There is no "god."

A place to compare and contrast Dharmic traditions, debates allowed, but be polite.
Post Reply
User avatar
Brahma Das
Posts: 378
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2020 12:28 pm

There is no "god."

Post by Brahma Das »

There is no "god", anything short of a Buddha isn't God or an Avatar of God. The Buddha isn't a "god", He is God. Some demigods are God or Gods, but none of them are "gods" with a lowercase g. God is a Holy Name of the Supreme Lord.

Some Buddhist cannon and some Hindu cannon have had problems with capitalizing the Big G because of lack of respect for Deities and also because Buddhism every now and then preaches theism under the guise of atheism to convert certain people with atheistic tendancies to God. But God is one of the most important names of the Supreme Lord, and those beings who directly Expand from Him don't lose their potency simply because they are referred to by a lowercase g.

God, God, God.

Carry on. :smile:

Om.
User avatar
Nicholas
Posts: 1593
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2016 8:21 pm
Location: California

Re: There is no "god."

Post by Nicholas »

Well, you told us the way it is, by golly.

You might check a dictionary for meaning of "cannon". It is not what you think.
Dhamma is against the stream of common thought, deep, subtle, difficult, delicate, unseen by passion’s slaves cloaked in the murk of ignorance. Vipassī Buddha
User avatar
Brahma Das
Posts: 378
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2020 12:28 pm

Re: There is no "god."

Post by Brahma Das »

Sorry I sometimes use very ancient and archaic spellings of words, but my meaning stands, about God, and the meaning and capitalization of such. And , yes, I meant "canon." :tongue:
User avatar
Nicholas
Posts: 1593
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2016 8:21 pm
Location: California

Re: There is no "god."

Post by Nicholas »

The meaning is what matters, and OED gives the many and fuzzy roots of the word:
Forms:
α. early Old English go (Mercian, transmission error), early Old English gotho (plural, rare), Old English geode (dative, transmission error), Old English geodes (genitive, transmission error), Old English godedes (genitive, transmission error), Old English (rare) Middle English–1600s godd, Old English–early Middle English goð (perhaps transmission error), Old English–early Middle English (rare) (1600s in representations of Welsh English) cod, Old English– god, late Old English gedes (genitive, transmission error), late Old English gode- (in compounds), late Old English goden (dative, perhaps transmission error), early Middle English ȝod, early Middle English ȝodd, early Middle English got, early Middle English goðð (perhaps transmission error), Middle English godde, late Middle English gottys (genitive), 1500s gos (genitive); chiefly North American (colloquial and regional) 1800s– gahd, 1900s– gaahd; also Scottish pre-1700 godd; also Irish English (Wexford) 1800s gud.

β. Old English (rare) Middle English–1500s good, early Middle English ȝode, Middle English goed, Middle English goid, Middle English gooddes (plural), Middle English guodes (genitive, perhaps transmission error), Middle English–1600s gode, late Middle English goodyse (genitive), late Middle English goyd; U.S. regional 1800s– gord; Scottish pre-1700 goid, pre-1700 1900s– gode, 1800s– goad.

Origin: A word inherited from Germanic.
Etymology: Cognate with Old Frisian god, Old Dutch god (Middle Dutch, Dutch god), Old Saxon god (Middle Low German got, (inflected) gōd-, godd-), Old High German got (Middle High German got, German Gott), Old Icelandic guð, goð, Norn (Shetland) go,Old Swedish guþ (Swedish gud), Danish gud (already in early modern Danish), Gothic guþ (usually abbreviated as ḡþ) < a Germanic base of uncertain origin (see note).
Dhamma is against the stream of common thought, deep, subtle, difficult, delicate, unseen by passion’s slaves cloaked in the murk of ignorance. Vipassī Buddha
User avatar
Brahma Das
Posts: 378
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2020 12:28 pm

Re: There is no "god."

Post by Brahma Das »

Well you are right, dear friend, that the meaning can be transferred even by saying it either way. But it's just important to convey the Highest measure of the term. For example in the roman transliterations of Vedic terms, in the Bhagavad Gita, the lines of honored Vedic Script are all in lowercase letters, and it is considered authoratative. So from a certain perspective, as long as the meaning is conveyed then capitalization doesn't matter, as long as the respect is clearly given to the Deity.

