Did Lord Buddha Say God Didn't Exist, Or Just Wasn't Important?

[Brucenkhamen]

One of the bosses (owners son) made terrible decisions and treated his workers like they were machines with no feelings. At first I was vocal voicing my opinion. I quickly learned that being vocal was not a effective way to change things. During a meeting with several of the Thai engineers, I was upset that one of my recommendations was ignored. I then made the statement that if the boss had not been born rich, he would have starved to death by now. The meeting room became deathly still. The best engineer of the group sat beside me and explained that I had insulted their boss and their religion. I was told that the boss was a VERY good man in his previous life/lives and being born wealthy was his just reward. I then asked if that meant that the boss could do no wrong and that was greeted with nods and smiles. That group of guys are highly educated and very Buddhist. They will shape the future of Thailand. I found that quite alarming. I was forced to change my methods and did become more effective because of it. It certainly wasn't easy because I was very prone to yell and scream when someone did something stupid. Maybe they are correct. My pulse rate slowed and my high blood pressure dropped considerably.

A good example of how religion can be misunderstood, twisted, corrupted, and used by powerful people to suppress the weak... welcome to Thailand.

Christians and Muslims don't have a monopoly on this kind of thing.

You'll find much of what goes on in thailand in the name of Buddhism is not, but there is good out there too if you want to find it.

[Ajarn_Jonesy]

Just have to say. I find this a very informative and educating forum. In particular for someone like me who is looking for something more in my life. Keep up the good work.

P.S.

I always new Nirvana was more than just great music:) --lol

[dog412]

My personal opinion is that organized religion is the worst threat mankind has ever faced

Strange off topic remark to make on an organised religion forum.

you may be right, but i have to admit i agree with his opinion, and also state i do not feel it to be off topic. belief systems are just WAY too slow to evolve to the constant changing of day to day "advances".

[Plus]

As to who created the universe, and who created the one that created that... and so on...

It only works when cetain conditions already exist - there's a time and space.

The general idea was that God has "created" those conditions.

Try to figure what was before the Big Bang. You can't. There was no concept of "before".

Actually the causes and effects as we see them are not that simple either. If you were moving with a sufficient speed you'd see them in reverse.

Time is a clever idea to keep us in illusion that everything progresses from past to future.

[Neeranam]

As to who created the universe, and who created the one that created that... and so on...

It only works when cetain conditions already exist - there's a time and space.

The general idea was that God has "created" those conditions.

Try to figure what was before the Big Bang. You can't. There was no concept of "before".

Actually the causes and effects as we see them are not that simple either. If you were moving with a sufficient speed you'd see them in reverse.

Time is a clever idea to keep us in illusion that everything progresses from past to future.

Time is cyclic. Well so I believe.

[Austhaied]

All faiths, he said, are paths to God. "We are all the image of God."

The Dalai Lama and Thich Nhat Hanh say things like this to make Jews, Christians and Muslims feel more comfortable about godless Buddhists.

Do you really think so? Would he not say it because he believed it to be true?

I don't think it's a case of believing it is true or not true. He is trying to see Buddhism (which definitely has no creator God) from what he thinks could be a theist perspective. Thich Nhat Hanh has equated nirvana with the Kingdom of God. I can see the vague similarities he is trying to promote (for good reasons), but in doing so he is obscuring the fact that nirvana is very different.

Is there any similarity between nirvana and 'the peace that passeth all understanding'?

At the end of the day the are exactly the same..

Just different vehicles / destinations..

[Austhaied]

Speaking as a buddhist with no necessary belief in "God", I must say that I've found Buddhism as it is practised to be very similar to Catholicism, another religion I have tremendous respect for. Service work, prayer, meditation, counting prayer beads, sermons, emphasis on moral integrity, spiritual community, confirmation and ordination rites of passage, etc. are very similar in both religions. Its no wonder that the more open-minded of both religions have enjoyed the benefit of much inter-faith dialogue over the years. No need to start a debating society over the subtle differences; just enjoy the commonalities and explore your spiritual universe knowing that you have spiritual friends in many, many places!

Very profound.

And so very brilliant.

Namaste to you sunrise07.

Now, if you could just get the rest of humanity to follow we would be okey dokey....

[JimsKnight]

First to answer the OP:

I don't think Buddha considered himself a god so I don't think he wanted others to think of his teachings as a religion, more a philosophy on 'doing the right thing' and trying to find the answers yourself, thus making yourself a better person and keeping religion per sa separate.

