text:
Meditation object: Use color seeing when eyes are closed
Sometime when I started to meditate (eyes closed) I can see some waves of colors (yellow, blue, gray). Is this a good meditation object to concentrate one those colors?.
I feel like it is quite easy to concentrate on the color than another object (Breath, feelings, etc). Is this a bad practice?

It certainly has precedent: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kasina

The wildmind website does list seeing colours as one of the signs of progress. So you should obviously find that encouraging. However it does caution

But it’s best not to pay much attention to those lights or they will
  turn into a distraction and slow your progress.

This accords with my own experience. While various strange things during meditation is fascinating, too much fascination will mean that you are not focusing on whatever your object of meditation actually is (breath, visualisation etc...). Absolutely dig around in them and have a little investigate but ultimately return to the practice you are doing. Just my experience of course.


text:
What is non-buddhism?
I've been off and on following the writings Glenn Wallis, et al.
I am honestly bemused at what they are driving at. I don't mind that there are critical of something about various parts of modern Buddhism-- it's good to read criticism and write apologia, but much of it is couched in a certain, I don't know, "grad school" style.
What is non-buddhism? Is it some sort of pro-Buddhist Buddhist reform movement, or more as atheism is to Christianity?

+1 I've read it myself, and been bemused. The only conclusion I could come to is that whatever they're on about, they're pretty angry about :-)

isn't this a question for their site?

@yuttadhammo Not at all! SE sites are optimized to create surprisingly civil and fact based Q&A, the non-buddhists are unapologetically confrontational. And they aren't a one off, they are similar to Japanese "Critical Buddhism", a strand of academic buddhism that has a serious gripe with tathatagagharba.

well, then doesn't this belong on nonbuddhism.stackexchange.com? I just wonder who here could answer this question. maybe you can point them to it at least?

Glenn Wallis, et al. are academic Buddhists (or academics writing about Buddhism, it's hard to tell which academics are sympathetic or believers). They're on topic as much as something written by, say Donald Lopez.

You do realize that your question has no objective answer, don't you @MatthewMartin? So what this really is, is a request for characterization. In light of wise suggestions given to me by moderators of other SE.Religions sites, perhaps questions like this should not be allowed?

Then vote down or vote to close, or suggest a way to fix it. I'm not too attached to this question (ha!) but I can imagine other people asking, "what is SGI, what is Shingon, what is Huayen" so this sort of issue will be back.

@AndreiVolkov Can you expand on what a "characterization" question is? Maybe in meta where it would get more public visiblity?

Yup, I was just thinking about opening a thread on meta about this

Did we just lose an answer or two on this? @FaithFulBuddhist had two, and now they've both gone. I hope it was he (at least I think it's a he) who deleted them and not a mod. I didn't agree (or even follow) all of their points, but they were at least providing something to ponder.

That's too bad. Mr Peppers 2nd answer was rather insightful-- that non-Buddhism was a methodology rather than a reform movement with particular conclusions. I think overtime it would have been voted up to 1st or 2nd place.

FaithfulBuddhist deleted both of his answers, not sure the reason.

OK, I'll have a go, based on my (re-)reading of Wallis himself at his "What Is Non-Buddhism?" page. First, I have to say that one possibility is, it's an elaborate joke or hoax. The page says almost nothing substantial, except to offer analogies with non-Euclidean geometry or Laruelle. He says mostly what non-Buddhism is like and what it is not, but very little about what it actually is. But giving the benefit of the doubt:
His point seems to be that the label "Buddhism" may be attacheable to something valuable but that "x-Buddhism" -- i.e. all the "regular" forms of Buddhism, its types and sects and lineages, and their thought, practice, culture, and so on -- sit within a framework that pretty much makes it impossible to get to that something valuable. Therefore, in order to investigate the heart of the matter, you have to stand outside the x- stuff, and take a view from there. It's an attempt to apply Laruelle's "non-philosophy" specifically to Buddhism.
On the one hand it could be much ado about nothing. It's not completely false, but to the extent that it's true it seems kinda obvious. On the other hand, it certainly is possible for there to be deep, undetected aspects of human discourse and culture that, despite being undetected, have significant impacts on our way of life, and sometimes those impacts can be limiting and negative. So it may not be as obvious as I think.
Here's an analogy. Once upon a time, Aristotle codified logic. It was cool, and helped us figure out if arguments were valid. But it wasn't powerful enough to handle certain kinds of argument. Fast forward 2000 years, and in comes Frege. He produces a much more powerful form of logic, and also helps us understand what math is. But he makes a crucial mistake. So in comes Russel, and he fixes Frege's mistake. Or, at least he thinks he does. Then in comes Wittgenstein to show not only that Russel's fix wasn't complete, but that the whole thing just wasn't fixable at all. A few years later, Goedel belts the final nail in the coffin of a specific portion of the problem, but in such spectacular fashion that everyone sits up and says "WTF!?"
The point is, Wittgenstein and Goedel spotted that not only were prior systems broken, but that they were so fundamentally broken they were simply not fixable from inside those systems. To give Wallis etc the benefit of the doubt, I think they're arguing something similar (I'm stretching my analogy very thin now) about Buddhism. It's so busted that to fix it they have to step outside it.

Whoa, not only is that highly understandable, it fit in  very well with what I do understand of the non-Buddhists' writings.

Okay, I'm going to take a stab at my own question.
Nonbuddhism is a type of "Critical Buddhism" reminiscent of Japanese "Critical Buddhism". It appears to be a reform movement that is highly critical of a variety of elements in modern Buddhism. Unlike the Japanese version of Critical Buddhism, nonbuddhists (or at least Glenn Wallis) seem uncertain if anything will be left of value after removing the objectionable parts. The Japanese "Critical Buddhists" on the other hand, seem to want to remove a particular set of ideas they find unbuddhist.
Another distinctive part of the approach is mixing in modern Western philosophers. The name non-Buddhism is from Laruelle, who describes philosophy in a sort of "shadows on the wall" metaphor, where all philosophies are a project of what philosophy really is (which Laruelle confusingly calls non-philosophy). So non-Buddhism appears to be trying to recover what Buddhism really is from examining all the other Buddhisms.
Glenn Wallis previous wrote what were scholarly, mostly secular Buddhist books (and by secular, I mean, in the same family as Stephen Batchelor, pali centric and not interested in the reincarnation, karma, etc)
Tom Pepper is a Shin Buddhist, whose ideas overlap with Glen Wallis, but also clearly wants to integrate a Marxist viewpoint into Buddhism.
If anyone can fix up my answer by posting their own, that would be great.
UPDATE
Okay, I'm going to try to include the content of some of the other answers here, since some of those answers are getting self deleted and downvoted for, what I suspect is their combative tone and obscurantist literary style. Not saying it's bad, just calling spades spades.
Non-Buddhism is a sort of methodology. The proponents aren't so much as coming up with a new list of orthodox beliefs but a means for people to transform the existing materials of Buddhism into something better.
Non-Buddhism entails a sort of particular dialectic, in the sense that to find truth, people should take up propositions and defend them vigorously, dispensing with social niceties, especially Buddhist social niceties. What comes to mind from the Buddhist tradition are the stories of eccentric Zen masters breaking arms and killing cats to make a point, or Shambhala style "crazy wisdom"
Non-Buddhism entails an ontology that roughly says, things are irreducibly complicated, the topics under discussion can't be simplified. Despite this, they don't seem to be arguing for a Mahayana view that certain parts of Buddhism are beyond (ordinary) comprehension, just that Buddhism requires what looks to me to be about a graduate degree to accurately work with Buddhist ideas.

This site is poorly laid out for discussing anything niche or controversial. People who are actually familiar with non-Buddhism get voted down while the dross rises to the top because it is easy, wrong, and confirms the group thought (see 'affective decision').
Non-Buddhism is an operation on x-Buddhist Material, a critique originating out of the conviction that Buddhism in its various forms becomes an anti-liberative practice. NB seeks to elaborate some of the mechanisms that make it so and to, perhaps, induce aporetic inquiry, anchoric loss, and cancellation of the warrant of x-Buddhism. Once this is done, it is possible to re-visit the x-Buddhist well to see what principles in the Gotamic calculus survive Decimation.
The above is absolutely a sort of Non-Buddhist MadLibs, and I make no apologies for it. x-Buddhism stands accused of anti-intellectualism, a conviction in its own Sufficiency, and belief in imaginary plenitude - a transcendent enlightenment that 'solves' life, leaving the x-Buddhist able to enjoy bliss while remaining ignorant of the causal, dependent situation of their life (the horrors of capitalism, etc.). Refusing simple answers is an act of frustrating these tendencies and an attempt to induce thought, work, and change.
The refusal to give a clear, palatable answer to this question is also an acknowledgement that we live under the Terror of the Equals Sign, where foreign thoughts and practices are so readily exchanged for familiar ones, assuming that clear substitutions can and should be made. Yet, if we understand ourselves as contingent structures with understandings established by our history, we see that simple translation cannot bring about a change in structure and that change is necessary to understand something new. Liberating praxis is something to undergo.
So, this is an invitation for the curious, for those experiencing aporetic dissonance, or for those interested in becoming subjects to the Truths of a Decimated Gotamic Calculus to dive in.

Interesting observation-- the ontology (knowledge is irreducibly complicated) and dialectic (the buddha-fight-club) part make it hard to come up with what would be a suitable encylopedia entry for the topic. I checked wikipedia, no entry there either (another place where knowledge is general consensual & worked out by the crowd)

@MatthewMartin, there is nothing that would prevent people from collaborating to work on non-Buddhist material

(hit enter accidentally above)
yuttadhammo, if you would like to engage non-Buddhism, there are plenty of resources and a forum to discuss specifics.
@MatthewMartin, I think those are good observations. Several months ago, we did make an abortive attempt to set up a non-Buddhist wiki that does have the beginnings of 'what-is-non-Buddhism' entry.

