Devas in Buddhism and Hinduism

[Theweirdtophat]

What's the difference between the 2? Do Hindus worship the Devas while Buddhists don't? What's their perspective on these beings?

 

[Aupmanyav]

Yes, Hindus worship many Devas and Devis (Gods and Goddesses). Gods are of two categories, indigenous considered Main, and Aryan considered secondary (live in heaven and are lead by Indra). Some Aryan Gods and Goddesses entered the Main category (Vishnu, Saraswati, etc.). I would not speak for Buddhists, Let them explain. They will do it in a better way. However, Buddhists do have devas and devis but they are even less important than the Secondary category in Hinduism. And If you asked Buddha, he will say 'How does it help you, don't waste time in such vain contemplation."

 

[Satyamavejayanti]

What's the difference between the 2? Do Hindus worship the Devas while Buddhists don't? What's their perspective on these beings?

Namaste,

In Hinduism, Devas/Devis are generally personifications of different aspects of reality, some may take them as literal and some as metaphorical, all depends on the individual Bhakta. In the Veda for example, the Devtas are many times personified natural objects that provide and "Give", sustenance to us, so the sun as it "gives" light and energy without taking anything in return is Surya Deva, sometimes the Human body is described as the city of Devas, it is also considered that the Devtas of the Mantras are the subject matter of the Mantras themselves in the Samhita texts and in the Upanishads we find that Mother and father are also classed as/or should be treated like Deva as they provide for us as well. Nearly all Hindus agree that the multiplicity of the Devas and Devis are but parts/manifestations of the entire infinite reality, some call this Brahman. Devis and Devtas are internal and external to our own self, sometimes the Atman itself is considered a Devta.

Im not sure how the Buddhist see the Devata and Devi.

Dhanyavad

 

[Vishvavajra]

Buddhism grew out of Vedic culture and incorporates the Vedic (i.e. Aryan) devas into Buddhist myth and iconography. This is Indra and the rest, the ones that show up in the Vedic hymns, not so much the ones that became central to Hinduism later. But unlike the Vedic religion, Buddhism isn't concerned with worshiping devas as such. Lay Buddhists aren't forbidden to do so, but the point of Buddhist practice is not just to make a bunch of gods happy, but to Awaken and liberate all sentient beings (including the devas) from their vexations, and in terms of ignorance and other defilements, devas aren't viewed as being any better than us in the long run. Their karma is such that they live beatific lives, but they're not any better at walking the Buddhist path, possibly because they tend to forget what it's like to suffer, so they don't practice diligently. Also, when their blessed time is up, they tend to fall hard, since they're so unaccustomed to hardship.

 

[ratikala]

Namaskaram

What's the difference between the 2? Do Hindus worship the Devas while Buddhists don't? What's their perspective on these beings?

in Theravada traditions there are many devas and many levels of celestial beings , ...although prehaps it is farer to say that they and various spirits are Appropriated rather than Worshiped , .....however Hinduisms approach to the worshiping of devas in some respects is much the same except it is important to sepperate Gods and the expansions or incarnation s of Gods from Devas in the Buddhist sence , .....Devas in Buddhism and Hinduism are celestial beings those granted blessings or boons from the God or Gods , one might ask favors and blessings from the Devas and Spirits but it is the God or incarnations of God that are worshiped in the true sence of worship .

in Mahayana Buddhism there are both Buddhas and Bodhisattvas which are also the fouus of prayer and reverence , this could be mistaken for worship but these Buddhas and Bodhisattvas are not Devas , ...Heiracically they are above the Buddhist Devas , .....Hovever in Hinduism Dev or Devi Denotes Divinity it self , it can be very confusing as dev or devi is also used as a polite address for man or woman as we are all seen as being small fragments of the true Divinity , so for this reason we tend to pay respects to that divine spark present in all beings .

again it is very confusing but there is a distinct difference between Deity and Deva , only that emination of the Divine that has been Dieified is actualy worshiped , ...in Hinduism ones Guru can be Deified and become Worshipfull as an expansion of the truth and an emination of the divine , ..this to me bears much resemblance to the way the Tibetan Buddhists Dieify past teachers and Bodhisattvas , realising them to be the embodiment of truth and beleiving them to be eminations of the divine primprdial wisdom of which the historical Buddha is beleived to be an emination .

we need also to bear in mind that both Buddhism and Hinduism are vast traditions , ...therefore vary greatly between one sect and another , regarding worship Mahayana Buddhism has more in common with some forms of Hinduism than Theravada which concentrates more upon personal practice and atainment of liberation .

