Talk:Creator in Buddhism/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Lead Paragraph

If we don't want a long paragraph regarding Anatta doctrine that can be understood. We definitely need a short introduction to the topic. I also agree that we don't need to include the specifics about "self" in the introduction. But "no-self" is only a fringe Mahayana interpretation of the Anatman doctrine - not even their main philosophy. The Anatta doctrine of Theravada is not the same as "no-self" but is a technique of "Not-Self". In any case, Buddhist philosophy does not involve "no-self", but only not-self. In fact the reference to the word "anatman" in the lead paragraph which links to Thanissaro Bhikku's essay on Anatta titled "No-self or Not-Self" itself says in unequivocal terms:

One of the first stumbling blocks that Westerners often encounter when they learn about Buddhism is the teaching on anatta, often translated as no-self.

He then goes on to say:

In fact, the one place where the Buddha was asked point-blank whether or not there was a self, he refused to answer. When later asked why, he said that to hold either that there is a self or that there is no self is to fall into extreme forms of wrong view that make the path of Buddhist practice impossible. Thus the question should be put aside.

Further he says:

So, instead of answering "no" to the question of whether or not there is a self — interconnected or separate, eternal or not — the Buddha felt that the question was misguided to begin with. Why? No matter how you define the line between "self" and "other," the notion of self involves an element of self-identification and clinging, and thus suffering and stress.

Why is it wrong to say "no-self"? Because it is contrary to what the Buddha himself said: neither is the notion of an eternal self valid, nor is the notion that there is no self valid. In his essay Not Self Strategy, Thanissaro Bhikku elucidates the teaching of not-self in clear terms. In one of the first four points he mentions in the beginning of the article, he says:

Views that there is no self are ranked with views that there is a self as a "fetter of views" which a person aiming at release from suffering would do well to avoid.

The doctrine of no-self would definitely imply that the Buddha has taken the second view that there is no self. But the Buddha's was the middle way - he never taught that there is no self.

AutoInquiry (talk) 17:10, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

This is one of those sticky points where there is disagreement, so I think it's better to leave it out of the lead paragraph, or at least present a balanced version. There are a number of reputable scholars who argue that the Buddha did in fact intend to teach "no-self".Sylvain1972 (talk) 14:57, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there has been disagreement about this issue in the past. It might also have an issue with the subject of the page, that of not being directly relevant to God in Buddhism. As I understand it, the article is stating that all phenomena perceived by the mind are not the self. This does not seem to be so relevant to the subject of the article. As for the intro paragraph that mentions that Buddhism and anatman are often contrasted with Hinduism and atman, it is definitely true that this has been widely written about in the past to distinguish the two. Tengu800 (talk) 21:15, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Correct, I agree that avoiding talk about anatta and whether the Buddha meant "no self" or "not self" should be dealt with in the Anatta topic by presenting exactly who all opine either way. That said, User:Tengu800 is right in stating that the lead paragraph doesn't present the Buddhist position on "God in Buddhism" comprehensively. I will try editing the lead paragraph a little. See if it makes sense. AutoInquiry (talk) 00:01, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Some of the recent edits to the opening paragraph have been very insulting, placing Theravada in a special position, while relegating Mahayana to vague superstitions, in which people need to call on various gods to advance. The allegation is that Mahayana schools are not "rigorous" and cannot be empirical. This is totally misinforming people and these types of statements create bad will between the various schools. These people do not understand the methods of Buddhanusmrti or the layers of meaning in the Mahayana sutras. All Buddhist schools accept that sila, samadhi, and prajna are the methods required. For example, if someone thinks that Pure Land is not rigorous, they probably don't know how it is often practiced. In the 1960's, Charles Luk mentioned that Chinese Buddhists often keep to a fixed number of repetitions, between 50,000 and 500,000 per day. This is all to attain samadhi by focusing their mind on the sound, and on mindfulness of the Buddha. As for Tiantai or Zen not being rigorous, most Theravada practitioners would probably blush if they tried to read the weighty Tiantai shamatha-vipashyana manuals, or were required to sit in full lotus for hours on end in a Zen hall. There are also numerous accounts of masters writing the Avatamsaka Sutra (1600 pages) in their own blood, burning off their own fingers and hands, or sitting in full lotus until their legs break open with pus. There are also early Mahayana sutras (some of the earliest datable Buddhist sutras, even) that portray the "mainstream" monks as lazy, sedentary, corrupt temple-dwellers who break the vinaya. Mahayana bodhisattvas in India are even encouraged to enlist the help of Buddhist laypeople to drive out politically powerful monks who pay no attention to the vinaya. Dr. Jan Nattier's work on the Ugradattapariprccha Sutra examines these matters much more. My point is, be careful when claiming special "rigor" in your tradition as justification for Wikipedia edits. Any such views are not only POV, but insulting to others. The more disrespect we show other traditions and the more we hold up our own as the One True Way, the worse Wikipedia articles on Buddhism become. Tengu800 (talk) 20:27, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Relax. There is quite strong verbiage here that is unnecessary. According to the Buddha writing in one's own blood etc. is unnecessary since it is an extreme torture to the human body. Remember, he taught the middle way. So, don't try to intimidate others with such details. With all due respect to Mahayana Buddhists, I don't think it is at all insulting or incorrect to note with citations from established sources that Mahayana Buddhism considers the role of gods to be significant, while Theravada does not. It is just a difference and it is a fact. The facts are neither Mahayana nor Theravada. They are just facts. In fact, Mahayana Buddhists should not be defensive about it and try to pretend as if there aren't any such beliefs among them, because there is no shame in being a Mahayana Buddhist. Be whatever you are and be honest enough to accept the facts.

Let us rewrite the lead paragraph and skip specific details regarding the two different schools - Theravada and Mahayana. In reality, the later sections clearly admit that Mahayana Buddhists do accept the Tathagatagarbha doctrine and consider the Buddha to be a sort of God. The Encyclopedia of Buddhism clearly mentions this. The Encyclopedia Brittanica mentions this and so do numerous websites on Mahayana Buddhism.

