Did Buddha come to Teach the Law of One?

[Cainite]

Q'uo has commented about the Buddha on a few occasions, along with most of the other major philosophical/spiritual figures in history.  The best discussion I could dig up is here, with Q'uo contrasting the teachings of Jesus and the Buddha.  The TL;DR is that, in Q'uo's view, neither was teaching the LOO specifically.  Rather, Jesus was teaching Love and Buddha was teaching Wisdom - both useful in their own ways for those seeking awakening or reunification.

Thank you sir, i have seen this and it does make sense....  My main question, was through all of Buddha's meditation and soul searching, how did he not receive information that we are all one, and that there is a God, etc... An earlier poster said that Buddha didn't want to have that debate with people.

It's very difficult to speculate to concretely about such things, particularly since we have very limited insight into the Buddha as a person or personality, just texts composed long after his death that had already begun to deify him.  Broadly speaking, I'd say there are a few possibilities.  An obvious one, for example, would be the idea that the Buddha knew -or at least strongly suspected- a central intelligence in the universe, but deemed the concept unhelpful to his teachings.  Following this line of thought, if someone came to embrace concepts like non-self and voidness, they would discover the Creator in their own way, in their own time.  To speak openly of the Creator would encourage an unhelpful blind faith, and/or push certain people down what we call the Service-to-Self path by causing them to identify directly with the Creator.

After all, I see quite a few parallels between the Buddha's teachings regarding topics like nirvana and non-self as being quite like what Ra describes the transition between 6D and 7D.

I could also believe the interpretation that he simply didn't want to discuss the subject because there was so much unknown or up for debate.  Ancient Hindu philosophers had pondered the idea of Brahman for untold centuries before him, and not gotten anywhere.  Or Laozi, founder of Daoism, was basically forced to throw up his hands and admit he has no idea whether the Dao is sentient or dumb, creator or created, actor or reactor, or any other concrete knowledge of the topic.   Not to mention that, the more one digs into the topic, they start to wonder if the answer is "All of the above, and more, all at once."

If the Buddha's primary goal was, as stated, to help people live happier/less-suffering lives on earth while nudging them towards the self-awareness needed to escape the cycle of rebirth, such debates would really just be distractions.  After all, one holding a concrete opinion on the nature of God/Creator/Brahman/Dao/etc would just interfere with the embrace of non-self and nirvana.

Or it could even be possible that during his pre-incarnative planning, the entity-to-be-Buddha specifically ordained that he would be blocked off from knowledge of the Creator, for any of the above reasons or even others we can't imagine.  Perhaps, in the view of that entity, only by having no knowledge or expectations of the Creator whatsoever can one meet the Creator with an entirely open and receptive mind.

It's really hard to say.  Personally, I'd say it's best to apply the same advice to the teachings of Buddhism which Ra and Q'uo readily apply to their own teachings:  Take away what resonates; leave behind the rest.

Maybe that's why Buddhism is not as corrupted as other religions. If it can be called a religion..
Although it certainly has it's own faults. specially the way monks escape reality and build their own reality in their temple.