No God, no Brahmᾱ can be found, Creator of Saṃsᾱra’s round, Empty phenomena roll on, Subject to cause and condition. Visuddhimagga, XIX.

    Buddhism took root in India when the Brahminical polytheistic tendencies were spreading throughout the Gangetic plain and in places becoming dominant. Marasinghe’s analysis of the conditions of those times seems to be pertinent which says that these tendencies were in a way becoming very popular, with the tribal India, very uniquely preserving their own gods, major and minor and also assimilating the tribal gods unto their fold. There is historical evidence enough that prove that polytheism was a way of life with the people of those times, when Jainism and Buddhism took birth in India (Marasinghe, 1974).                                                      

    Modern scholars are almost unanimously of the view that Buddhism can be described as a Non-theistic religion as in this tradition a belief in an omniscient, omnipotent creator or God is deemed to be absolutely untenable and unnecessary. Scholars like H. von Glasenapp  (1970) and Nyanaponika (1981) have argued in favor of this non-theistic tendency of Buddhism saying that the origins of the universe, the moral order, man’s destiny and salvation can be satisfactorily explained without the need to introduce the idea of a supreme being that is responsible for them all—something which the early Buddhism has capably handled.

    But before we proceed any further, it would only be pertinent to say that those beings, whose generic name of devā is generally taken to mean ‘ Shining Ones’ make appearances so often in the Pali texts that there is every justification for an enquiry into their nature and the precise place they occupy in the early texts of Buddhism. 

    Here a distinction needs to be drawn between the teachings attributed to the Buddha in the Pali Canon or the Āgamas ( Early Buddhism ), which does not under any condition affirm the presence of a Creator God ( but the texts are fraught with the presence of devās or gods- a confusion which is the matter of analysis of this essay) as it is done later in some Mahᾱyᾱna Sutras and Tantras where acceptance is given to an apparent Ultimate Ground of all things- the omniscient and transcendental Reality of the Awakened mind or the Infinite sphere of the ‘Buddha-Nature’ (Buddha-dhᾱtu or Tathᾱgatagarbha) as is evident from the study of Srimᾱla Sutra or the Mahayana Mahᾱparinibbᾱṇa Sutta. In this essay, the exploration of the presence of gods will be limited to the ‘Early Buddhist Tradition’ of the Pali Canon as is commonly agreed upon by the scholars.

    But even while dealing with the texts of the Pali Canon which negate the presence of an Absolute presence, one is surprised to see innumerable suttas dedicated to the description of the Buddha’s meetings with gods or devās or His solving the riddle of their (devās)  presence. If Early Buddhism is generally regarded as a religious philosophy without an Absolute Creator God who created the universe ex nihilo and to whom any veneration or obeisance is due, then how does one explain the presence of gods and heavens in the Pali texts.

    Now this dilemma does not lead us to the simplistic argument of whether Buddhism believes in devās or not but to more complicated psycho-scientific issues with which the contemporary science is grappling too. We often question whether we have any means of relating our subjective experiences and knowledge of the external world to any objective reality existing outside our consciousness and world of perception? Can we understand the real nature of the world by sensory perception and intellect and are these sufficient tools of knowledge?

    Are we in a position to avoid the evidence collected from umpteen sources which bear testimony to the presence of certain beings who belong to a different order of nature such as nature spirits, angels, djinns, fairies etc.? Are we in a position to write off the mystical or extra-sensory experiences felt by people over the ages? Can we just explain such experiences as falling outside the areas of the particular space time continuum in which our consciousness normally operates and therefore are these experiences not worthy of any further explanation? While answering the questions posed by religious cosmology are we not tempted to avoid the queries as to the whereabouts of beings and heavens as our studies incessantly reveal that even if the concepts of space and time can be reduced to one, there are no apparent, clear or absolute points of reference, where the exact simultaneity of events could be determined. Are all these questions not the result of our single plane of experience being considered by us as the only possible, final one when all inferential logic goes against this very assumption ?Are we not aware of two discrete and seemingly opposed and incompatible worlds namely the one of our own subjective experiences and the second of the objective world of science—where a meeting point has been evading human history for a couple of thousands of years and where we find ease in being comfortably poised in our own subjective heaven? And the most important question of all- - is this construction of subjective-objective duality itself void of any reality and can this reality be discerned through any cognitive, empirical or meditative process? Can we establish the presence of the worlds beyond the sphere of our consciousness?

