Can AI become a Buddha?

AI-made Buddha

AI Kannon at Kōdai-ji: Mindar

In 2017, Kōdai-ji in Japan introduced an AI Kannon robot named "Mindar," which delivered public lectures on the Heart Sutra. This initiative sparked widespread discussion among international thinkers and religious scholars. On one hand, scholars acknowledged the innovative potential of AI robots in transmitting traditional culture. On the other hand, based on the observed behaviors of devotees such as bowing, praying, and making offerings to Mindar, they also engaged in deeper reflections on the relationship between artificial intelligence and human thought—particularly in the context of Buddhist beliefs.

Robot Mindar
Image Source: Internet

In recent years, the pace of AI development has far exceeded expectations. This leapfrogging progress is collectively driving profound transformations in human social life and even modes of thinking. In fact, once technological achievements born of natural science are applied in society, their impact often transcends the boundaries of a single technological domain, directly touching upon fundamental issues of shared human concern. This naturally grants researchers in the humanities and social sciences a corresponding voice.

Paying homage to the AI robot Mindar  
Image source: Internet

Taking Tibetan society, deeply influenced by Buddhist culture, as an example, the rise of AI has brought a series of new intellectual challenges: If an AI weapon causes death, should its developers or owners bear the guilt? Does performing good or evil deeds in a virtual world created by AI generate real karmic consequences? Does paying homage to an AI robot carry merit? (This resonates with earlier debates such as "whether playing a recording of the Kangyur on loop at home generates merit.") Among these questions, "Can AI achieve enlightenment?" and "Does AI possess Buddha-nature?" remain focal points of discussion among religious scholars. These are essentially different manifestations of the same core issue.

AI-made Buddha

Discussion on "Can AI Achieve Buddhahood"

Early interdisciplinary discussions on religion and AI predominantly emerged from Christian thinkers or philosophical scholars. Systematic reflection and significant scholarly output from the perspective of Buddhist doctrine, however, were pioneered by scholars from Japan, the United States, and other countries. These nations initiated such dialogues over a decade ago. For instance, since 2016, Japanese Buddhist cultural institutions have held large-scale forums for two consecutive years titled "What is a Human Being? — New Dimensions in Defining Humanity," reflecting on topics such as consciousness and the nature of defilements from a scientific perspective. Since 2017, Professor Shigeki Moro of Hanazono University has published multiple works, including "AI, Buddha-Nature, Ethics" and "Does AI Belong to the Six Realms of Existence?" His intellectual lineage can be traced back to the foundational discussions by Masahiro Mori, a pioneer in Japanese robot ethics, in his work "A New Discourse on Buddhism."

In contrast, within domestic academia, Professor Huanhuan He, now teaching at Zhejiang University (influenced by Japanese academic circles), published "Can AI Achieve Buddhahood?" in 2020, which can be regarded as the first specialized treatise by a Chinese Buddhist scholar in this field. Subsequently, Professor Xuesong Zhang of Renmin University of China, continuing this line of thought, authored "An Analysis of the So-Called 'AI Achieving Buddhahood' Question" in 2024, offering a more systematic philosophical examination of related issues. Additionally, some discussions exploring the topic from the perspective of Yogācāra (Consciousness-Only) philosophy can also be found online.

AI-made

A summary of the above research can be presented as follows: Scholars represented by Masahiro Mori and Shigeki Moro often base their arguments on the rigorous Theravāda Buddhist tradition of mind-consciousness analysis, such as that found in the Sarvāstivāda school. They tend to believe that AI lacks the key attributes of sentient beings, such as the ālayavijñāna (storehouse consciousness), and therefore it is difficult to discuss its potential for enlightenment. He Huanhuan cited their views in her article "Can AI Achieve Buddhahood?" There is also a vivid dialogue that reflects both sides of the argument: a Japanese elder once asserted that all robots are enemies of humanity, while a Buddhist scholar countered that robots, being free from the three poisons of greed, anger, and ignorance, might actually be closer to the essence of Buddha-nature. In his article "An Analysis of the So-Called 'AI Achieving Buddhahood' Question," Zhang Xuesong further pointed out that the value of this debate lies not so much in "condemning" or "predicting enlightenment" for AI, but rather in compelling us to reexamine fundamental concepts such as "mind," "consciousness," and "life" in this new era. Of course, some critics argue that "AI achieving Buddhahood" is merely a pseudo-proposition born of conceptual confusion. However, it is precisely such sharp questioning that highlights the necessity for deeper analysis. He Huanhuan even raised a more forward-looking question in her article: In the future, might Maitreya Bodhisattva manifest in the form of an AI robot?

