Hinduism’s ‘general entities’
envisage fixed entities behind phenomena. As for Buddhism, one of
the differentiating catalysts is a discussion that refutes the
existence of any permanent entity whatsoever. The Hindu theory that
Buddhism contests most strongly is that of an all-powerful Creator,
like the Hindu Ishvara. Debates on this subject actually took place
with the holders of the main Hindu philosophies, of which there
were many, several centuries before and after Christ. The debates
centered, in general terms, on the Hindu premise (and relatively
common religious postulation) of a permanent Creator entity,
all-powerful and sufficient in itself, without any cause preceding
it, creating as a voluntary act. Point-by-point, Buddhist dialects
refuted (and continue to contest) this ideology by utilizing a
tradition of dianoetic reasoning, which would resemble the
following approach to your original statement:
A Creator, as prescribed, would
have to be all-powerful. As such, either the Creator doesn’t
‘decide’ to create, in which case all-powerfulness is lost, for
creation happens outside his will; or it creates voluntarily, in
which case he cannot be all-powerful, either, as he’s creating
under the influence of a desire to create. Can a Creator be a
permanent entity? No, because after creating he is different from
how he was before he created. He has become ‘he who created’.
Furthermore if he creates the whole universe that necessarily
implies that all the causes of the universe must be present within
him. Now, one of the principles of the law of cause and effect, or
karma, is that an event cannot take place as long as all the causes
and conditions for its arising are not assembled, and that it
cannot not take place once they are. This, in turn, means that a
Creator either could never create or would have to be constantly
creating.
The relative aspects of phenomena
(or in other words, the world of appearances) in Buddhism are
distinguished from the ultimate nature of everything. From an
absolute point of view, again differing from that of Hinduism,
Buddhism holds that an entity that truly existed could neither
arise in the first place nor ever disappear. Being cannot be born
from nothingness, because even an infinitude of causes would not be
able to make something that didn’t exist come into existence; nor
can it be born from what already exists, as in that case there
would be no need for it to be born…
This sort of reasoning, and
many others like it, can be applied to Hinduism and all traditions
that envisage a Creator who is eternal, all-powerful, who exists
intrinsically, and so on.
Many people argue against the existence of Creator
because many tend to think of Earth as the most
important planet in the Universe and humans as the all-supreme
species of beings, and don't fully understand the real purpose
of Earth's existence.
Anyway, for folks wanting to know more, just know that while
Earth was created by Creator, humans were not created by Him, but
by very highly evolved beings. For folks who don't believe this,
just treat what I said as a story. :)
Rainbow Jigsaw of Life