    A deeper delving into these questions does lead us a little closer to understanding of the Buddha’s teachings of release from conditioned existence and explain to us why the Buddha avoided getting entangled into questions regarding the presence of gods or an interpretation of phenomena. And in order to ascertain the views of the Buddha on the presence of devās, it will not be out of context to begin with a description of devās in the different suttas of the Pali canon. 

To begin with, in these texts, the Buddha himself is addressed as Atideva, Devātideva, Ādhideva. The Pali texts do talk of Gods and that too not only of Ṛgvedic or the Brahminical tradition, but of their own forging also. It is difficult to say how many gods were accepted from the Brahminical tradition directly and how many as Marasinghe (1974) summarizes it underwent a ‘Buddhistification’. But the Pali texts are in fact full of them. They mention one hundred and seventy three devās, thirty six named and ninety nine unnamed who visited the Buddha for the clarification of their doubts. There are twenty nine suttas in the Ȧnguttara Nikᾱya which refer to gods. Out of these eighteen suttas are the records of the visits of individual or of groups of devās, to the Buddha. Nine suttas contain accounts of close associations of gods with various disciples. Two suttas contain accounts of Moggallᾱna’s visit to the realm of the gods. The Mahᾱgovinda sutta seems to support the view that the higher the realm of heavenly existence, the subtler is the composition of the beings therein. The Khuddaka Nikᾱya also deals with the tripartite division of the Sammuti, Upapatti, and the Visuddhi devās.

    The Samutti devās (“by convention”), are human beings of high worldly status; kings, ministers and the like. The Upᾱpatti devās (“through rebirth”), are beings living in the deva lokas, or higher spheres. The Visuddhi  (“by their purity”) are the greatest human beings who have attained the final degree of self-liberation, and so are known as devās by purification who are yet alive. These are Supreme Buddhas, Silent Buddhas (Pacceka Buddhas) and Arahats. Not only this, there is evidence which proves the Buddha himself agrees to the presence of devās.

    In a question by king Pasenadi, the Buddha replies “Are you unaware of the existence of such devās as Cᾱtummahᾱrᾱjika devās and the Tᾱvatiṃsa devās, that you ask this question?” ( PS III, 359, 22 ). The same texts tells us that in a conversation with Bhᾱradvᾱja, the Buddha says, “It is commonly agreed in the world, Bhᾱradvᾱja, that there are devās”. There is a confusing reference in the Saṅgᾱrava sutta (M II 209-13), where the Buddha evades the Brahman Saṅgᾱrava’s question about the presence of devās. The interesting aspect being that the Brahman asked the question immediately after the Buddha’s statement that devās had approached him and shown great concern about his weak condition during his pre-enlightenment ascetic stage. Now the purpose of the brahmana’s question can only be to ascertain the Buddha’s view on the eternal reality and actual presence of devās although the story told by him necessarily implies that he admitted some sort of existence for them. According to Saṃyutta Nikᾱya, we come to know that king Pasenadi was preparing an elaborate sacrifice to propitiate gods. Certainly they were not the gods described in the Buddhist texts as these gods are neither the objects for the offering of sacrifice nor prayer.

    We find references to Sakka, the king of devās, who had a longer life span compared to the other devās. When Sakka dies, as he is finite his place is taken by another one immediately. The texts quote it as an evidence of Mandhatar’s eminence and greatness that he outlived thirty sakkas, while the texts also refer to those individuals who were born as Sakka a number of times. Even Buddhaghosa relates a story that a Sakka was reborn immediately as he died listening to a discourse of the Buddha, to continue hearing his sermons.

