What do Hindus believe? Who do they follow? What do they follow?
If you’re part of the Hindu community, you know that clarifying the answers to such questions isn’t exactly a walk in the park. Like a game of whack-a-mole, in fact, it feels as though countless misperceptions continue to arise, despite great efforts over the years to dispel them.
For those of us who are in the business of whacking these moles, we can continue doing so, hoping something will click one day, enabling the public to better grasp our explanations. But as the saying goes, “Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results is the mark of insanity.” So if we hope to make progress, it’s time we put the mallet down and start taking a different approach, one that has less to do with how the Hindu Dharmas are viewed, and more with the lense through which they’re being presented: the language of Christian colonialism.
Just as the picture of a tiger can never accurately convey the likeness of a lion, the vernacular of one religious tradition can never accurately convey the essence of another. In an attempt to address this issue, we at the Hindu American Foundation are exploring the background of certain English translations of Sanskrit words commonly used when talking about or explaining the Hindu Dharmas. Words that were but approximations by colonizers who were motivated to distort them, and thus fail to serve as definitional equivalents while also staying true to their intended concepts.
Today’s word is “gods”.” Check it out.
Where does the word “gods” originate from?
If you look up “gods,” you’ll find that it has no distinct definition beyond its use as the plural form of the singular proper noun “God,” a concept whose meaning is fraught with implications.
As explored in a different piece of our series, “God” was originally a gender-neutral word, encompassing a wide spectrum of venerated beings. With the Christianization of Europe, however, it took on a far narrower connotation, used only to indicate the masculine, monotheistic notion espoused in the Bible — thus, labeling all others as pagan. When colonial Indologists thus came across the pantheon of venerated beings conveyed throughout Hindu texts, they framed them in a similar way, referring to them as “gods,” yet in the false sense.
Of course, the Sanskrit word for these beings is deva, and deva, in truth, has nothing to do with the Abrahamic idea of God, and certainly nothing to do with the Abrahamic idea of false gods. Sure, etymologically, it’s linked with the Proto-Indo-European word deus, which is Latin for “deity,” or “celestial being.” But because deus dates back to a time of religious plurality, before the Biblical worldview became dominant, deva had no heretical connotation.
Why should we avoid using the word “Gods” to describe Hindu concepts?
First and foremost, Hindus do not worship many gods. It’s important we understand this, as it was the singular accusation used by Arab, Turkish, Central Asian, and European invaders of Ancient India and Asia over the last couple millenia to justify the loot, destruction, rape, slavery, murder, and subjugation of non-Muslims and non-Christians in various empires.
Secondly, despite the fact “gods” is used as a translation for devas, linguistically speaking, the two simply don’t refer to the same thing. Deva derives its usage from the Sanskrit Divyatiti Deva, meaning “that which shines,” indicating one who illuminates with knowledge or empowers with strength. And given that each of the 4,400 tribes and groups in Ancient India had their own conceptions in tow with specific worldviews, many kinds of such beings exist within the Hindu pantheon, each serving a uniquely spiritual purpose.
What’s an alternative word we can use and why should we use it instead?
Considering where it’s derived from, deva is most appropriately described as “illumined being,” which, as it happens, is a translation used by many of Buddhism’s original translators, who were deliberate in their efforts to leave little room for Christian missionaries to misconstrue their work.
Seeing, however, that misconceptions continue to persist, particularly in regards to the Hindu Dharmas, whose teachers weren’t quite so vigilant, let’s review and break it all down for deeper clarity.
Hindus don’t worship many gods.
The Hindu Dharma’s, rather, recognize the existence of numerous illumined beings, be they ancestral, celestial, or symbols of the natural world, who are a means through which humans can better understand the nature of the multiverse and their place in it.
In monotheistic traditions, like Shakta, Shaiva, Vaishnava, Kaumaram, and Smarta, devas are said to originate from one supreme venerable being, serving as personifications of the various processes involved in the maintenance of existence. In non-theistic traditions, they are described as a category of especially insightful and powerful beings who ultimately guide followers toward the goal of dissolving into the Oneness of Brahman.
Of course, much more can be said on the topic, and boiling it down as such doesn’t quite do it justice. But the point remains: devas are a very specific concept, and should never be conflated with the Abrahamic notion of “gods.”
