of three candidates for permanence. First, the general law of karma. Specific instances of people may be able to shed their karma, but the general rule of cause and consequence continues to hold.

Second, the dharma. IIRC, Buddhist writings teach that the Buddha and his teachings will eventually be forgotten by the world, leading to the rise of a new buddha to renew the dharma. That may be so, but nowhere do I know of a teaching that the eightfold noble path will suddenly include lying, sloth, and generally harming others as the way to nirvana. Morality, in a Buddhist view, seems persistent and unchanging, whether the world knows of it or not.

Finally, nirvana. The whole idea of entering nirvana, as I understand it, is like a candle being blown out, never to light again. Even the teaching of the bodhisattvas (beings who refuse to enter nirvana until they save all sentient beings) seems to indicate that it is impossible to return from nirvana, or else bodhisattvas could enter nirvana and still return to save others.

I don't mean this flippantly.

about 3 western Buddhism experts on whether Gautama believed in a creator god, and I for sure don't know. Perhaps only Gautama Buddha knows and he's not speaking.

I subscribe to what author Madeline L’Engle said when asked, “Do you believe in God without any doubts? She replied, “I believe in God with all my doubts.”

It is people who are "true believers," those that believe whatever without any doubts that scare me.

It seems to me that claiming to have no doubts is claiming to be not fully human.

The Buddha believed in beings he called gods, but it doesn't appear that he believed in an all-powerful creator god like some religions teach. There could very well be beings in the cosmos that are more powerful than humans are, but I suppose it's up to the individual to decide whether to call them 'gods' or not. Believers of some religions might call him an atheist, but others might say that since he did believe in beings he called gods that he couldn't be called an atheist. As the article states, however, we're applying our terminology to a question that the Buddha himself might not have understood.

He responded to many questions by asking that person a question. The discussions on a creator god in the Pali Canon are few and most revolve around the person asking the question. From my reading, I would go so far as to say that the Buddha was a damned good psychologist. He responded to those who came to him with insight, facts, questions, compassion, and a constant commitment to empowering individuals to seek their own way on the path. When he mentions the gods of the time, it is interesting to note that belief or dis-belief was not relevant to him. What was? That like humans, gods were in need of enlightenment as well.

The later Mahayana sutras add all sorts of occult, mystical, and mythic imagery and tales to the Buddha's teachings. Much of this 'god' business is from them. I always encourage Buddhist practitioners, no matter what school or root teacher they follow, to read the full Pali Canon.

This article and discussion is one reason why.

my humble understanding of Buddhism in regards to that question.

A principle teaching of Buddhism is impermanence. Quite simply, everything that is compounded, (or that comes together) is bound to perish. No thing, person or situation has any permanence, nor does it actually have any existence if you define existence as something being a permanent and self-contained, like some hermetically sealed monad of sorts. Everything arises interdependently and our notion of being a persistent, consistent, separated self, in that case, is illusory or the result of "ignorance".

In that case though Shakyamuni, (there is more than one Buddha) conversed with and taught the "gods" of his time, they were also considered to be subject to impermanence. There are six mythic realms and one of them is that of the gods. In the transmigration scheme we too could gain a significant amount of merit to be reborn as a god, but those realms can also be considered psychological archetypes in modern, practical terms.

Though the gods are relatively immortal compared to we in the human realm of sentience, (with potential life spans of eons) they too come to the end of their godhood and, since one does not tend to learn and practice the dharma in such a lofty realm of power and perfection, (by way of distraction) the gods have only one way to go at the end of their cycle and that is back down to the lower realms. They first know that they are going to die, (what a shock after eons) and the other gods avoid them because it is unpleasant to consider and, one supposes, denial is better.

So, the Buddha brought a sense of compassion to even that saying that there was no more horrible and sad a sound than that of a god falling from the highest peak, and what a moan or scream that might be, we can imagine.

So, from my understanding gods are also part of the illusory scheme of samasara, (confused wandering) and subject to impermanence.

Though some will disagree, the pinnacle of Buddhist teachings and practices addresses our "natural condition" which is entirely non-dual, (beyond subject/object, etc.) amoral, (as opposed to immoral) timeless, unborn, and a few other terms that are challenging to the dualistic framework of the intellect. Yet, if you study buddhadharma, (I am not a "Buddhist&quot carefully, it is clear that the essence of non-duality is taught via various, skillful means all along. Even nirvana is revealed as not an ending, (it is a cessation, but of what?) but a relative, polar aspect of existence in relation to samsara which are united and never parted at any point but in our own minds. Of course people want to "escape" samsara when they fully understand what it is and the implications of cycling around in it, so they gravitate towards the "cessation" of the various levels to nirvana, which cannot, while one is alive, be sustained and serve as an example of the dualism between it and samsara. The Great Perfection is a recognition that our true nature is the three bodies, (trikaya) and that they, and all dualities are essentially empty, open, spontaneous and unified and that imperfection is merely a state of mind.

When Buddhism is taught in a non-dogmatic and flexible way, the scriptures, (Sutras) tend to be a preamble or doorway into what is essentially a dialog between teacher and student.

Take what I have related as beginner's mind and I apologize for any errors. I dedicate any merit from this to the happiness and release from suffering of all sentient beings.

Relax!

Good Fortune!!!

In the 70's. About half way through with all that breathing and all those talks I started to feel Christ-like love and compassion. If you clear your body out and eliminate your thoughts and just perceive through your senses and radiate love and compassion it lifts you up a level. I felt very connected to the collective unconscious concerned with the greater good.

I didn't continue to practice regularly but we were supposed to experience what the Buddha went through on his journey to enlightenment. There was no talk of god. Only right action. It leads to a less complicated life if you live according to principles.