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram Satyamevajayanti ji

Namaste,

Im not sure how the Buddhist see the Devata and Devi.

Dhanyavad

You will of course receive different replies from different Buddhist traditions , Mahayana holds a veiw far closer to that which you described where upon the Buddha and all manifestations of Buddhas and Bodhisattvas are held to be of primordial origin and to be embodiments of that Primordial wisdom therefore there is a divine element present in much the same way that the Jain regard the Tirthankar to be an emination of the one primordial being synonomous with Divine and absolute truth , ....in the Theravada tradition and Mahayana there are levels of heavens which are attainable for those who have lived Pious lives , this is much akin to being born into the heaven relating to ones Devata , for instance one may be born in Brahmaloka , Indra loka , ...etc , ....these are considdered to be the lesser and temporary heavens , however all who reside there are considered to be devas , in each heaven the devas reside for a different duration , but from which one eventualy falls when ones punya becomes exausted , ...only in the higest heavens of fully enlightened Buddhas is the duration of ones stay eternal , ...that is providing one does not vow to return as a Bodhisattva for the benifit and liberation of living beings traped in the samsaric realms .

There is also a recognition within many forms of Buddhism that we all posess the divine spark of Buddha nature , which is akin to our true self to be realised .

Dhanyavad

 

[kalyan]

Buddhism grew out of Vedic culture and incorporates the Vedic (i.e. Aryan) devas into Buddhist myth and iconography. This is Indra and the rest, the ones that show up in the Vedic hymns, not so much the ones that became central to Hinduism later. But unlike the Vedic religion, Buddhism isn't concerned with worshiping devas as such. Lay Buddhists aren't forbidden to do so, but the point of Buddhist practice is not just to make a bunch of gods happy, but to Awaken and liberate all sentient beings (including the devas) from their vexations, and in terms of ignorance and other defilements, devas aren't viewed as being any better than us in the long run. Their karma is such that they live beatific lives, but they're not any better at walking the Buddhist path, possibly because they tend to forget what it's like to suffer, so they don't practice diligently. Also, when their blessed time is up, they tend to fall hard, since they're so unaccustomed to hardship.

I would not use the word 'hinduism' but prefer the term vaidika dharma but thats a different point anyway...Vaidika dharma describes 'nArAyaNa'/Sri Maha Vishnu/ Sri Krushna as the antaryami or the inner atma/soul of everything in this universe....So even the devathas also has Sri Maha Vishnu as their inner soul and he is the one who is giving us the energy and the real operator for all the functions that we(atma/soul) exhibit through the physical body, the main purpose though being to help us get rid of this karmic bondage to avoid cycles of birth and death.

your conception of devathas is a bit wrong, although you seem to know the devathas also fall back when their karma goes off, you seem to not realize that these devathas sustain us. For example
Agni(Fire) , Varuna (water),Vayu (Air ), Akasa(ether), Prithvi( earth meaning the matter) are responsible for sustaining us and the bodies are made of these 5 elements and by worshipping the devathas behind these 5 energies, we are respecting them for their help they do towards us. This is the beauty of it.