Off Topic.

Gary A,

Christianity, Islam and Judism tend to be a very clear religion considering the time that they were written and first practiced. The various holy books out there are usually a great aid to folk wanting answers. scriptures and so on. There is a highly personalised 'belonging' to something and people who are of these religions and they tend to have a strong faith and guiding principles in life. Fairplay, not being a 'bad' person, a decent approach to the afterlife - You're bad you go here, you're good you go there, not so good stay here awhile etc etc. The fact that these are (unfortunately) often opposed to other religions and abused to start war is one of lifes challenges and the nature of people, not the religion itself.

Maybe I read into some of the posts to much (in the Buddhism section in general) a vehicle for making sly digs at other faiths. Namely Christianity.

Is it me or is there a subliminal 'disrespect christianity, while championing Buddhism?' vibe that I sometimes pick up in some members posts?

I know this is going OT moderators but as we don't have a Christianity section to voice this matter, when personal opinions come out If think it's only right folk like Canuckamuck and myself come on to present the 'other' side of the argument by giving our own personal opinions from time to time

/Off Topic.

Be cool folks.

Edited October 25, 2007 by JimsKnight

[Plus]

As to who created the universe, and who created the one that created that... and so on...

It only works when cetain conditions already exist - there's a time and space.

The general idea was that God has "created" those conditions.

Try to figure what was before the Big Bang. You can't. There was no concept of "before".

Actually the causes and effects as we see them are not that simple either. If you were moving with a sufficient speed you'd see them in reverse.

Time is a clever idea to keep us in illusion that everything progresses from past to future.

Time is cyclic. Well so I believe.

Do you mean that the universe expands and contracts periodically so there appear to be "cycles"? Could be, but the thing to remember is that there's no time between these cycles - it's not like "3,2,1 - Big Bang".

For someone on the "outside" it looks like a video playback - it has a timeline on its own but you are not affected by it. You can rewind or go fast forward or watch instant replays. The folks "inside" the movie would honestly act out these replays as if for the first time in their lives. They can't possibly jump back or forward.

Add some interactivity like in video games and you have God enjoying his creation and us playing it out for him.

>>>>

What that ultimately means is that by definition there's no God in anything we see or study (really stupid of Dawson to write a whole book about it). God exists way beyond our perception and if there's such thing as a soul, it also exists outside our plane.

Generally Buddhism stops at discovering Nirvana but I don't see that in principle there can't also be God. At least some Buddhist text hint at the possibility.

The elusive concept of "life" seems to be best indication that there's something else apart form atoms and electrons flying around by the force of gravity.

[jumnien]

Speaking as a buddhist with no necessary belief in "God", I must say that I've found Buddhism as it is practised to be very similar to Catholicism, another religion I have tremendous respect for. Service work, prayer, meditation, counting prayer beads, sermons, emphasis on moral integrity, spiritual community, confirmation and ordination rites of passage, etc. are very similar in both religions. Its no wonder that the more open-minded of both religions have enjoyed the benefit of much inter-faith dialogue over the years. No need to start a debating society over the subtle differences; just enjoy the commonalities and explore your spiritual universe knowing that you have spiritual friends in many, many places!

Very profound.

And so very brilliant.

Namaste to you sunrise07.

Now, if you could just get the rest of humanity to follow we would be okey dokey....

Thanks! We'll work on getting the rest of humanity onboard first thing in the morning!

[Brucenkhamen]

Maybe I read into some of the posts to much (in the Buddhism section in general) a vehicle for making sly digs at other faiths. Namely Christianity. Is it me or is there a subliminal 'disrespect christianity, while championing Buddhism?' vibe that I sometimes pick up in some members posts? I know this is going OT moderators but as we don't have a Christianity section to voice this matter, when personal opinions come out If think it's only right folk like Canuckamuck and myself come on to present the 'other' side of the argument by giving our own personal opinions from time to time

I think subliminal 'disrespect Christianity, while championing Buddhism' vibe you pick up is more a subjective interpretation rather what is actually happening.

The question was asked "Did the Buddha say there wasn't a God or it wasn't important", now if there were a lot of people who have had experiences with Hinduism or Islam they'd probably draw on that to answer the question, but I suspect the vast majority have only really had experience with Buddhism and Christianity which is why the latter started appearing as a contrast.

