Devas and angels

[Ekanta]

I found an intersting quote from Sathya Sai Baba that runs as follows:
"The residence of the soul in the world of the moon (Chandra-loka) is what the Hindus refer to as the time spent as a god (deva) in Heaven, or as an angel according to Christian and Islamic religions."
http://www.sssbpt.info/vahinis/sathyasai/sathyasaivahiniinteractive.pdf
http://www.saibaba.ws/vahini/sathyasaivahini/sathyasaivahini08.htm

So, is it that devas are actually angels? What do you think? Have you thought like like this before? I post in the dharmic forums since it might concern both hinduism and buddhism etc.

 

[George-ananda]

I have always considered angels and devas to be the same/similar things. They are both beings of a higher spiritual plane.

Actually thanks @Ekanta for this thread as it just whetted my appetite to read the Satya Sai Vahini Stream of Divine Grace which I haven't seen in years..

 

[Aupmanyav]

Puttaparthi Sai Baba does not define Hinduism. He may have said that for his Western audience, but that is not how we (main-line Hindus) take it. There are no angels as such in Hinduism. And Devas are Gods (Devis too) in their own right. They cannot be reduced to the level of angels. I have yet to meet a Hindu other than those on honey-moon who aspires to go to Chandra-loka.

 

[Ekanta]

Lets see what a quick search gave me from some well known hindu sages:

Sivananda writes:
Angel is a divine messenger, or son of God. He corresponds to the Deva of the Hindus.
http://www.sivanandaonline.org/public_html/?cmd=displaysection&section_id=810&format=html

According to the Puranas, the isolated sparks are the divine radiance of what we call the gods or angels of heaven and the higher realms of being. The Aitareya Upanishad makes a pertinent point when it says that these angels cried aloud, being cast in the ocean of hunger and thirst and wanted food for themselves, which they craved from the Creator…
http://www.sivanandaonline.org/public_html/?cmd=displaysection&section_id=720&format=html

Krishnananda writes:
All the energies and all the senses (Prāṇa), everything that we call mentation, understanding, or intellection; all these worlds (Loka), the various realms of being; all the celestials (Deva), the angels in paradise; all the planes of existence, everything created, whatever is called a created being (Bhūtani); – all these are emanations from the Absolute Self. That appears as all this multiplicity.
http://www.swami-krishnananda.org/brdup/brhad_II-01.html

The performance of worship, in religious parlance, to gods, deities, angels, or whatever we call them, implies an inward attunement of ourselves with a transcendent principle which lies between the subject and the object, ourselves and the end which we are aiming at.
http://www.swami-krishnananda.org/gita/gita_08.html

An indication of these experiences is given to us in the Taittiriya Upanishad, for instance, where we are told that above men are the Pitris, above the Pitris are the Gandharvas. Then we have the Devas, or the gods, or the angels, then the ruler of the angels called Indra, then the Guru or the preceptor of the gods, called Brihaspati, the great repository of wisdom. Beyond that stage is the Creator. Such details of the existence of higher realms of experience are available in scriptures of this kind not only in India, but also in other countries.
http://www.swami-krishnananda.org/univ/Yoga_as_a_Universal_Science.pdf

Ramana Maharshi says:
D.: Why then did the bathing angels don clothes when he appeared before them, but not when Suka passed?
M.: That same Vyasa sent Suka to Janaka for instruction; Suka was tested by Janaka and finally he returned convinced of Vyasa’s greatness.

D.: Is there any way of sensing super-physical phenomena, e.g., guardian angels?
M.: The state of the object is according to the state of the seer.
“Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi”

Vivekananda writes/talks:
Even forgiveness, if weak and passive, is not true: fight is better. Forgive when you could bring legions of angels to the victory.
http://www.ramakrishnavivekananda.i..._class_talks_and_lectures/jnana_and_karma.htm

The fountain of all knowledge is in every one of us, in the ant as in the highest angel.
http://www.ramakrishnavivekananda.info/vivekananda/volume_7/inspired_talks/08_saturday_june_29.htm


Aurobino writes:
…in the present and in his attainment a little lower than the angels, yet in the eventuality and in his culmination considerably higher than the gods.
https://www.google.se/url?sa=t&rct=...4YxV-jRTT5O_xQejBawlhA&bvm=bv.105454873,d.bGg

 

[Aupmanyav]

What ever these people may write for their Western audience, the fact is that THERE IS NOTHING IN HINDUISM TO CORRESPOND WITH THE ABRAHAMIC IDEA OF AN ANGEL (an errand boy for God/s).

