Could an AI Ever Attain Buddhahood?

In 2017, the Japanese temple Kōdai-ji unveiled an AI Kannon robot named "Mindar" that gave public talks on the Heart Sutra. This move generated extensive debate among religious scholars and international thinkers, who, on one hand, recognized the creative potential of AI robots in carrying forward traditional culture.

In recent years, the pace of artificial intelligence advancement has surpassed all projections, and this leapfrogging progress is collectively driving profound changes in human social life and even in ways of thinking. At the same time, observers noted that devotees who bowed, prayed, and made offerings to Mindar were not only engaging in these acts but also reflecting more deeply on the connection between AI and human cognition, especially within the context of Buddhist beliefs.

Indeed, researchers in the humanities and social sciences naturally gain a corresponding voice when technological achievements born of natural science are applied in society, as their impact often goes beyond the bounds of a single technological field, directly touching on fundamental issues of common concern to humanity.

The advent of AI has created fresh intellectual challenges, as seen in Tibetan society, which is strongly shaped by Buddhist culture. If an AI weapon takes a life, are its developers or owners morally accountable? Do good or bad deeds performed inside an AI-generated virtual world lead to genuine karmic consequences? And does venerating an AI robot bestow any merit?

Two questions—“Can AI achieve enlightenment?” and “Does AI possess Buddha-nature?”—remain focal among religious scholars. These are fundamentally the same concern expressed in different ways. Earlier debates, like “whether playing a recording of the Kangyur on loop at home generates merit,” resonate with this issue. In the discussion on “Can AI Achieve Buddhahood,” early interdisciplinary work on religion and AI chiefly came from Christian thinkers or philosophical scholars.

More than a decade ago, scholars from Japan, the United States, and elsewhere pioneered systematic reflection and significant scholarly output from the standpoint of Buddhist doctrine, thus launching such dialogues. Since 2016, for instance, Japanese Buddhist cultural institutions have, for two consecutive years, organized large-scale forums titled "What is a Human Being? — New Dimensions in Defining Humanity," discussing topics including consciousness and the nature of defilements through a scientific lens.

Within domestic academia, Professor Huanhuan He, who currently teaches at Zhejiang University and has been influenced by Japanese academic circles, released "Can AI Achieve Buddhahood?" in 2020—a work regarded as the first specialized treatise by a Chinese Buddhist scholar in this field. By contrast, Shigeki Moro of Hanazono University, whose intellectual roots stretch back to the foundational discussions of Masahiro Mori—a pioneer in Japanese robot ethics—in "A New Discourse on Buddhism," has published several works since 2017, including "AI, Buddha-Nature, Ethics" and "Does AI Belong to the Six Realms of Existence?

In 2024, Professor Xuesong Zhang of Renmin University of China built on this line of inquiry by writing the article "An Analysis of the So-Called 'AI Achieving Buddhahood' Question," which provides a more systematic philosophical treatment of the relevant issues. Online, there are also discussions that approach the topic through Yogācāra (Consciousness-Only) philosophy.

Masahiro Mori and Shigeki Moro, among other scholars, typically argue from the strict Theravāda Buddhist framework of mind-consciousness analysis—exemplified by the Sarvāstivāda school—and conclude that AI does not possess essential sentient-being attributes like ālayavijñāna (storehouse consciousness). Consequently, they find it difficult to discuss AI's potential for enlightenment. This can serve as a summary of the above research.

A vivid dialogue captures both sides of the debate: a Japanese elder once said that all robots are enemies of humanity, while a Buddhist scholar responded that robots, being free from the three poisons of greed, anger, and ignorance, may be closer to the essence of Buddha-nature. He Huanhuan mentions these views in her article "Can AI Achieve Buddhahood?

Some critics contend that "AI achieving Buddhahood" is merely a pseudo-proposition arising from conceptual confusion. In his article "An Analysis of the So-Called 'AI Achieving Buddhahood' Question," however, Zhang Xuesong further observed that the debate's real value lies less in "condemning" or "predicting enlightenment" for AI than in prompting us to reconsider foundational ideas such as "mind," "consciousness," and "life" in this new era.

To date, no specialized papers on this subject have been published by Buddhist scholars in mainland China. In her article, He Huanhuan posed an even more forward-looking question: might Maitreya Bodhisattva one day manifest as an AI robot? It is precisely such pointed inquiries that underscore the need for more thorough analysis.

Nevertheless, as technology advances at a rapid pace, certain perceptive observers have argued that the prospect of consciousness residing within an AI host should not be readily dismissed. Those acquainted with artificial intelligence will surely recall the worldwide uproar in 2016, when the original AlphaGo triumphed over South Korean Go player Lee Sedol—an early illustration of this very issue.

The reason behind that statement arises from the fundamentally divergent learning logic of the two AlphaGo versions. After two years, the second-generation AlphaGo defeated Ke Jie, the world’s top-ranked Go player from China, without a single loss, triggering even deeper societal shock. Many news headlines at the time proclaimed: " 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.

The learning mechanism of AlphaGo II is fundamentally unlike that of the first generation. For the first generation, training drew upon the complete body of recorded Go games, effectively combining the shared wisdom of human players. Its win against Lee Sedol can thus be viewed as collective human intelligence surpassing that of one exceptional individual. By contrast, AlphaGo II's developers provided nothing more than the game's rules, leaving it to develop effective strategies entirely through self-play.

A completely original set of strategies, surpassing the entire history of human Go, was developed through learning from countless mistakes. In terms of efficiency, its moves are not only unorthodox but also reflect a dimensional advantage over human Go principles. And precisely this quality has led to profound unease about whether AI intelligence has already exceeded human rationality.

Are we prepared to accept a non-human intelligence that, in specific dimensions, attains or exceeds human cognitive abilities? This core issue is raised by both AlphaGo's "learning without a teacher"—which undermines humanity's exclusive grasp on the origins of "learning" and "wisdom"—and the even more far-reaching question of "whether AI can achieve Buddhahood," which contests our sole authority over the essence of "enlightenment" and "consciousness.

At its core, the fundamental question remains: why does this issue require exploration at all? That was exactly the reason this article was written. While the debate over "whether AI can achieve Buddhahood" seems on the surface to concern machines, its true target is humanity. Arriving at a fixed answer is likely not the essential point; indeed, no such answer may ever exist.

Another significance that is easy to overlook: through such reflection, humanities scholars can take part in technological practice from their own particular standpoints. At the same time, during any inquiry, we inevitably face a more urgent issue: in an era marked by technological explosion, what is the proper way to express and protect human subjectivity, dignity, and value? This question is no longer limited to religious academics; it constitutes a shared ethical obligation for all present-day thinkers.

In the global technology ethics field, an ongoing effort by standard-setting organizations—like IEEE (the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers in the United States)—involves exploring how multicultural values, including Buddhist principles such as "non-harming" and "compassion," can be translated into specific ethical guidelines that can be embedded in algorithm design.

By offering traditional culture a way to reinvigorate itself in the digital age and help shape the future, this simultaneously steers emerging technologies toward greater harmony with social ethics and cultural traditions. Consequently, in its cool light, this discussion on AI and Buddha-nature serves as a mirror for examining technology, compelling us to recognize in the reflection a figure at once known and strange—humanity itself.