Why is Buddha almost treated like a God in most Buddhist traditions?

In your question, you say "almost" and that is the correct term which should be used! The Buddha isn't a God, in fact He even claimed to be only human, and that people shouldn't attach to him, just as people shouldn't attach or cling to anything.

It is the Core teaching of the Buddha that any attachment or clinging will bring suffering, but.....as to why people worship the Buddha "almost" like a God is simple!! The Buddha didn't have to teach His realizations to anyone, even in teaching others it clearly was hard work, hard work which the Buddha didn't have to do.

So....not only did the Buddha pass His wisdom on, the Dhamma itself is freedom from suffering, there is no other path where one can gain insight, wisdom and mindfulness to understand the full workings of the universe (experientially) and free ourselves from suffering. That statement within itself should be enough to show the complete and ultimate respect and gratitude to the Buddha, Dhamma and the Sangha.

If you feel otherwise then i would suggest you meditate even more. Anyone who has realized even one of the Buddhas core teachings will agree with my response to your question.

Metta.

There is another reason other than "competition" from other religions. If you've observed people, they really like conclusions. They hate stuff when it is open-ended and exploratory and just don't have the patience for it.

When they do meditation, they want to sit tight, and still get consumed by the mind. The mind wants to conclude upon something, otherwise it is always confused and you will never know calmness/peace. It will keep cropping up stuff you don't want to hear. It is a bad master.

So most of the time they just go the traditional way and install an idol. And be done with it to hell. Pray to something and feel good.

Some worship or some statues are not for a god, who is a fictional character, not real, but they maybe for the wholesome-consciousnesses or for an enlightenment.

Those worship or statues are arisen by trust and respect (saddhā).

They are an inspiration of the meditation because they help the practitioner to recall/be aware to meditate themselves like the statue of a person that the practitioner respect to worship to. So in this case, some worship or some statues are not wrong view.

Be careful! tipitaka is the way to safe at all by all useful method, that compatibility with the enlightenment path. So buddha, in tipitaka, use every method that can help us to meditate. If there are something that are "too much" to enlighten, tipitaka denied them already in vinaya or sutta.

Tipitaka is flexible enough in itself to make the practitioner enlighten, no need modification. But the practitioner must learn by the right method, such as sequenced reciting to memorizing and meditation. Just by this ancient study method, the practitioner can see through all of the reasons in tipitaka.

But that sequence is very hard to choose by the practitioner self, so buddha always force order to the listener to have the ariya teacher to teach them. Buddha deny to learn tipitaka or meditate by self without ariya teacher.

So in commentary, every bhikkhu must do these strict courses, through 2500 years.

I'm not very impressed with your argument. I think the mistake you make is that the Buddha simply taught and realised "insights in oneself".

The Buddha was meant to be a Bodhisattva, on the path to Buddhahood, for millions if not billions of years, and prior to this had been wandering the rounds of rebirth for a vast and incalculable length of time.

I'm reading 'The Religion of Israel' by Yehezkel Kaufmann, and whilst it's all a bit arbitrary and Essentialist, there is an interesting delineation, if seen from a Buddhist perspective.

In all pagan religions there was the divine and the meta-divine, the gods and the primordial realm. This primordial realm was the seed for all creation, and whilst having effect on both the gods and humans, was itself independent from it all. The Hebrew spin was to claim YHWH as the primordial being, therefore assigning him all the classical anthropomorphic God features, with the Essence of perfection and other divine qualities.

Brahman on the other hand, received the vague but more logically accurate - 'neti neti', 'not this, not that'.

The Buddha simplified all this by instead removing the meta-divine, the 'meta' being deemed unverifiable and entirely without purpose given the effectiveness of the principle of dependent origination. The Buddha was also similar to the mathematical limit of the Noble Eightfold Path, which describes both a morality not so different from what the more refined versions of 'God' bring, and an equanimity suitable to a physical manifestation of the Dhamma.

The Buddha showed a perfected morality, a perfected concentration, and a perfected wisdom. Aside from the actual metaphysical properties of God, the Buddha does comparatively better than many a good variation, so it's not unreasonable that people would see a 'divine' element in the Buddha when coming from life long world views that have a divine.

I think this is a fair question. There are people that pray for Buddha, Medicine Buddha, Dharma protectors and other entities in some Buddhist traditions. We should keep in mind that Buddhism mixed with local traditions when spreading through Asia many years ago.

