God in the pali cannon

[cappuccino]

why is it difficult to accept the idea of an eternal god

[Eko Care]

So, The Buddho is Tathāgato (God).
Again, we are not using the term "god".

Tathāgato is more suitable to be compared
with "Lord of The Three Realms" than "god".
It is same! "Lord" can mean "god" right?
Remember the god's definitions (there r 3).

However, lord is better understood as king: King Dhammo.
The Buddho is King Dhammo! Tathāgato!

AFAIK, Tathāgata (in tetralemma) means the Satta, and not the Buddha, according to the commentaries.

[cappuccino]

So, The Buddho is Tathāgato (God).

Tathāgata is a Pali word thought to mean "one who has thus gone"


wikipedia

[Gwi II]

So, The Buddho is Tathāgato (God).
Again, we are not using the term "god".

Tathāgato is more suitable to be compared
with "Lord of The Three Realms" than "god".
It is same! "Lord" can mean "god" right?
Remember the god's definitions (there r 3).

However, lord is better understood as king: King Dhammo.
The Buddho is King Dhammo! Tathāgato!

AFAIK, Tathāgata (in tetralemma) means the Satta, and not the Buddha, according to the commentaries.

Literal meaning of Tathāgato is "one who has thus gone"
(refers to the Arahant, coming and going to nibbāno).

Everyone knew literal meaning of Tathāgato.
Understand what I meant.


The literal meaning of the "Pāḷi" is "text".
Why is it called "Text Scripture?" What it
means? Same as literal meaning of "cafe"
is "coffee". Why does it mean "a kind of
restaurant (a cafe)? Get my point!
Understand what I meant.


Again, we are not using the term "god".
Tathāgato is more suitable to be compared
with "Lord of The Three Realms" than "god".
It is same! "Lord" can mean "god" right?
Remember the god's definitions (there r 3).

However, lord is better understood as king: King [of] Dhammo.
The Buddho is King [of] Dhammo! Tathāgato!




In the Bible, the prophet Musa can be called
"the god of Moses (Tuhan Musa)", in the sense
of "the pre-eminent prophet" or LORD. Likewise,
Tathāgato can also refer to any "arahat". In fact,
Petavatthu refer "tathāgato" to anyone who has died.

The Buddho used "Tathāgato" in place of
"Sammāsambuddho"; Tathāgatas (the oldest Buddhas).

[pudai]

The lotus that clings to neither mud or water; Yet exists wholly in both... Tathagata

[Ontheway]

...

All I can see from your post is EGO, Confusion on Theravada's opinion on God theory, and Overconfidence based on scoring marks (is it even important in this dispensation?) Gosh.

Theravada never accepted that there is a Creator God. Nor did the Blessed One confused about it. It is a misguided belief as in the Brahmajala Sutta. As simple as that.

If you keep holding on such God belief or wish to create a grey zone for God belief in Theravada, it means you have not get rid of such view.

[Vandami]

The Apaṇṇaka Sutta (M1 401) says we should bank on probabilities. It says it is safer to believe in kamma than to not believe in it because it likely leads to better conduct, which is kammically safer. The same argument can be applied to God. It is safer to believe in God than to not believe because it likely leads to better conduct. We don't need to prove the existence of God, only the advantage of believing in it.

The Buddha called himself Dhammabhuto Brahmabhuto, implying the terms are equivalent. Here, Brahmabhuto likely stands for Brahman-bhuto not Brahma-bhuto because Brahman is higher than Brahma, just as God is higher than god (but translating Brahman as God is problematic because of the unhelpful connotations). So why would the Buddha call himself Brahma-bhuto instead of Brahman-bhuto, as Monier-Williams asserts?

Monier-Williams says neuter Brahma is used for the impersonal Spirit, whereas masculine Brahma is the personal god. He defines Brahman as "the one universal Soul, the Self-existent, the Absolute, the Eternal," which is "not generally an object of worship, but rather of meditation and knowledge."

[QWER1234]

God is there, it's there in every religion and I also strongly believe and know God is there. God created nature (dhamma). Maybe Buddha didn't talk about God because it was irrelevant to solve the problem of suffering. Why would a scientist teach about science to grade 1 student, he would teach only that which is enough for student to pass grade 1. Maybe if Buddha taught about God, there would be problems or might also be that Buddha would be tiresome to explain things. See, Buddha's mission was to teach dhamma and how to reach nibbana, so he didn't taught about God, but there is definitely God, he created the world, the nature. Buddha also said the knowledge he gave is just as much as a few leaves in his hand, and the knowledge that exist is as much as all the leaves in the forest. Why don't you see Buddha teaching a pali language or teaching maths, because it's not his work, he is teaching only what he is to teach, he is not to teach about God, I don't know why, he have a reason for being silent about God. This is just my view, but God is definitely there, the creator who created the world and all beings.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings,

The Suttas don't have much to say on this, except there is one Sutta that says atāṇo loko anabhissaro (i.e. the world is without shelter and without overlord).

