Did Buddha find God? No, he didn't find anything at all. — Wosret

How would you know what he found or didn't find?

It's not 'an argument', it's speculation. The phrase 'finding God' is meaningful within particular domains of religious discourse, typically Christian. You can go through the entire Pali canon, the scriptures of Theravada Buddhism, which is about 20 times the volume of the Bible, and you won't find reference to 'God' in it. You will find references to the Hindu devas, along with other kinds of beings that populated religious imagination of the time (yaksas, asuras, and the like). But, the texts are simply not about 'God', they have a completely different frame of reference.

It you would like to do some reading on the question of God and Buddhism, here are some references:

Buddhism and the God Idea, Nyanoponika Thera

Principled Atheism in the Buddhist Scholastic Traditions, Richard Hayes

No it doesn't. It may be very beneficial, but impossible to communicate through words — Agustino

What then of Christianity, Judaism and Islam - their core assertion is ''God exists''. Why didn't they remain silent, as the Buddha did, if God is inexpressible?

Clearly, the discussion is diverting towards other religions but to keep it on track...

If Abrahamic religions didn't see any problems in asserting God's existence, the Buddha too shouldn't have remained silent on the matter. The contraposition of the above isn't a compliment for Abrahamic religions.

Because it's meaningless to answer questions of existence with regards to an X that people don't understand the meaning of. — Agustino

What do you mean? God is undefinable? What use is that for rational analysis? We should discard all rationality, and with it religions like Christianity, Judaism and Islam and dive headlong into mysticism.

He was asked what he gained, and he replied "nothing", and explained that he had only lost things. Lao-tzu similarly said that those that seek learning gain, those that seek the way lose.

Similarly to gnosticism, devas are emanations of the one supreme God.

What then of Christianity, Judaism and Islam - their core assertion is ''God exists''. Why didn't they remain silent, as the Buddha did, if God is inexpressible?

Clearly, the discussion is diverting towards other religions but to keep it on track...

If Abrahamic religions didn't see any problems in asserting God's existence, the Buddha too shouldn't have remained silent on the matter. The contraposition of the above isn't a compliment for Abrahamic religions. — TheMadFool

Because they thought conveying that God exists would be a better way to motivate people to seek God. Buddha thought that being silent would be a better way to get people to seek God, as it would pique their curiosity.

And no - "God exists" isn't the core assertion of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. These three religions all take God's existence for granted pretty much.

What do you mean? God is undefinable? What use is that for rational analysis? We should discard all rationality, and with it religions like Christianity, Judaism and Islam and dive headlong into mysticism. — TheMadFool

Nope, Christianity is not like that. And yes, rational analysis is not very helpful when it comes to God. The oldest version of Christianity - Eastern Orthodoxy - is a mystical religion. You have very superficial knowledge of religion, a large share of it mediated by the popular culture of today, and what other people are saying, rather than your own knowledge based on intimate acquaintance with the religion or your own studying of its theology and/or historical roots.

He was asked what he gained, and he replied "nothing", and explained that he had only lost things. — Wosret

Lies.

Lao-tzu similarly said that those that seek learning gain, those that seek the way lose. — Wosret

Quote the Tao Te Ching please, which is almost the Old Testament of Asia prefiguring Jesus Christ -

Why does everyone like the Tao so much at first?
Isn't it because you find what you seek and are forgiven when you sin?
Therefore this is the greatest treasure of the universe. — Tao Te Ching Chapter 62

It's in the sutras, his objection is that it doesn't sound right, and probably isn't translated right because Buddha was poisoned (which isn't extractly clear itself...).

It's in the sutras, his objection is that it doesn't sound right, and probably isn't translated right because Buddha was poisoned (which isn't extractly clear itself...). — Wosret

Ok then, can you please cite me the sutra where it is? And what does Buddha being poisoned have to do with translation of the sutras?

No, I'm not interested in talking to you, don't bother addressing me.

No, I'm not interested in talking to you, don't bother addressing me. — Wosret

:s So you're no longer interested to talk when I ask you for a reference to something you stated as fact... interesting fellow you are.

If Buddha thought that the better way to seek Nd find God is to be quiet about him and let People find out for themselves, then quite obviously, Buddha was 100 percent correct and the Abrahamic religions wrong. On that, history speaks for itself.

It is amusing and curious btw that Tao, and Baghavad Gita, etc. seems to have been far better at talking about the Christian mysteries than christianity itself has.

If Buddha thought that the better way to seek Nd find God is to be quiet about him and let People find out for themselves — Beebert

No, he didn't think it's better to LET people. He thought it's better to encourage people to do so.

Buddha was 100 percent correct and the Abrahamic religions wrong. — Beebert

That's false, and I don't see how you're going to support this assertion.

On that, history speaks for itself. — Beebert

:s How?

It is amusing and curious btw that Tao, and Baghavad Gita, etc. seems to have been far better at talking about the Christian mysteries than christianity itself has. — Beebert

:-}

If Abrahamic religions didn't see any problems in asserting God's existence, the Buddha too shouldn't have remained silent on the matter — TheMadFool

I've tried to explain to you, with examples from texts, that the Buddha didn't talk about the matter of 'God' at all, but from what you're saying here, you seem not to have grasped this point. Will I try and explain it again, or better not to bother?

Did Buddha find God? No, he didn't find anything at all. — Wosret

He was,however, founder of one of the major world religions, which would be unlikely had he found 'nothing at all'. The traditional expression is that the Buddha discovered 'the cause of suffering, and the way to its cessation', which is what underlies Buddhist teachings.

And no - "God exists" isn't the core assertion of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam — Agustino

If I remove God from these religions, what remains? Nothing!