For your information, I have also read enough about Mahayana Buddhism and it would be a joke to say that Theravada Buddhists would blush at either reading Mahayana texts or to try their forms of meditation. I personally don't have any vested interest in showing either of the schools in poor light. The facts have to be accepted as they are and one should not be ashamed of the facts.AutoInquiry (talk) 05:05, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

The lead paragraph was fine until it was polluted with sectarian nonsense. It is also fine in the current revision, and does not need "help" from misguided Theravadins who are trying to portray Mahayana in a certain unorthodox way. As for Mahayana relying upon the help of different devas, which ones exactly? And in which sutras are they said to be necessary? It is true that Mahayana uses Buddhanusmrti and venerates buddhas and bodhisattvas, but these are not devas in the least. No matter which school of Buddhism it is, they are all concerned with leaping over the Triple Realm, and therefore do not rely critically on beings in the heavens, who are only viewed as beings with samadhi attainments. If someone is a bodhisattva seeking to become a samyaksambuddha, how could the devas bring him or her there? Of course they could not, and it is ultimately about personal practice of the path. You will not find reliance on devas in the earliest sutras such as the Pratyutpanna Samadhi Sutra, the Shurangama Samadhi Sutra, or the Ashtasahasrika Prajnaparamita Sutra. This is also not in the Lotus Sutra, the Vimalakirti Nirdesa Sutra, the Lankavatara Sutra, the Shurangama Sutra, or the Madhyamaka or Yogacara texts. Buddhism is, and has always been about, sila, samadhi, and prajna. It is especially insulting for you allege that "fact" is the opposite, especially when this is not upheld by any of the major Buddhologists such as Jan Nattier and Paul Williams who actually specialize in Mahayana Buddhism. Tengu800 (talk) 16:16, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Without getting personal, let us talk in a civilized way. There is no need to bother. For being people devoted to Buddhism, let us learn at least to be less personal in our talks. Thanks for your inputs so far. I have taken note of your points, and I admit there may have been errors in my introduction. However, the introduction paragraph does not in clear words talk more about God and veneration (which is the real aspect of religiosity) and instead talks of anatman which as a doctrine is not something related to God. So I merely suggested a revision. In any case, I have nothing to fight about. Let it be as you wish. In any case, we know the facts from Encyclopedia Brittanica, Jan Nattier, Paul Williams, John Welwood, Kosho Yamamoto, Rhys Davis, Sylvian Levi and Etienne Lamotte.

It is well known that while in Theravada, the historical Buddha was only a human being that attained enlightenment through his own efforts, for the Mahayana, he was a sort of a God, a manifestation of the Adi Buddha. Some sects of Mahayana Buddhism, in Nepal, Tibet and Java even consider Vairocana to be the same level as Adi Buddha - a Supreme Lord. All this is not superstition, but just a Mahayana faith - there is nothing wrong in accepting the facts. It may be that I have got it wrong, but I thought (and I admit I may be wrong, which is exactly why I set the "citation needed" mark on that line) that beings such as Avalokiteshvara found in the Saddharmapundarika Sutra, Karandavyuha Sutra and Prajnaparamita Hrdaya Sutra who are Bodhisattvas but nevertheless beings in the heavens that assist sincere Mahayana Buddhists in attaining enlightenment. In fact, some sects even believe that without his assistance, enlightenment is not possible anyway. But all of the Mahayana schools, prefer Bodhisattva to the Arahant and therefore consider the Bodhisattvahood of Avalokiteshvara to be their own goal too.

Anyway, since you don't want the facts to be stated in the introduction, it is fine. People will know the facts from other sources anyway.AutoInquiry (talk) 19:58, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Alright, this is a better tone. In my view, the intro as it is, is good because it is general and can apply to all traditions of Buddhism. All traditions of Buddhism accept the teachings of anatman, and that sila, samadhi, and prajna are necessary requirements. In a short paragraph, the intro basically says that Buddhism has traditionally not relied upon a conception of an omnipotent creator God. This is basically true across Buddhist schools, although it may need to be qualified with a statement that there are various interpretations. However, I don't believe that there are any Buddhist traditions that will openly admit the existence of a personal creator God as we have understood it in the West. For an introduction to the concept of God in Buddhism, that is pretty good, and gives the reader a basic understanding before reading about various interpretations.

In Mahayana Buddhism, the Buddha or the Tathagata is sometimes a personal Shakyamuni Buddha, but he is often equated with the Dharmakaya, or true suchness. As the Tathagata, he speaks from suchness. This suchness is viewed as being ultimately one with the true nature of the mind and reality. In India, there were various interpretations of this in the early schools, but a transcendent view of the Buddha as not just a human being, but the Dharmakaya itself, was common. Later, Vairocana was equated with the Dharmakaya, so he is almost the epitome of the Dharmakaya Buddha in Mahayana Buddhism. Later, the concept of an Adi Buddha was introduced, but not within the standard Mahayana sutras. Still, even with various buddhas accepted by Mahayana, Shakyamuni Buddha is always the teacher. For example, in Pure Land Buddhism, although Amitabha Buddha is central, Shakyamuni Buddha is the one who teaches about Amitabha Buddha in the sutras.

Avalokitasvara is often taken as an example of the ideal bodhisattva who compassionately assists sentient beings achieve liberation. The culmination of all these teachings is to become Avalokitasvara Bodhisattva himself through various practices. Whether it is mindfulness of him, or reciting mantras while concentrating on the sound, or meditation with visualizations. His name also refers to his ability to contemplate and view all phenomena with equality, unattached, but with compassion. For example, in the Larger Sukhavativyuha Sutra, Amitabha Buddha is attended by Mahasthamaprapta Bodhisattva and Avalokitasvara Bodhisattva. Amitabha (Infinite Light) Buddha symbolizes the infinite clear light of the Dharmakaya, or true suchness. Mahasthamaprapta Bodhisattva symbolizes the arrival of great powerful karma and cyclic existence. Avalokitasvara Bodhisattva symbolizes the compassionate but detached observation of these phenomena that is able to end cyclic existence for the meditator. Therefore, Avalokitasvara is the ideal bodhisattva that many in Mahayana Buddhism wish to emulate. Due to his perfection of contemplation, he is able to simultaneously help others and become closer to buddhahood. Ultimately, Amitabha Buddha is the ideal, and the pure buddha-realm is the pure mind of a buddha without ignorance. Mahayana sutras have many layers of meaning such as this, which is why their expression can seem so colorful.

