If the Buddha discovered....

[Vajradhara]

Namaste jiii,

thank you for the post.

Originally Posted by jiii

Well, okay...what I was trying to put forth was mostly that, although the Buddha didn't go out of his way to avoid speaking about gods, such things were not a dogmatic belief...and as such, not 'final', really.

you are correct, he didn't avoid the subject of deities at all. they are frequently mentioned in the suttas and have, in some cases, been directly responsible for some humans Awakening.

you are also correct that it was not a dogmatic belief, it was more of a statement of fact. the Suttas relate several instances where the deities and devas made themselves manifest and visible to earth beings, especially during some of the specific instances which we refer to as the First, Second and Third Turning of the Wheel of Dharma.

One Buddhist might be very familiar with a large system of deities, but the next Buddhist might rarely mention them, even know little of them...both could, hypothetically speaking, attain Nirvana no different from the other.

that is correct. ones views regarding deities is inconsequential with regards to the attainment of Nibbana/Nirvana or of Annuttara Samyak Sambodhi.

Vadradhara, correct me if I'm wrong here. Take the "Pure Land Sect"...although Amitaba is decidedly the most notable character of this type of Buddhism, followers still aren't really expected to 'believe' that Amitaba is actually a non-incarnate Buddha...that is, that he actually exists (or does not exist, or arises, or does not arise, or that he is future, past, or present...and on and on). They can, and it's all good, but they don't really have to, at all, to follow the "Pure Land" way.

i am not a Pure Land adherent though Takiri is, i believe.

in any event.. the question, itself, is the real problem since it is presuming the existence of some sort of "i" or "being" which could be identified as Amitahba. the Buddha Shakyamuni answered this question with the famous simile of the fire that has gone out.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipit....072.than.html

I've found that in Buddhism, from text to text, it seems that many different beliefs are accepted or rejected. But I cannot find many instances when these particular beliefs are strictly upheld as being so.

the monastic orders, of all Three Vehicles have a set of texts which establish the correct discipline for the monks and nuns. these doctrines do not have anything to do with deities with the exception of certain Vajrayana texts but this more in the context of Tantra.

Despite the thousands of 'beliefs' that Buddha speaks of throughout the texts of various sects and eras of Buddhism, I have still found that Watts was correct when he said that," Ultimately, ideas are quite incidental to Buddhism." Though, I realize that this tricky to explain in juxtaposition to the deity-filled texts of Buddhism.

the ideas are, however, how things are communicated to other human beings. without which there would be no Liberation possible. the pitfall, as it is mentioned in the Suttas, is to become trapped by the Buddhist ideas in the same way that one was trapped in the non-Buddhist ideas, you've just changed one set for the other.

nevertheless, one can still enter the Stream and attain the fruit of a Foe Destroyer whilst being trapped in the Buddhist ideas, to attain Liberation requires putting down even these ideas.

I also think that it is this underpinning of pointing at something beyond ideas that universally links so many varied Buddhist schools of thought or practice. I simply think that if someone were to come to the Buddha particularly hung up on Brahman for one reason or another, it wouldn't at all be unlikely that the Buddha might tell that person, in so many words, that the issue is moot so far as attaining Nirvana.

indeed, Upaya is the term. the Buddha would see through the Dharma Eye and know precisely what was needed to be said to the individual to cause them to seek the religious life.

I am certainly aware of Buddhism's "Wheel of Becoming", for instance, which involves both gods (devas), demons (asuras), and ghosts (pretas). I assume that most that practice Buddhism are familiar with this...however, I hardly think that a formal acceptance or denial of these entities was in any way core to Buddhist practice.

many Suttas make it quite clear that the Buddha Shakyamuni was talking about a literal rebirth in to these various states of woe, as they are called. the belief in a literal rebirth is, however, one of the teachings that one cannot verify until a certain level of spiritual development has been attained. according to the Suttas, when a being can attain the 1st Jhanna they can recall all the previous arisings in detail and depth and they will see the clear working of karma over the vast time scales involved.

as regards practice, it really depends on the school and the Vehicle that you are practicing as they each have a style which is suited for those sorts of beings. there is a wide array and diversity in the Buddhist practice lineages as there should be, in my view.