Matthew, I am unable to reply to the edits in your answer. A good grasp of non-Buddhism can come from the sustained interest to read ~3 books: Cruel Theory|Sublime Practice. Tom Pepper's The Faithful Buddhist blog/book. And a sizeable chunk of the SNB blog, The Nonbuddhist blog, and their comments.
I also reject the characterization of non-Buddhist dialectic as a form of 'crazy wisdom' like killing cats, though it's interesting that that's where your mind runs (see aporetic dissonance?).

Tomek and Glenn's dialogue might be a good place to start.

re: CT|SP- It's on my wish list but I'm hoping it gets into kindle format first. Tom Pepper is the most insightful, esp with respect to anatman. Re: non-buddhist dialectic-- I wouldn't know how an aficianado sees it, but I can see why I see it that way-- people on the mentioned blogs and forums are always on the attack. As for me, I'm a recent arrival to Buddhism, still building a set of beliefs I'm comfortable, I'm not sure I'm the straw man you're looking for-- I get the impression the non-buddhism is anti-establishment.

Not looking for droids or straw men -- just poking actual ones. NB is primarily on attack because 1) it is based on critique of the establishment and 2) it is almost universally critiqued without being understood. I've opened up a category on the forum for introductory questions, rants, etc., if you're interested in dialectic. FWIW, my impression is that SNB people are sincere, passionate people.

Non-buddhism is an attempt to unleash the force of x-buddhist (or Buddhisms--plural) thought. The critique sees in all forms of buddhism a refusal to honor its most basic pledge: abetment of liberation. "Buddhism" names a particular means of shoring up the radical potential of Buddhist thought. But it--non-buddhism--wants to avoid becoming just another x-buddhism; hence, its difficult style. By the way, MatthewMartin, all the non-buddhist writers are staunch enemies of all forms of postmodernism. Their critique is serious enough that it will have to be dealt with at some point by x-buddhists figures. And also by the way, the critique does not come out of academia.
Hope that helps.

Yes, but with 2 profs (maybe 3) on the author list for their main published book, and a writing style suitable for grad school, I can see why I might think this is something out of academia.

Why do Buddhists think they can master the Buddha's thought and practice yet can't read "grad" level text? Another major argument of the non-buddhists is that x-buddhism in the contemporary West has spawned a new variety of anti-intellectualism that is harmful to x-buddhist thought and practice.

Do they? In any case, I am not sure the point of buddhism is to liberate only those with above average intelligence.

I'm not anti-intellectual, I'm just a software developer. I can talk your ears off about data types and web services. I have to find peace in my spare time, so that means cliff notes and deciding some of the abstruse stuff, I'm not going to have time to digest in my remaining 40 years. Which brings us back, to here, a Q & A site optimized for short, reasonably factual, answers.

Okay, guys, stay on topic :P Does this answer really tell us what non-Buddhism is? I'm still fuzzy.

This is one lame site! But it fits well the tendency toward conservative censorship that we find in Buddhist groups. Think that Orwellian idea of "right speech." Dream on!

source: Stack Exchange

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

sort: votes


text:
Are there any cultural or religious guidelines for Buddhist tattoos?
I've notice people on Instagram are getting tattoos of Mahakala and other Buddhist deities.  Are there any cultural or religious guidelines to consider when getting a tattoo of a Dharmapala or any other Buddhist religious deity?

Japan- tattoos are taboo in general, since the assumption only criminals, prostitutes and other low class sorts have tattoos. I think it would be hard to distinguish a religious from a classist objection in Japan.
Sri Lanka- recently a tourist was ejected from the country for having a Buddhist themed tattoo
Thailand - Buddhist themed tattoo are very common among lay Buddhists. Called Yantra, also practiced in other SE Asian countries, Laos, Myanmar, Singapore, Cambodia.  Ironically, Thailand seems to want to ban Buddhist tourist tattoos (or tourists with tattoos or both)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yantra_tattooing
Tibetan Buddhism- No problem, but put sacred symbols up high on your body, not on feet or ankles.
Chinese Buddhism, quote from Brahma Net Sutra

"44. Failure to Honor the Sutras and Moral Codes A disciple of the
  Buddha should always .. receive, observe, read and recite
  the Mahayana sutras ... He should copy the sutras and
  moral codes onto bark, paper, fine cloth, or bamboo slats and not
  hesitate to use his own skin as paper, draw his own blood for ink and
  his marrow for ink solvent, or split his bones for use as pens....  Hence, if he does not make offerings to the sutras and
  moral codes, in accordance with the Dharma, he commits a secondary
  offense. "

So either A- this is just hyperbole, or B- using your skin for sutras is fine.
Americans seem to be split on the idea from for arguments I've seen, but I would say that the tattooed are highly overrepresented (i.e. more Buddhist tattooed than tattooed people in the general population).

Beyond culture, and more towards the philosophy of Buddhism, if you look up the 'Eight Percepts', you will notice that number seven mentions abstainment from cosmetics, jewelry, etc.. Yes, this percept is of three monk percepts added to the layperson's 'Five Percepts.' However, I think tattoos in general are kind of at odds with the Buddhist worldview in general.  The three marks of existence, particularly 1 & 3 -- impermenence and non-self, and the principles of simplicity/straightforwardness are the fundamental themes that led to the construction of these percepts initially. If one to get a Buddhist tattoo, without the desire of perhaps being ironic, one should ask him/herself why they are getting the tattoo - is this tattoo a reminder or display and what exactly would that entail?

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/


text:
How do ethics work in Shin Buddhism?
"Even the good person attains birth in the Pure Land, how much more so the evil person."
I think I understand the reasoning here-- if practice isn't effective, then the evil person, who doesn't practice or I suppose, do anything good, isn't planning on getting to the Pure Land by his own means, he's going to have to rely on someone else to get him there.
So, after this, if one's goal is to get to the pure land, what is the rationalization for ethical behavior?
(Let me emphasize I'm not trying to imply a suitable reason for being ethical isn't there, I just haven't gone in depth far enough into Shin Buddhism to know what the answer is, and I find it bemusing)

The founder of Shin Buddhism, Shinran, assumed that a person of shinjin (grounded faith) would naturally be inclined to refrain from harmful actions. These quotes are all from various letters that Shinran wrote:

...When people come to have faith in the Buddha deep in their heart, they genuinely renounce this life, they lament their transmigration in Samsara, they have deep faith in Amida's Vow, and they delight in saying Amida Buddha. If these people truly desire not to commit the evil deeds that they may be inclined to do, it is an indication of their renunciation of this world...
...thinking of the Buddha's benevolence, devote himself to the Nembutsu in order to respond with gratitude for that benevolence, and should hope for peace in the world...
...Do not take a liking to poison just because there is an antidote.

It's not really a rationalization, since ethical behavior in Shin Buddhism isn't done to gain something, even though it generally results in a more peaceful, happy life. It is more like a result of the transformative power of shinjin.
Reference: Living in Amida's Universal Vow, "Ethics in American Jodo-Shinshu: Trans-ethical Responsibility", pg. 201


text:
Sutra Study as Meditation?
When studying the sutras should that be considered a form of meditation, if so what are the guidelines for sutra meditation?

For Theravada sutta study is considered part of the overall practice. It is an important part that goes along with practicing Sila and meditation. So I'm not sure if it is considered " a meditation" but it is a large part of the practice which includes more than just meditation.
Across time and location meditation has been stressed over sutta knowledge, or sutta knowledge stressed over meditation, but there is one Sutta I am failing to find in which the Buddha basically shows that one who listens to dhamma(aka learns the suttas) and practices is one who is developed in dhamma.

"And how is a monk one with a sense of Dhamma? There is the case where a monk knows the Dhamma: dialogues, narratives of mixed prose and verse, explanations, verses, spontaneous exclamations, quotations, birth stories, amazing events, question & answer sessions.[1] If he didn't know the Dhamma — dialogues, narratives of mixed prose and verse, explanations, verses, spontaneous exclamations, quotations, birth stories, amazing events, question & answer sessions — he wouldn't be said to be one with a sense of Dhamma. So it's because he does know the Dhamma — dialogues... question & answer sessions — that he is said to be one with a sense of Dhamma. This is one with a sense of Dhamma.

"When, on observing that the monk is purified with regard to qualities based on delusion, he places conviction in him. With the arising of conviction, he visits him & grows close to him. Growing close to him, he lends ear. Lending ear, he hears the Dhamma. Hearing the Dhamma, he remembers it. Remembering it, he penetrates the meaning of those dhammas. Penetrating the meaning, he comes to an agreement through pondering those dhammas. There being an agreement through pondering those dhammas, desire arises. With the arising of desire, he becomes willing. Willing, he contemplates [lit: "weighs," "compares"]. Contemplating, he makes an exertion. Exerting himself, he both realizes the ultimate meaning of the truth with his body and sees by penetrating it with discernment.

"There are these five rewards in listening to the Dhamma. Which five?
"[1] One hears what one has not heard before. [2] One clarifies what one has heard before. [3] One gets rid of doubt. [4] One's views are made straight. [5] One's mind grows serene.
"These are the five rewards in listening to the Dhamma."

Contemplate sutras and you are doing vipassana meditation. Vipassana meditation is the form of meditation Lord Buddha preaches we do.
Blindly reciting sutra's might lead to miccha ditti.

Nichiren. Nichiren gongyo, or daily practice, involves changing the title of the Lotus Sutra, but also large chunks of the sutra itself. Since it's usually chanted in Japanese, followers may not actually understand it. So it works like a dharani, a mantra that you don't know the meaning (as opposed to mantras, which have some meaning that is clear, or at least clear after it's translated from the Sanskrit)
Chinese. Chinese monks chanted entire sutras. A leader would hit a drum shaped like a wooden fish. Nowadays this shows up in the service manuals of modern Chinese Buddhist organizations. Here is a youtube vid where you can get a feel for the pace.
This guy confirms my idea that meditative sutra chanting isn't necessarily about reading comprehension:

Some of the keys to retaining the conscious mind’s engagement with
  sutras is to recite them, rather than read them. To recite them in
  your native language rather than the original language will also keep
  the mind engaged. Some teachers, however, would argue that allowing
  the mind to become disengaged is the point. As with mantra practice,
  repeated sutra recitation in Tibetan, Sanskrit or Pali, ultimately
  from memory, can allow the conscious mind to detach, one of the goals
  of mindfulness.

