Devas and Devatas: Not Gods and Goddesses
by Achintyachintaka on 13 Sep 2012 7 Comments

The articles by Dr. Rajiva on the topic of Hindu Polytheism are to be considered revolutionary. They are in tune with recent articles by other writers that are equally revolutionary in exposing modern Hindu and non-Hindu thinkers who erroneously equate Brahman of the Vedic tradition with the Abrahamic concept of God, either out of unconscious or conscious submissiveness, or because of deficient deeper scrutiny into the concept.

 

In so doing, they have unwittingly compromised the interest of ordinary Hindus who worship multitudes of Devas and Devatas daily, and whose lives revolve around such faith and belief, in addition to those who additionally or exclusively worship and/or recognize the divinity in the various vibhutis like Saibaba, Satya Sai Baba, Anandamai Ma, Ammachi, etc. Therefore, it is imperative that one questions such berating of one billion Hindus by well-meaning Hindus and non-Hindus who consider themselves more evolved or broadminded by accepting “ONE-Godism” as the premium or most desirable of religious beliefs.

 

Hindus who espoused and promoted “ONE God-ism” did so to placate foreign invaders espousing monotheistic faiths, though the philosophy of Advaita was not at all in conflict with the freedom to worship multitudes of Devas and Devatas, as is implicit and explicit in the Vedic tradition and the Vedas themselves.

 

Vijaya Rajiva and G.P. Srinivasan may be considered “out of the box” thinkers; this is the need of the time. The unconscious conspiracy with conquerors by the vanquished is a sad phenomenon. The very noble nature of the Hindus and the instinctive tendency to assimilate and absorb foreign thoughts and faiths into Hindu culture through a process of reconciliation and assimilation can be viewed as wonderful adaptation in comparison to the rigid aggressive religions that refuse to accept other viewpoints. However, the lack of assertiveness and being defeated to the point of making a civilization “spineless” can be attributed the “blame” for such adaptation.

 

On the other hand, the natural tendency of the foreign invaders to project their own cultural understanding on the culture of the newly found indigenous cultures to find similarities can also be assumed to be a factor leading to projection of their own concept of “God” (including “Allah”), “Gods” and “Goddesses” (known to them from their encounter with the Greek culture of antiquity - now extinct or decimated by the Christian empire) onto Hindus whom they encountered and assumed to be “look alikes” in their forms of religious worship.

 

Of course, in a polite international society harmonious coexistence should be no problem if the principle of religious freedom is primarily translated only as “live and let live.” If this principle were adopted, there would be no reason for justifying conversions on the basis of “One Godism.” This attitude of tolerance towards other religions and respect for their beliefs has not been found to be evolving in the followers of “One-Godism.” 

 

Human nature also has not evolved sufficiently to understand this principle. The “live and let live” principle is often expanded to mean freedom of practice of religion, which is misinterpreted as freedom to convert populations of other faiths to suit the aggressive and imperialistic instincts of the currently dominant proselytizing religions, mainly Christianity and Islam. This has been a problem for the human race in the last two millennia and has not been sufficiently addressed in the “worldview” because of the dominant nature of the aggressive cultures on one hand, and the peace keeping nature of those aggressed upon ideologically as well as demographically.

 

For example, even among the followers of the same “Christian” faith there is very little outrage when Pope Benedict declared all Christians other than Catholics as “deficient” Christians. The educated populations of today will laugh at such pronouncements as there are no “soldiers of Vatican” to impose Vatican beliefs on ‘deficient’ Christians. That is not to say that the strategies or modus operandi of Vatican has changed at all over the last two millennia and Jesuit priests will not use any other soldiers they find on the globe to accomplish their goal of expanding the Catholic empire all throughout the world.

 

What is not quite transparent to the brainwashed modern human race sharing the current worldview unquestioningly is that such pronouncements sow the seeds of bloodbath yet to come in future as well as that which is occurring currently in developing and undeveloped countries. In the remote past, any resistance to such pronouncements would have led to wars and even now the “Protestants” may be at risk of encountering violence in some areas of the world. “We are all the children of the same ‘One’ God” - is not a sufficient ground to co-exist peacefully, as demonstrated by history. There are more favorite children among all his children that God intends to use to impose “His” views on the rest of the world!!!