Perhaps it was part of Buddhist belief, but Buddhist belief has always been known to be something that, at best, points at the "truth"...and, because of this, there is nothing really final about it in the same sense that, say, it is a pretty fundamental and necessary belief and 'final' belief of Christianity that Jesus was the Son of God. Again, correct me if I am wrong here, Vad.

i would have to say that this summation is incorrect. there are, indeed, "core values" if you will, that one must accept to be able to practice the Dharma in any meaningful sense. these doctrines are called the Four Noble Truths and the Noble Eightfold Path and we can get into these in more detail if you'd like. with regards to the laiety, there are 5 Precepts which must be upheld whereas the monastics have anywhere from 220-250, depending on Vehicle and school and so forth.

the 5 Precepts are sort of like the Jewish and Christian traditions 10 Commandments in that they are pithy guides for ethical and moral conduct.

Indeed. I would furthermore posit that, by and large, one's day to day practice is that which is emphasized to the utmost over almost everything else, and certainly before any formal 'acceptance', or otherwise, of the many deities that Buddhism describes or seems to deny.

ones day to day practice may involve these very deities the many practice lineages of Buddha Dharma have many different ways of working with beings and, especially in the Tantric schools, the use of deity practice is quite prevelant.

the Zen and Ch'an schools of practice, by contrast, focus much of their attention on the practice of, as their name says, "ch'an" or "zen". this is a form of breathing meditation which Buddha Shakyamuni extolled as the "one practice which completes all 18."

in the end, it is a matter of personal aptitude and the typical measures needed to ensure a dedicated practice of the methods for Liberation. as the Suttas relate "the Ocean is of one taste."

metta,

~v

[jiii]

Thanks for the reply, Vad. I feel like I'm not really expressing well what I mean in many of these cases, but your reply covered everything which I wondered about.

Though, in a sense, I still maintain that Buddhist belief is not really belief in a normal sense. There has not been just one Buddhist writer over the centuries that has shown that all belief in the Buddha's doctrine is of little or no value, and that Nirvana is none of the things they have been ever told it was by anyone, including the Buddha himself. Yet, they still did not break the precepts, and did not show the least trace of relaxing their striving for Nirvana.

And, too, in many instances, it has been said that to become 'awakened', one must let go even of Buddhism. Those that did become awakened most certainly let go of even Buddhism, yet they continued practicing Buddhism wihtout a thought.

By the last two examples, all I mean to say is that it is no undisclosed secret that the highest level of attainment is no reliance on ideas of right or wrong, preconceptions, crystallized values, patterns of conditioned conduct...no reliance on Nirvana, itself. No reliance on Four Noble Truths to show one the way, no reliance on the behavior tenets of the Eightfold Path, no need to involve one's self with them. Those that reached this level of attainment, though, would never break the precepts, and might talk at length about the eightfold path, and the four noble truths. The beliefs themselves had their time, their place...but enlightenment could not occur with attachment to these as a rule, in the same sense that you can't make one moral by imposing laws upon them. At a certain point, the individual to look within and discover the fountain where these ideas originally emerged from. When he did that, he talk about the precepts, the four noble truths, the eigthtfold path, all day long, concisely, appropriately, and revealingly...but he didn't need to believe them...it was simply all he could do.

I feel like I'm not expressing myself to well here. I'm also kind of scratching my head, thinking," How did Brahman and Buddhism get to this?" LOL. :-D

[Snoopy]

Maybe: it's the moon, not the finger pointing at it?

Snoopy.

[moseslmpg]

OK, I have a question then:

If the Buddha answered questions according to the capacity of his audience, then what makes his judgement on the absence of a creator deity/entity so final? If there are other deities I don't see any reason why there is not some creator deity, or at least a psychological construct that can be likened to a creator analogous to the Demiurge of Gnosticism.