    The canon speaks of a vast number of gods and spirits who assemble when the Buddha was on his death- bed: “In great numbers, Ānanda, are the gods of the ten world-systems assembled together to behold the Tathᾱgata ( Perfected one). For twelve leagues…. there is no spot in size even as the pricking of the point of the tip of a hair which is not pervaded by powerful spirits”. Similarly in the canon elsewhere, vast numbers of gods or other- than-this- worldly forms of appearance are described by Masson (1992).

    But these gods were not necessarily good. An intriguing example here is the case of Māra, the Tempter, who figured so prominently in the life of the Buddha from the time of his Enlightenment until the final passing away. Because of his sensual nature and his intense ill will to prevent and obstruct other beings from gaining their release from saṃsᾱra he is known in Buddhism as Mᾱra and Namuci, the personification of suffering and death. The Buddha invariably refers to him as the Evil one, as sensuality in Buddhism is the greatest cause of bondage. In some Buddhist texts Mᾱra is the name given to a subdivision of devās belonging to the Yama realm.

Besides the reference to gods there are references to thirty one abodes where devās and other beings reside. These could be put in three categories of existence in saṃsᾱra, corresponding to three types of consciousness which are the result of the past kamma. The three categories are: the sense- desire sphere ( kᾱma loka), the fine-material sphere (rūpa loka) and the immaterial, formless sphere (arūpa loka). Alligned with the sense-desire sphere ( kᾱma loka) are the sub-human worlds which include animals. An understanding a nature of these celestial worlds (deva loka) and their significant position is vital to the understanding of the position of gods in the Pali canon. A brief study of the buddhist cosmological system is thus imperative. The thirty one abodes have a nature of their own, in which beings of a particular nature reside. The nature of beings and the abode they dwell in is directly proportional to their kammic life i.e. their stage in the Buddhist spiritual hierarchy.

    The lowest in the rung is the sub human worlds which include realms of inferno or hell, world of demons, unhappy spirits and the animal world. These beings are characterized by unwholesome kamma.

    Above this is the sense-desire or the kᾱma loka which includes the human world, realm of the Four Great Kings, realm of the thirty three devās, Yama devās, devās enjoying pleasures, devās enjoying their own creations or devās enjoying or utilizing the creations of others. On the kammic chart their deeds fall under the category of mixed kamma, predominantly good and very good kamma in the field of worldly, material activity. These are the world of devās of the sense –desire sphere. Superior to this is the Fine material sphere, Rūpa loka, which includes retinue of Brahmā, ministers of Brahmā, world of Great Brahmās, Brahmās of minor luster, Brahmās of infinite luster, world of  radiant Brahmās, Brahmās of minor aura, infinite aura, steady aura, greatly rewarded Brahmās, sensation-less Brahmās designated as Lower Brahmā worlds. Then, come immobile Brahmās, serene Brahmās, beautiful Brahmās, clear-sighted Brahmās and lastly supreme Brahmās designated as Pure Brahmā worlds inhabited by non returners and Arahants. On the spiritual scale their experience entails weak, moderate and full experience of the first, the second, and the third jhāna respectively and the weak, moderate experience of the fourth jhāna. From the immobile Brahmās to the Supreme Brahmās which include in between them serene, beautiful and clear sighted Brahmās are the ones who have experienced the attainment of the fruit of non-returning (Anᾱgᾱmi-phala) with full experience of the fourth jhāna.