I couldn't find a reference, but I wouldn't be too surprised if the chanting came from the tradition of memorizing and reciting Pali suttas.  (Majursri's mantra, for example appears to be a mnemonic for remembering parts of a sutta)

OK this is an answer based on personal experience of study of the White Lotus Sutra.
The sutra itself is highly repetitive and plays with concepts of time and space throughout. Although there are parables (for instance the burning house) throughout which can be easily seen as teaching points the suta as a whole seems to be something else. I believe it is the sutra itself that is the practice and the boredom, aggrevation and frustration with it is part of that. I felt it was more like a very long koan. The point wasn't to understand it as such just to bear with it almost and see what comes up in your own experience.
I often hear people complain about Mayahana sutras as been too long, too mystical, too rarified, too religious maybe or just ridiculous. But if the sutras as seen as a (meditation) practice rather than a guidebook that i think that goes a long way to understanding what they actually are and understanding how to work with them.
Just my experience as I say.

Vimutt’āyatana Sutta mentions what reciting and studding the Dhamma can lead to liberation. When doing this you have to reflect what the Dhamma trying to experience of it. Study of and recitation of the Dhamma will lead to joy and from joy to zest and from zest to tranquillity and from tranquillity to happiness and from happiness to concentration and from concentration to clear vision which leads to revulsion. Dhamma vicaya should be present though out.

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
In terms of reliability of understanding reality, how does the scientific method compare with Buddhist insight practice?
Posted based on a requested edit to this question
The modern "scientific method", perhaps as espoused in Karl Popper's "The Logic of Scientific Discovery", is seen today by many, especially in the West, as the "gold standard" for reliable investigation into the nature of reality. However, Buddhism -- in particular insight practices -- appears to propose an alternate approach to a similar goal. How do these methodologies compare, in terms of approach and reliability?

Not sure where this is suppose to go, but it's a response to one of Matthew's edits of the above title. My use of "so-called" was not disparaging. A central point at stake was the very meaning of "science", "scientism", and the surrounding concepts. The reason I used "so called" was precisely because many people hold the opinion that science is The Only Way to get to truth. Having "the scientific method" without my qualifier creates the risk -- in this context -- of implicitly endorsing that opinion, which is question begging.

BTW -- no need to change it back. It's just I was accused of making ad hominems yesterday, and now of being disparaging today. I'm feeling a bit unloved :-)  (I guess I should work on that!)

@Tommy how about adding "modern" instead? In fact most of the Wikipedia article would fit with Buddhism, except where it talks about peer review, etc.

That works. And I'm not even sure you need to concede on the peer review aspect as different. Buddhists debate, repeat each others' methods, check them, write treatises for analysis etc, no? I'm still reluctant to conclude the following definitively, but: I'm increasingly of the view that natural science is really just a form of samatha, with the entire visible universe as its meditation object! The problem, as with regular samatha, is that some "practitioners" are getting attached to the cool funky effects. I mean, seeing the Horsehead Nebula can have a kinda jhanaic quality to it.

Well, yes, but not in regards to attainment of knowledge; you can't have your understanding of reality peer reviewed, per se - how can someone verify you actually realized what you realized?

Same applies to physics. How can you verify that when I look at a voltmeter that it actually deflected the way I experienced it deflecting. Even if you see it deflect too, all you're doing is telling me that you are having a similar experience, not the same experience. I see no difference between that and you and I comparing experiences with a nimitta, or experiencing the Arising and Passing Away, etc. (I'm all ears as to what that difference may be but so far, since dropping the physicalist axioms,  I haven't been able to convince myself there is one).

Well, practically speaking, it is easier for you to verify my volt meter reading than my attainment of cessation, but I get the point - if you follow the same steps as I did, you should be able to verify my meditative observations.

Yep. A practical difficulty with Buddhism is indeed that most of the good stuff is advanced stuff. At least in physics, I can get a newbie to be playing with gravity with only a ruler and a couple of coins in under 5 minutes. But if I want to get meaningful shared exploration on the existence of Higgs, or the significance of the delayed choice quantum eraser then we've a lot of preparatory work to do.

"... for reliable investigation into the nature of reality". If we take its history, it is not a stretch to consider "talking about reality" as a core aspect of science. The exposition of methodology and reproducibility can also be seen as ways in which we can check if we are talking about the same thing. With that in mind, and considering how instruments that amplify our senses (rules, telescopes, microscopes...) were of the greatest importance as they turned visible "invisible phenomena", we still lack much vision of our mind and vocabulary to discuss the phenomena therein [in comparison]

The fact that science is considered "the gold standard" is a troubling argument, though it is hard to disagree with it.  There are limits to science.  In particular, it is very good at defining what the "world out there" behaves like, but is dismally bad at defining anything with respect to one's "self."  If one uses science to define one's self, it usually involves cutting away layer after layer, saying "this is not my self," until you cannot convince yourself to cut any further.  Depending on how you wish to approach life, this may be a great way to do things, or a very poor way.

The main focus of this question is on "understanding reality", which is the domain of science. So, the first question is whether Buddhist insight meditation practice even qualifies as a science (i.e. a means of understanding reality).
From Wikipedia:

Science (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe. In an older and closely related meaning, "science" also refers to a body of knowledge itself, of the type that can be rationally explained and reliably applied.

So, the criteria for calling something science (at least by Wikipedia standards) are:

it is systematic
it builds and organizes knowledge
it relies on testable explanations and predictions as a basis for knowledge
it takes the universe as its frame of reference
it can be rationally explained and reliably applied

Buddhist insight practice fits all of these criteria; insight meditation is entirely systematic, it builds and organizes knowledge (more on knowledge later), its explanations and predictions are testable, it takes the universe (from a phenomenological POV) as its frame of reference, and it can be rationally explained and reliably applied.
So, Buddhist insight practice can at least be considered scientific.
Rather than focus on "which is better" (and get close-voted again), maybe we can agree to compare the two systems of "investigation into the nature of reality" objectively:
Approach
Buddhist insight takes as its paradigm a form of phenomenology or phenomenography, wherein:

there is only one world, one that is ours, and one that people experience in many different ways
Wikipedia

It is therefore understood to be a means of understanding the nature of so-called "subjective" reality, i.e. one's own realm of phenomenological experience.
The modern scientific method, on the other hand, generally takes a stance of philosophical materialism, wherein:

matter is the fundamental substance in nature, and that all emergent phenomena (including consciousness) are the result of material interactions.

It is therefore understood to be a means of understanding the nature of impersonal material qualities from an "objective" (i.e. impersonal) point of view.
Reliability
Here's where the controversy arises, so hopefully we can avoid it to some extent by comparing the individual claims of reliability (somewhat) objectively and leaving the reader up to their own conclusions.
Material science relies upon quantity and quality of empirical data that is independent of an individual frame of reference (i.e. it must be reproducible in all circumstances, not affected by experimenter or subject bias). The certainty of its claims are therefore dependent on the perceived likelihood of the objectivity of the data supporting them. For all intents and purposes, this provides a fairly good understanding of the nature of reality; the ability to build upon and modify prior understanding has allowed for incredible breakthroughs in our ability to interact with the material world.
The potential downside to this reliance on impersonal data is that it can and often has led to dogmatic refusal to accept new methodology or even evidence (e.g. Einstein's refusal to accept quantum mechanics).
It also has as a limitation its own ability to perceive the universe as a whole (so far, for example, it can't).  This sort of limitation is what Rupert Sheldrake gets at in his discussion of scientific dogmas. He lists ten dogmas currently held by the modern scientific community that may very well turn out to be false:

That nature is mechanical.
That matter is unconscious.
The laws of nature are fixed.
The totally amount of matter and energy are always the same.
That nature is purposeless.
Biological inheritance is material.
That memories are stored as material traces.
The mind is in the brain.
Telepathy and other psychic phenomena are illusory.
Mechanistic medicine is the only kind that really works.

http://www.dailygrail.com/Fresh-Science/2012/8/Biologist-Rupert-Sheldrake-Explains-the-Ten-Dogmas-Holding-Science-Back
The point here is that the modern scientific method has led us to many of these dogmas through its locality - i.e. it can't say anything about the universe as a whole, except by inference, which may and often is proven wrong as new evidence is found.
A third point is that the modern scientific method tends to confuse data with truth and thus discard data that doesn't fit with a theory as statistical errors, etc. This is very well-documented (if somewhat outdatedly so) in The Book of the Damned, written in 1919. The author points out quite well the difference between what is commonly held as scientific knowledge and what is absolutely true, saying:

It is our expression that the flux between that which isn't and that which won't be, or the state that is commonly and absurdly called "existence," is a rhythm of heavens and hells: that the damned won't stay damned; that salvation only precedes perdition. The inference is that some day our accursed tatterdemalions will be sleek angels. Then the sub-inference is that some later day, back they'll go whence they came.

By damned, he means facts that have been ignored because they don't fit with contemporary scientific theory.
Again, practically speaking, the potential non-universality of modern scientific knowledge is inconsequential; for all practical purposes, it works.
Buddhist insight knowledge, on the other hand, is in a sense terribly "impractical", since it can only ever be "known" by the individual. As the Buddha said, the dhamma is "paccattaṃ veditabbo viññūhi" - to be realized by the wise for themselves.
It is also obviously unable to say anything about impersonal phenomena, since such entities are outside of its realm of observation and thus considered mental concepts.
On the other hand, it claims to provide a certainty of knowledge that material science does not (material scientists consider such certainty meaningless, since their frame of reference is impersonal). For example:

When endowed with five qualities, monks, in no long time a monk penetrates and intuits the Unshakeable. Which five? Here, monks, a monk is one who has attained discrimination of meanings, is one who has attained discrimination of principles, is one who as attained discrimination of language, is one who has attained discrimination of the illuminating qualities (of knowledge), and he reflects upon the mind as liberated. When endowed with these five qualities, monks, a monk in no long time penetrates and intuits the Unshakeable.
AN. 5.95 Akuppa Sutta

So, from a Buddhist point of view, insight meditation is preferable in the sense that it is not subject to alteration. The reason for this is it is also considered to be universal (from a point of view of one's own experience) - i.e., it is understood to be applicable to all entities in the universe (one's own universe of experience).
As someone pointed out in the earlier question, the two types of investigation are fairly non-competitive; material science focuses on material, Buddhist mental science focuses on the mind. The former is more useful for conventional purposes like curing disease and blowing stuff up. The latter is only useful for limited purposes like freeing oneself of all suffering.