Now the forum is about Buddhism, so it's not appropriate to talk about other teachings other than in comparing and contrasting with Buddhism. Which I think this topic proceeded to do until one or two people took a couple of statements regarding Christianity more literally and personally than they were intended.

Personally I'm not interested in my brand is better than your brand type discussions. Really what this topic was about was "Is a theistic approach compatible with the Buddhas teachings?" I'd say yes. "Does a theistic approach enhance or detract from following the Buddhas teachings" I'm not sure but am inclined to think it detracts as it encourages delusion. Now if someone here is actively practicing a theistic religion as well as practicing the Buddhas teachings or meditation techniques I'd like to hear their experiences, as so far they've been silent. On the other hand the approach of some Buddhist schools, Tibetan or Pure Land for example, borders on theism so the two obviously can work together.

At the end of the day if there are people on this forum who don't really want to discuss Buddhism other than to promote an alternative, and get offended at small generalisations about their views on life then perhaps they need a forum of their own. Though I'd be disappointed if they were made to feel unwelcome and stopped contributing here.

[Grover]

Maybe I read into some of the posts to much (in the Buddhism section in general) a vehicle for making sly digs at other faiths. Namely Christianity.

Is it me or is there a subliminal 'disrespect christianity, while championing Buddhism?' vibe that I sometimes pick up in some members posts?

According to the Pali scriptures, the Buddhas answer to the OP question was that God is not very important to Buddhism. If anyone dismisses the importance of God like this does it amount to disrespect ? For some monotheistic religions, yes.

I am agnostic, and if a monotheist calls me an "infidel" or an "unbeliever" it doesnt bother me in the least, despite the disrespectful meaning put behind it. But when I say to them that God is not important to me and that I don't really believe in him/her, they often get defensive or tense, silently mumbling "unbeliever", as if I have challenged the very foundation of their lives and religion, which is in fact what I have done unintentionally.

[amal2029]

Here is a good little Dalai Lama quote on God:

Buddhism, the world's fourth-largest organized religion, is based on nonviolence that abhors killing any living thing. Yet Buddhism also has to contend with its own extremists. A group known as the Armed Front for the Defense of Sinhalese has been connected to violence against Muslims in Sri Lanka. Many Sinhalese, who are mostly Buddhists, see themselves engaged in a struggle for political and economic power against the minority Tamils, who are mostly Hindus. This has led some to resort to violence to advance the cause of Buddhists in the region.

So, you must be an expert on SriLankan issues... .May I know where this "Armed Front for the Defense of Sinhalese" came from? Do you know exactly who made them and how it functions? Since you’re brave enough to post this (something that you don't have a clue), I guess you have enough evidence to share with us. So the violence in SriLanka because Sinhalese are Buddhists? And all the tamils are pussy cats? So, Sinhalese should become Christians, Hindus or even Muslims to stop the violence and give the SriLanka to all the F#####s who want a piece of it !! You are suppose to comment on the God and Buddhism, not other countries social problems.....Stick into the point. People like you are worst than tamil terrorist

[Brucenkhamen]

According to the Pali scriptures, the Buddhas answer to the OP question was that God is not very important to Buddhism. If anyone dismisses the importance of God like this does it amount to disrespect ? For some monotheistic religions, yes.

I am agnostic, and if a monotheist calls me an "infidel" or an "unbeliever" it doesnt bother me in the least, despite the disrespectful meaning put behind it. But when I say to them that God is not important to me and that I don't really believe in him/her, they often get defensive or tense, silently mumbling "unbeliever", as if I have challenged the very foundation of their lives and religion, which is in fact what I have done unintentionally.

Very well put Grover.

[Brucenkhamen]

So, you must be an expert on SriLankan issues... .May I know where this "Armed Front for the Defense of Sinhalese" came from? Do you know exactly who made them and how it functions? Since you’re brave enough to post this (something that you don't have a clue), I guess you have enough evidence to share with us. So the violence in SriLanka because Sinhalese are Buddhists? And all the tamils are pussy cats? So, Sinhalese should become Christians, Hindus or even Muslims to stop the violence and give the SriLanka to all the F#####s who want a piece of it !! You are suppose to comment on the God and Buddhism, not other countries social problems.....Stick into the point. People like you are worst than tamil terrorist

I think you missed that the posting was a quote from the Dalai Lama. So assuming the quote is genuine, and you have no reason to believe it isn't, you need to address your questions to the Dalai Lama not the person who posted it here. Or you could ask the poster why he thought it was a good thing to post.