2nd by worshipping for example Agni devatha, one should not stop there and he should realize that whatever energy or whatever fruits Agni gives by worshipping him comes from Sri Krushna acting as the inner controller....If one remembers this, then according to the path he adopts he can attain eternal place in vaikuntam....Or else he enjoys some fruits in heavenly places and falls back again to earth and can take any form and again get into cycles of life and death

Buddhism is a shunya vaada......some sects of buddhism say that atma exists but they say atma continuously regenerates itself....It borrowed heavily from the vaidika dharma but the modern buddhism is just a broken set of ideals here and there...vaidika dharma is the same at the start of kali yuga(3102 BC) and it is the same now, it does not change and hence the name sanatana dharma or eternal dharma. modern buddhism needs to ask the following basic questions

1. does buddhism now believe in atma/soul or not ?
2. If yes, what are the attributes of it, is it described ?
3. If not, then what is that buddhists try to meditate on ? clearly they cant worship the physical body as it being impermanent?
4. Does buddhists believe in brahman or the supreme existing in each and every thing?
5. what is the concept of liberation or moksha in buddhism?
6. what happens when the person is not liberated before he dies ? does he gets reincarnated?
7. if reincarnation is believed upon ? how the karmas are carried over if they don't believe in atma/soul at all ?

 

[Vishvavajra]

your conception of devathas is a bit wrong, although you seem to know the devathas also fall back when their karma goes off, you seem to not realize that these devathas sustain us. For example
Agni(Fire) , Varuna (water),Vayu (Air ), Akasa(ether), Prithvi( earth meaning the matter) are responsible for sustaining us and the bodies are made of these 5 elements and by worshipping the devathas behind these 5 energies, we are respecting them for their help they do towards us. This is the beauty of it.

This is a difference between religions. In Buddhism those are natural phenomena that arise according to natural conditions. If people want to personify them and demonstrate gratitude towards them, it's fine, but Buddhism is a religion with a particular purpose, and worshiping devas doesn't further the purpose, so if people want to worship devas they're doing so because they want to, not because it's a Buddhist practice.

Buddhism is a shunya vaada......some sects of buddhism say that atma exists but they say atma continuously regenerates itself

I'm not familiar with any such sect. Affirming an atman or persistent, essential self is solidly heretical in Buddhadharma as a whole. I feel you must be thinking of persons, which are different from atman in that they are complexes of transient, conditioned phenomena without a center. Buddhadharma recognizes persons but not an essential self or atman, which by definition could not be subject to arising, cessation, change, or regeneration.

modern buddhism needs to ask the following basic questions

Modern Buddhism has those questions well in hand. Insofar as they are relevant to Buddhist practice, they aren't particularly controversial or insightful, though they do highlight key differences between Buddhism and other Dharmic religions.

1. does buddhism now believe in atma/soul or not ?
Not. This is a universal Buddhist position and a cornerstone of orthodoxy.

3. If not, then what is that buddhists try to meditate on ? clearly they cant worship the physical body as it being impermanent?
False premise. Buddhist meditation isn't worship, and there's nothing permanent on which one could meditate in any case. Therefore meditation explicitly concentrates on the impermanent. This practice grants insight into all things, as all things are similarly impermanent and free of essential nature.

4. Does buddhists believe in brahman or the supreme existing in each and every thing?
It's not clear what "supreme" would even mean in a Buddhist context. However, there is a concept of Buddha-Nature, which is the capacity of beings to Awaken, which is held to be universal. However, it's not an essential thing that exists, much less a being or godhead.

5. what is the concept of liberation or moksha in buddhism?
The analogous concept is bodhi, or Awakening, which is to apprehend reality as it is, not the way we think it is.

6. what happens when the person is not liberated before he dies ? does he gets reincarnated?
No, there is nothing there to reincarnate. What happens is that the person lives with all the countless vexations that ordinary people live with, when they could have been free from them.

7. if reincarnation is believed upon ? how the karmas are carried over if they don't believe in atma/soul at all ?
Reincarnation in the Hindu sense isn't actually a feature of Buddhadharma, though chains of karma do transcend individual lifetimes. The difference is that karma in Buddhist thought is an impersonal chain or web of causality, the processes that create persons and other entities, not a something possessed by them. It requires no atman to anchor it.

 

[kalyan]

This is a difference between religions. In Buddhism those are natural phenomena that arise according to natural conditions. If people want to personify them and demonstrate gratitude towards them, it's fine, but Buddhism is a religion with a particular purpose, and worshiping devas doesn't further the purpose, so if people want to worship devas they're doing so because they want to, not because it's a Buddhist practice.

well...ok.....worshiping devas is just a connection that should help a fallen jIva/atma to attain a higher ground and slowly over years they might be connected to the supreme. Worshipping/meditating constantly on something can give you the attributes of the thing you are worshiping on, just as worshipping on the impermanence may lead you to understanding impermanence better.