The reason I wrote this post is because I kept feeling a lack of respect given to God and Godesses especially in Buddhism by some practitioners (which I don't lay blame on), and every now and then in Hinduism. It's like saying when we say God we are indicating the Supreme Lord and the term's meaning shouldn't be lessened. Of course, in an Upaya, "god" has an important use, to convert people to theism and to not allow the Divine to be further disrespected. At least one is still referring to them as a Deified term, even though lowercase.

Well, all the while God is God, and I think that's what the Lord means. Om. :namaste:
User avatar
Nicholas
Posts: 1593
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2016 8:21 pm
Location: California

Re: There is no "god."

Post by Nicholas »

Brahma Das wrote: Fri Feb 19, 2021 3:41 pm
The reason I wrote this post is because I kept feeling a lack of respect given to God and Goddesses especially in Buddhism by some practitioners ...
So getting others to feel proper respect, as BD feels it, is important to you. Hmmm, curious motive.

Therefor, capitalization gives the appearance of respect, but is respect actually there? Is use of the sacred name dependent upon motive, habit, devotion, or correct spelling etc? Is deva more or less respectful than Deva or radiant one? [Just rhetorical questions, no response needed.]
Dhamma is against the stream of common thought, deep, subtle, difficult, delicate, unseen by passion’s slaves cloaked in the murk of ignorance. Vipassī Buddha
User avatar
Brahma Das
Posts: 378
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2020 12:28 pm

Re: There is no "god."

Post by Brahma Das »

It's by far not a necessity as the modern world sees it, and I don't want to impose Superego to make one feel like that is what one must do. But I think that it does give respect. The qualities you mentioned are Infinitely more important than capitalization, but capitalization of the Big G does indicate whom one is referring to, as in, the Supreme Lord. (And one musn't have any "gods" before Him ;). So what does that mean?)
User avatar
Nicholas
Posts: 1593
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2016 8:21 pm
Location: California

Re: There is no "god."

Post by Nicholas »

Brahma Das wrote: Fri Feb 19, 2021 4:45 pm ... capitalization of the Big G does indicate whom one is referring to, as in, the Supreme Lord. (And one musn't have any "gods" before Him. So what does that mean?)
That verse is the First of the Ten Commandments, so it is most important.
I am the Lord, thy God, who took thee out of the land of Egypt, the house of bondage. You shall have no other gods before Me.
Perhaps the literal meaning is only for the Jews who were led away from their hostile rulers by "their God".

Another take might be: however one calls the spiritual element that frees one from material bondage, that element must be the primary focus for one to gain that freedom. Other gods are permitted, but not first, not "before" the guiding Spirit.

But a wise Rabbi or Kabbalist may help you better. Dennis Prager's Rational Bible: Exodus has a long section on Exodus 20 and the Ten Statements.
Dhamma is against the stream of common thought, deep, subtle, difficult, delicate, unseen by passion’s slaves cloaked in the murk of ignorance. Vipassī Buddha
User avatar
Brahma Das
Posts: 378
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2020 12:28 pm

Re: There is no "god."

Post by Brahma Das »

The Vaishnavas say that each Avatar of Krishna is a type of expansion of Him. We don't delineate the terms as different Gods usually. There is One God with many Avatars, incarnations, and expansions. And then there is the use of the term Tattva, such as Lakshmi can be understood as Vishnu-Tattva, and so can Vishnu Himself, they are both on the Same level, and both expansions of the primeval Vishnu.

The Mormons have a Scripture where they talk of multiple Gods and how they created Heaven and Earth, this comes from an alternative version of the creation story added into their Scripture as a contariety, it is found in something called The Pearl of Great Price.

I see demigods in Hinduism being delineated in such a way that "gods" are seen in Buddhism. This is a little bit of a difficult subject because not all demigods are fully Enlightened, a Buddha is God, and to me, like I have been saying the term "god" doesn't work as a standalone description of the Supreme Almighty. Even Brahma or Indra are either Gods or demigods, or both, which is another difficult question to answer. Many, many demigods are Enlightened, but not every Brahma or Shiva, or future Brahma or Shiva is fully Enlightened yet, but have by far reached the merit to be such an incarnation along their Path to be considered such incarnations. So we have to respect them for who they are, and I think the terms demigod or God are a better delineation between Deites. Using "god" with a lowercase g may give some people more momentum as to giving demigods a place next to those such as Krishna or Vishnu, but there is a lack of communication with the word that it is meant to delineate the Supreme Lord. Namaste! :smile:
Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 64 guests