    The  most superior  is the Immaterial sphere or the Arūpa loka which includes sphere of the infinity of space, sphere of the infinity of consciousness, sphere of the knowledge of nothingness and the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception designated as the Brahmā worlds of disembodied consciousness (Immaterial sphere). The spiritual achievement at this stage includes the experience of the four Arūpᾱyatana jhānas or the formless sphere absorptions. These are beings having consciousness without material body. The Buddha accepted the existence of the layers of hells beneath, of the world, and of the heavens above-and he accepted all of them as peopled by the forms of appearance which are appropriate to them—for example, Mᾱras and Asurās in the hells below, devās and the Brahmās in the heavens above. So the assemblies of the thirty three Vedic gods, of the Mᾱras and of the Brahmās are accepted in DN.ii.109 as being as real as the assemblies of nobles, brahmins, householders and wanderers.  

    Now the important thing to note about this classification is that their boundaries or limits are absolutely negotiable and communicable. The world of human beings and animals is physically the same world, and is aligned to the sense-desire sphere. Below it , but still in the same dimensional category are spheres of beings in states of far more pronounced degradation, while above it are realms of the sense-desire devās and as the boundaries are not sharp, distinct and impermeable, the kammic angle becomes all the more important and conspicuous as our deeds or for that matter  the Buddhist concept of deedlessness becomes instrumental in getting us a place in any of these categories and our promotion or demotion in this spiritual hierarchy is totally dependent on them.

    This detailing of the Buddhist view of  devās and their relation to Buddhist cosmology is enough to convince us that Early Buddhism had a belief in the presence of the devās- but what kind of devās were they- this is a matter of further probe. The question now arises as to how does one define devās or gods. They surely were not the gods of the then prevalent Brahminic tradition, who luxuriating dwelt in unimaginable opulence and were above any laws of causality, kamma and who were beyond the touch of death as eternality was their essence and they in a way subsumed time and space- a position which was absolutely denied to the ordinary men. According to K.R. Norman (1977: 1), the real problem of Buddhism regarding devās was not in accommodating them into the Buddhist Cosmology but in fitting the eternal gods of the Ṛgveda into the system of saṃsᾱra. But this does not seem to be a plausible view as the gods of the brahminic tradition were immortal beings enjoying incomparable bliss in celestial abodes, enjoying the attributes of omniscience, omnipotence and omnipresence—and the most important of all they were above the effects of kamma- i.e. their lives were absolutely devoid of any bondage to the karmic effect as stated above whereas Buddhist gods were so bound. The Buddha made it clear that devās like all other mortal beings of the saṃsᾱra were subject to death and rebirth. As super or superior men devās had a longer life span than men whereas devās of the Brahminical tradition were immortal and devoid of the concepts of birth and death. Their existence is both timeless and temporal.

    Here M.M.J. Marasinghe (1974:113) therefore asserts and rightly so, that from the standpoint of the Pali canon, it was not Buddhism that changed in order to welcome the gods through the admittance of the gods is a fact. But once they were admitted, they no longer retained anything more than the mere outer shells of the original gods, as they have been completely transformed in their character, status, and relevance in regard to the Buddhist tradition. Marasinghe furthers his argument by saying that “Every single episode of them in the Nikāya texts is an essential item which contributed towards the final accomplishment of their metamorphosis” (1974: 113). Norman further argues that when Buddhist cosmology promulgated the existence of many world systems beside the one in which we live, then as a matter of course since devās were of no importance, each world system was provided with its full complement of devās. Both these views, point to the sheer insignificance of the gods in the Pali canon.                                           

    Ascertaining the importance of gods in the Pali canon is not a matter of much conjecture. The Buddha, it seems accepted their presence to keep up to the moods of the times he preached in but denuding them of all their rights, privileges, magnificence and above all their vital role in the cosmic design of the world viz-a-viz the human lot, he in a way denied their existence, though very subtly. This could be seen as a balancing act between absolute acceptance and complete denial. It is well imaginable how important could be a god who was almost reduced to a level of a bhikkhu or the one who had to seek spiritual guidance from an enlightened one? The belief in gods could be attributed to the later stage as in the Mahᾱyana and Tantric Buddhism, there is more open-ness to discourse upon metaphysical matters than is found in the Pali scriptures.                                                                              