It is true that in Mahayana, the bodhisattva is the ideal approach. This is almost by definition since Mahayana was originally a synonym for Bodhisattvayana. However, eventually it was viewed that the arhat, pratyekabuddha, and bodhisattva were all valid approaches but represent different attainments. Therefore, in Mahayana art in East Asia, arhats and bodhisattvas are side by side as students of the Buddha. However, the bodhisattvas are traditionally viewed as having a higher general ability, due to their emphasis on prajna. In contrast, the arhats emphasize samadhi, so they are always depicted as good-natured monks with supernatural powers. Their different approaches in meditation and understanding are also reflected in their iconography. In the Mahayana view, arhats are depicted as Buddhist monks because they renounce the world of phenomena. Bodhisattvas are depicted as Indian royalty because they enter into the world, but do so with a mind of non-attachment. However, this depiction is of a sambhogakaya that would travel throughout different realms of existence. Bodhisattvas are generally thought to roam throughout the different realms to assist others, some even taking vows to only help those in the hells, like Ksitigarbha. In other cases, bodhisattvas may recite certain dharanis or mantras to help hungry ghosts. By doing so, they eliminate their own karma in the process. In contrast, the devas are limited, often simply virtuous people dwelling in samadhi heavens, indulging in the fruits of their past deeds. Eventually, most will fall again. This is the major difference, that bodhisattva ideal is actively helping others in any realm in order to advance toward buddhahood. Tengu800 (talk) 00:41, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The question of whether there is "God in Buddhism" or not is something Buddha himself is very if not completely silent on. This topic should focus on the scriptures directly related to Buddha's words or at least recognized canons. I see just a few references to these in the article. The introduction states "The Buddha explicitly rejects a creator[4]". I believe this statement is taken out of context and I believe he never talked about the creator (it is difficult to prove a negative). Buddha lived 500 years before Jesus and probably never heard of the Jewish God. India at that time was largely Hindu and had many gods. From the reference [4] "The word "atheism," however, like the word "godless," frequently carries a number of disparaging overtones or implications, which in no way apply to the Buddha's teaching.". Notice that this reference from [4] directly contradicts the beginning of the second paragraph of the introduction "Despite this non-theism, Buddhists...". From the introduction "Hence, Buddhism is often aptly described as a "spiritual philosophy" " doesn't this imply it is not a religion, which would be preposterous. If the introduction stays the way it is I suggest the topic be named "Is There an Abraham Descended Religion's God in Buddhism?" or "Is Buddhism a Religion like Western Religions?". I am not trying to be cynical but point out the the difficulty in discussing this topic using terms and points of view from western thought. Both answers would be no. The prerequisites to understanding Buddhism are beyond the contemporary western thought, the idea of ego self as illusion makes no sense to western thought. The introduction is too definitive in ways it should not be and leaves unmentioned key points. Something more like this would be more appropriate; Do Buddhists Believe in God?: "Now having said that... If you’re a Buddhist it’s OK to believe God was the first cause... It really doesn't go against the teachings of the Buddha, his focus was on suffering... It's also OK to believe science has the answer… Like the big bang theory, etc... Some Buddhist’s don’t even care how it all started, and that’s fine too. Knowing how the world started is not going to end your suffering, it’s just going to give you more stuff to think about.". There is the concept of the "void" in Buddhism. My understanding is that all created things in this universe emanate from the void. What is the void? An incomprehensible formless thing that supports the existence of our Universe. Doesn't the void sound like a description of God? Doesn't the void sound like something out of modern physics? One thing is for sure, there is no white elder man with a white beard sitting on a golden throne in Buddhism. I think it was brave and wise of Buddha to not emphasis concepts of God, look what complexity it causes! Also it's risky because if a religious philosophy gets any part of God understanding wrong then there must be a host of pitfalls and the potential for thousands of years of war and political turmoil and false persecution of individuals. Buddhism is about compassion, understanding, loving one's self (including the illusion ego self which needs lots of love) and mental and spiritual fulfillment. Maybe the finest aspect of Buddhism is that an individual is fully respected and loved no matter how they believe in the God or not. ( My first Wikipedia post, I hope I have not broken any protocols :). IamAnotherYou (talk) Wednesday, October 27, 2010 at 07:03:35 (UTC)

The introduction at this point is well-cited and overall is pretty good. I agree that the business about Buddhism being a "spiritual philosophy" is probably misplaced at best. But the fact of the matter is, as the cited sources attest, there is a lot of explicit rejection of a creator god in the Buddhist scripture by the Buddha.Sylvain1972 (talk) 20:26, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I did not emphasis enough my concern for the validity of the cited sources. What are the criteria in Wikipedia for allowing a source as a proof? It seems that if it is a published book it qualifies? Even within the Buddhist branches of belief there are great variation in belief about God. So with a fundamental and ancient knowledge such as Buddhism one could find somebody saying most anything about. I believe differences in beliefs exist in the branches of the Bible religions? The Bible would be used in a discussion in that case and I suggest that this topic be limited to Buddhist scriptures from the "accepted canon". I have been reading Buddhist "canon" writings for 20 years and have not read much emphasis on God or Gods. I don't remember anything denying God, except in the same way that all conceptions are denied as the potential to be illusion. Where are the sources for The Diamond Sutra, The Heart Sutra writings traditionally used as the foundation of Buddhism? From the Diamond Sutra "Section XII. Veneration of the True Doctrine: Furthermore, Subhuti, you should know that wheresoever this Discourse is proclaimed, by even so little as four lines, that place should be venerated by the whole realms of Gods, Men and Titans as though it were a Buddha-Shrine". Clearly a God is in there and in the Heart sutra. "Thereupon, the venerable Sariputra, the holy Avalokitsevara, the bodhisattva, the great being, and that entire assembly along with the world of gods". These references are generally accepted as Buddha's words and action, It would be possible to compile a list of the most popular Buddha's words used by people. This topic should be limited to historically accepted Buddha's word or action. Can I make a more formal protest?

One thing that I feel when I read the introduction to this topic is that it was written by a view that has not experienced the heart of Buddhism. I feel like in a way this view is actually based on a different religion, probably a religion from the West. To me the way this topic is written is completely misguiding, this goes against free speech. This topic as it stands now seems censored by non-Buddhists that cannot allow a different view of God to be expressed. Buddha's direct words are "world of gods", this implies that all gods are included. Unfortunately, this is blasphemous to believers in The One God because God would most likely be included with the other gods by this quote. Buddha did not deny God's existence, just that men's conceptions of God can only lead to suffering if clung to. Because our conceptions are flawed and not implying that the creator is flawed. I believe in God in Buddhism, see my previous post.

Focusing on whether or not God is in Buddhism is missing the point of enlightenment completely. Free your mind by avoiding clinging to believing or wanting things to be this way or that way. See how things are for yourself, keep the Eightfold Way of morality and the liberating knowledge of the Four Noble Truths as your lamp post but be a humble "lamp unto yourself". And in addition, if you want to become even more spiritual then pray using the scriptures and meditate diligently. Blessings on All. IamAnotherYou (talk) Sunday, November 7, 2010 at 18:09:20 (UTC)

The first paragraph is misleading. And most one sided. Words like "refutation" are too strong to define the idea of buddhism of a supreme guiding principle. Not say about the contradiction this paragraph gets when in comparison with the last ones (The ideas of primordial buddhas,the eternal buddha of shin buddhism,the dharmakaya). Also ,its important to point that,despite Buddha questioning of the Idea of "God",these were never refutations of all the possible defynitions "God". It was a criticism to specific ideas that he thought as lacking coherence.