As Buddha is now in parinibbana, he cannot hear us praying and as Buddha said: The Dhamma is our teacher now, so we must walk the path. Only we can help ourselves.

I know a Theravada monk in Malaysia who is building a monastery without any Buddha image, just like it was back in the days Buddha walked on this earth. He has great respect for the enlightened one, but he chose not to show it by using statues or images.

Of course it doesn't mean we should not have a statue or pay respect to the Buddha. It is a good practice, I personally do that, but there is a clear line between respect and "please help me, I need to be cured". All these requests for help go against the concept of Kamma-vipaka.

"Almost" like a god? But it's the other way around. You should ask people who worship gods: "Why do you praise your gods, almost as if they were enlightened Buddhas?" - That would make more sense, because the Buddha is portrayed in the suttas / sutras as a teacher of the gods, and superior to them.

And this isn't the statement of some late Mahayana Sutras. It's right in the earliest strata of the Pali Canon: "many thousands of deities have gone for refuge for life to the recluse Gotama" (MN 95.9)

I think your question comes more from the idea that the Buddha "was just a wise teacher". This idea has nothing to do with Buddhism, but with Western preconceptions and prejudices, which are rooted in the European Enlightenment.

When Buddha was asked if he was a human, he replied "No."

The Buddha is not a god, not a human. The buddha is a buddha - sui generis.

You say:

The only answer I could come up with is: People can't let go of gods.

What if it's not the Asian, but the Westerner, who can't let go? Let go of preconceived ideas that function exactly the same as idols that prevent the Westerner from understanding Buddha?

You say:

Don't believe in anything except the insights you got from your own meditation practice.

But what does that mean? It's from the popular Kalama Sutta ... that sutta is the most misunderstood of all! Bhikku Bodhi warns us:

On the basis of a single passage, quoted out of context, the Buddha has been made out to be a pragmatic empiricist who dismisses all doctrine and faith, and whose Dhamma is simply a freethinker's kit to truth which invites each one to accept and reject whatever he likes.

And that is a Western fantasy that has nothing to do with the Buddha-Dharma.

The idea that Buddha is Eternal is not a "cultural" distortion as some have mistakenly suggested. It is in the Mahayana Sutras. It is in the Lotus Sutra, the Nirvana Sutra, the Avatamsaka Sutra, etc.

But if some say this "supernatural" Buddha is a "later" addition or invention by Mahayanists ... in the "early" (Nikaya) Buddhism, it is just the same: if Buddha was just a guy who taught some interesting stuff, how are we to explain that he was able to recollect his past lives, recollect even the beginnings of the universe(s)?

The Tathagata recollects his manifold past lives, that is, one birth, two births, three births, four births, five births, ten births, twenty births, thirty births, forty births, fifty births, a hundred births, a thousand births, a hundred thousand births, many aeons of world-contraction, many aeons of world-expansion, many aeons of world-contraction and expansion: 'There I was so named, of such a clan, with such an appearance, such was my nutriment, such my experience of pleasure and pain, such my life-term; and passing away from there, I reappeared elsewhere; and there too I was so named, of such a clan, with such an appearance, such was my nutriment, such my experience of pleasure and pain, such my life-term; and passing away from there, I reappeared here.' Thus with their aspects and particulars he recollects his manifold past lives.

(from Majjhima Nikaya 12, Samyutta Nikaya 12)

I practise Vajrayana, I have Buddha statues in my flat and I did plenty of prostrations in my life.

We take refuge in Buddha, Dharma and Sangha. And Buddha is not a person, it is the enlightened state of mind. It is the Buddha Nature which we all have inside us. So when I see a Buddha statue, I don't see a god, I see perfect qualities which I want to discover within me.

So imagine, you have a Buddha Nature, you are already enlightened but you haven't realised that yet. The simplest way to make you realise that is to put a mirror in front of you so you can see it yourself. But of course, if you look at the mirror now, you see your physical, not quite perfect, body. In fact, you don't see yourself at all, you just focus on some impermanent body through your habitual thinking fuelled by your disturbing emotions like jealousy ('I wish I looked like Brad Pitt') or pride ('Oh, I'm so sexy'). So the trick is to put various Buddha forms in front of you which will shout at you - hey you, look at me, I am your mirror, I am perfect, joyful and strong. Hey, melt with me, there is absolutely no difference between you and me!

