Sam Harris and Stephen Batchelor

<<<>> Angels are beings described in Islamo-Judeo-Christianity and are unknown in Buddhism. <<

If you "define" angels as being unique to "Islamo-Judeo-Christianity" (a thing that does not exist) then of course there are none in Buddhism.

But it is obvious that there are intermediary beings in Buddhism that play the same role as angels.>>>

It is not at all obvious that there are "intermediary beings" in Buddhism, not to those who have given the matter more than cursory study. The only thing that could be similar are the bodhisattvas who are said to be manifestations of enlightened mind (buddha), and these can take many forms, it is taught, such as HH the Dalai Lama. These all work to relieve sentient beings of their sufferings by showing them the dharma in order that they may progress on the path to enlightenment. Angels perform a quite different function in Abrahamic belief systems.

<<<>> Angels are beings described in Islamo-Judeo-Christianity and are unknown in Buddhism. <<

<<< And everyone accepts that there are demons in Buddhism.>>>

They do? This is news to me. While there are said to be beings who abide in the hell realms that afflict sufferings on sentient beings, these are far different from Abrahamic concepts of demons in too many ways to go over here.


<<<Where there are demons there are angels. >>>

Why?

<<<>> Right, and Brahman and Shiva and all the rest in the Hindu pantheon are mentioned in Buddhism. However, they are, as said, mundane, worldly gods, and not necessarily enlightened beings. I say necessecarily since there are some gods who are also said to be bodhisattvas, such as Dzambhala, or emanations of buddhas. <<

These beings are far more than "mentioned" in Buddhism. Gods and Goddesses are worshipped in Buddhism essentially just as they are in Hinduism (or any other polytheistic religion).>>>

This is simply a false statement. There is a clear demarcation between the enlightgened beings, whom we venerate, and the mundane gods, whom we don't. In fact in some Buddhist traditions when one takes refuge formally in the Buddha, the Dharma and the Sangha, one vows not to go for refuge to these mundane gods.

<<<Of course some people don't like the word "worship" (just as some people don't like the word "angel" it seems) - but if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck....

See, for example, the Goddess Saraswati's starring role in the "Golden Light Sutra". Saraswati is widely worshipped in both Tibet and Japan. Then there is the Goddess Sri Lakshmi - who appears frequently in early Buddhist art and monuments in India. And, as John Blofield discovered, good old Kwan Yin is conceived of as a Goddess in Chinese Buddhism - except perhaps by Chinese Buddhist scholars (and even then perhaps only when they are talking to westerners), who of course make up about 0.001% of the world's Buddhists, at most. Not that their opinion doesn't count - but they don't get a veto.>>>

As mentioned previously, in the Buddhist cosmology some enlighted beings, such as bodhisattvas, manifest as gods. They are venerated because they are enlightened beings, not because they are gods.

<<<Buddhists have good reason for wanting to emphatically reject the Christian and Muslim conceptions of Deity. But Buddhist Goddesses and Gods (and other spiritual beings) are little, if at all, different, conceptually, from the Gods and Goddesses of India, China and Central Asia in general. Which makes perfect sense - because those are the cultures in which Buddhism has thrived for 2500 >>>

There are vast differences in the ways that Buddhists relate to gods and goddesses than do other religions. As I stated several times, in the Buddhist view, the gods are mundane beings, existing in samsara with the rest of us. On the other hand, the enlightened beings are either gone from samsara (the buddhas and arhats) or well on the way out of it (the bodhsattvas.)

The reason that all schools of Buddhism refute the notion of a supreme, omnipotent, creator god is that the Buddha himself did, in several places in the Pali Canon as well as the Sanskrit texts. Simply put, the problem with an all-powerful Abrahamic [and there is such a thing, it's a term in common usage among religious academics] god is that it conflicts with the laws of cause and effect, or karma, as the Buddha taught them. If you have a supreme, omnipotent god, there are times when the workings of cause and effect can be interfered with by an outside agency. Otherwise cause and effect would not be inexorable.

In buddhist cosmology it is taught that due to his previous karma, Brahman came into existence at the same time as this current universe that we are living in, and so merely thought that he had created it, though he didn't.

But don't take my word for it. Do just a bit of research, even a websearch, and find out for yourself.

You may not agree with this, you may wish it were otherwise, you may have come up with your own ideas of what gods and Buddhism should be, but that's the way it is.

>> i'm curious at this point what you believe is helpful in holding such profoundly negative views or setting them forth to impede others. <<

Stephen Batchelor insists that the bulk of Buddhism as we know it should be chucked. I disagree with him and I'M BEING NEGATIVE???

I value and honor Buddhism as it has been practiced for 2500 years - and I disagree with Batchelor and anyone else who insists that basic Buddhist teachings (like karma and reincarnation) are inherently abhorrent to, or at least incompatible with, the "western" mind.

Batchelor defines his Buddhism in explicitly negative terms: Buddhism WITHOUT BELIEFS.

I prefer my Buddhism with "the works".