From Ven. Dhammanando
cheeroth @ Jan 2 2007, 05:32 AM)
"Practice" is pointless if it's not right practice, and there is no right practice without right view. Theism, being a species of akiriyavada, is wrong view.
You are contradicting yourself. If "no one knows exactly what the Buddha taught", then it cannot be said that his teaching was "undoubtedly contaminated". One cannot claim that the teaching was contaminated unless one has knowledge of what the pre-contaminated teaching was, but you deny this possibility. You can't have it both ways.
Therefore people are being unhumble to state categorically that they know what he said.
Not at all. The only Buddha that we know of is the Buddha presented in the Buddhist texts; therefore, in quoting the texts they are quoting the teachings of the only Buddha we know of. This doesn't betoken any lack of humility at all. The ones really lacking in humility are those who seek to replace the Buddha of the texts with a Buddha of their own imaginings — a Buddha who will say the sort of things they think a Buddha ought to say (and whose teachings will be curiously similar to the views the person already holds).
Since practice is the most important thing
The Buddha didn't teach that practice is the most important thing. Lots of ascetics were "practising" in one way or another in the Buddha's day, but the Buddha didn't go about saying to them, "What you guys are doing is every bit as valid as what my followers are doing!"
What he taught is that "right view is the forerunner of all kusala dhammas", that "wrong view is the forerunner of all akusala dhammas", and that theism is among the views that are wrong.
does it matter about the God thing?
It matters that one refrains from believing in Him. If it didn't matter the Buddha wouldn't have bothered teaching the Titthayatana Sutta (AN. i. 173) and the Devadaha Sutta (MN. 101).
Well being confused and deluded is not pleasant and you will meet people who frustrate you by saying - but we can't see God why do you beleive in him. Also compassion is part od Buddhism and if millions and millions of people see you are accepting dogma from culture they will assume you Buddhism is a blind faith.
When one meets theists who are attracted to Buddhism, the compassionate thing to do is to try and cure them of their theism and establish them in right view. In most cases the best way is by bringing up the problem of theodicy: "How did evil and suffering arise in a world created by your good (and all-powerful) God? How do you acquit your God of responsibility for this? If you can't acquit him, then how can He be a fit object for your reverence? etc. etc."
There are some good things therefore but also bad things about accepting dogma - Buddhism, rebirth at death which ARE NOT the heart of buddhism.
The Buddha said that just as the sea has but one taste, the taste of salt, likewise his teaching has but one taste, the taste of liberation. So it is liberation that is the heart of his teaching. But "liberation" is a meaningless term unless it is specified in what sense beings are bound or enslaved. This cannot be described in all its fullness if one neglects to mention that unliberated beings are subject to further birth and death. The doctrine of rebirth is therefore what supplies the heart of the Buddha's teaching with its raison d'être.