    One is here forced to think that the Buddha was personally against the possible existence of any devās—as in the Aggaῆῆa sutta ( Dīgha Nikᾱya 27), the Buddha explains how theistic religion originated as a result of an error—the error being present in devās of the sense-desire sphere who are not enlightened personalities and are deeply immersed in  the delusion of their godship. Not only this, this error has arisen due to the delusion of the brahmās of the higher spheres too, for the Dīgha Nikaya tells us that Mahā Brahmā imagined himself to be Almighty Brahmā, the Most High, the Invincible One, the Omniscient one, the Ruler, the Lord, the Creator, the Maker, the Perfect One, the Preserver, Controller and Father of all that was and will be. Even when he realized that he was mistaken he continued to maintain the deception before the minor Brahmās of his retinue (abodes 12-14).

    Similarly, in the Titha Sutta A N 3.61, the Buddha clearly states that “reliance and belief” in creation by a supreme being leads to lack of effort and inaction. The Buddha tells his monks who believe that whatever happens in this world is caused by a supreme being’s act of creation—“when one falls back on creation by a supreme being as being essential, monks, there is no desire, no effort (at the thought), ‘This should be done. This should not be done’. When one can’t pin down as a truth or reality what should and should not be done, one dwells bewildered and unprotected.”

    The concept of brahmins guiding the people to achieve oneness with the divine is ridiculed by the Buddha in the Dīgha Nikaya, no.13, Tevijja Sutta as “foolish talk”, as “ridiculous, mere words, a vain and empty thing”. The view that the frequent appearance of the brahminical deities as disciples of the Buddha in the canonical literature was aimed at emphasizing the falsity of the brahminical belief in the power and potentiality of gods also seems more than plausible.

Even if one were to take the Buddhist philosophy into consideration, the concept of the universe and the laws of cause and effect that govern it leave no scope for the idea of a supreme deity in the role of creator or ruler. As the Buddhist causal theory developed, it did not seem necessary for it to deny the existence of a Creator-God, the theory almost automatically excluded the belief in a God-head. 

    In Buddhist thought devās are in no way necessary to Buddhist philosophy. Everything that Buddhism asserts concerning the nature of reality can be stated with equal truth and force without reference to devās or any other class of non human beings. The Buddhist philosophy is a consummate, self-sustaining and self-supporting system, requiring no intervention of supernatural or supra-normal agencies, and not capable of being affected by the presence or absence of beings of a non-human transcendental order.

    On the psychological dimension also where Huston Smith in his book, “The World Religions” points out very appropriately that unlike theistic religions which begin with the notions of god and the creation of the universe, Buddhism begins with the human condition as enumerated in the Four Noble Truths. Buddhism endorses the view that the ultimate foundation or basis of the universe is the mind, which does not require a god or gods, or any external agency to create that mind. The processes of evolving (saṃvatta) and devolving (vivatta) universe are carried on by the mental activities of the sentient beings (the common human beings as contrasted to a super power of the theistic religions) that are a part of it. It is this mind force of a human, not that of any eternal or transcendent god, that cause the physical world to materialize and go through the stages of growth, decay and dissolution.

    Therefore Buddhism lays such emphasis on the immense importance and significance of man- man is the most significant of all beings-man has even more importance and vital role than the Gods as according to the Buddha the road to Nibbāna is open to all and therefore all have the right to godship or Brahmā-ship. And as to answer as to how this is explained-the answer is because the gods are merely enjoying temporarily the results of good actions in the past, but man is the master of his own fate, circumstances and destiny- in the arena of his mind he can conquer numberless cosmological spheres and put an end to saṃsᾱra or the continuity of being, just as did the Buddha. But to do this he must perceive and realize the nature of kamma- the principle that governs his spiritual and material   world.