I'm not familiar with any such sect. Affirming an atman or persistent, essential self is solidly heretical in Buddhadharma as a whole. I feel you must be thinking of persons, which are different from atman in that they are complexes of transient, conditioned phenomena without a center. Buddhadharma recognizes persons but not an essential self or atman, which by definition could not be subject to arising, cessation, change, or regeneration.

There is Kshanika Atma vada concept in Buddhism that I heard where they accept the existence of atma, but the atma is constantly regenerating itself every unit of time and hence the name kshanika, the atma as it is of now would not be the same the next moment....this is entirely a big concept altogether....May be you can find about this and explore about it and let me know once you find more information on this. Like you said from a vedic view point, the body is subject to all the suffering and change, but the self is the eternal atma which has no changes but due to self/atma/I associating the attributes of the insentient/impermanent physical body to the eternal atma, the suffering arises...basically lack of distinction between atma and the physical shareera

I did not get your 6 and 7th points though, what I wanted to know is lets says a person dies without being awakened, then he would be having a rebirth right according to buddhism ?
7th answer if I understand right you are saying karma creates the person and also at the same time you are saying karma transcend individual lifetimes, so on what identity these karma gets associated was my question if the physical body is just disappearing after one dies ? basically how do you identify a person after death lets say ?

 

[kalyan]

the op seems druid, off topic but which makes me ask the question, is druidism related to to eastern religions, I have heard that

Druids who built Stonehenge at England worshipped Lord Shiva called Pashupati in Rig Veda of 5000 BC. They also called him CERNUNNOS -- see tablet below with a cobra. There are no cobras in England.

did druidism deflected from its origins ?

 

[Vishvavajra]

well...ok.....worshiping devas is just a connection that should help a fallen jIva/atma to attain a higher ground and slowly over years they might be connected to the supreme. Worshipping/meditating constantly on something can give you the attributes of the thing you are worshiping on, just as worshipping on the impermanence may lead you to understanding impermanence better.

Makes sense. This is where "Hinduism" (or Vaidika Dharma, if you prefer) and Jainism may share something in common in contrast to Buddhadharma, which holds that there is no jiva/atman that can fall or rise and thus no ground to attain. However, the practice of worshiping and/or meditating on something in order to take on the attributes of that thing is something shared by Buddhist practice as well. It's most common in the Tantric tradition, such as in Tibet, but there is some of it in every branch of Buddhism.

There is Kshanika Atma vada concept in Buddhism that I heard where they accept the existence of atma, but the atma is constantly regenerating itself every unit of time and hence the name kshanika, the atma as it is of now would not be the same the next moment....this is entirely a big concept altogether....May be you can find about this and explore about it and let me know once you find more information on this.

I'll see if I can find anything about it. One does see the word kshanika in relation to some early Buddhist schools that no longer exist, such as the Sautrantika, whose doctrine of momentariness held that the present moment is all that exists. On the other hand, the Yogacara expounded on the now-common doctrine that each moment's contents are quantitatively different from those of each other moment. But I'm not sure what kshanikatmavada refers to exactly. The doctrine of anatman is one of the few non-negotiable Buddhist axioms, and I think Buddhism defines atman in a way very similar to how other Dharmic religions do; it just rejects the existence of such a thing.

I did not get your 6 and 7th points though, what I wanted to know is lets says a person dies without being awakened, then he would be having a rebirth right according to buddhism ?
7th answer if I understand right you are saying karma creates the person and also at the same time you are saying karma transcend individual lifetimes, so on what identity these karma gets associated was my question if the physical body is just disappearing after one dies ? basically how do you identify a person after death lets say ?