If you look up science in the dictionary you will find a number of meanings, not all of them compatible with the definition "knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method" (Source: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/science).  The OP question is about the scientific method specifically and therefore answers should restrict themselves to that criteria and not broaden the question to issues of scientific culture or philosophy which would be best suited to another question.

Science is the pursuit of knowledge about reality, which is really what the question is about - the modern scientific method isn't the focus, but one of the candidates for comparison. Anyway, my answer isn't really about defining science; I only included that part to show how insight meditation may be seen as scientific.

The scientific method is what the question is asking about.  If the scientific method is not the focus of the question, then I humbly suggest that you edit the question.  "Science" can be a "weasel word" in that you can describe any systematized body of knowledge as science, colloquially speaking, viz. "Creation Science".

@empty I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree :)

that won't do. If we are going to use rhetoric to approach the truth, then you need to be consistent with your terms and argue clearly. You have quite a list of Sheldrake's calumnies against "science" but the question isn't about "science" it's about the scientific method.

@empty I'm not sure if we are using rhetoric to approach the truth, and I'm sorry if my arguments are not clear - I'll try to clear them up a bit. Sheldrake's calumnies are used to point out perceived limitations to the modern scientific method, namely its dependence on laws and conditions that may change over time and place.

The scientific method makes none of Sheldrake's claims. It is only a method.  All that it requires is a hyphothesis (guess) that can be proved or disproved by experiment.

Let us continue this discussion in chat.

Let's not.  I'm off the site in 22 hours.  Namaste!

Ok so I've read some of the comments. Here are my thoughts. Science strives to discover a truth that lies 'out there' independent of yourself. I don't think 'truth' in Buddhism means the same thing. And as far as I know there aren't any explanations in Science. Just descriptions. Might be the same in Buddhism, I do not know. Someone quoted Feynman above regarding his definition of the scientific method. In reality this is not how it happens. Sometimes theories are held on to even when they contradict observations. The best example of this is Newtons law of gravitation. There are new philosophical theories about how science actually work.(Sorry I cannot point you to any one in particular).

B. Alan Wallace writes extensively on this subject. See especially here. He initiated the International Shamatha Project to deploy applicable scientific methodologies to the study of Buddhist meditation. More to the point, he argues that Buddhist meditation, especially Vipassana, itself constitutes a science. In that, he follows William James, along with modern western philosophers such as Husserl, and even, to some extent, Wittgenstein.
A core point of Wallace is that the wholesale exclusion from rigorous study of internally observed events is: inappropriate; denying us of an extensive range of rigorous and repeatable observations of potentially profound use to humanity in understanding the nature of reality; and, perhaps most ironically, an example itself -- the exclusion -- of an unscientific approach.
Wallace doesn't ignore the problems of subjectivity, but he argues that in the same way that an expert physicist (say) is a different animal from the amateur with interest in science because typically the physicist undergoes extensive multi-year training after which the rest of the community can put some trust in their statements (e.g. sufficient trust to make it worthwhile attempting to repeat them), similarly expertly trained Vipassana (etc) practitioners are a different animal from amateur meditators, and because of their extensive training, we can put trust into their statements (again, sufficient trust to repeat them, and codify, and so on).
Specifically on this question, my personal experience is that while insight meditation has as its purpose an attainment of knowledge and experience of the fundamental nature of reality, natural science has two commonly held purposes, depending on who you ask. Most scientists today would say that it is the same purpose as Vipassana -- i.e. to figure out how things really are -- and, typically, that it is superior to Vipassana in that respect. A small subset including, for example, the physicist Bernard d'Espagnat, author of "Veiled Reality" (among several other books), argues that the fundamental nature of reality is essentially hidden (veiled) from us, the observer, and that all science can do is analyze and codify the inter-subjective interaction between whatever reality actually "is" (although at this stage the word is clearly richer and more subtle than at first sight), and whatever we, the observer, are. In other words, by contrast with the first (admittedly majority) group, the second group says that natural science is not really about figuring out how things are but rather is -- and can only ever be -- about how things appear.
Personally, I'm with Wallace and d'Espagnat (and Wittgenstein, and Hume, and Husserl, and Kant, and Scruton, and Ricard, and Hossein Nasr, and Nagarjuna, and even, on at least one point, Harris )

Let's explicitly define the terms in the OP's question "In terms of reliability of understanding reality, how does the scientific method compare with Buddhist insight practice?"

Reliability:  the extent to which an experiment, test, or measuring procedure yields the same results on repeated trials  (Source: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reliability)
Reality:  the state of things as they actually exist, rather than as they may appear or might be imagined. (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality)
The scientific method: The shortest and clearest explanation is from Dr. Richard Feyman:

In general, we look for a new law by the following process: First we guess it; then we compute the consequences of the guess to see what would be implied if this law that we guessed is right; then we compare the result of the computation to nature, with experiment or experience, compare it directly with observation, to see if it works. If it disagrees with experiment, it is wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It does not make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it does not make any difference how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is — if it disagrees with experiment, it is wrong.
  (Source: http://www.brainpickings.org/index.php/2012/05/11/richard-feynman-key-to-science/)

  So first, are the results from insight practice reliable by the definition above?  The answer is that they are not.  Different people have different experiences of insight meditation. Even a single person's experience of insight meditation will vary from session to session.

Does Insight Meditation reveal reality under the above definition?  The answer is that it may.  On the other we may simply imagine it, since it is a subjective experience.  In my personal practice, I have subjective evidence from people who know me from before and after I started meditation that it has positively affected my behavior and mood.  In addition, I have objective evidence in that I very rarely now have insomnia whereas before it was a weekly or even nightly event.
The scientific method is the simplest and most reliable way that we have to understand reality.  I must emphatically separate the scientific method from the culture of scientists.  The scientific method is organized skepticism and works whether you believe in it or not.  It is capable of error and refuses to accept hypotheses can cannot be disproved.  Falsifiability is a key criteria of scientific investigation.

If science proves some belief of Buddhism wrong, then Buddhism will have to change. In my view, science and Buddhism share a search for the truth and for understanding reality. By learning from science about aspects of reality where its understanding may be more advanced, I believe that Buddhism enriches its own worldview.
    -- Tenzin Gyatso, the 14th Dalai Lama (Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/12/opinion/12dalai.html)

Just regarding reliability, the strictest definition doesn't say anything about interpersonal repeatability; but even if we specify that, i've seen hundreds of meditators go through the same stages of realization; what makes you think mental activity must be stochastic or chaotic when the material universe is so orderly?

"what makes you think mental activity must be stochastic or chaotic when the material universe is so orderly?" is an example of a "Straw Man" argument. (Source: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/The_Fine_Art_of_Baloney_Detection)  I never said what you are attributing to me. Variation is not chaos, but it is not reliable either, in the definition of my answer.

Thanks, I know what a straw man argument is... I apologize if I misunderstood you. Do you think experience gained through insight meditation follows an orderly process or just varies randomly from person to person? Or is there a third option I'm not seeing?

I am not saying either ("false dichotomy", sorry). I am saying that the experiences of insight meditation have a much higher standard deviation in a population than would an scientific experiment that proved its hypothesis.  Therefore insight meditation is less reliable than using the scientific method.  Meditation has tremendous value but the scientific method is more reliable at understanding reality .

Okay, so (and correct me if I'm misunderstanding you again) they are partially orderly and partially stochastic? On what do you base the conclusion that the standard deviation of meditation experience is so high?

I base my own experience on myself and the people I know who practice insight meditation, which is admittedly subjective.  I would be happy if an experiment could be designed that would demonstrate your claims to greater reliability or accuracy (perhaps the term you were looking for) for insight meditation's supremacy over the scientific method. It would save a lot on experimental equipment.

Let us continue this discussion in chat.


text:
In modern times what percentage of monks are female?
In the question When were women first welcomed into Buddhist orders? we learn that woman have been becoming monks for a long time.  In modern times (circa 2014 CE) what percentage of monks are female?

As the wiki page on ordination of women says, it's a lapsed tradition in Theravada countries.  That page states that there are more than 20 in Thailand, but "Thailand's two main Theravada Buddhist orders, the Mahanikaya and Dhammayutika Nikaya, have yet to officially accept fully ordained women into their ranks."  So the percentage is tiny, basically.

I started to research this and discovered this question is overly broad. For each country and each sect of Buddhism, the story is different.  Were this question about Catholicism, it would have a short, reasonable answer. In Buddhism, this is a veritable book of census data.

@MatthewMartin can you give some guidance on how the question can be made less broad?  For instance if the question is reworded to a specific country?

Sure, for example, in Cambodia there are lots of women who a bystander would call nuns, but they aren't ordained. On the other hand in Taiwan there are far more nuns than monks. Each situation has an interesting story to go with it.

In reply to "what percentage of Buddhist monks are female?" -
In Korea, the number of bhikkhus and bhikkhunis is very similar.  In Taiwan, the numbers of bhikkhunis now substantially surpass the number of bhikkhus.  I am not sure about Vietnam.
In the Theravada Buddhism of Southeast Asia, with the Bhikkhuni Sangha in the early stages of a revival and not yet State supported, the numbers of bhikkhunis are growing, but still much less than the numbers of bhikkhus. In Sri Lanka, there are now more than 2000 Theravada bhikkhunis, far more than anywhere else in the world.  In Thailand, there are less than 200 bhikkhunis, as compared to around 200,000 bhikkhus. In Theravada Buddhism in "the West" (in Australia, the United States, Canada and Germany combined), there are also less than 200 bhikkhunis.
Here in Northern California, there are more Theravada bhikkhuni viharas than in any other state or region in North America.  In this region there are ~60 Theravada bhikkhu temples (at last count) and 4 Theravada bhikkhuni viharas and hermitages. That's a 400% increase in bhikkhuni viharas in the past 5 years.