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Angels seem to be very popular these days. Where I live ( UK ) there are more books on angels than Buddhism in the local bookshop.

 

[Aupmanyav]

We have beautiful Apsaras who are accomplished in dance, music, singing, and the art of seduction. There are 26 of them in Indra's court including Urvasi, Menaka, Rambha, Tilottama. There are two types of Apsaras; Laukika (worldly), of whom thirty-four are specified, and Daivika (divine), of which there are ten. The Bhagavata Purana also states that the Apsaras were born from Kashyap and Muni.

RigVeda mentions Urvashi with her lover Pururava, who exchanged his old age with the youth of his son, Yayati, to marry Urvashi. Mahabharata mentions many more: Ghritachi, Purvachitti, Swayamprabha, Misrakeshi, Dandagauri, Varuthini, Gopali, Sahajanya, Kumbhayoni (Oh, what a name!), Prajagara, Chitrasena, Chitralekha, Saha and Madhuraswana.

".. these and others by thousands, possessed of eyes like lotus leaves, who were employed in enticing the hearts of persons practising rigid austerities, danced there. And possessing slim waists and fair large hips, they began to perform various evolutions, shaking their deep bosoms, and casting their glances around, and exhibiting other attractive attitudes capable of stealing the hearts and resolutions and minds of the spectators."

Natya Shastra, the principal work of dramatic theory for Sanskrit drama, lists the following apsaras: Manjukesi, Sukesi, Misrakesi, Sulochana, Saudamini, Devadatta, Devasena, Manorama, Sudati, Sundari, Vigagdha, Vividha, Budha, Sumala, Santati, Sunanda, Sumukhi, Magadhi, Arjuni, Sarala, Kerala, Dhrti, Nanda, Supuskala, Supuspamala and Kalabha." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apsara.
https://www.google.co.in/search?q=A...X&ved=0CCYQsARqFQoTCIObmJSS08gCFYcfjgodHn8APQ

 

[Ekanta]

What ever these people may write for their Western audience, the fact is that THERE IS NOTHING IN HINDUISM TO CORRESPOND WITH THE ABRAHAMIC IDEA OF AN ANGEL (an errand boy for God/s).

To quote Sivananda again: "Angel ...corresponds to the Deva of the Hindus"

IMO, if the same God has revealed and inspired both hinduism and christianity/islam (which God IMO has), its beyond obvious its the same. I mean, what else can it be? Sure the word angel is used more in reference to a western audience, but what difference does it make when its said that "Angel ...corresponds to the Deva of the Hindus"

 

[Valjean]

I never thought of Devas as angels (messengers of God). I think the Christian concept of angels is more like Gandharvas. Devas I've often heard referred to as "demigods."

 

[Aupmanyav]

To quote Sivananda again: "Angel ...corresponds to the Deva of the Hindus"

IMO, if the same God has revealed and inspired both hinduism and christianity/islam (which God IMO has), its beyond obvious its the same. I mean, what else can it be? Sure the word angel is used more in reference to a western audience, but what difference does it make when its said that "Angel ...corresponds to the Deva of the Hindus"

I am sorry, but Hindu Gods are not the same as the Gods in Abrahamic religions. As I said, Hindus Gods and Goddesses never needed errand boys. If they wanted to do something, they only needed to wish it. For communication/announcements, they usually used 'akash-vani' (voice from the sky).

I think the Christian concept of angels is more like Gandharvas. Devas I've often heard referred to as "demigods."

You are right. There were Gandharvas, Yakshas, Vidyadharas, Kinnaras and Kimpurushas. But they never ran errands for Gods or Goddesses. Like humans, they had their own lives to live. They had their own kingdoms and cities, generally in the Himalayas.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Angels sent from the Abrahamic God?