 

This author will therefore pronounce that Devas and Devatas are not Gods and Goddesses.

 

Vedic Agama and Devas & Devatas

 

Brahman of Vedanta and Purusha of Sankhya are described as the offshoots of many discoveries of Vedas. Both are described as basic “realities” from which all realities emerge and are accepted widely as “Sat-Chit-Ananda,” when combined into one word, “IT” is addressed as “Satchidananda.”

 

Sat stands for existence meaning “It Exists”. That adjective then asserts that “IT” exists and is real. It is not an imaginary entity.

(Note, ‘IT’ or ‘That’ (Tat) is not a “male” God as in the Abrahamic God)

 

Chit (Chid) means Consciousness. It is an assertion that Brahman is pure Consciousness and has no attributes of material world, like dimensions, (energy, mass, space, time, and other dimensions). Such consciousness, if accepted as the nature of reality outside the brains, makes IT a sentient energy when Brahman acquires the attributes of energy.

(See “Hinduness for World Peace and Harmony” at www.sookta-sumana.blogspot.com; also “Demystifying Shri Ganesha” on same blog).

 

That is the primordial (sentient) energy with no mass, but only “vibrations,” “wave form,” or OM, when IT becomes the sentient energy. Mass is a magnificently concentrated energy which emerges much later in Vedic Cosmogony.

 

Ananda can be translated as Bliss. Those who experience this entity of Brahman describe experiencing the ultimate bliss.

 

All other devas and devatas are accepted as manifestations of this Brahman. Since Brahman is consciousness as described above, all devas and devatas/devis are phenomena of consciousness. Therefore, all “Devas” and “Devatas” (including Grama Devatas) must also be “Sat” and not imaginary entities. They exist spontaneously just like Brahman and all devas and devatas, and of course, Brahman itself is “Swyambhu” meaning spontaneously existing.

 

All devas and devatas are experienced as “bliss” when the devotee recognizes them at the experiential level in an experience known as “sakshatkaara”. “Sakshatkaar” may be remotely translated in spiritual parlance as “actualization” at the level of consciousness, as if consciousness perceives itself or an aspect of itself with full intensity in appreciating its true nature.

 

Human beings have to reach a stage of evolution of their consciousness to realize the presence of devas, devatas (devis), and recognize them as realities. Such recognition must not be confused with imagining their presence. If imagined and if they do not really exist they are “Asat” and no Hindu would want to worship anything that is “Asat.”

 

If any God or “Gods and Goddesses” are purely figments of imagination, they have no place in Hindu polytheism. “One Godism” based on a concept of “Imagined One God outside of Nature” “creating and controlling Nature” has no place in Vedic Agama Hinduism. That concept must be dismissed as pure imagination, though some Hindu scholars have compromised by accepting such concept of One Godism as part of Hinduism or equivalent to Vedic concept of God. There is no GOD of that type in Vedas.

 

Vedas preexist by many millennia the concept of “God” conceived by other (non-Vedic) cultures. Such a concept of God was pronounced as dead by Nietzsche. Stephen Hawking declared such “God” was not necessary for this Universe to be “created.” The Hindu view of cosmos and cosmogony must not be obfuscated by the Western and Middle Eastern concept of an Abrahamic God that “created this world” because the Vedas pre-existed the emergence of such a primitive concept and are more realistic in comprehending the nature of the Universe or Universes. Vedas by definition are knowledge of reality, with poetic elaborations.

 

The Vedic sages were not just discrete but realistic, and quite wise in not anthropomorphizing Brahman, and for that matter also Purusha, its equivalent, described in Sankhya Darshana.

 

All that exists, exists in Brahman, which is Consciousness. Devas and Devatas are, therefore, by their nature phenomena of Consciousness. Since there is no duality in Brahman there is no place for worship, for all consciousness flows, like rivers flowing into the ocean and merging with it, into Brahman. Likewise Purusha is present in all that exists, including individual consciousness.

