This is the mother who carries: Sankha, Chakra, and Gada. I am confused whether she is Mahalaxmi, Kamakhaya, Tripura Sundari, or some Buddhist Goddess.

In Islam the God is Allah, in Christianity the God is Jehovah and Jesus Christ. Is the God in Buddhism Buddha? I think it is very misleading to say that the name of the God in Buddhism is Buddha! Buddha is not a God's name but Buddha is rather an enlightenment condition. Does Buddhism have a particular God? My ultimate question is whether Buddhism was made by God or humans.

Does according to Buddhism can someone become a deity or god or any god type controller being? I'm new to Buddhism don't know much about it. So just curious to know.

In Udana 8.3 , The following passage is to be seen- > There is, monks, an unborn, unbecome, unmade, unconditioned. If, monks > there were not that unborn, unbecome, unmade, unconditioned, you could > not know an escape here from the born, become, made, and conditioned. > But because there is an unborn, unbecome, unmade, unconditioned, > therefore you do know an escape from the born, become, made, and > conditioned. I have seen many individuals on the internet quote this passage from the sutta to state Buddha directly affirmed the existence of A Theistic God. For Instance, A Non-dual, Vedanta Leaning Blogger Claims here - > **A closer reading of the Buddhist texts reveals that the Buddha did > actually acknowledge in many places the existence of what in Vedanta > would be called ‘The Self’ (Sanskrit: Atman) and what others may even > call God. Here is just one example from the Nibbana Sutta verse 3 > (Udana 8.3), which is from the Pali Canon:** > > There is, bhikkhus [monks], that which is unborn, that which is > unmanifest [or has not come into being], that which is not > fabricated/created, that which is unconditioned. > > If there were not, bhikhus, that which is unborn, that which is > unmanifest, that which is not fabricated/created, that which is > unconditioned, there would not be escape from that which is born, from > that which is manifest, from that which is fabricated/created, from > that which is conditioned – that therefore would not have been clearly > known/experienced/seen. > > But because, bhikhus, there is indeed that which is unborn, that which > is unmanifest, that which is not fabricated/created, that which is > unconditioned, therefore escape from that which is born, from that > which is manifest, from that which is fabricated, from that which is > conditioned, is [or can be] clearly known/experienced/seen. > > **We can clearly see that the Buddha is categorically stating that there > is something that is beyond birth and creation, beyond manifestation > and that which is conditioned (ie. all objects).** Similiarly A Baha’i writer uses Ud 8.3 to argue Buddhism implies a transcendent God behind liberation here > **The understanding that God chooses us echoes throughout every > religion. In Judaism, it is God who carries His people on eagles’ > wings and brings them to Himself (Exodus 19:4). In Christianity, it is > God, who with His amazing grace, “saves a wretch like me.” In Islam it > is God who brings us out from the depths of darkness into light: and > it is He who is full of mercy to those who believe (Qur’an 33:43). In > Hinduism, the greatest proponent of Vaishnavism to the West in my > lifetime, A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami wrote: “We can only understand > Krsna by acquiring the grace of Krsna,” and in Buddhism, it is very > clear that God, the “unborn, unarisen, and unconditioned” is the One > who frees us, for as Buddhist scripture says:** > > Were there not an unborn, unarisen, and unconditioned, there would be > no escape for those born, arisen and conditioned. Because there is > the unborn, unarisen, unconditioned, there is escape for those born, > arisen, and conditioned. – Udana, 8.3. > > **Salvation is not something we achieve on our own; it is given to be > achieved.** Is there any merit to these claims? Is this Sutta really implying the existence of an Unborn Theistic God, Without whose grace we cannot attain liberation?

In several discourses, the Buddha is noted for his silence or deliberate non-engagement with certain metaphysical questions—such as whether the universe is created or governed by an absolute deity, or whether an eternal soul exists that can attain liberation by entering an everlasting transcendent spiritual realm such as Brahma-loka or Vishnu-loka. What was the rationale behind this silence? Was his silence due to the fact he actually did not know if they existed? Did he deliberately withhold such teachings, regarding his audience as unprepared to accept these doctrines as truths? Or did he see these views as fundamentally mistaken from the ground up and therefore not worth discussing? Which of these explanations aligns best with canonical teachings and the broader Buddhist philosophical tradition?