I found an intersting quote from Sathya Sai Baba that runs as follows:
"The residence of the soul in the world of the moon (Chandra-loka) is what the Hindus refer to as the time spent as a god (deva) in Heaven, or as an angel according to Christian and Islamic religions."
http://www.sssbpt.info/vahinis/sathyasai/sathyasaivahiniinteractive.pdf
http://www.saibaba.ws/vahini/sathyasaivahini/sathyasaivahini08.htm

So, is it that devas are actually angels? What do you think? Have you thought like like this before? I post in the dharmic forums since it might concern both hinduism and buddhism etc.

In the tradition I practice, Devas, apasmarakas, brahman (Lotus Sutra: "heavenly beings"), kimnaras, etc listen to the Dharma and have a chance to be enlightened just as humans. There is no mention of any central God watching over all who sends angels on his behalf. There is no central God in Buddhism as in Abrahamic faiths. I cant speak for Hinduism; and, I am sure they have some of the same worldview as Buddhist have.

None of which are angels as defined as messangers of the God of Abraham. Rather, I think youre trying to fit Dharma religions in your belief system. It doesnt work. Abrahamic God is not universal.

 

[Ekanta]

I think youre trying to fit Dharma religions in your belief system.

I am? I quoted several hindu sages... they did!

Abrahamic God is not universal.

Again, the above sages also testify to that the one God is surely universal.

Edited: One thing I dont get is this. If you are a hindu and all the great hindu sages say the same thing, why do you ignore them? From where do you get your version?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I am? I quoted several hindu sages... they did!

Again, the above sages also testify to that the one God is surely universal.

Edited: One thing I dont get is this. If you are a hindu and all the great hindu sages say the same thing, why do you ignore them? From where do you get your version?

You posted in a Dharmic forum not Hindu. Both Hindu and Buddhist have similar Gods if not by the same name, a different one. I havent read in the actural sutras that there is any central God in Hinduism nor Buddhism.

God of Abraham is Not universal. God of Abraham had different covenants with many people, none of His chosen was in the Indian Hindu/Buddhist area. Buddhism (youd have to ask a Hindu) and, I assume Hinduism existed loong before the concept of One God in Abrahamic faith. It startes with pagans.

Youre atempting to take a God of one religion and claim its the God of another completely different religion in culture and in belief.

Why believe whats written rather than the people who actually practice it for a living?

What was my quote? Ooh yeah, "use the world as scripture. Use books as commentary"

EDIT

Thats like my saying (Jesus/God) Christians and Muslim have the same God because Ali Jabid* Muslim said so in a book. I wouldnt go by the book, Id actually go by the actual Quran.

I read the sutras a lot. No central God in Buddhism. You can argue till your face is purple with Hindu, but You read their sutras and talk to them in person. They have more knowledge in it than read-say. @Aupmanyav already told you hindu belief.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I found an intersting quote from Sathya Sai Baba that runs as follows:
"The residence of the soul in the world of the moon (Chandra-loka) is what the Hindus refer to as the time spent as a god (deva) in Heaven, or as an angel according to Christian and Islamic religions."
http://www.sssbpt.info/vahinis/sathyasai/sathyasaivahiniinteractive.pdf
http://www.saibaba.ws/vahini/sathyasaivahini/sathyasaivahini08.htm

So, is it that devas are actually angels? What do you think? Have you thought like like this before? I post in the dharmic forums since it might concern both hinduism and buddhism etc.

Also, reading more about Baba, on first impression, he and his followers dont seem like Othorodox Hindu. Was reading his bio. http://www.sathyasai.org/intro/history.htm

Im sure many Hindu wouldnt place him in line with the gods.

I mean, correct me if Im wrong, Hindus. Isnt Baba sect not mainstream Hinduism?

 

[Aupmanyav]

I cant speak for Hinduism; and, I am sure they have some of the same worldview as Buddhist have.