 

This Undifferentiated Reality appears to become differentiated as soon as mass, energy, space (and “time,” the function or dimension of space) become manifest. Such differentiated manifestation is eternally and cyclically occurring and the senses perceive these as palpable reality, which is called “Maya,” as it is measurable (Maya derives from the Sanskrit root “mi”, to measure). This is also called Prakriti in Sankhya.

 

A 180-degree turn has to occur now in the frame of reference here to, in a manner of speaking, change gears to view that the senses are themselves conduits for perception of palpable reality and reside in the realm of palpable reality which is springing from the undifferentiated Reality. Each of the (five) senses have a limited range of perception (tanmaatra) of their spectrum of reality for each species. Therefore, in order to perceive the reality beyond their reach or scope, there is a need for extension of senses (like electron microscope, or Hubble telescope, etc.) Nevertheless, with all such extensions, the human brain may not even completely perceive a fraction of reality that “exists.” The human brain may mathematically predict the presence of some aspects of reality that is beyond human perception (e.g. bosons) which may later be verified as to their existence when more acute extensions of senses become available.

 

Vedas are knowledge about what exists and not what can be imagined, and are not limited to only what can be perceived by the senses. Anything that is purely imagined and therefore does not exist is “Asat.” When it comes to what exists there is an assertion in the Vedas that there was no time or place when there was any “Asat” except in the imagination of human beings.

 

Brahman is all that exists, ever existed, and will eternally exist. (Please do not confuse this statement with the time limited existence of this Universe or rather the Universes that can emerge and dissolve over billions and billions of years.) The thesis of no possibility of a state of “Asat” ever present in the Universes anywhere means something that exists does not come up or spring from “Nothing.” That is the thesis of “Nasadeeya Sookta” in the Vedas.

 

So far, the word “God” is not necessary to understand what is stated above. “God” was not necessary for the existence of Brahman. Brahman always existed without any God creating IT. That is where the confusion in semantics occurs when scholars equate Brahman with God. Vedas never used the word God but the word “Isha” was used as an equivalent of Brahman in “Ishavasyopanishada” in Vedanta. Some scholars have mistranslated the word “Isha” as ‘God’ or ‘Godhead’. The sooner Hindus understand that they have nothing to do with “God” and “Gods” and “Goddesses” described in Western literature and Western and Middle Eastern Religions, the better off all Hindus will be.

 

Hindus never needed “God” from the time of the Vedas. The word “Deva” was unfortunately mistranslated by some as “God” and it is time to cast it out. Let Hindus stay with Brahman, Purusha, Prakriti, Prana, and their Devas and “Devis”. Let them not buy any God any more as they have been badly damaged by the Western and Middle Eastern concept of God that is still being widely sold to Hindus to their peril. Let the God salesmen leave Hindus alone, Hindus have no use for “him”.

 

Study the nature of what is “God” and why “One Godism” is a political ploy to build empires for the two dominating religions of the world, to lord over the entire population of the world and control and use all the natural resources. Hindus must stop being gullible and be proud they have the Vedic Agama as their system of spiritual advancement.

 

The invaders of India have done enough damage and now after the 65th Independence Day, Hindus realize they still do not have independence because the One Godism powers owned India and contaminated it for many centuries and are still at work to own India and weaken the Hindus by infiltrating their society and corrupting them at the intellectual level (“inculturation”) leading to all religions are one/equal kind of stupidity.

User Comments Post a Comment
Excellent study; thanks to Vijayvaani to bring such writers to us
Naina
September 13, 2012
Report Abuse
The title of this remarkable study is itself a plus. Hindus must abandon the use of the phrase 'gods and goddesses' and use the phrase Devas and Devatas. Likewise we should stop equating Brahman with the Abrahamic God.

There are several important themes that the writer expounds.One novel contribution is using the word IT to refer to Sat since it indicates that Sat is beyond gender and is best described by humans as IT. In and of itself Sat may be indescribable.