As I see it, the Buddha is the foremost and greatest known teacher on the Dhamma of dukkha and nirodha, but he never claimed omniscience, even though classical Theravada attributes it to him.

Thus, a Sutta-based conclusion would be that the Buddha was unaware of the potential existence of God. A commentarial-based conclusion would be that there is no God.

Metta,
Paul.

[cappuccino]

People just under estimate Maha brahma

[befriend]

Samsara or creation all the realms is a circle fueled by greed hate and delusion, union with God is not the idea because there is no first cause it's a cycle like the seasons getting out of the cycle is the goal.

[Sam Vara]

Moderator note: Please be mindful of the OP issue - "God in the Pali Canon", rather than our own or other people's ideas on God's existence or non-existence.

[Bhikkhu Pesala]

The rebuttal of the theory of a Creator God is given in the Brahmajāla Sutta, the first discourse of the Dīghanikāya.

‘Friends, once in a while, after a very long time this universe contracts. When this universe contracts, living beings are reborn among the deities of streaming radiance, in the Ābhassara realm.] There, they abide, mind-made, feeding on joy, self-radiant, travelling through the sky, remaining in glory for a very long time.
‘Friends, once in a while, after a very long time this universe expands. When this universe expands, an empty brahma realm comes into being. Then, a certain being, on the expiration of his lifespan or exhaustion of his merit, falls from the Ābhassara realm and arises in that empty brahma realm. He abides there, mind-made, feeding on joy, self-radiant, travelling through the sky, remaining in glory for a very long time.
‘Having dwelt there alone for a very long time, unrest, discontent, and longing arise — “Oh! If only another being would come!”. Then other beings, on the expiration of their lifespan or the exhaustion of their merit, fall from the Ābhassara realm and arise in that brahma realm. They also abide there, mind-made, feeding on joy, self-radiant, travelling through the sky, remaining in glory for a very long time.
‘Then, friends, to the being that arose there first, it occurs — “I am Brahmā, the Great Brahmā, the Lord and master, the invincible, the all-seeing, the almighty, the ruler, the designer and creator, the chief, the boss, the master and father of all that has and will become. These beings were created by me. What is the reason for this? Formerly, it occurred to me, ‘Oh! If only other beings would come here.’ That was my wish, and those beings came into this existence.”
‘To those beings who came later it occurred — “This is Brahmā, the Great Brahmā, the Lord and master, the invincible, the all-seeing, the almighty, the ruler, the designer and creator, the chief, the boss, the master and father of all that has and will become. What is the reason for this? We have seen that he was here first, and that we arose after him.”
40. ‘Then, friends, that being that arose first, is longer-lived, more beautiful, and more powerful, while those beings who arose later are shorter-lived, less beautiful, and less powerful.
‘It is possible, friend, that a certain being, having deceased from that existence, arises in this world. Having arisen in this world, he goes forth from household life as a homeless recluse. Having gone forth from household life as a homeless recluse, he strives with such diligence, application, heedfulness, and right attention that he attains such concentration that he recollects his previous existence, but does not remember any before that.’
‘He says — “Brahmā, the Great Brahmā, the Lord and master, the invincible, the all-seeing, the almighty, the ruler, the designer and creator, the chief, the boss, the master and father of all that has and will become, created us. He is permanent, enduring, eternal, not subject to change, and remains so forever. However, we who were created by that Brahmā are impermanent, not enduring, short-lived, subject to decease, and have thus come to this existence.” Thus it came about, venerable sirs, that you explain all things originate with the almighty as the creator, with Brahmā as the creator.’

The above passage is repeated in the Pāthika Sutta, the first discourse in the third book of the Dīghanikāya. It is clear from the following passage that the Buddha knew the origin of things, and would have said so if the first cause was Brahmā or a Creator God. It is obvious to me that if there were a Creator God, then that God would have a creator. If God just is, and has no creator, then the universe just is, and has no creator (see Occam's Razor).

Talk on the Origin of Things
“Bhaggava, I know the origin of things. I know that, and I know what surpasses it in value. I am not attached to what I know, and being unattached I have known cessation for myself, knowing that the Tathāgata cannot fall into the perilous path.

[mikenz66]

If we go by the suttas, the Buddha makes fun on the idea of a Creator God.
See, for example MN49: https://suttacentral.net/mn49 or DN1: https://suttacentral.net/mn49

Now, the being who was reborn there first thinks: I am Brahmā, the Great Brahmā, the Vanquisher, the Unvanquished, the Universal Seer, the Wielder of Power, God Almighty, the Maker, the Creator, the First, the Begetter, the Controller, the Father of those who have been born and those yet to be born. The idea of a creator god arose due to ego and delusion. These beings were created by me!

Mike

[retrofuturist]

Greetings,

Actually, he's making fun of Brahma for mistakenly believing he is God... not the actual notion of God.

Metta,
Paul.