This is hard to explain in brief, but it has to do with the way in which Buddhism deconstructs individual identity. Buddhist thought uses similar language to the doctrine of reincarnation (i.e. transmigration of souls) found in other Dharmic religions, but in fact the Buddhist doctrine of rebirth is radically different from the rest, since there is nothing apart from karmic tendencies that transcends individual lifetimes, or even individual moments. That's because there is no essential reality to the person apart from the pattern of karma.

As for what happens to people when they die, Shakyamuni Buddha asked the rhetorical question: where does a flame go when it is extinguished? Human lives are often compared to fire in Buddhist texts, since they are occurrences that arise because of specific conditions, not solid things. When the conditions are not present, they pass away. However, flames can ignite other flames that are neither the same flame nor different, but causally related to them.

But fundamentally it's important to understand that Buddhadharma is not about escaping from a cycle of reincarnation. It's about liberation from vexation and existential suffering and assisting in the similar liberation of all beings. It's not so much about the fate of the individual, since individuals are conceptual fictions with no ultimate reality. The idea is that everyone should want to achieve liberation and then lead others there because everyone's suffering ought to be equally relevant to us, since the distinction between "self" and "other" is illusory. Nor is Nirvana an escape from Samsara, since the two are precisely the same reality seen through different lenses. I think Buddhism gets confused with Jainism on this point because of the similarity of the terminology, but the two are radically different.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Druids who built Stonehenge at England worshipped Lord Shiva called Pashupati in Rig Veda of 5000 BC. They also called him CERNUNNOS - see tablet below with a cobra. There are no cobras in England.

I do not posit any connection, but the similarity of names is striking. Dravids. Druids.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I did not get your 6 and 7th points though, what I wanted to know is lets says a person dies without being awakened, then he would be having a rebirth right according to buddhism ?
7th answer if I understand right you are saying karma creates the person and also at the same time you are saying karma transcend individual lifetimes, so on what identity these karma gets associated was my question if the physical body is just disappearing after one dies ? basically how do you identify a person after death lets say ?

6. If a person dies without awakening then his karmas roll to another being.
7.Karmas roll. One person said it is like balls in billiards. They collide, one stops and the other starts rolling.

 

[Theweirdtophat]

the op seems druid, off topic but which makes me ask the question, is druidism related to to eastern religions, I have heard that

Druids who built Stonehenge at England worshipped Lord Shiva called Pashupati in Rig Veda of 5000 BC. They also called him CERNUNNOS -- see tablet below with a cobra. There are no cobras in England.

did druidism deflected from its origins ?

Some have said Druids descended from the Hindus and it wouldn't surprise me really as their gods and way of life seem similar.

 

[ratikala]

the op seems druid, off topic but which makes me ask the question, is druidism related to to eastern religions, I have heard that

Druids who built Stonehenge at England worshipped Lord Shiva called Pashupati in Rig Veda of 5000 BC. They also called him CERNUNNOS -- see tablet below with a cobra. There are no cobras in England.

did druidism deflected from its origins ?

Namaskaram Kalyan ji

is it related , very probably yes , almost certainly yes .....but as for the link between the above relating to Cernunnos , ...interesting but , ....
its a ram headed serpent not a cobra , ....and this depiction is not from England it is Danish , it is considdered Celtic not nececarily Druid ?....Druids here are considered the Brahmins of the Celtic race , ...the knowledge holders , the astrologers , the seers and diviners , ....

now the Welsh Druids (I happen to have known one ) are certainly interesting in that yes there are possible links with sanskrit Via the Gauls , as traces of it can be found in the language , from what I can understand their reverence is for the elemental gods with more akin to the rig vedic gods , ...carying out sacrifices very similar to vedic fire sacrifice , ...and there are many comonly held beleifs , ..we had no problem understanding eachother when discussing many beleifs , ...however personaly I am not entirely convinced that the Mohenja Daro seal is Shiva ? none the less certainly it is a yogi , .....in all my conversations I have tried not to draw conclusions , ...as even Druids here are uncertain as to the true reason or meaning behind Stone Henge , ...it is lost in antiquity , yes the druids used it , .. but its origins and much about it is still a mystery .

 

[Unveiled Artist]

What's the difference between the 2? Do Hindus worship the Devas while Buddhists don't? What's their perspective on these beings?