While Buddhism doesn't rejected the existent of God or a god as it has been combined with other religions such as Taoism and Shintoism in Chinese and Japanese belief respectively it did not initially have gods. Most of the gods from Buddhism have been integrated from native religions of places such as China and Japan. King Yama is the Hindu god of the dead and was integrated into Buddhism that was taken from Hinduism; however the Buddhas and Bodhisattvas are totally of Buddhism origin and have been take from anything else. Most of the gods in Buddhism are derived from other religion. Yama was the Hindu god of the dead. Mahayana Buddhism see Buddha was an eternal divine being who came down in earth in the form of a man, but that doesn’t say that he was a god though he is a deity while Theravada Buddhism believe that the Buddhas and Bodhisattvas were mortal just like any other humans. Being immortal does not mean that you are a god either and not all deities are gods. A deity is a being that can be regarded as divined while a god is a supernatural being worship as the personification or controller of some aspect of the universe such death, life, elements, the stars, creation, etc. Also most Buddhists do not worship the Buddhas they venerated them although some may actually worship them. Although the ‘worship’ and veneration are similar words there are some differences between them. Veneration is the expressing of respect like you would give your ancestor while worship is the adoration and devotion to someone. Devas in Buddhism are not gods, but are superhuman beings. Devas in Hinduism is celestial beings which could includes gods. Brahma of Hinduism is the god of creation, but that does not make the Brahma devas gods. Calling Buddhas, bodhisatvas, yidams, and Devas gods is like calling angel gods just because they are divine beings. The Buddhism section of my comparative religion book does not refer to Buddhas and Bodhisattvas as gods. On a side note deva can refer to a god in Hinduism, but it also can refer to other divine beings as well. Also translation of certain words from other languages such as ‘deva’ being translated to ‘god’ is erroneous as this has happen with many other words. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.71.29.214 (talk) 14:36, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

The only 'school' of Buddhism that has any semblance of a theistic deity, in modern terms of the understanding; is Tibetan (in origin). All other groupings of Buddhism have no direct acceptance nor denial of any deity's possible existence; (many hold the Tibetan 'school' to be contrary to teachings by claiming factualities not able to be known without Enlightenment). Buddhism has long been, since its founding, a philosophy; not a religion. Any grouping, "combined" as 98.71.29.214 has put it, with a religious practice is wholly separate in its own right. A Buddhist can believe in a god, goddess, gods, or goddesses; be gnostic, agnostic, atheist, or any combination of the.... Belief, Faith, and Knowledge are three separate and distinct processes and should not be confused with eachother. This article has long had issues of favouring the Tibetan school because it is the most recognized to Westerners, and because of the theistic traits it maintains. It is far from representational and I fear fatally flawed. Lostinlodos (talk) 00:52, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

You are incorrect.Tantric variations like tendai,newar,shingon,hanmi,and even some mahayana variation(like hua-yen) also have elements of divinity within them.They all have the primordial buddha aspect.In the case of chan,there is also the Tao,which is used as a concept of divinity but in a very naturalistic fashion,related to direct mystical insights.All buddhist schools believe that enlightment is immanent in nature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.9.184.7 (talk) 10:17, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Way to Painlessness

Buddhism is a way to achieve happiness or painlessness through the elimination of craving. It has nothing to do with a God as conceived in the Hebrew, Muslim, and Christian Abrahamic religions. Schopenhauer explained this very well. This is nearly impossible for a person who was indoctrinated in those relgions to understand.Lestrade (talk) 15:19, 4 April 2012 (UTC)Lestrade

Tathagathagarbha

The article said: Mahayana Buddhism includes a sphere of devotion, where the Buddha is taken as the Supreme Reality – a kind of God who assumed human form in order to benefit all humanity:

Mahayana Buddhism is not only intellectual, but it is also devotional ... in Mahayana, Buddha was taken as God, as Supreme Reality itself that descended on the earth in human form for the good of mankind. The concept of Buddha (as equal to God in theistic systems) was never as a creator but as Divine Love that out of compassion (karuna) embodied itself in human form to uplift suffering humanity. He was worshipped with fervent devotion... He represents the Absolute (paramartha satya), devoid of all plurality (sarva-prapancanta-vinirmukta) and has no beginning, middle and end ... Buddha ... is eternal, immutable ... As such He represents Dharmakaya.

This was placed in the section of tathagathagarbha and god. Firstly, there is no reference to tathagathagarbha in this quote. Secondly, the way it is represented it is the opinion of one writer alone. If Buddha is supposed to be a divine love that without any equivocation relates to that of a god, then there should be more and more authoratative, i.e. Buddhist, sources. -- Zz (talk) 16:02, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

• I take your point about the lack of reference in the quote to the tathagatagarbha. Perhaps the heading of that section could be changed to something like, 'God-like Portrayal of Buddha, and the Tathagatagarbha'? The quote itself is taken from Professor Sebastian's book on the Uttaratantra (tathagatagarbha doctrine in codified form). I think the quote should go back, as it is referenced and states a view from a perfectly respectable writer on Buddhism. The view of the Buddha as functionally equivalent to a divine all-ground or all-compassionate absolute being is not at all unknown in Mahayana (tathagatagarbha) Buddhism or, for that matter, in Dzogchen. The Lankavatara Sutra has a major passage in which the Buddha reveals that he is called by numerous names, including those of the gods Shiva and Vishnu, but that he is the reality behind them all. So I propose to restore the removed quote (which had hitherto stood for more than a year) in a couple of days' time, unless there are strong objections from several other editors. Incidentally, Wikipedia prefers (foolishly, in my view) quotes from secondary sources to quotes from primary Buddhist scriptures - so quoting a professor of Buddhist studies and philosophy is perfectly within the Wikipedian rules of acceptable citation. All best wishes to you. From Suddha (talk) 02:31, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I have no issue with re-inserting the quote at a proper place. I would prefer that to be a place where the god-like qualities are elaborated on, just as you have done in your last comment. But it should provide at least one other reference, in my opinion. -- Zz (talk) 11:36, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for your comment, ZZ. I see what you mean. I will try (in the next day or two) to insert the quote in a better place within the overall article, plus give additional support from another source. Best wishes to you. From Suddha (talk) 14:00, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

• Have tried to find a better place for the material discussed above, but could not really do so. Consequently, I have slightly reshaped the 'tathagatagarbha' section, adding some extra info, which I believe may be of interest. Best wishes to you, Zz. From Suddha (talk) 03:59, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Preserving removed material