[jumnien]

So, you must be an expert on SriLankan issues... .May I know where this "Armed Front for the Defense of Sinhalese" came from? Do you know exactly who made them and how it functions? Since you’re brave enough to post this (something that you don't have a clue), I guess you have enough evidence to share with us. So the violence in SriLanka because Sinhalese are Buddhists? And all the tamils are pussy cats? So, Sinhalese should become Christians, Hindus or even Muslims to stop the violence and give the SriLanka to all the F#####s who want a piece of it !! You are suppose to comment on the God and Buddhism, not other countries social problems.....Stick into the point. People like you are worst than tamil terrorist

I think you missed that the posting was a quote from the Dalai Lama. So assuming the quote is genuine, and you have no reason to believe it isn't, you need to address your questions to the Dalai Lama not the person who posted it here. Or you could ask the poster why he thought it was a good thing to post.

I believe that if you go back to the original quote, you will see in bold print a far more relevant observation by the Dalai Lama, at least relevant to this thread.

[mark henry]

Speaking as a buddhist with no necessary belief in "God", I must say that I've found Buddhism as it is practised to be very similar to Catholicism, another religion I have tremendous respect for. Service work, prayer, meditation, counting prayer beads, sermons, emphasis on moral integrity, spiritual community, confirmation and ordination rites of passage, etc. are very similar in both religions. Its no wonder that the more open-minded of both religions have enjoyed the benefit of much inter-faith dialogue over the years. No need to start a debating society over the subtle differences; just enjoy the commonalities and explore your spiritual universe knowing that you have spiritual friends in many, many places!

I enjoyed reading this very much, it reminds me of some thing i read by the Dalai Lama, he talked about it not being important what religion you followed as long as you lead a "good" and honourable life. In fact he suggested people from non buddhist countries don't try to convert to buddhisim rather practice an honourable life within the confines of their own countries culture/religion.

I found this so useful as i like the concepts of Buddhisim but feel strangely uncomfortable calling myself a buddhist! So now i have my feet in both camps and with an open mind.

[Brucenkhamen]

I believe that if you go back to the original quote, you will see in bold print a far more relevant observation by the Dalai Lama, at least relevant to this thread.

That would be this one; All faiths, he said, are paths to God. "We are all the image of God." and yes it is more relevant.

At first glance, or if one had a literal mind, this could be interpreted that the Dalai Lama would like to confirm that God exists despite the Buddha refusing to confirm or deny.

Looking at the quote in context, here for example http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2006/...53d44e87a6.html you can see he is addressing conflicts between religions, and religious extremism.

So I'd say what he is saying is it doesn't really matter if God exists or not, or what practices or path you undertake, all paths are intended to lead to the same thing, and that's what matters. This is in line with your comparison between Buddhism and Catholicism also.

This brings me back to the point I was trying to make earlier in this thread that it doesn't matter what you believe as long as you hold those beliefs lightly with an open mind. When beliefs become rigid and not open to scrutiny and the attitude that non-believers are damned arises then that's where problems start.

[Plus]

it doesn't matter what you believe as long as you hold those beliefs lightly with an open mind

That's not how believes work, imo.

On the contrary you should be very firm in your believes so that a minute contact with "infidels" doesn't shatter you to death.

All these violent reactions and confrontational attitudes are often signs of people's own weak faith.

[Brucenkhamen]

That's not how believes work, imo.

On the contrary you should be very firm in your believes so that a minute contact with "infidels" doesn't shatter you to death.

All these violent reactions and confrontational attitudes are often signs of people's own weak faith.

I don't really see it that way.

All these violent reactions and confrontational attitudes are often signs of people's own weak character, not their weak faith. Sure if they have doubts and feel they have something to prove, maybe that is because of weak faith, and can lead to the sorts of things you are talking about.

But surely an open mind is the remedy for that, not brain washing.

[skycop51]

From what little I know, is that Buddah is not a God. He was merly a monk who prayed, did good and reached Nirvana.

Did Lord Buddha Say God Didn't Exist, Or Just Wasn't Important?

[Plus]

That's not how believes work, imo.

On the contrary you should be very firm in your believes so that a minute contact with "infidels" doesn't shatter you to death.