Also, what was so special about Buddha that made him the first Buddha? Surely someone else in history decided to meditate on the nature of suffering before him. Or was he just our Buddha, with others manifesting on different planes at different times?

[jiii]

Originally Posted by moseslmpg

If the Buddha answered questions according to the capacity of his audience, then what makes his judgement on the absence of a creator deity/entity so final?

In my understanding, and within the line of reasoning I have posted earlier, I don't think that there is anything particularly final about his judgement on the absence of a creator. The Buddha sometimes rejected that view, indeed, but strictly speaking, his views on a creator god, however they may have been expressed, were of no particular inherent value to the Buddha's doctrine. Determining whether or not there was a creator god was a moot point in most circumstances, and had nothing to do with Nirvana or practice, really. Only in the case of 'skillful means' (upaya, as Vadrajhara mentioned) did his comments on such things hold any particular value, because with his 'Buddha eyes' (it's vague, I know) he saw that so-and-so answer would bring his listener closer to the middle path. Such comments are profound indeed, but one would be mistaken to make assumptions about the Buddha's beliefs based upon this.

The problem with this being translated to a Western understanding of Buddhism is perhaps because in so many Western societies there are two basic options: belief in God, or denial of God. There is no room for the 'middle path' in such a categorical outlook. This was never the case with the Buddha, but he is often understood that way as a result of contact with Western culture. And, hey, it's not just Westerners...I'm sure that such an interpretation rubs off on just about every culture, but Western culture particularly.

Originally Posted by moseslmpg

Also, what was so special about Buddha that made him the first Buddha? Surely someone else in history decided to meditate on the nature of suffering before him. Or was he just our Buddha, with others manifesting on different planes at different times?

Well, to be blunt, he was the first being to attain Nirvana and point the way for sentient beings. Of course, this really just moves your question from, "What was so special about the Buddha?" to "What was so special about nirvana?" I think not so needlessly. What was so special about the Buddha was that he pointed the way to Nirvana.

It is very likely that many people meditated on the nature of suffering previous to the Buddha, and perhaps people attained Nirvana prior to that, but they apparently either didn't know, or hadn't the slightest clue how to point to it.

There are some schools of Buddhism that express a view in which he was, in fact, the first human being ever to attain Nirvana...that's that. That's definitely the standard viewpoint, and it's a very accurate one. However, as Buddhism developed, this idea was sometimes subject to change. In one text, in particular, the Buddha is portrayed describing himself to a massive gathering of boddhisatvas and devas. He suggests, in so many words, that he has 'always been' the Buddha, that his Buddhahood was never limited by something like human measurements of time. It is my opinion that this instance was created to illuminate that aspect to Nirvana that is sometimes left unexamined, which is that, generally speaking, Nirvana was not something the Buddha really 'possessed', as it was transcendance of the possessing self. When he says that he has always been the Buddha, he is expressing that Nirvana isn't something he 'got', but something that he realized. He had always been the Buddha, really. And yet, 'always been' is too much loose language, because the Buddha was keen to see that there was no permanent or seperate self which exists over time, that there was no 'then' in which to have 'always been'. There was just the Buddha, here and now. And yet, still, all was change, nothing was not arising and passing away. Even the Buddha, even every idea about Nirvana. The Buddha saw this, and was enlightened...that's why he was the Buddha, and that's also why he was always the Buddha.

Neither answer is incorrect...but both paint only a certain side of the picture.

[moseslmpg]

Originally Posted by jiii

Well, to be blunt, he was the first being to attain Nirvana and point the way for sentient beings. Of course, this really just moves your question from, "What was so special about the Buddha?" to "What was so special about nirvana?" I think not so needlessly. What was so special about the Buddha was that he pointed the way to Nirvana.

It is very likely that many people meditated on the nature of suffering previous to the Buddha, and perhaps people attained Nirvana prior to that, but they apparently either didn't know, or hadn't the slightest clue how to point to it.