Nearly all Hindus are theists believing in many Gods/Goddesses, a triad, a Mother Goddess, a Supreme God, or some Central Entity (Brahman). Hindus do accept the temporariness of the form through the theories of 'maya' or 'illusion'. But they accept a reality behind the illusions.

One thing I don't get is this. If you are a hindu and all the great hindu sages say the same thing, why do you ignore them? From where do you get your version?

Sages are not Gods. They are human and they are just as susceptible to mistakes as anyone else. A hindu need not get his version from anywhere. A person can and should do his/her own thinking. There are scriptures to guide him/her. Who and what defines a sage? Whom should we term as a sage or a great sage? What is a sage for you may be a charlatan for me. A person who claims to be an avatara is surely a charlatan, because there will be none in Hinduism till Kalki appears after some 427,000 years from now.

".. they inventoried 98 kg of gold ornaments, approximate value Rs 210 million (US$4.7m), 307 kg of silver ornaments, approximate value Rs 16 million (US$0.36m), and Rs 116 million (US$2.6m) in cash. .. In July, district authorities inventoried an additional Rs 7.7 million (US$0.17m) in valuables in another 4 rooms. The total value of these items is believed to exceed 7.8 million US dollars. .. Also inventoried at Yajurmandir were many articles stored and routinely given away as gifts in various ceremonies to devotees and those who performed selfless service, including thousands of pure silk sarees, dhotis, shirts, 500 pairs of shoes, dozens of bottles of perfume and hairspray, watches, a large number of silver and gold "mangala sutrams", and precious stones such as diamonds. There were also 750 saffron and white robes of the type Sai Baba wore. .. In July 2011, a similar opening of his Bangalore-area ashram tallied 6 kg of gold coins and jewellery, 245 kg of silver articles and Rs 8 million in cash." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sathya_Sai_Baba#Opening_of_residence).

These self-styled Bhagawans and babas are a scourge to Hinduism. One should be careful of them.

 

[Ekanta]

Aupmanyav already told you hindu belief.

I have a hard time taking his view as the "hindu belief" when he is an atheist. Should I follow him as a guru instead of the well known sages? Hillarious to say the least!
Or perhaps I should think for myself? Perhaps I should make up a fantasy of my own and follow it? There is a reason śraddhā (faith) is an important concept in religion. There is a reason the true guru is revered. But then again, without experience it doesnt make much sense. With experience it makes all the sense.

You posted in a Dharmic forum not Hindu. Both Hindu and Buddhist have similar Gods if not by the same name, a different one. I havent read in the actural sutras that there is any central God in Hinduism nor Buddhism.

No central God in hinduism? I'd say most versions of hinduism believe it and every vedanta version. Buddhism is a bit different, they talk about the unborn (buddha-nature) instead.

God of Abraham is Not universal.

If you argue from an anthropological perspective you are right. But I dont! I argue from a perspective of faith, experience and the words of the great sages.

Whom should we term as a sage or a great sage?

The short and correct answer is this: "The one who removes the darkness"
And I might add: Because of the possible controversy of Sathya Sai Baba, I also referred to SEVERAL OTHER WELL KNOWN PERSONS. If they didnt find gold a Sivanandas ashram when he died, your argument falls to the ground.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I cant speak for Aupmanyav faith. I was told in general Hindusim has no "one set cores" belief as Christianity has set core tenants. Same as Buddhism and even paganism. Its mixed.

Baba, from the links I posted and what I read, doesnt seem like a creditable source. If you really want to know about whether or not Hinduismn has a central God (as in Creator) read the Vedas and Sutras.

Buddhism has some overlap in Hinduism in the gods and goddesses they believe. Our Buddhanature is in no way similar to a Creator God. Its nor even considered a noun. Its not the Source of life-not a Creator. It IS our life. Its a fancy name for talking about Who we are no matter if a god created us or not.

I have a hard time taking his view as the "hindu belief" when he is an atheist. Should I follow him as a guru instead of the well known sages? Hillarious to say the least!
Or perhaps I should think for myself? Perhaps I should make up a fantasy of my own and follow it? There is a reason śraddhā (faith) is an important concept in religion. There is a reason the true guru is revered. But then again, without experience it doesnt make much sense. With experience it makes all the sense.