It becomes describable and perceptible in its manifestations. Hence, IT is Chit or Consciousness. Brahman-Purusha therefore is an existent reality, not a figment of the imagination. We can describe IT when it becomes sentient energy and therefore acquires attributes.

At first IT is manifest as vibration (OM) with no mass. IT acquires mass at a later stage.

Devas and Devatas are manifestations of this Brahman and like Brahman they are spontaneously existing (swayambhu). Here, they exist as phenomena of the same Chit or Consciousness and they are eternally and cyclically recurring. When perceived by the senses they can be called Maya.

The writer does not clarify whether Ananda (Bliss) is simply of the nature of Brahman or it is only our experience of IT that is bliss.

There is an intriguing turn to the idea that our senses cannot fully apprehend even this Maya and often need an extension such as the electron microscope or the Hubble telescope, and perhaps more such extensions to increase our knowledge/experience of Maya.

The importance of the article lies also in emphasising that Maya is an existent, not an illusion, as is commonly supposed. One can equate it partially with Nature as the manifestation of Brahman. Likewise Devas and Devatas are a reality, manifest Brahman.

The writer is to be congratulated for venturing out into difficult terrain in offering an explanation for the ongoing Hindu worship of Devas and Devatas, as well as the vision of the Vedic sages.
Dr. Vijaya Rajiva
September 13, 2012
Report Abuse
Dr Rajiva's comment is a virtual tutorial in its own right; it aptly sums up the depth of Achintyachintaka's profound thinking on the subject.
Sujata
September 13, 2012
Report Abuse
1. The word "God" comes from Germanic languages. In German, "Gott" is any one of the "Götter", and in Dutch, "god" (or "godin" for goddess) is any one of the "goden". And in English "god" is any one of the "gods". (Gods can be masculine plural, but can also be plural for both male and female gods, as is the case in many languages.)

This is why "Olympic Gods" is as accurate a translation as possible into English of the Dii/Deii in Latin. A single Olympic God (say Ares) is referred to with the word Deus.
The 'Devas' of the Chinese are called Shen I think, though they have a word for any individual Chinese 'Devi' also.

In Indian languages, "devaah" is the pantheon of Hindu Gods, which includes our Goddesses. Any one God in the pantheon is a Deva (or Devi if female).

Therefore, in its original meaning, "Gods" is a very accurate translation for Hindus' devaah (simplified to deva-s in this script, which, as I understand, is used as plural not only for the male Gods, but also for the entire pantheon of Hindu Gods and Goddesses). Goddesses is similarly a very accurate translation for devis, just as the singular forms "God/Goddess" are accurate translations for an individual Deva or Devi. From what I can make out, the Hindu "Devata" can mean Devi, but also a presiding deity of either gender. And I think the plural of the word includes not only the Devas but other Hindu divine beings too (I figure possibly Gandharvas and perhaps Diggajas too).

It is however correct that parabrahman and the like are not to be translated with a "God". Parabrahman is the absolute reality. It appears to be comparable to the Native Americans' "Great Spirit" (the paramapuruSha). All the Hindu Devas are correctly recognised as the manifest parabrahman: they are each of them, and all of them together too, the absolute reality manifest in full (which is always poornam). Each of them are identified as the paramatma.

As far as I can comprehend, the Platonist Hellenes and the Daoist Chinese describe similar, though not identical, kinds of relationships as Hindus do between their 'equivalent' for 'parabrahman' and their pantheons of Gods. The Hellenes particularly showed and continue to show how both of these are utterly unrelated to the 'gawd' fiction of christianism/islam.

Hindus can therefore only compare Hinduism with the traditional Graeco-Romans and Chinese and the like, when it comes to what traditional Hindus mean by the use of the words "Gods" for the Hindu pantheon and "God" for any particular individual from this pantheon (such as a Hindu's individual ishtadeva-s). Although, it must be stated very clearly that traditional Hindus are in actual fact using the words Gods/God correctly for Devas and Devis, since Hindus are using these in their originally intended meanings. Likewise, it needs to be observed that it is christianism that stole first the Latin words and then the English words and subverted the meanings (just like islam is frequently revealed by even Arabian scholars as having usurped the word "Allah" and subverted its pre-existing meaning). From "one among a pantheon", 'god' under christianism came to mean the one 'true' (non-existent, invented) biblical god. And to contrast, the word "Gods" has been either declared by them as implicitly referring to the other invented christian/islamic character called "satan/shaitan", or else "Gods" gets connotated with "false Gods".