Can you include the number of males in similar positions in your answer? It is difficult to get percentages/comparisons  when you only look at one of the two groups.

Bhikkhus refers to male monks, bhikkhunis to females. Does this answer your question? Otherwise please be more specific, so that i can better understand your question.

That answers my question.

I liked the information you provided but can please ask for some references? (It can be anything like your personal experience or some population survey or anything)

Currently in Viet Nam it's about 10 nuns to every monk. http://books.google.com/books?id=kEtbBAAAQBAJ&q=thanh#v=onepage&q=unfulfilled%20wishes&f=false

I've been reading a lot about Bhikkhuni issues in Theravada and the number I saw quoted was approximately 1000 Bhikkhunis being ordained since the original ordination in 1996.
EDIT: Here it is
"Today there are more than 1,000 bhikkhunis, mainly in Sri Lanka and it is the only traditional Theravada country that has welcomed this new phenomenon."
http://snfwrenms.wordpress.com/2011/06/29/the-revival-of-bhikkhuni-ordination-in-the-theravada-tradition/


text:
What was the chronology of events in the Buddha's life?
This is the sort of question I'd find really useful to get an answer on; I'm looking for a rough chronology of the 45 years of the Buddha's (not the Bodhisatta's) life, year by year. I know there is some orthodox-approved order, I just can't find it yet. Does anyone know where it can be found, or even better can post it here?

This is from Hajimi Nakamura's "Gotama Buddha" vol. 1
Sorry about the quality...

1st         36      varanasi                migadayavana

2nd         37      Vulture Peak            Veluvana

3rd         38      Vulture Peak            Veluvana

4th         39      Vulture Peak            Veluvana

5th         40      Vesali                  Mahavana

6th(1)      41      Mount Mankula           Makula mountain

7th         42      Heaven of 33 [Gods]     Tavatimsa

8th(2)      43      realm of Yakkhas        grove of Tesakala

9th(3)      44      Kosambi                 Kosambi

10th        45      Cetiyapabbata           Palelayaka

11th(4)     46      realm of Yakkhas        Dakkhinagiri monastery

12th(5)     47      Magadha                 Veranja

13th(6)     48      realm of Yakkhas        monastery near Tsalia

14th        49      Anathapindika’s Park    Jetavana monastery

15th        50      Kapilavatthu            Nigrodha monastery

16th        51      Kapilavatthu            Alavi

17th(7)     52      Rajagaha                Veluvana

18th(8)     53      Rajagaha                monastery near Tsalia

19th        54      Mount Calika            Veluvana

20th        55      Rajagaha                Jetavana

21-24(9)    56-59   Mount Calika

25-43rd     60-78   Savatthi

44th        79      borders of Vajji

45th        80                              Veluvana

The Buddha moved from Vaisali to Sravasti, where he spent the sixth retreat. At the end of the retreat he moved to Rajagrha (H. Kern, Manual of Indian Buddhism IStrassburg: Verlag von Karl J. Triibner, 1896], p. 31). As can be seen below as well, Kern makes conclusive statements about the chronology, perhaps based on a South Asian tradition.
Kern states that the eighth retreat was held at Crocodile Hill (Simsumara-giri), a hill in Deer Park of Bhesakalavana in the country of Bharga (Kern, Manual, p. 34).
According to one Southern tradition, the Buddha spent the ninth retreat in Ghositarama in Kausambi (P. Bigandet, The Life or Legend of Caudama, vol. 1 (Rangoon) American Mission Press, 1855], p. 234). However, see Kern, Manual, p. 34.
During the eleventh retreat, the Buddha stayed near Rajagrha (Kern, Manual, p. 35).
Concerning the twelfth through fourteenth retreats, see Bigandet, Life or Legend, pp. 240—41; Kentoku Hori, Bijutsujé no Shaka (Sakyamuni in art; Tokyo: Hakubunkan, 1910), pp. 208—9. During the twelfth retreat, the Buddha stayed at a place near Veraﬁja (Kern, Manual, p. 36).
The thirteenth retreat was spent at sravasti and Calika (Kern, Manual, p. 36).
The Buddha went from Alavi to Rajagrha, and spent the seventeenth retreat in the Bamboo Grove there (Kern, Manual, p. 37).
The eighteenth retreat was spent on a hill near calika, the nineteenth at Venuvana, and the twentieth at Jetavana (Kern, Manual, p. 37).
Concerning Mount Calika, Shinko Mochizuki, “Buddha jodé shijﬂgonen ni okeru agon no chiten” (The places of vassa during the forty-five years of enlightenment) (Bukkyé kenkyu 1, no. 2 [July-August 1937], p. 8) says: “If we consider calika to be in Savatthi because it was located nearby, this would mean the Buddha spent a total of twenty-five years at Savatthi.” Akanuma does not refer to the mountain in his dictionary.

The following link provides a better pdf version:
Table 6. Gotama's Age, Years After Enlightenment,
and Sites of the Rainy-Season Retreats

Namo Buddhassa!


text:
What are the ten courses of action (kamma)?
In the Visuddhimagga, on the topic of virtue, there is a reference to the ten courses of action (kamma):

Furthermore, virtue as volition is the seven volitions [that accompany
  the first seven] of the [ten] courses of action (kamma) in one who
  abandons the killing of living things, and so on. Virtue as
  consciousness-concomitant is the [three remaining] states consisting
  of non-covetousness, non-ill will, and right view, stated in the way
  beginning, “Abandoning covetousness, he dwells with a mind free from
  covetousness” (D I 71).

I know the quote is taken out of context from the chapter, but I was just wondering about the ten courses of action (kamma), and their reference and significance?

1. What are the ten courses of action & their significance?
They are unwholesome and wholesome behaviors that lead people to live unhappily or happily now & in the future.
Unwholesome Course
Bodily Conduct
1. Killing & harming living beings.
2. Taking what is not given.
3. Sexual misconduct.
Verbal Conduct
4. Lying.
5. Slandering.
6. Harsh talk.
7. Useless Idle chattering.
Mental Conduct
8. Covetous thinking.
9. Hateful thinking.
10. Seeing distortedly with wrong view.
Wholesome Course
Bodily Conduct
1. Abandoning killing & harming living beings.
2. Abandoning taking what is not given.
3. Abandoning sexual misconduct.
Verbal Conduct
4. Abandoning lying.
5. Abandoning slandering.
6. Abandoning harsh talk.
7. Abandoning useless idle chattering.
Mental Conduct
8. Abandoning covetous thinking.
9. Abandoning hateful thinking.
10. Seeing undistortedly with right view.
(You can find details about them in the references provided below.)
2. What are their references?
You can find them in many discourses throughout the Pāḷi Canon, specially in the 10th book of the Numerical Discourses (Aṅguttara Nikāya).
Two examples are: AN 10.176, Cunda (Cunda-suttaṃ) & MN 41, Brahmans of Sala (Sāleyyaka-suttaṃ).

From the textbook Grade 11 Buddhism, Published by the ministry of education of Sri Lanka, they are:
1.Kamma from Mind

Abhidya - Wish of " May others property become mine"
Viyapada - Wish of " May other (or I) suffer or die"
Mithyadrushti - Wrong beliefs ex: there is no effect of kamma

2.Kamma from words

Lying
Bitter words
Columny
Telling bare words

3.Kamma from deeds

killing
Stealing
Sexual actions other than wife

To fulfill the Kamma there should be 4 things to complete
1. There should be a victim of it (Self or other)
2. There should have will to commit it
3. Should have made planning to do it
4. Commit it

If one of above not is there, Kamma was not been done.


text:
Did Gautama Buddha really intend to create a new religion?
Did Gautama Buddha really intend to create a new religion?
Was it because he was disillusioned with the prevalent religious practices, rituals and teachings of his time?

This seems likely to generate opinions, rather than factual answers.

This question was edited by a moderator to remove language that can be construed as offensive. Please do not revert back to the original version.

As Ven. Yuttadhammo said, this question definitely generates more opinions then answers. I will attempt to show what the Buddha himself talks about the goals of his creation.
Maha-parinibbana Sutta: Last Days of the Buddha

"For the Blessed One, O Lord, spoke these words to me: 'I shall not
come to my final passing away, Evil One, until my bhikkhus and
bhikkhunis, laymen and laywomen, have come to be true disciples —
wise, well disciplined, apt and learned, preservers of the Dhamma,
living according to the Dhamma, abiding by the appropriate conduct,
and having learned the Master's word, are able to expound it, preach
it, proclaim it, establish it, reveal it, explain it in detail, and
make it clear; until, when adverse opinions arise, they shall be able
to refute them thoroughly and well, and to preach this convincing and
liberating Dhamma.'
"For the Blessed One, O Lord, spoke these words to me: 'I shall not
come to my final passing away, Evil One, until this holy life taught
by me has become successful, prosperous, far-renowned, popular, and
widespread, until it is well proclaimed among gods and men.' And this
too has come to pass in just this way. So, O Lord, let the Blessed One
come to his final passing away, let the Happy One utterly pass away!
The time has come for the Parinibbana of the Lord."

As we can see the concept of a thriving fourfold assembly (Bhikkhus, Bhikkhunis, Lay disciples of both genders) was an important goal of the Buddha's wandering for 40+ years. In this section above Mara is trying to get the Buddha to renounce his final body and exit stage left, years before the Buddha told him he would not do this until the holy life and the fourfold assembly are prosperous and now towards the very end they are.
Now did the Buddha want to create the "ism" that is Buddhism? That is where personal debate comes in and goes beyond the scope of this question. Personally I think much of the "ism" today is far from the original teachings and vision of the Buddha, other's may think differently. I personally don't think of my dhamma practice as "Buddhism".. I like to use what the Buddha himself called his practice:
The name the Buddha gave to the spiritual path he taught was "Dhamma-vinaya" — the Doctrine (Dhamma) and Discipline (Vinaya).

Gautama Buddha wanted to understand the ultimate truth and he understood it. He tried to find it through other religions but couldn't. So by meditation he was able to find it by himself.