    As already mentioned before, according to Ȧnguttaranikaaya ( From Burma, Rangoon vol III, no.1; 1952.)  a belief  that the cause of happiness or misery is God, Chance, or Fate leads to inaction. Our spiritual evolution depends upon our spiritual efforts and ourselves alone. The Buddha emphasized that the true knowledge could be gained by oneself, through insight, though it could not be imparted to others. The iddhi, or the so-called “supernatural powers” gained by the Arahats were simply the knowledge of hidden, unknown laws of the universe or the reality and an insight into their utility, but even they were regarded as only another greater obstacle to the attainment of freedom from the continuity of being.  It is a man only who could understand and perceive the state of causality where, space, time or events have any existence. This, a man can understand by direct perception, which means breaking the bonds of relative existence, and acknowledging within oneself the asaṃkhata or unconditioned element. The thinking, reasoning, logical mind, after having consummated its exploration of phenomena and discovering in it absolute elements of impermanence and finding it completely void of any essential, absolute  reality, endeavours to cease the generative impulses or the waves of continuity, and thus bring about final cessation of all processes. This final liberation or cessation of continuity is called Nibbᾱna.

    Not only this, the constant creation-destruction process of the universe too could be understood with reference to man. When a cosmic entity is destroyed by natural or other forces at the end of an aeon (kappa), all that remains of it is a formless Brahmaloka, and it is this sphere which has to act as the potent arena of future rebirths, until a new cycle of the development of the universe (Saṃvatti) takes place according to the Brahmajala Sutta. It could be assumed that beings revolving in the saṃsᾱra are inseparably connected with one particular Cakkavᾱla , the history of which is like that of a living entity, that is to say, it is the history of a causal continuum, not of an individual, abiding, non-causal entity. The implication of this could be understood in an analogy between the individual and the universe. When a human being dies, he leaves nothing behind him but the potential of his kamma, which is instrumental in producing another psycho-physical organism to carry on the similar order of existence of conditioned phenomena, similarly a universe also meets it’s end, but in due course another one starts to assume existence, addressing the same route of cause and effect, through the sum-totality of Kamma , of beings belonging to it. Thus every being in some sense identifies with his cosmic system, his cosmic system with him, until the time he realizes its unreal nature and puts an end to this unreal association by attaining Nibbᾱna.

    Added to this, the Buddhist Texts make it clear that it is only a human being who is capable enough to communicate with the higher realms of being in the fine-material-plane but is possible by only those who have arduously achieved and cultivated the four Jhānas associated with the sphere of infinite space, infinite consciousness, no-thing-ness and neither-perception-nor-non-perception. Hinduism terms it as the “Union with Brahmā”, and it is considered to be Salvation or Nirvana (Nibbᾱna).The Buddha who was a knower of Brahmā as he had on his own made acquaintance with the Brahmā-world, had known the truth about the Godlessness of the world-an achievement that was open to anybody who was ready and prepared to reach the level of the four jhānas. But this truth could not be revealed to them who had not gone beyond the realm of form and they were the ones who were liable to make the mistake of belief in a Creator-God. The Brahmajaala and Aggaῆῆa suttas of the Dīgha Nikᾱya , therefore give us an insight into the potentialities a man could reach in knowing the ultimate truths as did the Buddha himself.         