Per WP:PRESERVE the following material is being saved here. The premise upon which this material — criticisms made by Metteyya Brahmana — is based is based upon self-published unreliable sources, ref'ed in the removed material, one self-published at Scribd and the other being a book also self published by the same author and which is being spammed introduced into Wikipedia by Mbrahmana, an editor with a username strikingly similar to that of the self-publishing author. The material is unreliable and Wikipedia is being used for essaying or soapboxing. — TransporterMan (TALK) 17:43, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

But author, Metteyya Brahmana, in his book, "Why God Became a Buddha", points out that Gombrich fails to consider two other factors in the logic of the cosmology as articulated by the Buddha: (1) beings can be re-born into the Streaming Radiance realm through attaining a specific jhana state while in the human realm if they retain this state and die before removing the sense-lust fetter, and (2) the sense-lust fetter may not be completely removed in beings until we get to the Anagami realms (Sudhavasasa - Pure Abodes), which are higher than the realm of Streaming Radiance from which the first beings on Earth originated. Brahmana further indicates that the "special case" during the contraction of the universe of beings from lower realms of existence (i.e., hell, human, and lower heaven realms) 'mostly' being re-born into the Streaming Radiance realm is entirely consistent with notions of kamma in the Aggañña Sutta and elsewhere in the Pali canon, as you would expect some of these Streaming Radiance beings - especially the beings that were reborn there from a hell realm - to fall back into a hell realm during the expansion cycle. The Aggañña Sutta can be read to describe this process of "going back to hell" when the first beings from the Streaming Radiance realm on the re-evolved Earth begin lusting after and consuming the substance on the surface of the ocean, lose their luminance and supernormal power as a result, and then become what could be described as a single cell organism and first ancestor to animals (Tiraccha-nayoni - animal hell) on Earth. The Buddha's description of kamma would also preclude any 'permanent' destruction of beings with the contraction of the universe, as the clinging to an individuated self cannot be completely destroyed until one attains nirvana. Even the Buddha admits in the Maha-sihanada Sutta that he had been reborn in nearly every material realm of existence, including all heaven realms except the Anagami realms (Sudhavasasa - Pure Abodes), but was nonetheless reborn as a human again in his last life surrounded by sense pleasures, and even married, engaged in sex, and had a child (Rahula). Therefore, Gombrich appears to have a basic misunderstanding of how the law of kamma works in the Buddhist cosmology by claiming disbelief that beings in heaven realms higher than Maha Brahma cannot be reborn in the human realm still craving sense pleasures as described in the Aggañña Sutta concerning the first beings on Earth. Concerning Gombrich's central theory that the Aggañña Sutta was a made-up story by the Buddha as a satirical put-down of the Maha Brahma brahmanical deity, Metteyya Brahmana indicates that this is totally improbable when one considers the suttas in the Pali canon as a whole, as the Buddha would have to be putting down himself, since he admits in Itivuttaka 22, Group of Ones, that he was the Maha Brahma god seven times, during seven contraction and expansion cycles of the universe. Brahmana also notes that put-downs as satire were not part of the Buddha's lexicon, as they violated the fundamentals of right speech contained in the Abhaya Sutta. In this sutta, the Buddha makes plain that all speech must be truthful and calculated to help one in their own spiritual liberation, whereas Gombrich is essentially calling the Buddha a liar engaged in wrong speech in stating that the Buddhist cosmology was all made up by the Buddha as a put down of Brahmins. The more coherent view consistent with Itivuttaka 22 and the rest of the Pali canon (see quote below from the Kosala Sutta, for example) is that through the Buddha's own first-hand experience as the deluded Maha Brahma god, he knows the extraordinary power, authority, and bliss as a god is nonetheless insatiable and not permanently satisfying, and therefore spiritual liberation (vimutti) is preferable to clinging to form, mental fabrications, and sense phenomena that make one suffer even as a god. This more coherent view was expressed clearly by the Buddha in the Kosala Sutta, in which the Buddha was describing the disenchantment with life as a god: And in that thousand-fold cosmos, the Maha Brahma is reckoned supreme. Yet even in the Maha Brahma there is still aberration, there is change. Seeing this, the instructed disciple of the noble ones grows disenchanted with that. Being disenchanted with that, he becomes dispassionate toward what is supreme, and even more so toward what is inferior. References

Buddhism is Clearly Agnostic

I will be rewording this page to focus on agnosticism as the basis of Buddhism in the near future unless someone can present strong evidence to the contrary. I am totally unaware of any Buddhist scripture that affirms or denies, attempts to define, or asserts that God either exists or doesn't exist. However, there is unequivocal evidence to support that Buddhism is based on a STRONG belief that debate about the existence of God, for or against, is detrimental to one's own understanding of this reality. The scriptural citations people are using on this page to promote atheism, that I've read, have absolutely no mention of God, other than stating belief in a supreme being isn't the focus of Buddhism. However, Mahayana does make use of the Dharmakaya which fits many notions of God, especially that of Neo-Platonism and most schools of Vedanta. (This Mahayana reference is a sidenote, read on before constructing a rebuttal.)

In terms of a scriptural references supporting my claim that agnosticism is a key factor in understanding Buddhism, I cite the Paramatthaka Sutta in it's ENTIRETY. This is one of the oldest known Suttas if that is an important qualification to those it may concern. It can be found here: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/snp/snp.4.05.than.html

Here is a quote:

"A person who associates himself with certain views, considering them as best and making them supreme in the world, he says, because of that, that all other views are inferior; therefore he is not free from contention (with others). In what is seen, heard, cognized and in ritual observances performed, he sees a profit for himself. Just by laying hold of that view he regards every other view as worthless. Those skilled (in judgment)[1] say that (a view becomes) a bond if, relying on it, one regards everything else as inferior. Therefore a bhikkhu should not depend on what is seen, heard or cognized, nor upon ritual observances. He should not present himself as equal to, nor imagine himself to be inferior, nor better than, another. Abandoning (the views) he had (previously) held and not taking up (another), he does not seek a support even in knowledge. Among those who dispute he is certainly not one to take sides. He does not [have] recourse to a view at all. In whom there is no inclination to either extreme. . ."

In closing, please find me one specific reference that over-rules my reference promoting agnosticism and I will leave this page as is. Otherwise this view of Buddhism being dependent on atheism definitely stands to be corrected.