HAVING SAID ALL THAT: although traditional Hindus have in fact been using the words Gods and God/Goddess correctly, it would indeed serve them better to use their own words such as Devas/Deva/Devi. (Or parabrahman, where this is called for, which is rarely.) Among their own kind and in their own languages, Hindus have always been using their own native Hindu words. However, even in English, it is best to either use the native Hindu words, because Deva(s) and Devi(s) really refers only to Hindu Gods (the pantheon of the Vedic religion). Or else, if using English terms, it's best to always use the word "Gods" in plural -- or otherwise to name the particular Hindu God(s) being referred to -- as this ensures everyone will immediately know we're speaking of the many real Gods alone, to the exclusion of the fictive biblical/koranic mono-character known as the god/allah, since "Gods" can never be conflated with or claimed for the monotheisms.

2. Also, there's nothing really "revolutionary" in loyal Hindus bringing the matter up. The fact that Hindus have always had multiple Gods (which includes Goddesses) has ever been the actual situation and remains so. It is only colonial-influenced Hindus and those that came after, and those whose education was either in English or overseas, who have been speaking of 'one God' and then often turned the matter even more nonsensical by equating this with the non-existent "gawd/allah" fiction of the bible/koran.

Clearly an increasing number of Hindus have grown weary of the endless inane imposition of monotheism (via the word "god") on Hinduism, frequently committed by ignorant Indians. Hindus are finally throwing off the christian shackles in asserting that their many (and real) manifesting Gods and the parabrahman have nothing to do with monotheisms, let alone with the fiction of the biblical/koranic gawd entity.
NightStalker
September 13, 2012
Report Abuse
About this statement:

'“One Godism” based on a concept of “Imagined One God outside of Nature” “creating and controlling Nature” has no place in Vedic Agama Hinduism.'

1. As I undersand, the Hindu devargaL *are* Prakriti (certainly the Devis are, and Prakriti/Devis are seen as an inseparable part/half of their Devas: being the Devaatmashakti). See Kanchi Shankaracharya's stotram on Durga and compare with Upanishads and also with what Krishna says in a shloka in the Gita.

2. And, as per many established Agamic views in Hindu religion, the Hindu Gods and Goddesses combined therefore do indeed 'create' and control the larger 'nature' and the known Kosmos: as seen in the 5 actions of the Hindu Gods/the manifest parabrahman, and which is the meaning of the pranava combined with the nadabindu, and which is reflected in the combined Trimurti's set of actions. And is reflected in any one of the Hindu Gods (as seen for example in Nataraja's mudras and the implements in his hands).

The Hindu Gods are themselves even identified with the Kosmos and its constant manifestation.

The difference, however, is indeed as stated in the article: that the Hindu Devas are not "outside" this nature/cosmos and controlling it, but that this Kosmos is (at a part of) their larger form itself, while they also manifest as the subtler inner-kosmos. This is better explained, and in more detail and accuracy, in numerous of our Hindu scriptures.
NightStalker
September 13, 2012
Report Abuse
There is no doubt now that the simplistic view of god and interpretation of various texts grouped as religion are due to lack of depth in knowledge. For some reason these people are at power center and are very good at influencing materialistic minded population which most hindus fall into. Well good articles like these can keep the real meaning alive and educate enough to propagate the right thought.
RT
September 14, 2012
Report Abuse
Why is the author twinning Dr. Rajiva as "out of the box thinkers" with a man who is suspect in Tamil circles? Is the author from outside India? Maybe that explains his/her misconceptions about individuals.
G. T Muthukumar
September 17, 2012
Report Abuse