There are some schools of Buddhism that express a view in which he was, in fact, the first human being ever to attain Nirvana...that's that. That's definitely the standard viewpoint, and it's a very accurate one. However, as Buddhism developed, this idea was sometimes subject to change. In one text, in particular, the Buddha is portrayed describing himself to a massive gathering of boddhisatvas and devas. He suggests, in so many words, that he has 'always been' the Buddha, that his Buddhahood was never limited by something like human measurements of time. It is my opinion that this instance was created to illuminate that aspect to Nirvana that is sometimes left unexamined, which is that, generally speaking, Nirvana was not something the Buddha really 'possessed', as it was transcendance of the possessing self. When he says that he has always been the Buddha, he is expressing that Nirvana isn't something he 'got', but something that he realized. He had always been the Buddha, really. And yet, 'always been' is too much loose language, because the Buddha was keen to see that there was no permanent or seperate self which exists over time, that there was no 'then' in which to have 'always been'. There was just the Buddha, here and now. And yet, still, all was change, nothing was not arising and passing away. Even the Buddha, even every idea about Nirvana. The Buddha saw this, and was enlightened...that's why he was the Buddha, and that's also why he was always the Buddha.

Neither answer is incorrect...but both paint only a certain side of the picture.

OK, I can understand the first part, seeing as it is more plausible in separating him from others. The second part, however, doesn't make much sense to me. I suppose it doesn't have to though, it would just make me feel more comfortable.

I don't see why things can not always have been, seeing as there has always been the constant changing of everything. What's the point of saying nothing exists all the time though? It just seems to get in the way of talking about things. Since nothing exists and we are likewise the nothing that does not exist, then in comparison to everything else, we exist. I mean, obviously the self does exist in come capacity, even if it is relative, so there's no reason to always point out that it doesn't exist.

[moseslmpg]

A sort of OT question: The Buddha never said that his way was the right way did he? I was just reading some stuff on that BuddhaNet website and that's sort of the way I feel it was presented. They were justifying Buddhist beliefs because they are supported by scientific "facts."

Also, slightly more OT, I keep finding more stuff saying that Nirvana is permanent because it exists outside of time and space. What the deal with that? This is really frustrating to me.

[Snoopy]

Originally Posted by moseslmpg

Also, what was so special about Buddha that made him the first Buddha? Surely someone else in history decided to meditate on the nature of suffering before him. Or was he just our Buddha, with others manifesting on different planes at different times?

Hi,

It is said that Shakyamuni Buddha (the one you are probably refering to) was not the first Buddha, simply the most recent one in an endless series of manifestations of perfectly enlightened beings. This idea of Shakyamuni being a fulfilment of a primordial archetype is expressed in the term Tathagata (one who has come thus and also one who has gone thus).
So there is truth in what you say!

Snoopy.

[Snoopy]

Originally Posted by moseslmpg

What's the point of saying nothing exists all the time though? It just seems to get in the way of talking about things. Since nothing exists and we are likewise the nothing that does not exist, then in comparison to everything else, we exist. I mean, obviously the self does exist in come capacity, even if it is relative, so there's no reason to always point out that it doesn't exist.

Hi,

For me (ha ha ha!), the notion of no-self means there is no unchanging, fixed thing which exists independent of everything else. All the time, moment by moment, "I" am changing both physically and psychologically. The Buddha taught that the illusion of a self/permanence in the way I have tried to express it, is core to why we feel disatisfaction; we expect ongoing stability, grasp and cling and reject, and when the universe (including our own body/mind) fails to comply with our expectations we are upset by this. Rather, we consist of a bundle of things that are forever changing.

Snoopy.

[Snoopy]

Originally Posted by moseslmpg

A sort of OT question: The Buddha never said that his way was the right way did he? I was just reading some stuff on that BuddhaNet website and that's sort of the way I feel it was presented. They were justifying Buddhist beliefs because they are supported by scientific "facts."