All these violent reactions and confrontational attitudes are often signs of people's own weak faith.

All these violent reactions and confrontational attitudes are often signs of people's own weak character, not their weak faith.

But surely an open mind is the remedy for that, not brain washing.

These reactions are not "personal", they are societal.

Every organized religion is obliged to protect the faith of its members. Organized religion's main task is to build faith in large sections of society from scratch, either from childhood of from the moment of "conversion". That means that by design there's a large proportion of its members whose faith is weak and faltering - they are the ones who need to be protected first.

"Infidels" presense shows disregard for priniciples that believers hold dear. Some immediately get confused (neophites), others are not disturbed at all (advanced) but realise the danger for neophites. There are adherents in between who feel disturbance within themselves and fight back, often zelously. Maybe you can call it a weak character or weak faith, but you can be reasonably sure that, for example, 20% will turn violent.

At this moment it depends on how many advanced members are there and if they can keep situation under control. Basically it depends on religion's overall strength as percentages are interrelated.

>>>>

There's no place for open mindedness in religion. Once you made your choice you have to stick to it and close your mind to everything else. Every religious practice is all about control of your mind, from buddhism to Christians "resistance to temptation" to chanting and meditation. On advanced levels it works a bit differently, but you can't possibly get there without passing the "strict" stage first. Don't try to copy Dalai Lama or Gandhi, you are not there yet (no offence meant).

Back to topic - Buddha might have told his most advanced followers about existence of God and creation of the universe, but for us, the common folk, these questions "do not lead to enlightement". Learn to walk before run.

[Brucenkhamen]

These reactions are not "personal", they are societal... Don't try to copy Dalai Lama or Gandhi, you are not there yet (no offence meant).

Well, you make a strong case for banning religion altogether.

While the symptoms you describe are evidenced in all religious societies to some degree I don't think the original teachers ever meant it to turn out that way.

Certainly from what I've seen practicing the Buddhas teachings in the spirit that they were intended with an honest heart doesn't lead to the sorts of things you describe.

[chownah]

AS far as I know the Buddha is never reported to have made any mention of God with capital G.

[Plus]

We have no idea what the original religious teachers had in mind for the whole society.

None of them left notes on how the followers should organize themselves after their passing.

>>>

Religion doesn't become organized by decrees, it becomes organized when its followers try to regulate themselves as a society. The resulting problems have nothing to do with religions per se - any human organization behaves in exactly the same way, from political parties to football fan clubs.

[suegha]

We have no idea what the original religious teachers had in mind for the whole society.

None of them left notes on how the followers should organize themselves after their passing.

>>>

Religion doesn't become organized by decrees, it becomes organized when its followers try to regulate themselves as a society. The resulting problems have nothing to do with religions per se - any human organization behaves in exactly the same way, from political parties to football fan clubs.

Good point plus. Human nature comes to the fore and then they have the inevitable split where they can't agree. They try to force there views on others regardless of, as you say, what the original teacher said.

You can't find any words of Jesus on the 'organisational' side of things, yet many of his 'followers' nail their colours to the mast and insist that everyone else do the same - in the same way as they do! They so often fail to follow after the teachings saying 'Love your enemies', 'pray for those who use you', 'if your enemy is cold and naked, clothe and feed him, 'visit the fatherless and the widows', etc.

[luangpohbill]

All faiths, he said, are paths to God. "We are all the image of God."

The Dalai Lama and Thich Nhat Hanh say things like this to make Jews, Christians and Muslims feel more comfortable about godless Buddhists.

Thanks Camerata, I always love it when you come into these forums on Buddhism.

You kind of put everything back into it's proper perspective.

[sabaijai]

The Buddha on the So-Called Creator God

"I count your Brahma one th' unjust among,

Who made a world in which to shelter wrong."

-- JĀTAKA

The Pāli equivalent for the Creator-God in other religions is either Issara (Samskrit -- isvara) or Brahma. In the Tipitaka there is absolutely no reference whatever to the existence of a God. On several occasions the Buddha denied the existence of a permanent soul (Attā). As to the denial of a Creator-God, there are only a few references. Buddha never admitted the existence of a Creator whether in the form of a force or a being.

Despite the fact that the Buddha placed no supernatural God over man some scholars assert that the Buddha was characteristically silent on this important controversial question.