Yes, creating a Sasana is one of the main occupations of a fully awakened Buddha. If he didn't want to introduce a religion to the world which people can follow and attain enlightenment, he wouldn't have preached the Vinaya pitaka.

On a more historical note, thinking about this religion or that religion is a very modern view. Brahmanism of that area was part of law, medical science, culture etc. So the only thing one can say with confidence was that he challenged the status-quo and provided an alternative.

Buddha never started a new religion. He just taught what he found. Buddha himself a Hindu and surrounding him were Hindus. Buddha understood concept of God is not solution for man's problems/sufferings and only man can solve man's problems/sufferings. Buddha realized there are cure for many problems and some doesnt, however suffering can be removed in both cases. So he identified causes of suffering (The Four Noble Truths) and solution {The Noble Eight-fold Path) to eliminate suffering. Buddha emphasized not to look for external help (either from God or from other human beings). One has to do himself.
Buddha never like unrealistic things like heaven, gods kingdom, saving from sin etc.

Isn't it rather, that -what we call "Hinduism"- is a historically much later concept? As I understood things, the main "religion" was this Brahmanism (derived from the Vedic) and there was a concurring movement of "samanism" (which was around the Buddha's time and later collected and formalized as "Upanishad"). I've recently found an article (don't have the ref. at hand) where it was suggested, that that samanism was a relict from the native religiosity (which was replaced by the indo-aryan "invasion"(?better term?)) and partially even contrary to Brahmanism in ethics and spiritual goals.

For something historic about "Hinduism" see perhaps https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinduism#Periodisation

Buddhas do not start a religion. Disciples who have not attained Truth, and consequently who do not have identity create one. Organized religion is a set of individuals/organizations who market Truth. Truth does not need religion but its the other way round.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Did Gautama Buddha believe in God?
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?

As mentioned in another thread by @catpnosis, in MN 100: Sangarava Sutta:

“kiṃ nu kho, bho gotama, atthi devā”ti?
"How is it then, good Gotama; are there divine beings?"
“ṭhānaso metaṃ, bhāradvāja, viditaṃ yadidaṃ — adhidevā”ti.
"With reason it is known by me, Bhāradvāja, that there are higher divinities."

The question is, what do you mean by belief? If you mean believe to have existed certain beings who were believed to be divine, omnipotent, eternal, etc., then yes, it is quite clear the Buddha not only believed in such beings but, according to the texts, had direct experience interacting with them.
If you mean actually believing that such beings were omnipotent, omniscient, eternal, etc., then no he clearly had no such belief in regards to said beings. Reading the Brahmajala Sutta (DN 1) should be enough to dispel that idea. He does give a nice explanation as to where such belief comes from:

39. "There comes a time, bhikkhus, when after the lapse of a long period this world contracts (disintegrates). While the world is contracting, beings for the most part are reborn in the Ābhassara Brahma-world.[7] There they dwell, mind-made, feeding on rapture, self-luminous, moving through the air, abiding in glory. And they continue thus for a long, long period of time.
40. "But sooner or later, bhikkhus, after the lapse of a long period, there comes a time when this world begins to expand once again. While the world is expanding, an empty palace of Brahmā appears. Then a certain being, due to the exhaustion of his life-span or the exhaustion of his merit, passes away from the Ābhassara plane and re-arises in the empty palace of Brahmā. There he dwells, mind made, feeding on rapture, self-luminous, moving through the air, abiding in glory. And he continues thus for a long, long period of time.
41. "Then, as a result of dwelling there all alone for so long a time, there arises in him dissatisfaction and agitation, (and he yearns): 'Oh, that other beings might come to this place!' Just at that moment, due to the exhaustion of their life-span or the exhaustion of their merit, certain other beings pass away from the Ābhassara plane and re-arise in the palace of Brahmā, in companionship with him. There they dwell, mind-made, feeding on rapture, self-luminous, moving through the air, abiding in glory. And they continue thus for a long, long period of time.
42. "Thereupon the being who re-arose there first thinks to himself: 'I am Brahmā, the Great Brahmā, the Vanquisher, the Unvanquished, the Universal Seer, the Wielder of Power, the Lord, the Maker and Creator, the Supreme Being, the Ordainer, the Almighty, the Father of all that are and are to be. And these beings have been created by me. What is the reason? Because first I made the wish: "Oh, that other beings might come to this place!" And after I made this resolution, now these beings have come.'
"And the beings who re-arose there after him also think: 'This must be Brahmā, the Great Brahmā, the Vanquisher, the Unvanquished, the Universal Seer, the Wielder of Power, the Lord, the Maker and Creator, the Supreme Being, the Ordainer, the Almighty, the Father of all that are and are to be. And we have been created by him. What is the reason? Because we see that he was here first, and we appeared here after him.'
43. "Herein, bhikkhus, the being who re-arose there first possesses longer life, greater beauty, and greater authority than the beings who re-arose there after him.
44. "Now, bhikkhus, this comes to pass, that a certain being, after passing away from that plane, takes rebirth in this world. Having come to this world, he goes forth from home to homelessness. When he has gone forth, by means of ardor, endeavor, application, diligence, and right reflection, he attains to such a degree of mental concentration that with his mind thus concentrated he recollects his immediately preceding life, but none previous to that. He speaks thus: 'We were created by him, by Brahmā, the Great Brahmā, the Vanquisher, the Unvanquished, the Universal Seer, the Wielder of Power, the Lord, the Maker and Creator, the Supreme Being, the Ordainer, the Almighty, the Father of all that are and are to be. He is permanent, stable, eternal, not subject to change, and he will remain the same just like eternity itself. But we, who have been created by him and have come to this world, are impermanent, unstable, short-lived, doomed to perish.'
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.01.0.bodh.html

The Jataka commentary also has a nice passage about god and the godly:

These greedy liars propagate deceit,
  And fools believe the fictions they repeat;
He who has eyes can see the sickening sight;
  Why does not God set his creatures right?
If his wide power no limits can restrain,
  Why is his hand so rarely spread to bless?
Why are his creatures all condemned to pain?
  Why does he not to all give happiness?
Why do fraud, lies, and ignorance prevail?
  Why triumphs falsehood,—truth and justice fail?
I count your God one th’ injust among,
  Who made a world in which to shelter wrong.
Jāt. 543

Gauthama buddha wanted to find the Ultimate Truth. He has undederstood it. A person who understand it born in for periods of kalpa(For billions of years)
Gods are also under that truth. No one can escape it. The prime Anicca cannot be bypassed even for gods. They also ends-up their powers as gods one day.
Certain Seela or customs protected by Bhikkhus can only be protected by humans. So it is told that gods worship for those people who protect advanced customs. So gods worships and believe in Triple Gems(Buddha, Dhamma, Sanga).

Buddha accepted supernatural powers, and supernatural realms. But he never believed that they are the best because supernatural powers and realms still arise and vanish. So they still are suffering.

Gods exist. Even we can be born in those realms if we do positive karma for it. But gods are not eternal; they just, like us, enjoy or suffer from the karma done in the past.
According to Buddhism, no god can give you eternal life, get you in god realms, or drag you to hell.
You are the only person who can do it for yourself. Others can only teach you the path. If that path is wrong, no one can help you.


text:
Does understanding the Visuddhimagga require a knowledge of the Pali Canon?
I quite fancy reading the Visuddhimagga at some point. I have heard good things about it. However I'm aware that it is a commentary on the Pali Canon and that has put me off starting it.
How much of the Pali Canon would one need to read before you could profitably read the  Visuddhimagga. All of it (daunting), none of it or some. If it is some then which some. What are the parts of the Pali Canon that it would be best to read before the Visuddhimagga?

Just a quick sidenote here. The Visuddhimagga isn't actually a commentary per se. It's structure is just based off of a simile about the seven purifications. It's a self contained book.

Like much of Buddhism, your understanding of the text is probably relative to not only your familiarity with Buddhist concepts and theory, but also your own cultivation of the practices themselves.
We went through some of the Visuddhimagga in Winnipeg last year, and I had to explain and elaborate on a lot of the technical aspects of the book using the canon and commentaries. But much of it is easily accessible to the neophyte, especially the first two sections.
Absolutely, reading the entire tipitaka would be the best way to prepare for the Visuddhimagga; go for it! If you can't handle the dauntingness of such a task, beware, because a partial read of the dhamma can give you a lopsided understanding. That's what texts like the Visuddhimagga are for, to give you an overview.
A good way to get a fairly solid overview is to read a single collection, like the Digha or the Majjhima nikaya. Read both if you can, but read them in their entirety, so you get a broad look at the types of things the Buddha taught. The MN can be read one sutta at a time - you can make a chart and check off every time you finish one sutta (there's 152 of them). Bodhi's translations are good. Check out https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.yuttadhammo.buddhisttexts&hl=en
Practice meditation too; samatha if you want to understand the samadhi niddesa aspect, vipassanā if you want to understand the paññā niddesa. In fact, don't read the tipitaka unless you're meditating as well; I would imagine it difficult to understand (or easy to misunderstand) without actually practicing.
But in the end, what's to worry about? It's all good stuff, tried, tested, and trusted by meditators around the world for thousands of years. Good luck :)

Currently reading the Visuddhimagga, although only up to 1/8 of it, so I cannot answer for the work in its entirety. However, from reading so far, partly from reading the long introduction by the very skilled translator, and from reading the start of the book, I see no indication that knowledge of the Pali Canon is required. The Visuddhimagga is almost like a manual itself, although I wouldn't say that reading that would be a requirement for reading the Pali Canon.
Quite heavy text, one needs a clear mind when going through it, to take in all the details. Each topic is turned over a multitude of ways (and times), it appears very thorough.


text:
Did Gautama Buddha exist?
Is there any historical third-party evidence that the Gautama Buddha actually existed?
Is there historical third-party evidence that Prince Siddhartha or the Gautama Buddha existed outside of the writings of Buddhism?

Interesting answers, but he existed. period.

Mu. Does it matter?

It is not the man behind the words that matters but the content of the words themselves... in which case the Four Noble Truths and the Wings of  Awakening is so perfect only one with a Buddha's wisdom could have illuminated it.