Hmmm, more unhelpful replies possibly! "Right" is a, er, un-Buddhist kind of term, indicative of judgments and other stuff. The Buddha declared he had discovered the path to liberation. It is up to others to investigate the teaching and determine what they make of it. Buddhism (the dharma) is meant to be "rational" and therefore "scientific" I suppose. Scientific research has leant support to changes in the brain as a result of meditation, but what this means for the dharma is another matter. I don't suppose physical science lends support to Buddhist cosmology though? I know the Dalai Lama has said that where the dharma is in conflict with scientific finding then the dharma needs to be re-evaluated.

Also, slightly more OT, I keep finding more stuff saying that Nirvana is permanent because it exists outside of time and space. What the deal with that? This is really frustrating to me

Errrrrrrrr! All conditioned phenomena are impermanent. Nirvana is "beyond" this. If you search you will find lots of descriptions of what nirvana is and isn't. I prefer to think of it as ineffable! (Call that a cop out if you will).

Don't get frustrated! In the end, the dharma is not something to accumulate until your brain if full of every book on it written. There is not the time in your life and it's not necessary. If you find value in it then it is meant to be a guide to living, not a reference work, or encyclopedia. I'm new to this site but have already ready a lot of interesting stuff on it. Of all the stuff I've read posted by Vajradhara (hope you don't mind me paraphrasing you here, if you do, slap my wrist) what struck me the most was when he (?) described Buddhism as a call to personal resonsibility. The buck stops with me. End of.

Snoopy.

[moseslmpg]

Originally Posted by Snoopy

Buddhism (the dharma) is meant to be "rational" and therefore "scientific" I suppose. Scientific research has leant support to changes in the brain as a result of meditation, but what this means for the dharma is another matter. I don't suppose physical science lends support to Buddhist cosmology though? I know the Dalai Lama has said that where the dharma is in conflict with scientific finding then the dharma needs to be re-evaluated.

Well, they were referring to rebirth as being obviously true because peope have had past life experiences. I heard that about the Dalai Lama, but science is too relative to re-evaluate things constantly IMO. It really depends on what you mean by science, I guess.

I suppose I will try to stop to categorize Buddhism, as it's getting me nowhere. I just have a need for some kind of narrative or mythological aspect to it, perhaps to justify it as a religion in comparison to the others. I guess in the end it's not about what you believe or know, and I'm approaching it from the wrong angle. Old habits die hard...thank not-God for the Dharma.

[Snoopy]

Originally Posted by moseslmpg

Well, they were referring to rebirth as being obviously true because peope have had past life experiences. I heard that about the Dalai Lama, but science is too relative to re-evaluate things constantly IMO. It really depends on what you mean by science, I guess.

I suppose I will try to stop to categorize Buddhism, as it's getting me nowhere. I just have a need for some kind of narrative or mythological aspect to it, perhaps to justify it as a religion in comparison to the others. I guess in the end it's not about what you believe or know, and I'm approaching it from the wrong angle. Old habits die hard...thank not-God for the Dharma.

No, the dharma would need to be re-evaluated; not the science.

Past life experiences are still a moot point I think, from the POV of science.

By science I would mean the scientific method, the approach of "objective" investigation using such things as theorising, experimentation and observation, with a view to (where possible) prediction and control. (Control not always possible or appropriate of course, eg examining distant galaxies). If you're interested you'll find stuff on Buddhism and science on the websites of both Tricycle and Shambhala Sun magazines. For example:

http://www.shambhalasun.com/index.ph...284&Itemid=243

Buddhism has been made into a religion, but it's purpose is educational and philosophical IMO. Perhaps the same has happened with the teachings of Jesus, but I wouldn't want to make that more than a tentative suggestion on my part.

Snoopy.

[jiii]

Originally Posted by moseslmpg

I don't see why things can not always have been, seeing as there has always been the constant changing of everything.

Also, slightly more OT, I keep finding more stuff saying that Nirvana is permanent because it exists outside of time and space. What the deal with that? This is really frustrating to me.