And yes, rational analysis is not very helpful when it comes to God — Agustino

This could be a reason why the Buddha was silent. But...he could've said that. There's more to Buddha's silence than the reasons you profer because in each instance he could've just said so e.g that god is ineffable. He didn't. Why?

Because they thought conveying that God exists would be a better way to motivate people to seek God. Buddha thought that being silent would be a better way to get people to seek God, as it would pique their curiosity — Agustino

Please read above

If I remove God from these religions, what remains? Nothing! — TheMadFool

"God" is a word. If you remove a word, what remains is the reality underlying that word.

This could be a reason why the Buddha was silent. But...he could've said that. There's more to Buddha's silence than the reasons you profer because in each instance he could've just said so e.g that god is ineffable. He didn't. Why? — TheMadFool

Because if he gave an answer, people would be satisfied, and stop seeking for themselves.

Please read above — TheMadFool

I did. You're wrong.

It's in the sutras, his objection is that it doesn't sound right, and probably isn't translated right because Buddha was poisoned (which isn't extractly clear itself...) — Wosret

May be @Wayfarer will have something to say about that.

However, it seems all the possibilities for why the Buddha remained silent can be eliminated. So, we're left with:

The Buddha was either being deliberately deceitful or there's great harm in knowing God's ontological status. This is a real dilemma for me because I consider Buddha a good man and I'm open to the existence of God.

The things that he explains losing are the causes of suffering. Similarly to Daoism, what is found is the way. The truth, the light, and the way. Which is lived, demonstrated, and emulated.

I personally don't think that the people, or authorities matter all that much, just the way does, as expressed in your own life. I'm no scholar, and certainly am not always right about everything. I'm just after a way to live and conduct myself in the world, preferably the best way.

There are several things that I find objectionable about many of the characters. We can't all found religions, and I prefer to see the best ones as being about equity, and the value of life at their heart. What I say doesn't mean to be authority based, but just expressions of my own life, and how I correlate my own experiences to these teachings. Isn't that what we're all doing. If it is helpful to others, then great. Many things said here are helpful to me.

How have you gotten about since your car was stolen. Have you adapted to public transport? Or do you just walk? — Wayfarer

You're sidestepping the obvious fact that my statement asserts. Either Abrahamic religions got it wrong or Buddha is wrong in being silent. Is this a false dichotomy? You tell me.

He was,however, founder of one of the major world religions, which would be unlikely had he found 'nothing at all'. — Wayfarer

Exactly! So, why the silent treatment?

"God" is a word. If you remove a word, what remains is the reality underlying that word. — Agustino

The word ''God'' has meaning. An omniscient, omnibenevolent, omnipotent being. Remove that and Judaism, Christianity and Islam implode.

The things that he explains losing are the causes of suffering. — Wosret

Citations please. So far you're just offering us your blank assertions, one of which I've proven to be false.

An omniscient, omnibenevolent, omnipotent being — TheMadFool

These words aren't found in the Bible - they are philosophical in origin, and they indeed are attributes of God that emerge from the Biblical narrative, but they're not found there. Also you have no idea what God being a "being" means, since God isn't a being the way you and me are beings. So by what means would you have an idea? "being" is not a determinate concept, the way "triangle" is. Anything you can think of is a "being". So that's not going to be helpful at all.

As I attempted, and obviously failed to say, I didn't agree with any of the options. I also think that Buddhism is a response to yogic and Hindu tradition (which were the conceptual tools that Buddha would have had at his disposal), and yoga is about liberation, and union with the divine. I also like the idea that it means to yoke, or bring to things together, or into alignment. Both seem quite plausible to me.

His goal, and the goal of Buddhism was not to realize the true self, and union with the divine, but the cessation of suffering. Not like he went out of his way to deny the divine, and Buddhism makes use of the both the concepts of reincarnation, and karma as a cause of it, both of which would presuppose many Hindu ideas.

Your main point is God's inexpressible in words. This you offer as a reason for Buddha's silence.

But it's easy to say ''God is beyond words''. I just said it. You said it and, I think, @Wosret said it.

Yet, Buddha didn't. Why?

No, for like the tenth time, I did not.

Yet, Buddha didn't. Why? — TheMadFool

I answered that question. Because then people wouldn't be curious to find out anymore, they'd have a clear answer given.

Words are not the things... cups are just as ineffable.

Not like he went out of his way to deny the divine — Wosret

But neither did he affirm the divine. Plus, he didn't he say he was agnostic. The question of his silence remains unanswered.

One way to make sense of it is the Buddha anticipated all the conceptual problems the divine entails, from its description (@Agustino) to the problem of evil. A wise man would discreetly avoid such unsolvable controversies. Thus, Buddha kept mum on the issue.

This is pure speculation. An attempt to read Buddha's mind but surely something worthwhile. Perhaps in silence there's great wisdom.

I answered that question. Because then people wouldn't be curious to find out anymore, they'd have a clear answer given. — Agustino

Even this is expressible in words and the Buddha could've said so. ''If I tell you anything about God then you will lose the will to discover the truth'' - see? Easy.

No, for like the tenth time, I did not. — Wosret

Sorry.

Even this is expressible in words and the Buddha could've said so. ''If I tell you anything about God then you will lose the will to discover the truth'' - see? Easy. — TheMadFool

Yes, and if he said that, would they not lose the will to discover the truth? Of course they would!

I'll also mention that Buddhism is hardly complete when it comes to mere survival, or how to develop functional societies either. When it came to that, then Buddha did just point to convention. The ascetic life is somewhat parasitic by its nature on a functioning society, which can support it with donations, and charity.

The cessation of suffering isn't enough, it doesn't tell you how to structure society. Maybe if we were all awake it would be super obvious, but I doubt that.

None of them are complete doctrines, that cover every single aspect of life, and what you may encounter.