    Therefore, in any case, there is a clear connection in Buddhist thought between the total kamma of beings taking birth in a given world system and the fate of that system and the fate of that system considered as a physical identity. And since it is our kamma which decides the fate of the Universe, are we not Gods ourselves?  This is precisely the reason why Buddhism has been described as a non- theistic religion by eminent sociologists like Durkheim (T. Ling, 1973: 17). Such definitions have been instrumental in creating a certain confusion with regards to the actual position of not only Buddhism as a theistic or non –theistic religion, but even as a religion for that matter- much to the inconvenience of the scholars who believe that it contains some palpable poly-theistic tendencies. But as Norman (1977:1) says that to a large extent this problem is a non-problem, since it arises only from western scholars attempts to classify Buddhism. He furthers his argument by saying that as soon as one interprets “non-theistic” as meaning “accepting the existence of devās but denying them any causal role in the universe”, then the problem disappears. This view perhaps, is the most pertinent- a view that this piece of writing has been endeavoring to establish. Once devās were denied any causal role, there existed no need to make sacrifices to them, propitiate them. The whole ritualistic paraphernalia which was so meticulously evolved by Brahmanism crumbled down and gave an almost entirely fresh flavor to the new tendency that developed in the sub-continent. A general belief is that Brahmanism had become so much overloaded by bloody sacrifices and elaborate rituals that the religious world of the common people had become almost unaffordable. It was to rid the laity of the burden of such complicated system that a ritual free Buddhism got evolved and to make it ritual free it was imperative to make it God- free. And perhaps it is just a matter of probe that if a religion without God in the conventional sense of the term became so popular and spread so rapidly, are the scholars in the academia justified in defining religion by underlining the necessity of the presence of God in the conventional way or has Buddhism given us a new definition of religion- a religion without God?

    To sum up, we could reiterate Norman’s view (1977:1) that this problem is a non-problem, in the sense that Buddhism is a religion with both the theistic and non- theistic dimensions to it – a unique combination of the presence of Gods and their absence. It is a matter of how we look at it.                                  

Bibliography

1. Buddhadatta Thera, A.P. (1962) Bauddha Darśanaya,2 Vols.  Colombo.

2. Bodhi. (2000) The connected discourses of the Buddha: a new translation of the Saṃyutta Nikᾱya. Oxford: Pali Text Society in association with Wisdom Publications.

3. Swanson, G. E. (1964) The Birth of the Gods.  University of Michigan.

4. Glasenapp, H. von. (1970) Buddhism, a Non-Theistic Religion (English transl.). London.

5.  Smith, H. (1991) The World’s Religions. San Francisco: Harper.

6. Horner, I.B. (1957) Middle Length Sayings, Vol.II. London: Pali Text Society.

7. Norman, K.R. (1977) “The Buddha’s view of devas”, in Beitrage zur Indienforschung (Volume for Waldschmidt), 329-36, (1977).

8. Marasinghe, M.M.J. (1974) Gods in early Buddhism: a study in their social and mythological milieu as depicted in the Nikāyas of the Pāli canon. Vidyalankara Campus University of Sri Lanka (Ceylon), Kelaniya.

9. Kapstein M. T. (2004) The Buddhism Omnibus with an introduction. Oxford University Press.

10. Walshe, M. (1987) Thus have I heard. The long Discourses of the Buddha. London: Wisdom Publications.

11. Wagle, N.K. (1985) “The gods in Early Buddhism in relation to Human  society: An aspect of their Function, Hierarchy, and Rank as depicted in the Nikāya Texts of the Pᾱli Canon”, in New Paths in Buddhist research, ed. Anthony Kennedy Warder, 57-80 (1985)  Acorn Press, Durham, N.C.

12. Nyanaponika.  (1981)  Buddhism and the God Idea .Kandy.

13.  Nyanaponika and Bodhi. (2000)  Aṅguttara Nikᾱya: numerical discourses of the Buddha: an anthology of the suttas from the Aṅguttara Nikᾱya. New Delhi: Vistaar Publications.

14. Collins, S. (1998) Nirvana and other Buddhist felicities. Utopias of the Pali imaginaire, chapter 4, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

15. Ling, T.O. (1962) Buddhism and the Mythology of Evil. London.

16. Ling, T.O. (1973) The Buddha. London.

17. Bhikkhu Nanamoli and Bhikkhu Bodhi (1995) The middle length discourses of the Buddha: a new translation of the Majjhima Nikᾱya, Teachings of The Buddha. Wisdom Publications (Ma).

18. Masson V. M. (1992) History of Civilizations of Central Asia. Paris: UNESCO.