At present, scholars within the Buddhist community in mainland China have not yet published specialized papers on this topic. However, some insightful individuals have pointed out that, with the rapid advancement of technology, the question of whether consciousness can inhabit an AI carrier cannot be easily dismissed.

AI-made Robot Studying Buddhist Scriptures

Starting with AlphaGo

Anyone familiar with the field of artificial intelligence will certainly remember the global sensation caused in 2016 when the first generation of AlphaGo defeated South Korean Go player Lee Sedol. Two years later, AlphaGo's second generation crushed Ke Jie, the world's top-ranked Chinese Go player, with an undefeated record, sparking even deeper shock at a societal level. Many media headlines at the time read: "The victory of the first-generation AlphaGo was a triumph for humanity, while the victory of the second-generation AlphaGo was a profound defeat for humankind." Where does this statement come from?

Lee Sedol vs. AlphaGo
Image Source: Internet

The reason lies in the fundamentally different learning logic of the two generations of AlphaGo. The first generation's learning was built upon all historical Go game records, essentially aggregating the collective wisdom of human Go players. Its victory over Lee Sedol can be seen as the transcendence of collective human intelligence over individual elite intelligence.

Ke Jie vs. AlphaGo II
Image source: Internet

However, the learning mechanism of AlphaGo II is fundamentally different. The developers only input the rules of Go and allowed it to discover winning strategies through self-play. By learning from countless failures, it developed a completely novel set of strategies that transcend the entire history of human Go. Its moves are not only unconventional but also represent a dimensionally superior approach in efficiency compared to human Go principles. It is precisely this aspect that has triggered profound anxiety over whether AI intelligence has already surpassed human rationality. AlphaGo’s demonstration of “learning without a teacher” challenges humanity’s monopoly over the understanding of the sources of "learning" and "wisdom." Meanwhile, the question of "whether AI can achieve Buddhahood" goes even further, challenging our monopoly over the definition of the nature of "enlightenment" and "consciousness." Together, both point to a core issue: Are we prepared to accept a non-human form of intelligence that reaches or even surpasses human cognitive capabilities in specific dimensions?

AI and Go  
Image source: Internet

The essence of the problem

Finally, we must still return to the fundamental question: why is it necessary to explore this issue? This is precisely the original intention behind writing this article. The ultimate focus of the discussion on "whether AI can achieve Buddhahood" appears to be directed at machines, but in reality, it reflects humanity itself. Seeking a definitive answer may not be the key—indeed, there may be no answer at all. What matters is that, in the process of inquiry, we cannot avoid a more urgent proposition: in an era of technological explosion, how should human subjectivity, dignity, and value be demonstrated and defended? This is no longer solely a topic for religious scholars but a shared ethical responsibility for all contemporary thinkers.

Another easily overlooked significance lies in the fact that, through such reflection, humanities scholars can engage in technological practices from their unique perspectives. For example, in the field of global technology ethics, standard-setting organizations such as IEEE (the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers in the United States) are already exploring how to translate multicultural values, including Buddhist principles like "non-harming" and "compassion," into specific ethical guidelines that can be embedded in algorithm design. This not only guides emerging technologies to better integrate with social ethics and cultural traditions but also represents a way for traditional culture to revitalize its vitality in the digital age and participate in shaping the future. Thus, this discussion on AI and Buddha-nature serves as both a mirror for examining technology and, in its cool light, forces us to recognize in its reflection a figure both familiar and unfamiliar—humanity itself.

AI-made Buddha

References:
Masahiro Mori: "A New Discourse on Buddhism";
Shigeki Moro: "AI, Buddha-Nature, Ethics";
He Huanhuan: "Can AI Achieve Buddhahood?";
Zhang Xuesong: "An Analysis of the So-Called 'AI Achieving Buddhahood' Question."