Some Buddhists refer to Vishnu as Vasavatti Māra Deva. Others say that Upulvan Deva is Vishnu, and some say **Varuna** Deva is Vishnu. So who exactly is Vishnu? Is he Māra or a Deva? In Hinduism, Vishnu is known as the one who holds the chakraudha (sudhssana chakra). Upulvan deva consider as protector of sri Lanka Buddhist people say sri Lankan misunderstood Vishnu as upulvan. Some say both are same deva. So who is Vishnu....

so , a few days ago i have experienced weird phenomenon . you can call it something like supernatural phenomenon , etc. my Air Conditioner suddenly turned on without any action from me. as a Buddhist, i'm asking for answer to this occurrence. Thank you .

The ultimate teaching of Buddhism is that of anatta or that there is no permanent soul or self as is there no creator Godhead. However across the vast tapestry of spiritual traditions, there are many which not only actively assert the God/soul beliefs but also have many individuals who say they have attained realizations of soul or God. While the nature of the experiences many vary radically the common thread in all of them is the belief in the soul. An everlasting soul at that. Listing some examples for instance - - The spiritual experiences of an Advaita vedantist, where the practictioner realizes oneself as spirit/consciousness and one with all the cosmos/existence - The spiritual experiences of a Vaishnava involving realizing oneself as a soul, and a part and parcel of a personal God , Vishnu/Krishna. - The spiritual experiences of a Shaivite involving realising oneself as a soul/spirit and identical with the personal God Shiva. Now my question is If an individual attains such realizations/experiences which convince them that they are an eternal soul or are in some way linked/related to some personal or impersonal God, How will such an experience be viewed under the lens of buddhism? Will buddhism view such Soul/God experiences as mental confabulations or accept them having some degree of truth to them?

In the book: '*Origins Of Om Mani padme Hum A Study Of The Karandavyuha Sutra *', Alexander Studholme mentions a hymn to Avalokitesvara that curiously carries several epithets commonly associated with Vishnu and Shiva such as Hari,Narasimha, Nilakantha, sankara etc. How would a buddhist explain these epithets in relation to Avalokitevara? Does this mean the deity was appropriated from the Puranic fold by appropriating the qualities of vishnu/shiva within it?

In Buddhism, there are a few realms that exist. Does each realm have the same life expectancy, or does it vary from realm to realm?

There are many people, especially from other religions, who say, ‘The Buddha is just a human being; he is not a god,’ but I know the Buddha is greater than the gods because he attained Nirvana by himself. However, I need every sutta where the Buddha claimed he is greater than the gods. I heard the Buddha claimed it, but I don’t remember the names of the suttas. If someone knows those sutta names, it will help all of us.

I have been listening to audiobooks on Buddhism and Hinduism (Dhammapada, Bhagavad Gita, Heart Sutra, Upanishads, Rig Veda, etc.), and am stuck trying to imagine and/or understand how the infinite divine mind (the All, or whatever you want to call it, God, etc..), divides into individual life experiences which have "their own" perceptions and self-experience (atman), and are yet **impermanent**. And how this relates to the **permanent** [anatman](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatt%C4%81) (non-self). The way my mind imagines it, there is a ball like a balloon filled with tiny points/particles like grains of sand. Each grain of sand is the self-experiencer, but are all part of the whole ball (and yet where this metaphor breaks down is the grains of sand are actually distinct from the ball, but in the All case, they are but tiny aspects of the all or something like that). In this sense, there is a finite number of grains of sand / selves, and no more and no less can be created. But in the All/anatman case, it seems to subdivide into an infinite number of experiences. So then it's like, afterlife/reincarnation. How does that work? When I die do I get subdivided into several lesser experiences (ranked according to evolution of spiritual development), or merged into a higher single experience composed of many other souls now integrated into one? Or how do more selves get created which have their own perceptions? Why can't we just magically create a self using some physics or biology experiments (which don't involve just having lifeforms reproduce)? Why can't we just "poof" and a new individual experiencer / soul is created out of a test tube of some sort of energy? All those questions boil down to the fact that I don't understand how the permanent anatman, the divine infinite all/perfection (or if I'm mixing up concepts, let me know), divides into individuals which can have their own conscious awareness (like humans), or at least have their own independent life. There is a "spark" there, where does it come from and how does it perceive itself as independent of the whole? How are more individual selves created? Is there a fixed number of them? This meme hits home the most, and yet I still don't get how individuals can have their "own" experience (at least from their own perspective), and how the infinite subdivides into these selves.