The following quotations will clearly indicate the viewpoint of the Buddha towards the concept of a Creator-God.

In the Anguttara Nikāya the Buddha speaks of three divergent views that prevailed in His time. One of these was: "Whatever happiness or pain or neutral feeling this person experiences all that is due to the creation of a Supreme Deity (Issaranimmānahetu) [1]"

According to this view we are what we were willed to be by a Creator. Our destinies rest entirely in his hands. Our fate is pre-ordained by him. The supposed freewill granted to his creation is obviously false.

Criticising this fatalistic view, the Buddha says: "So, then, owing to the creation of a Supreme Deity men will become murderers, thieves, unchaste, liars, slanderers, abusive, babblers, covetous, malicious and perverse in view. Thus for those who fall back on the creation of a God as the essential reason, there is neither desire nor effort nor necessity to do this deed or abstain from that deed. [2]"

In the Devadaha Sutta [3] the Buddha, referring to the self-mortification of naked ascetics, remarks: "If, O Bhikkhus, beings experience pain and happiness as the result of God's creation (Issaranimmānahetu), then certainly these naked ascetics must have been created by a wicked God (pāpakena issarena), since they suffer such terrible pain."

Kevaddha Sutta narrates a humorous conversation that occurred between an inquisitive Bhikkhu and the supposed Creator.

A Bhikkhu, desiring to know the end of the elements, approached Mahā Brahma and questioned him thus:

"Where, my friend, do the four great elements -- earth, water, fire and air -- cease, leaving no trace behind?"

To this The Great Brahma replied:

"I, brother, am Brahma, Great Brahma, the Supreme Being, the Unsurpassed, the Chief, the Victor, the Ruler, the Father of all beings who have been or are to be."

For the second time the Bhikkhu repeated his question, and the Great Brahma gave the same dogmatic reply.

When the Bhikkhu questioned him for the third time, the Great Brahma took the Bhikkhu by the arm, led him aside, and made a frank utterance:

"O Brother, these gods of my suite believe as follows: 'Brahma sees all things, knows all things, has penetrated all things.' Therefore, was it that I did not answer you in their presence. I do not know, O brother, where these four great elements -- earth, water, fire and air -- cease, leaving no trace behind. Therefore it was an evil and a crime, O brother, that you left the Blessed One, and went elsewhere in quest of an answer to this question. Turn back, O brother, and having drawn near to the Blessed One, ask Him this question, and as the Blessed One shall explain to you so believe."

Tracing the origin of Mahā Brahma, the so-called Creator-God, the Buddha comments in the Pātika Sutta. [4]

"On this, O disciples, that being who was first born (in a new world evolution) thinks thus: 'I am Brahma, the Great Brahma, the Vanquisher, the All-Seer, the Disposer, the Lord, the Maker, the Creator, the Chief, the Assigner, the Master of Myself, the Father of all that are and are to be. By me are these beings created. And why is that so? A while ago I thought: Would that other beings too might come to this state of being! Such was the aspiration of my mind, and lo! these beings did come.

"And those beings themselves who arose after him, they too think thus: 'This Worthy must be Brahma, the Great Brahma, the Vanquisher, the All-Seer, the Disposer, the Lord, the Maker, the Creator, the Chief, the Assigner, the Master of Myself, the Father of all that are and are to be.

"On this, O disciples, that being who arose first becomes longer lived, handsomer, and more powerful, but those who appeared after him become shorter lived, less comely, less powerful. And it might well be, O disciples, that some other being, on deceasing from that state, would come to this state (on earth) and so come, he might go forth from the household life into the homeless state. And having thus gone forth, by reason of ardour, effort, devotion, earnestness, perfect intellection, he reaches up to such rapt concentration, that with rapt mind he calls to mind his former dwelling place, but remembers not what went before. He says thus: 'That Worshipful Brahma, the Vanquisher, the All-Seer, the Disposer, the Lord, the Maker, the Creator, the Chief, the Assigner, the Master of Myself, the Father of all that are and are to be, he by whom we were created, he is permanent, constant, eternal, un-changing, and he will remain so for ever and ever. But we who were created by that Brahma, we have come hither all impermanent, transient, unstable, short-lived, destined to pass away.'

"Thus was appointed the beginning of all things, which ye, sirs, declare as your traditional doctrine, to wit, that it has been wrought by an over-lord, by Brahma."

