<p>It's not written(at least i don't think it is), it's something you have to understand. Let me make a different approach. </p><p>Why do people worship gods? Because they desire something(normally is to go to heaven instead of hell), and buddhists try to get rid of their desires to enter Nirvana. It's kind of like sex and eating meat, the problem isn't the action but the desire. And if you desire nothing why would you worship a god? </p><p>So, two things: </p><p>1 - The belief that something other than yourself control your destiny is a illusion; </p><p>and </p><p>2 - If you worship a god it's because you desire something, and if you have desire you can't enter Nirvana; </p><p>Does that sound like Buddhism or Hedonism? I would like to know why you said it sounded more like Hedonism. </p>

<p>Unless you have a citation, you're just claiming something that goes against what Buddhists & religion teachers have told me & can't be found anywhere. So...yeah. </p><p>Also, you're really supposed to worship the gods as a way of honoring them & fulfilling your spiritual duty, not as a business transaction. </p><p>Epicureanism, more specifically: </p> <div class="quote"><i>Since learning, culture, and civilization as well as social and political involvements could give rise to desires that are difficult to satisfy and thus result in disturbing one's peace of mind, they were discouraged. Knowledge was sought only to rid oneself of religious fears and superstitions, the two primary fears to be eliminated being fear of the gods and of death</i></div>

<div class="quote"><i>1 - The belief that something other than yourself control your destiny is a illusion;</i></div>
<p>"No one saves us but ourselves. No one can and no one may. We ourselves must walk the path." Buddha. "Peace comes from within. Do not seek it without." Buddha. </p> <div class="quote"><i>2 - If you worship a god it's because you desire something, and if you have desire you can't enter Nirvana; </i></div>
<p>"There are different types of worship. When someone worships a god, they praise him or her, making offerings and ask for favours, believing that the god will hear their praise, receive their offerings and answer their prayers. Buddhists do not indulge in this kind of worship. The other kind of worship is when we show respect to someone or something we admire. When a teacher walks into a room we stand up, when we meet a dignitary we shake hands,when the national anthem is played we salute. These are all gestures of respect and worship and indicate our admiration for persons and things. This is the type of worship Buddhist practise. A statue of the Buddha with its hands rested gently in its lap and its compassionate smile reminds us to strive to develop peace and love within ourselves. The perfume of incense reminds us of the pervading influence of virtue, the lamp reminds us of light of knowledge and the flowers which soon fade and die, reminds us of impermanence. When we bow, we express our gratitude to the Buddha for what his teachings have given us. This is the nature of Buddhist worship. " Source </p><p>Now, there are some buddhists that make offerings to the Boddhisatvas(wich i find pretty much pointless), but can you show me a buddhist that entered(or said they could enter) Nirvana by doing it? Because my point is not that Buddha said "You can't worship" but that worshipping a god won't make you exit Samsara since the gods themselves didn't get out of it, since(if they exist) they only exist in a higher plane still bound to the reincarnation cycle(like the devas and the example i gave of Bhrama). </p>

<p>I can't show you a Buddhis that entered Nirvana at all because Nirvana is a totally unprovable concept & most likely souls don't exist at all. </p><p>Hinduism is a polymorphic monotheism, meaning that the "gods" are actually more accurately described as parts or attributes of the singular god, Brhaman. In Hinduism, the goal is <i>also</i> to break the cycle of reincarnation, which involves returning to Brhaman, since it is basically the pure spiritual essence. The devas are more like demigods. </p><p>I don't know whether this belief came first & inspired Gautama or if Gautama triggered a change in Hinduism, but either way, there's no conflict between modern Buddhism & Hinduism. </p>

<p><i>Brahma in the Pali Canon</i> </p><p><i>Brahma is among the common gods found in the Pali Canon. Brahma (in common with all other devas) is subject to change, final decline and death, just as are all other sentient beings in samsara (the plane of continual reincarnation and suffering). In fact there are several different Brahma worlds and several kinds of Brahmas in Buddhism, all of which however are just beings stuck in samsara for a long while. Sir Charles Eliot describes attitudes towards Brahma in early Buddhism as follows:</i> </p>

   There comes a time when this world system passes away and then certain beings are reborn in the "World of Radiance" and remain there a long time. Sooner or later, the world system begins to evolve again and the palace of Brahma appears, but it is empty. Then some being whose time is up falls from the "World of Radiance" and comes to life in the palace and remains there alone. At last he wishes for company, and it so happens that other beings whose time is up fall from the "World of Radiance" and join him. And the first being thinks that he is Great Brahma, the Creator, because when he felt lonely and wished for companions other beings appeared. And the other beings accept this view. And at last one of Brahma’s retinue falls from that state and is born in the human world and, if he can remember his previous birth, he reflects that he is transitory but that Brahma still remains and from this he draws the erroneous conclusion that Brahma is eternal.

<p><i>Other common gods referred to in the Canon</i> </p><p><i>Many of the other gods in the Pali Canon find a common mythological role in Hindu literature. Some common gods and goddesses are Indra, Aapo (Varuna), Vayo (Vayu), Tejo (Agni), Surya, Pajapati (Prajapati), Soma, Yasa, Venhu (Viṣṇu), Mahadeva (Siva), Vijja (Saraswati), Usha, Pathavi (Prithvi), Sri (Lakshmi), Kuvera (Kubera), several yakkhas (Yakshas), gandhabbas (Gandharvas), Nāgas, garula (Garuda), sons of Bali, Veroca, etc. While in Hindu texts some of these gods and goddesses are considered embodiments of the Supreme Being, the Buddhist view is that all gods and goddesses were bound to samsara. The world of gods according to the Buddha presents a being with too many pleasures and distractions.</i>Source. </p><p><i>The Buddha described the Vedic Brahmā as a misunderstanding, or mistaken remembrance, of one or more of the Buddhist Brahmās, as explained in the Brahmajāla-sutta (Digha Nikaya 1).</i>Source. </p><p>This was said by Siddharta Gautama, wich means there is a conflict between them. </p><p><i>A deva (देव Sanskrit and Pāli) in Buddhism is one of many different types of non-human beings who share the characteristics of being more powerful, longer-lived, and, in general, much happier than humans, although none of them are worthy of worship.</i> </p><p><i>Devas can be degraded to humans or the beings in the three evil paths once they have consumed their merits.</i> </p><p>And as you can see here Brhamãs are also considered devas in Buddhism. </p><p>I'm not talking about the Hindu way, i'm talking about the buddhist way. And since you can't show me one that entered Nirvana irl, can you show me one that the storys about him say that he exited the cycle by worsipping gods or Siddharta saying you can do it by worshipping them? Again, i'm talking about buddhism and not hinduism. </p>

<p>Nope, I guess you're right. </p>

You can't even imagine how happy this made me right now.

<p>Not sure why. I am rather displeased that this information is not more widely available. And a little bit that Gautama changed the definitions of existing words, because that's just confusing. </p>

<p>It was the first time someone said i was right in a internet argument. </p><p>Anyway, what do you find confusing about it? Isn't that a good thing(inovating)? </p>

<p>I haven't really followed the discussion, but it's possibly relevant to point out that there's a significant difference between Brahma, the deva of creation and one of the Trimurti, and Brahman, the infinite unchanging reality that pervades and transcends all. While Brahma is asociated with creation, he is typically not conceived as being the origin(ator) of <i>everything</i>. Varying sources describe him as being born from Narayana's navel, a golden egg or a lotus flower. </p>