Shantideva (talk) 17:41, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

• References on rejection of creator

In Theravada, Buddha rejected the idea of eternal creator as evidenced in the translation of Bhuridatta Jataka.

http://www.buddhanet.net/budsas/ebud/ebdha068.htm#chap4

Also in Brahma-nimantanika Sutta:

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.049.than.html

"'How immersed in ignorance is Baka Brahma! How immersed in ignorance is Baka Brahma! — in that what is actually inconstant he calls "constant." What is actually impermanent he calls "permanent." What is actually non-eternal he calls "eternal." What is actually partial he calls "total." What is actually subject to falling away he calls "not subject to falling away." Where one takes birth, ages, dies, falls away, and reappears, he says, "For here one does not take birth, does not age, does not die, does not fall away, does not reappear."

The creator concept is labeled as wrong view "Issaranimmana-hetu View":

http://mahajana.net/texts/kopia_lokalna/MANUAL03.html

"Monks, indeed, in the minds of those who confidently and solely rely on the creation of a supreme brahma or god, there cannot arise such mental factors as desire-to-do and effort, as to differentiate between what actions should be done and what actions should be refrained from."

"Monks, this is the second factual statement to refute the heretical beliefs and views advanced by those samanas and brahmins who maintain that all sensations enjoyed by beings in the present life are created by a supreme brahma or god."

I don't know what the statement on the page "refused to express any views on creation" is based on. Its reference states that:

"These gods spend an excessive time indulging in the delights of laughter and play. As a consequence they become forgetful and, when they become forgetful, they pass away from that plane."

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.01.0.bodh.html

That is definitely not refusal to express opinion about creator concept. True, Buddha did not encourage to waste time arguing about the origin of the world. So what that reference actually supports is "Buddha discouraged clinging to any of 62 faiths with ownership or attachment." One of the 62 faiths is the idea that the world came into being without a cause. That belief in a fortuitous origin of phenomena rejects the Kamma-vipaka concept of Buddhism. That doesn't mean creation. What it means is all phenomena (Sankhara) have causes or conditions. The intention of the sutta seems to be to discourage clinging (samudaya) to the beliefs and to avoid suffering due to those attachments.

Nyanaponika Thera wrote:

"In Buddhist literature, the belief in a creator god (issara-nimmana-vada) is frequently mentioned and rejected, along with other causes wrongly adduced to explain the origin of the world;"

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nyanaponika/godidea.html

Withoutlabel (talk) 20:21, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Buddhism has too streams to be defyned by few quotes. The consensus following the different texts and doctrines is transtheism. Buddhism believes the universe consists of natural laws that have almost God-like characteristics. An example is given in that bad actions always have bad consequences in buddhist thought. And even samsara,when deciphered,is shown to be interconnected with boundless enlightnment. Buddhism believes in an impersonal force/intelligence symbolized by the primordial buddha/trikaya. But buddhism has clearly no permanent personal god, only abstract forces. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.9.160.26 (talk) 20:54, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

• It depends on the branches of Buddhism. Some branches such as Theravada do not teach that way. The forces of kamma are not absolute. All conditioned phenomena are impermanent. For example, Ahosi kamma is a type of action that has no consequence. Ahetuka kiriya citta is a type of volition that is not attached by any kamma force. Buddhism is very subtle. Trikaya (3 bodies) do not exist in Theravada. Theravada does not have one-with-everything concept. Even Samsara (wandering) is impermanent as paticcasamuppāda (conditioned cycle) can be broken. Withoutlabel (talk) 18:01, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Thats interesting. But even theravada agrees that the dharma is a source of enlightnement and has a metaphysical and devotional connotation, this is shown in the aganna sutta (granted that the sutra is controversial, though). I also want to clarify that the mahayan view is not that of trikaya being a brahman-like one-with-everything substract. The universe is made of a combination of various causes,but the various causes have an underlying unity. And by the very notion of sunyata means that samsara and causation are impermanent. Samsara is also not the same as the dharmakaya in mahayana,but they are interconnected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.9.168.24 (talk) 21:01, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Violation of 3RR

I believe that 201.9.168.24 just violated the 3 Revert Rule. Editor2020 (talk) 23:49, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Explicitly rejected the existence?

I dont understand why the edit warring. I have put precisely the view of buddhism concerning god. In buddhism there is no supreme deva ruler acting as supreme creator. But see that in some early buddhist texts there are devas creating phenomena and acting as "creators". What buddhism denies is not that devas are powerful, but creationism or that devas have a role in the way the universe operates, and that any of the various devas had any ultimate control concerning the fate of the universe. Equally important is to make the article the less abrahmical oriented possible. We are talking about are completely different belief systems. Thereby it is important to defyne that creation by a deva is what is being rejected.

But saying early buddhism explicitly reject a natural metaphysical divinity carries no sense. The dharma (universal natural law) aspect of buddhism has a metaphysical aspect and is a constant source of devotion. Also,if the nibbana exists and has a source in the dharma, again we have a more metaphysical aspect of divinity.

And lets not forget the concept of dhammakaya present even in early buddhist texts. for example,the controversial aganna sutra states that:

"The Buddha then advises Vasettha that whoever has strong, deep rooted, and established belief in the Tathagatha, he can declare that he is the child of Bhagavan, born from the mouth of Dhamma, created from Dhamma, and the heir of Dhamma. Because the titles of the Tathagatha are: The Body of Dhamma, The Body of Brahma, the Manifestation of Dhamma, and the Manifestation of Brahma"

Im certain that if we dig more of the pali sutras we are going to find mores of such descryptions. You may argue that the aganna sutta is just a joke,but this view is not unanymous and many monks take it seriously. Thereby,saying buddhism "explicitly" rejects divinity and avoids to endorse any metaphysical view seems forced.

the buddha discarded the view of a divine being acting as creator. But the dhamma is divinized since early buddhism. Fixed entities such as an unchanging self-soul are also denied,but not spiritual metaphysics.Also, if buddha "refused to endorse any views" regarding the universe, there would not be talks concerning karma and rebirth!

Important to note the rejection of divine beings (devas) as masters of the universe do not amount as rejection of all the characteristics attributed to related to divity. Also,the article seems to be sectarian concerning mahayana and theravada beliefs, pointing the mahayana faith as something apocryphal.

Also, gautama rejected the view of an eternal and non-interactioning atman, plus brahman as a substratum. Buddha did not deny that the source of universal enlightenement was the Dharma, buddha did not deny karma and rebirth or sprituality,and even the devas are frequently seem as providing valuable assistance to buddhists, including therevadins.

In resume,it is better for the article to be more specific. In the way it in the first paragraph is almost like mahayana buddhists "corrupted" the teachings of the buddha. The article should avoid turning into a sectarian dispute of mahayana vs theravada.201.9.168.24 (talk) 16:15, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

VIEWS OF THE BUDDHA ON THIS ARTICLE ?????

