--- "Sitala (Zorigto)" <sitalatwo@...> skrev:

>
> Dear Gunnar
> Will not it be right to use G/god for Deva and
> Brahma?

In a Buddhist connection, I hesitate to do that. The
English word "god", and the corresponding words in
other Western laungages, means something or someone
who is worthy of worship, or at least of greater
respect than human beings; which, according to
Buddhism, the devas and brahmas are not.

(The Concize Oxford Dictionary, at
<http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/god?view=uk>,
gives four definitions of the word "god":

• noun 1 (in Christianity and other monotheistic
religions) the creator and supreme ruler of the
universe. 2 (god) a superhuman being or spirit
worshipped as having power over nature and human
fortunes. 3 (god) a greatly admired or influential
person. 4 (the gods) informal the gallery in a
theatre.

The meanings 3 and 4 are not relevant here, neither 1;
translating "deva" by "god" in the meaning 2 would be
relevant in a Hindu cotext, but not in a Buddhist one,
as Buddhism does not include worship of the devas.)

> It still could be not wrong too, to use these words
> and leave them in the footnotes, explained and
> defined.

It you have to write footnotes, you might as well use
them to describe the words "deva" and "brahma".

> Otherwise, there are planty of people who
> cannot get the real meaning, for they are not
> familier
> with Pali terms, but they do understand the concept.
> For understanding of Christians, Deva and Brahma
> will
> be standing for Angels

No they won't. An angel, in the Christian sence of the
word, is a messenger (Greek "angelos"; message is
"angelion" - in pali "saasana" - and good message
"eu-angelion"; cf. "Buddha-saasana").

A Christian angel may be a non-human being, such as
Gabriel och Michael, or a human one, such as "the
angel of the church of Ephesus" in King James' version
of the Bible (Revelation). A non-human being without a
message is not an angel, and according to the
Tipitaka, if I understand it correctly, the devas have
very little relation to us, and normally don't give us
messages.

> they stay in devine plane

No they don't. They stay in a more agreeable plane
than the human one, but not in a divine one.

> near
> the God-Creator

The idea of "the God-Creator", singular and definite
form, is completely alien to Buddhist thought. The
universe is born, not created. There is listed a
category of beings often translated as "the creating
devas", but they are plural, it is not clear what they
create (not the world, certainly), and besides they
are not on top - they are at a lower plane than "the
devas who dispose of the creations of others" (just as
authors are economically depending on publishers, to
make a modern human parallell).

> have sertain powers to perform
> actions that beyond human understanding and ability.

The powers of the devas are not beyond the
understanding and ability of the Buddha, who was a
human being; that's why he's called _satthaa
deva-manussaana"m_, "teacher of devas and men".

Actually, there is a Buddhist tradition that wisdom is
much more difficult to aquire for a deva than for a
man, and that sometimes devas worship human arahants,
but human arahants never worship devas.

I think that in Hinduism, the words "deva" and
"brahma" are used in the sense you are thinking of; in
Buddhism, they are not. That's why I think deva might
be translated by "god" in a Hindu context, but not in
a Buddhist one.

There is a great problem that Buddhism and Hinduism
often make use of the same terms, although there views
of life are light-years apart.

Gunnar

gunnargallmo@...