Well, has there always been the constant changing of everything? If so, where has it always been? Presumably, if there has "always been" nothing but flux and change, then there must be some unchanging place or location in which one can say it has always been. There is no such thing...as all things are subject to flux and change. One cannot intellectually grasp this because when you reach for a hand-hold, there isn't one there. There is only change, there is no place that is unchanging in which this change takes place...furthermore, who is it that knows that all is change? You can't really say, because there is no fixed "you", no self, that is standing outside this change. The moment you try to say, one way or the other, it has already slipped away.

In the sense that the "self" which can be constrained or graduated by time is transcended with Nirvana, Nirvana is permanent...not subject to space and time in which it could arise or decay. In another sense, though, when attaining Nirvana, one realizes that space and time were, in fact, illusions deduced from the preconceptions of an illusory self. In that way, Nirvana, too, is flux and change, because there is no space and time in which its permanence might be gauged. Thus, there isn't any reason to believe that Nirvana has the quality of permanence, or that it has the quality of impermanence.

As you may or not know, a big problem here, moseslmpg, is that language...which is to say, concepts about the world...imply an inavoidable dualism. You can only talk about "this" in terms of "that", you can only see "this quality" in terms of "that quality". This means that so many attempts at "pinning down" the middle path result in one-sided descriptions, instead. You know, there can be perfectly logical arguments posed against anything that is said...ANYTHING. But this harsh relativism really only exists in our ideas and concepts of world, which rely on relativism to describe things. This can only be unnerving and nihilistic to the extent that a person mistakenly identifies themselves with their ideas. The 'self' is just an idea. Thus...

Originally Posted by moseslmpg

I mean, obviously the self does exist in come capacity, even if it is relative, so there's no reason to always point out that it doesn't exist.

No, there is no reason to always point out that there is no self...except to correct a wrongview that insists there is. Maybe the self does exist in some capacity, but what is that self? Who is it that knows that the self exists in some capacity? What self is standing outside that self to confirm it does?

Originally Posted by moseslmpg

A sort of OT question: The Buddha never said that his way was the right way did he? I was just reading some stuff on that BuddhaNet website and that's sort of the way I feel it was presented. They were justifying Buddhist beliefs because they are supported by scientific "facts."

Well, everybody wants to justify their religion with scientific facts, don't they? I mean, who doesn't? You will find a canon of science that claims to back up just about any religion. I don't really think that's key to Buddhism, at all, really. It's something people like to do, because science is like a seal of approval for modern culture. You know, "can it pass the test of science?" That's the big question that everyone is always interested in.

However, to a certain extent, Buddhism is sometimes particularly "compatible" with science. In my opinion, this is because "belief" is not so much a key element in Buddhism as at is in many traditions. Science doesn't stand to find itself in many conflicts with Buddhism because Buddhists don't have anything that science or knowledge can really take away from them.

Another note, by the way: There are many different ways that your questions can be answered. Take the responses with a grain of salt, including my own. There is no single, correct way to discuss the Buddha's doctrine. Have a look at it this way...what if I were to ask you to define 'green'? You could reference a thing that is green and say," It's the color of grass." You could express scientific ideas and say," It's the wavelength between yellow and blue in the electromagnetic spectrum." You could talk about it in terms of art and say," It is a secondary color created by mixing blue and green." All of these are correct, but none of them are actually green, at all. There is no color in these abstractions, and they are bare of that which they speak. Such are so many descriptions of Nirvana to Nirvana, itself. The color green is only conceptual to the extent that a name can be put upon it, but all you can really do if someone wants to experience green is point the way to the lawn.

[moseslmpg]

Yeah, I think I would just have to experience whatever it is. Intellect has failed, and for right now, that's all I got. Yes, I, me. It just bothers me that certain things are put forth as absolute doctrines, even though they are pragmatic instructions. But I suppose it would be pointless and tiresome to put "relative" in front of every sentence, in the same way that explicitly denouncing the self is tiresome and confounding. If nothing else (and I'm not saying there is nothing else), Buddhism affords one more freedom in belief than other religions.

