grow out of it, i.e. “I undertake.” In short, homosexuality is no different from other forms of sexual activity. They all have inherent dangers of increasing tanha (craving) and must be avoided through the development of Samma Ditthi (Right Understanding) and by following the Majjhima Patipada (Middle Path).
Is a Buddhist homosexual breaking the precept on "avoiding sexual misconduct?"
What do we mean by "sexual misconduct?" Here we are referring specifically to behaviour that harms the person who performs the act, or the other party - not all sexual conduct. Sex is prohibited to those who choose to be celibate e.g. monks or nuns. These persons have voluntarily chosen to abstain from sex to better concentrate on their spiritual progress. In a sexual relationship, if the two parties are consenting adults, not under-aged, not “attached” (legally or otherwise) to someone else, there is no harm done.
In Buddhism, we do not consider any action "sinful" in the sense that we transgress a divine commandment. We act wrongly because of avijja (ignorance) and therefore we commit an akusala kamma (unskillful/bad action) that delays or interferes with our spiritual progress. In our ignorance about the real nature of things (in this case, our body) we act in ways that are detrimental to us from a spiritual point of view. Understanding and wisdom will help us refrain from harmful actions, both mental and physical.
In this connection, Buddhism does not recognise that marriage is a divinely ordained institution that suddenly makes sex permissible. Sex is a human activity that has nothing to do with heaven and hell. You will notice that sexual restraint is one of the Five Precepts observed by practising Buddhists. Killing is far more serious because you can hurt another being more viciously. Sex is a craving, just like craving for food, liquor, drugs, wealth, power, etc. Attachment to any of these constitutes akusala kamma because, if we really understand the nature of our bodies and how craving works against us, we will not indulge in it. Buddhism discourages any of these forms of craving because they will tie us down more firmly to samsara. Also, indulgence in sex can lead to other evils like anger, jealousy, remorse and guilt.
If two members of the same gender fall in love with each other, are they wrong?
You may see from the foregoing that Buddhism does not see homosexuality as wrong and heterosexuality as right. Both are sexual activities using the body, both are strong expressions of lust which increase desire for life and therefore trap us longer in samsara. When a couple (whether a man and a woman, two men or two women) fall in love, it arises out of the same human limitation of not seeing the body as empty of any ultimate reality.
Does Buddhism condemn homosexuals/homosexuality?
Buddhism does not condemn homosexuals in the same way as it does not condemn any wrongdoing. We act through ignorance of the true nature of things. Therefore, we are only guilty of akusala kamma. We have no right to condemn others. Our duty is to help others see that they are acting out of ignorance, to show how real happiness can be gained. We have no right to condemn those who think or act differently from us, especially when we ourselves are slaves of sensual pleasure in other forms. We know that when we point one finger at others, the other three fingers are pointing at us.
In summary, homosexuality, like heterosexuality, arises from ignorance. All forms of sex increase lust, craving and attachment to the body. With wisdom, we learn to grow out of these attachments. We do not condemn homosexuality as wrong and sinful, but we do not condone it either, simply because it, like other forms of sex, delays our deliverance from samsara. With the Blessings of the Noble Triple Gem.
Can we perform euthanasia for someone who has requested it?
Let us begin by emphasising that the matter does not pertain to gay lovers alone but to every creature that has life. Buddhists do not classify homosexuals as separate from the rest of humanity. In Buddhism, the taking of life for whatever reasons is not to be condoned. However, if killing occurs as a result of an unintentional, unmotivated act, then one is not held responsible (e.g. if a blind man kills ants by stepping on them without being aware that they are there). For the killing to be kammically complete, entailing retribution in this life or subsequent ones, many conditions must be present viz,
1. There must be a living thing
2. Knowledge that it is a living thing
3. Intention to deprive that thing of its life
4. Effort to remove the life
5. Subsequent separation of the body from the life
All these conditions are fulfilled in the story you mentioned, so the partner is responsible for having broken the first principle and he must bear the kammic responsibility for the deed. That said, we must now add that the intention to kill can be motivated by compassion or by hatred, which will of course determine the severity and the nature of the kammic effect.
In the case of mercy killing, also known as euthanasia, which is motivated by misguided compassion, the mind is not wholly polluted in that situation. Thus the bad kammic effect is reduced. It is a case of a wrong action done with a good intention. The action however is still wrong. The more we pollute the mind, the higher the degree of the bad effect.
If one murders an innocent person out of hatred or greed, then of course the effect is severe. In the example you gave, the person was motivated by compassion so the effect will be less severe. Notice we said “less severe,” because there will be an effect, although there will be mitigating circumstances. Also, we must consider the value of the creative life which was deprived - is it a mosquito or an animal like an elephant, a horse or a cow that is especially useful?
The degree of effort taken and the intensity with which the mind is engaged influences the severity. Naturally, the killing of a human is most serious. Even then we must consider how innocent or how useful the human being is – a parent or a monk are high on the list. In your example, the person's consent was obviously given, the motivation was compassion (though misguided), so while all the conditions were met, the kammic effect is significantly reduced. A doctor who performs mercy killing cannot be put in the same category as say, a man who in cold blood murders his mother to get her money.
What this means is that not all similar actions bear the same kammic effect. The effects of weak kammic actions may be eradicated or counteracted by other good kamma so that the effects of the bad kamma have no chance to operate. In fact, only the harming of a Buddha or the murder of arahats (saints) and parents or causing a split in the monastic order are considered to be so severe that it is very difficult to escape the retribution. The effects of all other kamma can be reduced by purifying one's mind and actions - please refer to the story of Angulimala. In the case of suicide or euthanasia, we cannot make a blanket statement that all such actions are wrong because the mental state at the time of the one who performs the action must be taken into account. However, this is a complex issue we cannot discuss fully here.
Finally, mercy killing is not merciful at all. It may at best be referred to as a misguided sense of mercy, because depriving the life of another is not our prerogative - the sufferer must bear his own kamma patiently and with understanding and we cannot act as executioner. If we cut short the working of kamma in this life, we merely postpone its completion to another life. With the Blessings of the Noble Triple Gem.