@RubberDuck Doesn't the truth matter?

Aye @Uilium. It does, but which truth? The historical facts, or the truth.

10-4 @RubberDuck What truths are we talking about?

Honestly, I don't even know anymore @Uilium. I just find the question silly. It really doesn't matter if the Buddha existed, in my humble opinion. Does it matter so long as a single person has made their life, and the lives of those around them a bit better?

@RubberDuck Yes, I agree that it doesn't really matter but I was thinking that it might, in a subtle way, effect one's meditation.

Fair point @Uilium. Fair point.

There is an abundance of wishful thinking and a dearth of critical examination in many of the answers below. As a long-time user of several other Stack Exchange communities – and a brand new user of this one, I must say that I am disappointed.

To answer your very simple question very simply: there is no contemporary evidence for the Buddha, or for Jesus, or Muhammad, or Moses, or Zoroaster.  This does not mean that these people did not exist, it just means that there is no confirmation of their existence in contemporary sources.

Mohammed is in grave at Madina.

And there is a lot of non christian evidence that Jesus existed (largly Jewish and Roman records). Whether he was the son of god is somewhat more contested

Yes, but none of it is contemporary (i.e. before the second half of the 1st century).

@fdb Why is that defined as the cut-off for "contemporary" evidence? Also, could you give an example of contemporary evidence from that time that would have supported the existence of such a person?

"Contemporary" means from the lifetime of the person concerned. We have lots of sources from the first half of the first century in Greek, Latin, Aramaic: inscriptions, literary texts, papyri. None of them mention Jesus or Christians.

@fdb: A "Christian" in the first half of the first century would have been considered a Hebrew.

Lord Buddha's life and existence has been proven by archaeological proof. You can find such evidence in both physical and biological forms. Physical evidence can be found in India,Nepal and few other asian countries. Biological evidence can be found in India,Burma,Sri Lanka and few other countries that still protect the holy remains.

There are lot of archaeological evidence align with Buddha's life story. I think those can be considered as the most trusted third party evidence.
Here I am listing some of the web search findings.

Archaeologists working in Nepal have uncovered evidence of a structure at the birthplace of the Buddha dating to the sixth century B.C. This is the first archaeological material linking the life of the Buddha — and thus the first flowering of Buddhism — to a specific century.

You could find the full story from here and here
Apart from that, king Ashoka built Pillars at Buddhist monasteries, many important sites from the life of the Buddha and places of pilgrimage. This was done around 200 -300 years after the Buddha parinirvana. During that time those important sites and monasteries should have left some sort of evidence to support Buddhas existence that convince King to build the pillers. So it also can be considered as good indication.
Further:

The records which we can find in the Buddhist countries where people received Buddhism a few hundred years after the Buddha's passing away such as Sri Lanka, Burma, China, Tibet, Nepal, Korea, Mongolia, Japan, Thailand, Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos show unbroken historical, cultural, religious, literary and traditional evidence that there was religious Teacher in India known as Gautama the Buddha. Ref: here

There are churches all over the world but no historical evidence that Jesus existed.  The more time between an historical figure and the first evidence of that figure's existence the less credible that evidence is.

That the shrine is Buddhist has been debunked. http://www.tricycle.com/blog/recent-discovery-earliest-buddhist-shrine-sham

I guess for something that happened such a long time ago you would struggle to prove it categorically. However I read that a shrine was uncovered at Lumbini (one of the candidates for the Buddha's birthplace) which dates to around the Buddha's time. This is taken to provide some kind of corroboration to the Buddha's life story.
Also the early texts do reference people who have been confirmed independently as existing such as King Bimbisara. This again is taken as lending weight to the events described in the texts.
Also some people would take the oral tradition and subsequent Pali Canon as historical evidence in it's own right of the existence of Buddha the man.
But to answer you question directly I'm not aware of any direct writings on the Buddha by (relatively - in the light of OP's comments) independent observers (as Josephus did for Jesus). Interested to see if anyone can come up with something.

That the shrine is Buddhist has been debunked. http://www.tricycle.com/blog/recent-discovery-earliest-buddhist-shrine-sham  Regarding the authenticity of Josephus, Wikipedia says: "Modern scholarship has largely acknowledged the authenticity of the reference...to "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James ...However, critics point out that Josephus wrote about a number of people who went by the name Jesus, Yeshua or Joshua,[20] and also speculate that Josephus may have considered James a fraternal brother rather than a sibling."

There's emperor Ashoka (304–232 BCE), who after a war in which a lot of people were slaughtered, decided to endorse Buddhism, having realized that what he did was wrong. He erected a bunch of columns (The Pillars of Ashoka) on which several inscriptions (The Edicts of Ashoka) are to be found with his view on Buddhism. These were erected after about one century after the Buddha's death, not that much time. The monks of the sangha would be the "second generation", some maybe even the very first generation who were taught by the Buddha directly (although I don't know that for sure, obviously). My answer was partly inspired by a thread on Reddit I remembered seeing. (Thread link)
I want to stress that I am by no means an expert on this field, but I can see that this is fairly well documented, and that the wikipedia page contains proper references.

100 years is 5 generations. That's a lot of time.  Buddha's father was a king. Wouldn't his first son's birth be documented?

I kind of meant generations of monks, but perhaps it wasn't quite the correct word to use. (The thread I linked used the same word, so I just went with it)
About your last question, I'm afraid I don't know enough about that.

The sacred Tooth relic of the Buddha

Hindus consider the Buddha as an Avatar of Vishnu.
Mahawamsa the great Chronicle of Sri Lanka gives an account of the Buddha's 3 visits to Sri Lanka.
Apart from those, we have the sacred Tooth relic of the Buddha in Kandy. We also have the sacred footprint of the Buddha at the top of mount Siripada. Also, lord Buddha's relics are placed inside many Stupas around the country.
Ruwanwelisaya is the main stupa among them. We also have the Jaya Sri Mahabodhi at Anuradhapura. It is the southern branch of the original Bodhi tree under which the Buddha attained enlightenment.

From Wikipedia: " The historical accuracy of the Mahavamsa, given the time when it was written, is considered to be astonishing,[12] although the material prior to the death of Asoka is not considered to be trustworthy and is mostly legend. "

An anonymous wit of the Middle Ages once said something along the lines of "If you collected all the pieces of the True Cross, you would have enough wood to build Noah's Ark."

"material prior to the death of Asoka is not considered to be trustworthy" - This is because materialistic critiques reject anything supernatural on general principle. Because the Buddha came to Sri Lanka using his magical powers.
You can doubt about the authenticity of the sacred relics all you want. But it'll only be your loss! :) I'd trust the Mahawamsa any day as opposed to going by the words of an anonymous guy.

I'd trust my own (god-given?) sense of reason and my own assessment of any evidence instead of the words of an anonymous guy (yourself)! Please no offense.

Here is a quote from the book What Buddhist Believe by Ven. K. Sri. Dhammanda. The quote is from the chapter: "Historical Evidences of the Buddha", p. 38-41:

GAUTAMA the Buddha is not a mythical figure but an actual, historical personality who introduced the religion known today as Buddhism. Evidences to prove the existence of this great religious Teacher are to be found in the following facts:

The testimonies of those who knew Him personally. These testimonies are recorded in the rock-inscriptions, pillars and pagodas made in His honour. These testimonies and monuments to His memory were created by kings and others who were near enough to His time to be able to verify the story of His life.

The discovery of places and the remains of buildings that were mentioned in the narratives of His time.

The Sangha, the holy order which He founded, has had an unbroken existence to the present day. The Sangha possessed the facts of His life and Teachings which have been transmitted from generation to generation in various parts of the world.

The fact that in the very year of His death, and at various times subsequently, conventions and councils of the Sanghawere held for the verification of the actual Teachings of the Founder. These verified Teachings have been passed on from teacher to pupil from His time to the present day.

After His passing away, His body was cremated and the bodily relics were divided among eight kingdoms in India. Each king built a pagoda to contain his portion of the relics. The portion given to King Ajatasatthu was enshrined by him in a pagoda at Rajagriha. Less than two centuries later, Emperor Asoka took the relics and distributed them throughout his empire. The inscriptions enshrined in this and other pagodas confirm that those were the relics of Gautama the Buddha. Some of these relics which were not touched by Emperor Asoka were discovered only as recently as one hundred years ago, with inscriptions to prove their authenticity.

‘The Mahavamsa’, the best and authentic ancient history known to us gives detailed particulars of life as well as details of the life of Emperor Asoka and all other sovereigns related to Buddhist history. Indian history has also given a prominent place to the Buddha’s life, activities, Buddhist traditions and customs.

The records which we can find in the Buddhist countries where people received Buddhism a few hundred years after the Buddha’s passing away such as Sri Lanka, Myammar, China, Tibet, Nepal, Korea, Mongolia, Japan, Thailand, Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos show unbroken historical, cultural, religious, literary and traditional evidence that there was a religious teacher in India known as Gautama theBuddha. Many of these records are widely separated in time and space and yet they say exactly the same things about the Buddha—this proves that they could not have invented these stories independently.

The Tripitaka, an unbroken record of His 45 years of Teaching is more than sufficient to prove that the Buddha really lived in this world because no other religious leader has ever said anything like what the Buddha has taught.

The accuracy and authenticity of the Buddhist texts is supported by the fact that they provide information for historians to write Indian history during the 5th and 6th century B.C. The texts, which represent the earliest reliable written records in India, provide a profound insight into the socio-economic, cultural and political environment and conditions during the Buddha’s lifetime as well as into the lives of His contemporaries, such as King Bimbisara.
The names of the places where important events occurred during the Buddha’s time and which are recorded in the scriptures still exist today with slight modification in spelling and pronunciation. Examples of these are Buddha Gaya—Bodhagaya, Baranasi—Benares, Kusinara—Kusinagara, Rajagaha—Rajgiri, Lumbini—Rummini, Savatthi—Sahetmahet, Vihara—Bihar, and so on.

That is one beautiful house (or at least facade) you've constructed with all those cards you've stacked! You might consider some citations as a foundation though!