[Vajradhara]

Namaste all,

good discussion thus far.

several questions have been raised and though i think that they have been answered sufficiently, i would like to offer my own, as well.

1. Is Buddha Shakyamuni the first Buddha?

unequivocally no. the Suttas relate a teaching given by the Buddha to the Sangha wherein he relates that he was, in a previous arising, waiting to meet the Buddha Dipankara and, at this meeting, Buddha Dipankara propheised that the mendicant Sumeda would arise as the Buddha Shakyamuni. The Suttas relate that there have been countless previous Buddhas which have arisen in this world system and there will be countless more.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipit...32.0.piya.html

2. proclaiming of the Dhamma/Dharma as the "correct path".

Yes, without question Buddha Shakyamuni extolled the path of Doctrine and Discipline as the only path capable of complete and total liberation. there are several terms which are used to describe beings in various stages of the path, the Sanskrit term for complete and total unbinding is Annutara Samyak Sambodhi and it is this state which is the aim of Buddhas teachings.

a famous passage of the Dhammapada states:

They go to many a refuge, to mountains, forests, parks, trees, and shrineseople threatened with danger.That's not the secure refuge,that's not the highest refuge,that's not the refuge,having gone to which, you gain release from all suffering and stress.But when, having gone for refugeto the Buddha, Dhamma, and Sangha,you see with right discernmentthe four Noble Truths — stress, the cause of stress, the transcending of stress, and the Noble Eightfold Path, the way to the stilling of stress:That's the secure refuge,that, the highest refuge,that is the refuge,having gone to which, you gain release from all suffering and stress.— Dhammapada, 188-192

3. If there are other deities, why no Creator deity?

This is a very good question. Many modern commentators think that the reason the Buddha taught as he did was due to a lack of understanding of monotheism. they often have the, incorrect view, that the Sanatana Dharma is a polytheistic tradition when in actuality it is not. it is, in fact, monotheistic with a very interesting permutation. Muller has termed this "Henotheism" which means, essentially, that there is one God but that aspects of this being are manifest and given their own due, like Mercy, and Compassion et al.

the term "creator god" is rendered as issara-nimmana-vada Pali and it is this which we are discussing. a belief in a Creator deity is classified as a "wong view" of a morally destructive kind since they deny the consequences of karma and presume certain other wrong views, such as the existence of Atman and so forth.

the Buddha Shakyamuni explained the lack of a Creator Deity in many ways..along with the idea that Nibbana/Nirvana is not permenent either. these are both examples of "clinging to views" which directly impedes ones progress along the path.

here is a Sutta where the Buddha repudiates the prevailing Samhkya philosophical tradition of the time..

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipit....001.than.html

in the Digha Nikaya (the Long Discourses) 24 it is said like this:

"There are some ascetics and brahmins who declare as their doctrine
that all things began with the creation by a god, or Brahma."

And this god is characterized so:

"That Worshipful Brahma, the Great God, the Omnipotent, the
Omniscient, the Organizer, the Protection, the Creator, the Most
Perfect Ruler, the Designer and Orderer, the Father of All That Have Been and Shall Be, He by Whom we were created, He is permanent, Constant,
Eternal, Unchanging, and He will remain so for ever and ever."

"There is none other God but Thee, the Almighty, the Most Exalted,
the All-Powerful, the All-Wise".

*The notion of creator is rejected in terms of the Buddha in satirically retelling the creation story of the Brhadaranyaka Upanishad. This not "a discreet silence about the First Cause," it is not indifference. Though the Buddha's particular rejection is not a philosophical argument against a creator god, per se, it is rather a religious statement that is consistent with the underlying ontology of becoming that characterizes what the Buddha taught. What is clear, in the broader context, is that this rejection is not tied to a particular god-notion, but addresses the notion of a "single supernatural Being" from which "all things began," given that such a notion is invariably grounded in a radically different ontological basis than what the Buddha presents.

(*indebted to Bruce Burrill)

metta,

~v