Throught reading this article people have been quoted the sources. The best source someone can quote from is accesstoinsight.

I hope other editors will quote the Direct Buddhist Buddhist scriptures upon the rejection of god. There are many when I read it myself. Stalkford (talk) 19:50, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

No, we will not. We will quote reliable secondary sources. See WP:RS. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:50, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

and when we quote you apply some violation. WT is that? Atleast the view of the Buddha from secondary sources (if available) should be given. Too many cooks spoil the broth and I think that's what happeneing. So much wrong information of Buddha in the article of Buddha in Hinduism and God in Buddhism. By the way secondary sources are also the view of the Lord Buddha.Stalkford (talk) 13:03, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 May 2014

I want to edit this article. Kindly allow me. Buddhist literatures have not been quoted out. 116.193.217.6 (talk) 23:14, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. Jackmcbarn (talk) 23:33, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Insufficient Facts

I can see that someone has two quotes that point to two sources which state that there exist a rejection of God in Buddhism. However, I think in this case there should exist a primary reference taken directly from one of the sutras. I myself have never encountered a reference to the rejection of a supreme God in the Buddha's teachings. think that this may be an example of "wishful thinking" on the part of those who hope that the Buddha entirely refutes the idea of God. Buddhism is simply not equivalent of atheism. This article need a major overhaul. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VaniNY (talk • contribs) 15:19, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

i completely agree, the former article was excellent, but for some reason the whole article has been converted in a over-simplifyed stub. buddhism has a notion of the sacred, but it is VERY different from abrahmic religions. what makes buddhisam fascinating is its complexity, which is denied by this very poor wikipedia entry.

Per WP:PRIMARY: Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources. Dharmalion76 (talk) 13:25, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Untitled

Discussion, heated or otherwise, about the "God in Buddhism" page goes here...

Dalai lama´s answers about adi buddha

maybe this: http://hhdl.dharmakara.net/hhdlquotes22.html would add something of interest to the article?

Proposed Edit

I propose removing the sentence "In Buddhism, the sole aim of spiritual practice is the complete alleviation of stress in samsara,[6][7] which is called nirvana[]" in the introduction. The citations do not support the proposition that the relief of stress is the "sole aim of spiritual practice." The cited support is the Buddha's statement in the Alagaddupama Sutra "Both formerly and now, monks, I declare only stress and the cessation of stress. [14]". He says this in the context of a discourse on being. The footnote [14] states:

"Some have suggested, citing SN 12.15, that this passage means that there are only two things happening in reality: stress and the cessation of stress. However, in the context of SN 22.86, where this statement also occurs, it clearly means simply that the Buddha is selective in the topics he chooses to address. In that discourse, he is refusing to take a stand on questions regarding the ontological status of the Tathagata after death. Here he is refusing to take a stand on the related question of the status of the "existing being" (see note 13). In every case, the Buddha chooses to take a stand only on questions where the process of answering would be conducive to Awakening. On this point, see MN 63 and SN 56.31."

Hence it is clear that there is no scholarly consensus that the cited sutra supports the statement that relief of stress is the sole aim of spiritual practice

The statement that the alleviation of stress is the "sole aim of spiritual practice" and that this is nirvana is not universally true for all Buddhism. For example, the Lotus Sutra states in Chapter 2:

"The Buddha addressed Shariputra: 'The buddha-tathagatas teach only bodhisattvas. Whatever they do is always for one purpose, that is, to take the Buddha-knowledge and reveal it to all living beings. Shariputra! The Tathagata, by means of the One Buddha-vehicle,14 preaches to all living beings the Law; there is no other vehicle, neither a second nor a third. Shariputra! The laws of all the buddhas in the universe also are like this. Shariputra! The buddhas in times past, by infinite, numberless tactful ways and with various reasonings and parabolic expressions, expounded the laws for the sake of all living beings. All these laws are for the One Buddha-vehicle, [so that] all those living beings, who have heard the Law from the buddhas, might all finally obtain perfect knowledge.'"

http://www.rk-world.org/publications/lotussutra_B2.html

And later in Ch. 16:

"By tactful methods I reveal nirvana, Yet truly I am not [yet] extinct But forever here preaching the Law. I forever remain in this [world], Using all my spiritual powers So that all perverted creatures, Though I am near, yet fail to see me. All looking on me as extinct Everywhere worship my relics, All cherishing longing desires, And beget thirsting hearts of hope. [When] all creatures have believed and obeyed, In [character] upright, in mind gentle, Wholeheartedly wishing to see the Buddha, Not caring for their own lives, Then I with all the Samgha Appear together on the Divine Vulture Peak. And then I tell all creatures That I exist forever in this [world], By the power of tactful methods Revealing [myself] extinct and not extinct."

http://www.rk-world.org/publications/lotussutra_B16.html

Thus for at least some schools, while the alleviation of stress is consistent with the goal of spiritual practice, the Buddha's practice is "for one purpose, that is, to take the Buddha-knowledge and reveal it to all living beings," which is not the same as nirvana since "By tactful methods I reveal nirvana, Yet truly I am not [yet] extinct But forever here preaching the Law." As the Buddha's practice is to make all being like Him, then perforce that is a goal of Buddhist practice.

I do not propose at this stage adding this as it is one view, although I suggest a right one. Since the article is about God in Buddhism, I don't think any statement about "the sole aim of spiritual practice" is needed, and hence deletion of the sentence would not diminish the entry. Lotuslaw (talk) 15:50, 18 February 2015 (UTC)LotuslawLotuslaw (talk) 15:50, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Insertion of primary and nonRS by IP

@Joshua Jonathan: Can you look into this?VictoriaGrayson^Talk 16:20, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion on 'God in Buddhism' is the kind of discussion I prefer to avoid; it's prone to POV-pushing and WP:OR. Aren't there reliable scholarly sources on 'God in Buddhism'? As it is now, I have no problem with this very conscise article. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:28, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Then it looks like we have WP:CONSENSUS @Joshua Jonathan:. But this IP is edit warring.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 17:07, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, it's a 'qualified concencus': it wouldn't hurt to explain in some detail why and what you consider primary etc. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:23, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

What is the qualification, so that qualification can be fulfilled?VictoriaGrayson^Talk 18:47, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Either going through the article, section by section, pointing out what the issues are. Or start with one, or a couple of reliable source sn the topic, to have a starting point. As it is now, I don't even dare to read this article. NB: if the title is to be cngaed back to "God in Buddhism," then it should be "Gods in Buddhism." Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:09, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Two people is not consensus and you should have attempted some level of consensus before wiping out an entire article, moving it to a new title, and the making it a stub. Dharmalion76 (talk) 23:12, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

