Yes I totally agree that my God,god,Deva,Brahma question reveals my lack of understanding. I would have assumed my lack of understanding was self evident. Which is why I asked.

My responce is in text beneath.


Ong Yong Peng <yongpeng.ong@...> wrote:



a few points you may like to add to your notes.

Asking a Buddhist about god or gods or God is quite awkward and
incorrect.

....But is not honest enquirery about Buddhist beliefs good? What is incorrect about honest enquirery? I suggest your definition of "incorrect" is the problem here. ....

It only reflects a lack of understanding on your part.

.........and I suggest a lack of understanding from you about the helpfulness of honest enquirery......

I hope this reply would help you to understand why.

....Actuall it really does help. Despite your hostility to honest enquirery your below answer is helpfull and clarifies my Q, So thank you.....


1. Without the invention, yes, of the small letters, we will all be
still typing and writing in just capital letters today. Other than
European languages, most other languages do not have small letters.
So, how does 'GOD' look to you?

....God, GOD, god etc all look fine to me , how do they look to you? Out of them all I prefer God or god as they look best....

ikipedia.org/wiki/Minuscule

2. the word 'deva' in the Buddhist scriptures simply means a heavenly
being. And these devas all have different names. Yes, you can
translate them as gods, but bearing in mind that Buddhism is not a
polytheist religion, I personally like to use "heavenly beings" (or
very infrequently 'deities').

......So Buddhism believes in many gods.That is polytheist is it not?

Or does god not qualify as God? I suppose it may boil down to what does " theis" mean?. Does "theis" distinguish between God and god?

It does seem then Buddhist is polytheist in nature.I guess this perhaps may be a problem for you.......

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polytheism

3. as for 'brahma', I won't even translate it at all. There is no
point. But, I shall write it as 'Brahma', with a capital B, following
current naming conventions. Brahma is a student of the Buddha, and it
is Brahma who persuaded the Buddha to start his teaching career.



....I did not know that,thank you for sharing.....

A better and more intelligent question to ask a Buddhist is if there
is a creator of the universe.

....Yes I agree that would have been better.....

This is an issue which the Buddha has
addressed in the Tipitaka.

....Really? Are you sure? Please can you tell me where he says this?

This is really ironic because just 30 mins ago I posted a mail asking this very question about did Buddha deny the excistence of a creator God.......

(The Buddhist answer is no.) Brahma is the
only deity who claimed to have created the 'world'. The Buddha countered the claim,

.... Are you speaking from your own view here or did Buddha actually debate the issue of a creator God?

It may be helpfull to seperate the issues of Brahma's delusions and the excistence or non excistence of a creator God.

Brahma was not the creator God. But what does Buddha say about a creator/creators of the Universe? I assume he would have know what the Veda's etc say, and about the numerous belief systems held by the different traditions which follwed different Gods within the Eternal Truth-Anatanna Dhamma" or Hinduism.

Where did he speak about the concept of a creator God or God's as held by his contemporery Indians? I am most interested to know where you get your reference from?.........

and in fact, after being the Buddha's disciple
2500 years ago, Brahma has realised his foolishness. He is still
Brahma, enjoying the fruits of his good karma, though.

http://www.buddhistinformation.com/buddhist_attitude_to_god.htm

4. Buddhism is not a monotheist religion either, so it is awkward and
incorrect putting the word 'God' in Buddhism. Buddhism has been a
stabilising element in the world,

....Are you sure about Buddhism beign stablising? Have you looked at the history of most Buddhist countries? Buddhist secterianism and desire for power seems to equal the other religions, and actually in many cases worce.

Buddhism is not polytheist nor monotheist and I guess it is not athheist either.

I politely suggest you are mistaken to see awkward questions as wrong.........

and in the previous era of
globalisation, merchandise and Buddhism were the two most important
goods transmitted along the Silk Road!

...... Yes and both done countless good and compareble levels fo harmm too. You know the concept of Yin and Yang, good and bad go together......

While trade has largely improved their material well-being, ancient
Asian societies has benefited greatly from the harmonising power of
the teachings of the Buddha, the teacher of men and gods.

...... While I have difficulty with your insistence that honest enquirery is awkward I do thank you for your otherwise intelligent council........

Yours sincerely Mr X.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monotheism


metta,
Yong Peng.




- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[Homepage] http://www.tipitaka.net
[Files] http://www.geocities.com/paligroup/
[Send Message] pali@yahoogroups.com
Paaliga.na - a community for Pali students
Yahoo! Groups members can set their delivery options to daily digest or web only.




---------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS


Visit your group "Pali" on the web.

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Pali-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


---------------------------------




---------------------------------
Yahoo! Messenger NEW - crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]