No central God in hinduism? I'd say most versions of hinduism believe it and every vedanta version. Buddhism is a bit different, they talk about the unborn (buddha-nature) instead.

If you argue from an anthropological perspective you are right. But I dont! I argue from a perspective of faith, experience and the words of the great sages.

The short and correct answer is this: "The one who removes the darkness"
And I might add: Because of the possible controversy of Sathya Sai Baba, I also referred to SEVERAL OTHER WELL KNOWN PERSONS. If they didnt find gold a Sivanandas ashram when he died, your argument falls to the ground.

Skip the sages. Read the sutras and vedas. For me, I rather trust the actual beliefs and the people living today who practiced it. Baba seemed like he had a small group of worshipers and he created his own hybrid hinduism. Out of all people, why Baba? Are you a follower of him? I would say hindu has a better perspective on him than a non hindum

What bugs me is...why do we trust the dead before the living

 

[Ekanta]

Skip the sages. Read the sutras and vedas. For me, I rather trust the actual beliefs and the people living today who practiced it. Baba seemed like he had a small group of worshipers and he created his own hybrid hinduism. Out of all people, why Baba? Are you a follower of him? I would say hindu has a better perspective on him than a non hindum

What bugs me is...why do we trust the dead before the living

Seriously, I said repeatedly, I quoted not only Baba, but several others. Dont you get it? Its not only him.
Why should I care more about "the people living today"? What makes them right? Perhaps you are a relativist who think that just because people are alive they are right? If that is so, why should I read sutras and vedas? You contradict yourself over and over.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Seriously, I said repeatedly, I quoted not only Baba, but several others. Dont you get it? Its not only him.
Why should I care more about "the people living today"? What makes them right? Perhaps you are a relativist who think that just because people are alive they are right? If that is so, why should I read sutras and vedas? You contradict yourself over and over.

I dont only depend on people who passed. I dont put down people, especially those who practice the faith in question, because they are not sages.

Everyone is a Buddha. I dont know how Hindu phrase it, but from little personal experience I had with Hindu face to face they are all welcoming as long as you respect their culture and faith.

That goes for here on RF too. If you dont respect Hindu culture and faith, how they express their faith because they are not sages, how are you going to get an indepth understanding ans answer to your question if you rudely contrast living Hindu beliefs false but sages true?

/takes a deep breathe/

Yes. I am a relativist. I am no diferent than anyone else. We dont have to be dead to be right on some things "and" wrong on others. At least I can conversate with living Hindu to u derstand their faith. I cant get an indept view of Hinduism by reading. Religion is an experience not a literary study.

You should read the sutras and vedas to get an understanding of what Hindu believe. Thats like being Christian but not read the Bible. Yes, you can read sages and talk with practitioners AND you can read their teachings as well as experience it by beingn involved.

Thats if you really want a indept answer to your question. If you just like debate, Id ask staff to move this thread outside the DIR.

Until then, how can we take you seriously if you put down our points of view because "we are living"? The Buddha will say he is no different than any other. Im sure the sages will say the same.

 

[Aupmanyav]

And I might add: Because of the possible controversy of Sathya Sai Baba, I also referred to SEVERAL OTHER WELL KNOWN PERSONS. If they didnt find gold a Sivanandas ashram when he died, your argument falls to the ground.

Now, Swami Sivananda cannot be compared to other babas (my homage to him). He was not a baba. A baba is one who claims to be an avatara or claims special powers. It was his book which introduced me to Upanishads. But IMHO, he too should not have tried to mix Abrahamic religions with Hinduism. The best is to keep a distance. They actually wait for such statements. That gives them a chance to slip in. Of course, if we talk of 'advaita', then as I have said earlier also, even Osama, Hitler, and Pol Pot too were none other than Brahman. I am an atheist (advaitist) Hindu, but kindly note that many a times I answer as a theist Hindu (the majority) keeping my personal views to myself.

Buddha-nature, Bodhikaya, Tathagatagarbha are very close to the concept of Brahman, but all Buddhists do not believe in it.