There is, bhikkhus, a not-born, a not-brought-to-being, a not-made, a not-conditioned. If, bhikkhus, there were no not-born, not-brought-to-being, not-made, not-conditioned, no escape would be discerned from what is born, brought-to-being, made, conditioned. But since there is a not-born, a not-brought-to-being, a not-made, a not-conditioned, therefore an escape is discerned from what is born, brought-to-being, made, conditioned. (Sutta pitaka , khuddaka nikaya , udana 8:3)

I hear the Buddha rejected the cultural gods when he achieved enlightenment and made statements that seem to reject gods, is this true? If not, what kind of God did the Buddha believe in?

In a recent article titled "America’s New Religions " which is concerned with political fundamentalism, the respected American journalist Andrew Sullivan makes a passing remark that "Buddhism’s genius is that it is a religion without God". How appropriate is that statement? http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/12/andrew-sullivan-americas-new-religions.html

In religions with God, the believer or devotee can call on God for help during distress, pray to God to seek emotional relief, find a virtual shoulder to cry on and sing God's praises or glories for emotional upliftment (including the use of devotional music). They also establish a personal relationship with God. In Christianity, one has the relationship of being a child of God. In Islam, one has the relationship of being a servant of God, created by Him and therefore must submit to Him. In Hinduism (Hare Krsna), one can see God as a friend, son, teacher, master, lover etc. Whether God exists or not is not the point here for discussion. Certainly in the above cases, there may not be any tangible direct interaction with God, but the believer or devotee could often indirectly feel the presence of God or see good things that happen to them as miracles that come as a response to devotion and prayer. The above describes the emotional support that one could get from religions that have a God. I know this exists in certain parts of Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhism too with Kwan Yin (Bodhisattva Avalokiteshvara) and other Buddhist deities fulfilling the emotional support role of God. Chinese Buddhists have long composed songs and prayers to sing the glories of Kwan Yin, and they also call on Her during distress. However, in Theravada Buddhism, there exists no such emotional support from any deity. So, what should the Theravada Buddhist do in these cases? For example, during sudden distress or grief or loneliness, how would the Theravada Buddhist seek emotional support or relief, without a deity? How does a Theravada Buddhist sooth his or her emotions without devotional music? With whom does the Theravada Buddhist seek a relationship when they find that their worldly relationships have failed them?

I'm new to this site. So I'd like to ask a question about God. Do Buddhists believe in the existence of a God? Does Lord Buddha mention anything about this?

I've encountered many ideas about the identity of God, ranging from the omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent as in Judeo-Christian cultures, to that of one who has reached enlightenment. Is it suggested that Buddha is God or that Buddha is one who has attained enlightenment, leaving breadcrumbs behind for others to follow and that another being is God. Or does Buddhism reject God? Or something else that I'm missing?

Recently I encounter a situation where one of my close people and I went see a patient. While we were about to leave the place, my close person said **May God Bless you**. Me and my close person are both Buddhist. I asked why didn't you say May the triple gem bless you. And close person replied saying since they Christians I said God bless you. But I also observed that the patients people said **May God bless you**. Does saying **May God bless you** comes under a wrong view or wrong speech or etc or is it okay to tell? I'm just curious to know since my close person is also a Buddhist"

Is the Buddha an historic person (did he really exist)? If yes, was he a human being or a God, or both, or a human that became a god or God? Do Buddhists regard him as an emanation of God (for example, as Christians regard Jesus of Nazareth), or a prophet of God (as Muslims regard Mahomet), or an angel? My question is honest and is asked with a friendship intend of peaceful dialogue to lower the tensions between religions, philosophies and esoterisms (rare private philosophies). My goal is to learn better and to show to others how to speak publicly about spirituality lowering the violence; not increasing it and not making money on it. I believe it is very important today to learn those skills.