I've removed a lot of quotes, per WP:QUOTEFARM, and re-ordered the remaining info thematically. Maybe there's more info left to be worthy for re-inclusion, but given the enormous amount of long quotes, this was the best thing I could do right now. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:51, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Can you remove some additional non-RS and primary material?VictoriaGrayson^Talk 17:59, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

The move was appropriate; Buddhism lacks a creator deity and it really isn't a theistic faith in that particular respect anyway, there is some deity worship, but so much variation between schools that it is not appropriate to import what is basically a "god concept" from other faiths here. A separate article on Deities in Buddhism might be a good idea, but I'm not the one to write it. I also agree that we should not be over-reliant on primary sources here per WP:SYNTH, and any non-RS needs to be tossed. Montanabw^(talk) 03:26, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

article got a lot worse

the former article was full of sources and information, but the page has now been converted into a stub. the old article had succesfffully presented most of the perspectives buddhism has about metaphysics.now the article has been converted on "creator in buddhism" ,which is an incorrect title. the objective of the old wikipedia entry was to talk about buddhist metaphysics and its convergence with other religions . the entries in wikipedia regarding "god" are present in all religions , not just buddhism. Notice im not talking that buddhism has a personal god, but that buddhism believes that there are apects in the laws of the universe that deserve to be worshiped spiritually. the old wiki entry was better because it discussed lenghtly about what buddhism rejects regarding the impersonal idea of the divine, and wjat buddhism endorses. presenting solid sources for that purpose, the present article has now become a stub, being just restricted to the idea of the personal creator. however, the whole impersonal aspects , such as the trikaya and the dharmadhatu, are sadly no longer talked about in the article.

Read WP:RS, WP:CONSENSUS, and stop deleting my talk page comments.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 17:09, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

i did not delete your talk pages, (at least not intentionally), i was editing my typos, im sorry if i accidentally did that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.79.253.92 (talk) 17:13, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Do you understand all the suttas translated by Thanissaro Bhikku etc. are WP:PRIMARY sources?VictoriaGrayson^Talk 18:49, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

yes. but the therevadin (the most non-theistic tradition) thanissaro bikkhu was only one of the sources of the former article. what is so wrong about the old article, its still much better than the new one that is being produced here, because its so much more detailed. what we could do was to work in improving and tweaking the old article, not producing a whole new poor article. the former article was quite good, because it presented the ideas in a complete way. if the quotations were excessively long, just reducing them would be more appropriate. also, notice thannisaro bikkhu is talking about the idea of a personal creator, only one of the apects of spirituality and faith. in Buddhism generally one is expected to worship the dharmic laws which are the source of enlightnment, not a personal deity. Buddhism has its own concept of faith, but is distinct from abrahmic religions in many ways. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.79.253.92 (talk) 05:04, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

suggested new title for the article

it could be the old "god in buddhism" article if the intention is to put an enphasis about the convergence (while also showing the differences) of buddhist spirituality and other religions. or it could be something along the lines of "buddhist and the god idea" or "buddhism and theist theories", if the enphasis is to put more focus in the differences, while also talking about the symilarities. the new title is bad because the idea of the creator is just one of the aspects that is involved in such spiritual onthological discussions. restriting the title to creator is an over-simplification. for example, even the dalai lama has stated that there is some level of convergence between the idea of primordial buddha and god, but theat there are also striking differences and the ideas are not the same. http://hhdl.dharmakara.net/hhdlquotes22.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.79.253.92 (talk) 17:21, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

reason for former article deletion?

why was the former article deleted and replaced by a less complete one? can anyone clarify why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.79.124.236 (talk) 13:30, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Can someone please link to the former article? Thanks, AD64 (talk) 16:08, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Editor2020's peronal essay

@Editor2020: Your material is just a Personal Essay with some Mahayana and Vajrayana words thrown in.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 17:02, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion, but let's see what the other editors think. Editor2020, Talk 19:50, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Its not about opinion, its about accuracy. Nothing in your material is accurate. VictoriaGrayson^Talk 20:02, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, it looks like no one else has any input. Editor2020 (talk) 02:13, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

I am here and I have input. I request that the previous version of the article be restored and that we collectively discuss the changes you would like to make, Editor2020. Thank you, AD64 (talk) 16:10, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

The citations are incomplete and the article is not accurate or useful, in this editor's opinion. I strongly request a reversion to the previous edition and then a discussion of the proposed new content. Thank you, AD64 (talk) 16:21, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Back to being a stub.

Now, this article is back to being labeled a stub. AD64 (talk) 00:06, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

i agree completely with you, a bunch of editors are pushing their views ibnstead of producing a complete article. even the former inadequate article name "god in buddhism" is more accurate because it showed different concepts of the god idea. buddhism rejects pesonal god but is at least partially panthiestic and embraces transtheistic ideas of the divine. this article is being dishonest and reducing the discussion to only the abrahmic personal god, while it is possible to be pantheistic and reject a starting point of creation or the idea of a creator deity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.79.176.154 (talk) 11:19, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

== I propose that you guys from the West read up on gods and God as dealt with by the East Asian teachers of Buddhism in the East Asia realm where Buddhism originally appeared.

Who are these teachers? They are not Westerners ex-Christians now atheists, and now trying to grasp at straws in order to avail of anything at all, even from the lands where the rulers from millennia back all claim and their peoples believe, that they the rulers are appointed by The Lord of Heaven or The Most High Ancient One, or simply The Most High One.

Buddhism could not have flourished and spread even as far as into the Middle East without the acceptance and even patronage by the rulers in all the lands in the ancient East Asian realm, where Buddhist monks-preachers or missionaries worked to convert the peoples there and succeeded: because they did not preach that there is no God or no The Most High One Who appointed the rulers of the kingdoms and even empires to be their the peoples' earthly lords.

If these ancient Buddhist monks preachers missionaries had taught there is no God, they could have been immediately gotten their heads chopped off, as soon as they set foot on these lands ruled by earthly lords who are appointed by The Most High One.

So, dear Westerners ex-Christians now atheists, stop with claiming Buddhism to be atheistic like you guys now claim your new identity as atheists.

Pachomius2000 (talk) 23:24, 22 December 2016 (UTC)Pachomius

Add back from old version?

@Javierfv1212: did you actually verify these, or add back text from this old version? FWIW, I am having trouble verifying some of these, and the wording of what you re-added seems like cut and paste from that old version. But out of AGF, please confirm if you were the original editor who added this text long ago? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:20, 22 January 2017 (UTC)