In the Bhūridatta Jātaka [5] (No. 543) the Bodhisatta questions the supposed Divine justice of the Creator as follows:

"He who has eyes can see the sickening sight,

Why does not Brahma set his creatures right?

If his wide power no limit can restrain,

Why is his hand so rarely spread to bless?

Why are his creatures all condemned to pain?

Why does he not to all give happiness?

Why do fraud, lies, and ignorance prevail?

Why triumphs falsehood -- truth and justice fail?

I count you Brahma one th'unjust among,

Who made a world in which to shelter wrong."

Refuting the theory that everything is the creation of a Supreme Being, the Bodhisatta states in the Mahābodhi Jātaka (No. 528):

"If there exists some Lord all powerful to fulfil

In every creature bliss or woe, and action good or ill;

That Lord is stained with sin.

Man does but work his will. [6]"

[1] Anguttara Nikāya i, p. 174. Gradual Sayings, i, p. 158.

[2] Majjhima Nikāya ii, p. 222. Sutta No. 101.

[3] Dīgha Nikāya i, p. 221, Sutta No. 11.

[4] Digha Nikāya (No.24) iii, p.29. Dialogues of the Buddha. iii, pp. 26, 27.

[5] Jātaka Translation, vol. vi, p. 110.

[6] Jātaka Translation, vol. vi, p. 122.

http://www.budsas.org/ebud/budtch/budteach23.htm

[chutai]

Atheist Buddhism

Buddhism is a religion without God

No one saves us but ourselves,

No one can and no one may.

We ourselves must walk the path,

But Buddhas clearly show the way.The Dhammapada, 165.

The Buddha did not claim to be in any way divine, nor does Buddhism involve the idea of a personal god.

The Buddha suggested that it was fear that produced the religious impulse in humanity.

Gripped by fear men go to the sacred mountains, sacred groves, sacred trees and shrines, but these are not a secure kind of refuge.The Dhammapada, 188

The way to cure this fear is not by believing in a God who will protect you, but by coming to a proper understanding and acceptance of the way things are.

Local gods

In many cultures Buddhism co-exists with local gods.

Sometimes the local gods are seen as having adopted Buddhism, while in other places the local gods are regarded as manifestations of various buddhas. Often a particular local deity will be given responsibility for a particular temple or place of devotion.

These "gods" are very different from the eternal God(s) of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. They are not eternal and unchanging, but are go through the process of death and rebirth, just as human beings do.

Not an important question

Most Buddhists, especially western Buddhists, don't spend much time worrying about whether gods exist or not - it's just not an important question.

Buddhism is essentially about living one's life so as to gain enlightenment; there may or may not be some gods or spirits around, but they're not of any real importance.

The soul

Nor do Buddhists technically believe in a permanent individual soul that keeps being reborn into new bodies in the process of reincarnation.

For Buddhists nothing is permanent. A person changes continuously, there is no element of a person that is permanent...

...And just as there is a causal connection between the events that make up a person's life, so there is a causal connection between each of their lives.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/at...statheism.shtml

Edited November 10, 2007 by chutai

[Plus]

I repeat my post from one of the previous pages, it looks like it wa overlooked or didn't propely register...

Samantabhadra: " ... everything is Me, the All-Creating Sovereign, mind of perfect purity ... I am the cause of all things. I am the stem of all things. I am the ground of all things. I am the root of all things ... There is no other Buddha besides Me, the All-Creating One."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kunjed_Gyalpo_Tantra

There's whole "Tathagatagarbha doctrine" to consider, too:

"In the Mahaparinirvana Sutra, the Buddha further explains how he only gives out his secret teachings on the Tathagatagarbha when his disciples are no longer like "small children" of limited capacity and of paltry assimilative power, but have "grown up" and can no longer be satisfied with the simple spiritual food they had initially been fed. While his disciples were still immature, they were only able to "digest" the simple and basic spiritual fare of "suffering, impermanence and non-Self", whereas once they have reached spiritual adulthood they require more spiritual nutriment and are now ready to assimilate the culminational teachings of the Tathagatagarbha."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tathagatagarbha

>>>>

In Hinduism Brahma is the chief creator WITHIN the universe, one of the tree gods who create, maintain, and destroy it. Hindus can't agree on what is beyond Brahma. Some believe that either Shiva or Vishnu (but not Brahma) exist beyond the matter, the majority believes in something close to Nirvana - Brahman.