[Buddha-l] the existence of God in Buddhism

[Vicente Gonzalez]

Richard Hayes wrote:

RH> These categories seem not to include the Buddha's position, which, as far as I
RH> can tell, was that the question of God's existence is not important.

in fact it is my point too. I think the question on God it's not important
because Buddhism is truly atheist in the sense that followers are
unconcerned by that. Although at same time, one cannot say  Buddha was
agnostic because he was in conversations with gods. 
Then maybe Buddhism is atheist, Buddhists are agnostics, and Buddha
nobody knows. 


RH> The definitions given by Russell could also leave out the position of some
RH> kinds of philosopher who say that because the question is poorly formulated, 

Russell was quite ambiguous regarding Buddhism. It seems he was
truly interested, although with the problem of being Bertrand
Russell. Sometimes there is an effort of explaining himself which
sounds quite revelatory:

"Among present-day religions Buddhism is the best. The doctrines of
Buddhism are profound, they are almost reasonable, and historically
they have been the least harmful and the least cruel.  But I cannot
say that Buddhism is positively good, nor would I wish to have it
spread all over the world and believed by everyone. This is because
Buddhism only focuses on the question of what Man is, not on what
universe is like."
  'Russell on Religion: Selections from the Writings of Bertrand
Russell', Routledge.


RH> For example, one might suspend judgment on the question of whether George W.
RH> Bush and Richard Cheney planned the attacks on the World Trade Center.
RH> One  might, for example, claim that not all the evidence is in and that it would
RH> therefore be premature to reach a verdict. So one might be a de facto
RH> agnostic on that question, holding the view that one lacks the evidence to
RH> settle a matter that is in principle decidable.

yes. Be authors Americans, Muslims, or whatever, at least one can know
that some ideas for this planet of your actual administration were a
cause. Therefore these ideas proves to be really dangerous.


RH> But the position of many  philosophers (including, I think, some
RH> Buddhists) is that no amount of  evidence or reasoning can
RH> possibly settle the question of whether or not God  (as described
RH> in a particular way) exists; the question, in their view, is in
RH> principle undecidable. 

and no Buddhist philosopher cites those conversations between Buddha
and Brahma in this problem?


best regards,