@DavidRivers The quoted book doesn't have citations/footnotes/references. The Author's Note says that the book is meant to "introduce the original teaching clearly", and that it is not meant to be one of the "books by learned scholars who present the teachings in a highly academic and abstruse manner".

@ChrisW So then why is this book being referenced here?

@DavidRivers Well, the moderation on this (beta) site is relatively permissive -- see e.g. Moderation policies for Questions. The policy for Answers is that they are more-or-less OK if they are more-or-less on-topic, and won't be moderated unless they're downvoted. This answer was upvoted, so I suppose some people found it useful (and/or popular). It's true there have been users who hoped this site might be for expert-level or precise Q+A (e.g. among scholars) and been disappointed sometimes, but maybe you can't please everyone all the time.

@DavidRivers There are (other) topics on this site with (relatively) expert answers; do you have questions or answers of your own, to ask? Is this the only topic you're interested in? Do you want to discuss something (about the site or this question or this answer) as a topic on Meta?


text:
How does Buddhism describe God?
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?

Possible duplicate of http://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/1812/did-gautama-buddha-believe-in-god

There are now three questions that overlap; the other is http://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/1581/do-buddhists-believe-in-gods. Can we not merge all three of these together into one big "what does Buddhism say about the god thing anyway?" question?

@yuttadhammo Perhaps all these (curious) questions should just be endured as they are, answering the unique God questions and closing duplicates?

@yuttadhammo, but wouldn't that fall victim to the "too broad" problem. Part of the issue is the whole concept of "god" itself -- it's a very broad subject, covering a wide range of concepts.  It would be OK in a normal discussion forum, but SE's Q&A focus may make it impossible to handle.

@Tommy maybe; it just feels like the same sort of info will be given to these questions. But sure, leave them open for now anyway.

@yuttadhammo, you're probably right. I've been trying to think of a way to avoid the "too broad" issue, by splitting it into a number of succinct questions. But it's too hard. I wouldn't object to an attempt at a merge and catch-all answer. Rather you than me though :-)

I suggest we close this as a duplicate as @SankhaKulathantille says; even the aspect of Buddha being a God can be addressed by answers there. Any complaints?

From my perspective, they are dupes.

@AndreiVolkov Maybe there's a tool which would allow you to merge them, e.g. Improved Question Merging

For Buddhism, If you define God as someone who created the world, God does not exist.
But if you define the God as someone who is superior to other beings, then god exist.
However, such a god exists only for a period of time, then one day the god will go down to another level (I mean rebirth) as an angel or human.
The Lord Buddha is not a God.
In Tripitaka, there is a lesson about how the world is created and how god came to exists.

“But if you define the God as someone who is superior to other beings, then god exist.” To be accurate, you would have to say “But if you define the gods as someone who is superior to other beings, then gods exist.” Plural or singular is a very important part of the question when someone is asking if Buddhists are monotheistic.

Which Buddhism?
In Theravada, the gods are less important, and if they exist, are subject to all the same problems we are, being mortal, petty, flawed, etc.
In Mayahayana, the Buddhas have a lot of the qualities you mentioned. But a Christian might also object to the Mayahana goal which is to become a god (if a god is omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent). This is a huge difference with say Christianity, where people in heaven don't get their own pure land or become a god themselves.
In Vajrayana, many Hindu deities were imported (many were imported into Theravada and Mahayana) but were give larger roles (and a Buddhist twist).
What you don't find in Buddhism in general, except for maybe Shin Buddhism and some of the other Pure Land Buddhisms, is an all powerful, intercessionary God, that mostly is an object of devotion.

The question was not about “the gods” it was about “God.” Basically, the question is “are Buddhists monotheistic like the followers of Abrahamic religions?”

Oh, that's easy then. No. The historical Buddhists weren't even aware of Abrahamic religions. The closest they got was incorporating some Zoroastrian aspects when Mahayana Buddhism was practice along side it in modern day Afghanistan. It is refreshingly missing every element of Christianity because the Buddhists didn't know anything about it until European missionaries got to Asia in the last few hundred years.  Except for the opinions of some perenialists-people who think all religions are deeply the same, a religious stand, not a academic one-Buddhism& Xtianity don't have the same goals, etc

There is a sowewhat long article in Wikipedia on this regard.
But Buddhists don't see Buddha as God. Buddha is more like a saint, as there are may Buddhas. They attained enlightenment in a specific way, so they are considered as so. Monks attain enlightenment but they aren't Buddhas, besides they say everyone has the nature of Buddha in ourselves.
Now God is something that is not very thought/talked/taught about in Buddhism. God isn't accepted or denied, but we rather don't conjecture about supernatural things or beings. We don't identify God as we can't perceive him or it, as we can perceive other people.
But there are the deities is Buddhism as seen on the Six Domains of Samsara. They aren't supernatural begins, but a fleeting state of the life. For example, when people win the lottery, initially they are very happy and taking advantage of all the money they won. But this mental state doesn't last long, it goes away in one or two years, they cycle to other domains. Another example is when we buy some new smartphone or car, we are very happy and proud and full of energy (we feel as gods) in the first days or weeks, but all this excitation disappears (we migrate to other realms or domains). So being a god is feeling like one, but feelings change sooner or later.

There is no “God” in Buddhism. The idea of (capital G) “God” — one single being who created the universe — is from Abrahamic religion. There is not one of anything in Buddhism. There is not even just one Buddha. And the universe has no beginning and no end.
So Buddhism doesn’t describe “God” at all.

If the "God" you are referring to is "The almighty" in Christianity or something similar Lord Buddha dumped the belief that life itself was made by a single being in a form of a creation.
Lord Buddha clearly accepted his own form of evolution which start from basic life (Very similar to what you learn about evolution of early earth's basic life).Lord Buddha clearly said that universe is a creation of very natural events and it is not a creation of a being,Lord Buddha didn't stop there he went on to explain how he tried to learn about the beginning.It's what we call today the "coming to existence".Lord Buddha said that universe itself is immensely old and trying to find a beginning would be a fruitless effort.
Once some one asked the very question you are asking "Is lord Buddha a god?".
Lord Buddha replied saying "Because of my understanding i am above everyone else and i am only equal to another Lord Buddha,No i am not a god i am above them"
The gods mentioned in Buddhism are not like gods in other religions.Here is a small list of details.

Live extremely long (From 1/2 a million years to many millenniums)
Can fast travel anywhere in the universe in few milliseconds
Immensely powerful
Do not get old (But even they have a life expectancy)

These advanced beings are not alien to earth,thousands reside in earth and in many other planets.They have two genders Male and Female.And anyone human can become one of them by gaining enough good karma.
Lord Buddha clearly said that there are no souls,these is no owner to life,there is no creator,there is no forgiving (Like they do in churches) and there is no one looking down on living beings to punish or reward them.
It is safe to say Lord Buddha slammed the theory of a "Almighty God".
The reason Lord Buddhas are born is to help others reach nirvana (it is not a place or an existence,but a level of understanding that unlocks everything about universe).
Buddhism completely reject the common concept of "God".
The Gods in Buddhism did not received the title "God" by lord Buddha.Later when people were translating Buddhism to English they used the word "God" because of the many similarities.They are originally called "Deva".And the heaven mentioned in Buddhism is originally called "Divya Realm", the hell heaven mentioned in Buddhism is originally called "Naraka / Apaya".
This might be a little hurtful but Lord Buddha had something to say about the people called "Sons / Daughters of gods","Prophets of gods".Lord Buddha said that there is a world in "Deva realm" or the so called "Heaven", in it is a dominating king who controls the universe's beings.He only like loyalty towards him and he destroy the ones who go against him.It is his and his army's duty to keep it all under his command until the successor to the throne arrives,When he comes he will do the same.This position is so powerful he even challenged lord Buddha,Lord Buddha accepted the challenge and won it.It was the moment of greatness,the moment lord Buddha became the enlightened.
Lord Buddha said if people come to the path mentioned in Buddhism this king will loose his influence over them so he do many things to stop it.One of which is selecting individuals in times with less understanding about things and teach them false beliefs and ask for their loyalty and expansion of these beliefs.
This king is called "Maara".And to learn more about "Deva realm /Heaven" click on this link
http://mahamevnawa.com/Amadahara_FrnDw/Mp3_JeewanandaThero/38_Stories_of_Gods.mp3
This is about how lord Buddha described himself and his understanding...
http://mahamevnawa.com/Amadahara_FrnDw/Mp3_JeewanandaThero/70_Achchariya_Abbuta_Sutta.mp3
This is about the fate of the mankind.A very special teaching of lord Buddha.
http://mahamevnawa.com/Amadahara_FrnDw/Mp3_JeewanandaThero/72_Chakkavatthi_Sihanada_Sutta.mp3
If you have any questions regarding the answer or about the contents of the links please leave a comment below this answer.
May Triple Gems Bless You.

As I understand it, something which has no start and no end is the creator of the world, and has no mind and no story as a human being.
So, I expect that the historical Buddha (who was a human being) is not the God.

I would say that the Buddha has no start and no end. No Mind, and no story. As a Zen Buddhist, I would say your definition of G-d reflects all beings and non-beings. Reminds me of the heart sutra.

When if comes to the Buddhist concept of God (Deva) the main characteristics differentiating them from similar concepts in other religions is:

They are not all mighty but subjected to the cosmic order just like every on else
They are a finite life span as as per Theravada Buddhist cosmology. (Also see: Buddhist cosmology for more generic discussion)
They do not exercise absolute control over others or any world system as every one is cosmic order and world systems are governed by the laws of cosmology
There are many gods (devas) in each plane of existence
There are many heavens (planes of existence)

Also see: God in Buddhism

If someone does positive karma and that karma is sufficient to give birth in a god realm, then that individual will be born in a god realm. Even an animal can be born as a god if that animal’s karma forms in that way.
It is simple, if we do good, we will receive good.
But these god or Brahma realms are not eternal. The only eternal thing is ‘Nirvana’.
According to Buddhism, there is no god who is eternal.
Buddha is not a god, he is greater than any god or Brahma. He achieved Nirvana (eternal)