If you ask me, I would rather expose in my room a depiction of my perfect qualities (Buddha statue) than a picture from my sister's wedding or some souvenir from Peru. I also happily donate money to my local Buddhist Centre because this is where I might get closer to my goal and, admittedly, I use their facilities there - hot water, electricity and toilet paper!

Tibetans prostrate in front of the statues and their teachers, I prostrated as a part of Ngondro. It is a fantastic practice to purify your body and to work with pride. Plus, it strengthens your back muscles so later you can seat in meditation for hours. In principle, if you perceive Buddha as your perfect qualities, what's wrong with bowing in front of your perfect self? Through prostrating you also pay respect to those who gave you methods to realise your Buddha Nature. If somebody gave you the best gift you can ever imagine how do you show your gratitude? Is 'Cheers, mate' all you can do?

In general, our Buddha Nature is represented in a human form because we are humans and it is easier for us to relate to other humans rather than to some abstract ideas. It is a method which apparently works. If you like the method, you follow it, if you don't like the method, you go somewhere else.

This is the theory. In practice it may seem that some individuals or cultures got carried away and think that paying respect to Buddha alone will solve their problems. But it is a mistake to judge them as we don't know what exactly is their motivation and capabilities. Also, you judge them according to your definition of 'god' and most Asians probably wouldn't agree with your definition.

Buddha gave different teachings to various people with different capabilities and problems. There is no universal method that would fit all. Having that in mind, it is a bit childish to be irritated by someone else's practice. Maybe they are doing the right thing, maybe they are making some mistakes. So what? Let's wish them happiness and let's focus on our own practice and let's pay attention so that we don't make any mistakes on our own spiritual path.

buddhism became defied due to Mahayana Buddhism here in my own country Sri Lanka. during historical times kings such as dutugemunu,devanampiyatissa aand mahasen started incorporating the local deities and traditions with Buddhas teaching.The popular trend to Buddha turning into a deity was during emperor Ashoka's time were he gave royal prestige to Buddhism and he needed a religious base for it to face Hinduism.He was more concerned with his royal status than the status of Buddhism. in a sense he spun Buddhism like a roulette wheel to suit his purpose. The kings of Sri Lanka did the same thing to uplift their popularity.Dutugemunu incorporated the Brahmanism and the chakravathi concept into buddhism while sri lankan kings like Walagamba and Mahasen absorbed the deities such as Asuras[ minor gods] and various other Veddah gods and household gods.Thus this became immensley popular and spread throught asia and the east.today's Buddhism is due to our kings influence with the Buddhists priest as our country was the capital of buddhism after it died out in india by the 13th century.

"Like a God" is a very broad notion. God is usually treated with respect, so we could strip out the specific mention of "God" from your question, and rephrase it instead as 'why is Buddha treated with respect'?

Buddha is treated with respect because treating a sage in that way is regarded as a good deed (karma).

In addition to good karma, an image of the Buddha may be placed on show because such images can serve as reminders of the great sage and his teaching. Mindfulness of Buddha is a good mental action too. It inspires, and brings to mind other related good objects and habits, as a result leading the mind in a good direction.

Or put another way: Would he be happy if he would see what became of his teachings today, especially in regard to the personality cult?

Worshipping something worthless would of course be bad, or at very least simply useless. But respecting a wholesome object is not the same thing. You would probably not treat with the same level of respect the words of an enemy or foolish person as you would the words of a good friend.

So there is nothing inherently wrong in respecting something or someone. It all depends on whether the object of worship is worthy of that respect.

I think what you are seeing here is cultural differences. My Vietnamese friends have alters in their homes of their grandparents. This does not mean they are worshiping them as much as they are paying their respects to them. Showing respect is very different in Eastern culture than it is in Western culture. Do not be caught in your own perspective when viewing the traditions of others. Perhaps it is the dogma of "worship" and "Eastern vs Western" than needs to be let go of? May you be happy.

Simply I can tell you this. When Buddhism was invented in certain countries, it mixed with their culture and believes. So if you want to filter what Buddha really said, you have to refer The Pali canon. Actually in "Mahaparinibbana Sutta (Maha vagga - Digha Nikaya)" before The Blessed one passed away, when gods and humans are worshiping him and paying their last respect, the Blessed One stated that:

"This is not the real way (by offering flowers etc) that you can pay respect for me. I appreciate the disciple who pay his respect by following my teachings (Prathipaththi Pooja)."

However most people have forgotten these words of the Blessed One.