I dont want to confuse you with people here who have more intelligence in both religions than me. I dont know about Hinduism, but the Buddhist tradition I practice is under Mayahana. So, we do have deities such as the son and moon goddess. We also have Boddhisattvas we ask for blessings from.

In the Lotus Sutra, Devas are gathered with humans, and other deities, forces, etc. They all listen to the Buddha Dharma and all have the compacity to receive enlightement. Nichiren Buddhism defines enlightenment as being connection with the Mystic Law. It takes from the Ten tai sect which I believe feels that Everyone and Every living thing from Devas to trees have a Buddha nature.

Nichiren Shu probably believe this more than Shoshu ane SGI, but devas, spirits, Bodhisattvas watch over and proect the Lotus Sutra.

Devas are seen no different than humans. As for the Hinduism part, the very littke knowledge I obtained was I think Devas are deified. I dont think they are like humans. In both traditions, I believe both give blessings.

Thats my elementary response.

Nam.

 

[Leftimies]

I think there is a lot of variation between the schools concerned, both within Hinduism and within Buddhism. I will not speak for Hindus, as I never was one. But I was a Buddhist for some good three years (I might very well still be, I am exploring alternative paths with Neo-Confucianism at the moment but might very well retreat back to Buddhism in which I feel at ease), so I'll give my few cents on the matter.

Before dwelling into this, I would like to point out that Buddha's teachings were put into writing some 400 years after his death. That is nearly a half millennia - a considerable duration of time. The United States has not been in existence as a sovereign state anywhere near the time span that passed between Buddha's lifetime and the compiling of the canons (the US is 'only' 239 years old). There is no telling what the original role of the devas were to the Buddhist thought; in fact, one of the possibilities that I have been considering is that Buddhism embraced the devas and the supernatural because it competed with Hinduism for what was a fairly theistic audience. I would not be surprised if I learned that the devas came as an add-on, a strategic move in the campaign to spread the core message (emptiness, dependent origination, the noble eightfold path, the four noble truths, karuna, metta). Religions do this fairly often, they incorporate existing ideas to hasten the public acceptance of their doctrine. The core message of Buddhism has very little to do with devas; in fact, often when I read the Pāli Canon suttas that do feature devas, the devas seem awkward and out of place. Their existence seems to be in narrative function only, and hold little relevance to the actual doctrines that are being espoused. An example would go that a deva x asks buddha a question pertaining to reality, and buddha provides an answer. Any such sutta could've featured humans instead of devas, as the identity of the inquirer seems to have no importance whatsoever - the core of any Buddhist sutra/sutta is the response he gives to an inquiry, or a lesson he gives.

Or perhaps this dis-empowerment of the devas (particularly in Pāli Canon, but also in some Mahayana texts) where the narrative reduces them into the role of a student asking questions from Buddha was a poke by the early Buddhists to the Hindus. It could've very well been rhetoric between two competing schools of thought that we - people of a different time - cannot pick up. After all, if the gods are irrelevant, as Buddha contends, why dedicate sutras to them? Maybe the devas are just a narrative mechanic or some kind of ancient humor, too different from ours. We literally do not know.

I feel that in any case, Buddhism can be practiced with agnostic or atheistic outlook, while the same is more difficult with Hinduism. Buddhism is ultimately about emptiness, not the devas. I personally am especially fond of the suttas that do not feature devas at all; I have so far collected 80 or so such suttas, all being from the Pāli Canon of the Therāvadins. So, safe to say, Buddhism concerns itself very little with the devas. It definitely seems plausible that devas were incorporated for non-doctrinal reasons later on.

 

[Aupmanyav]

.. as even Druids here are uncertain as to the true reason or meaning behind Stone Henge , .. it is lost in antiquity, yes the druids used it, ..

I do not think that is the case. Stonehenge was for Sun worship and having a correct calendar, so equinoxes and solstices were as important to Druids as to the Indo-Aryans, i.e., the right time to begin the cycle of sacrifices so that the Gods are pleased and the seasons are fruitful. The Indo-Aryans were obsessed by the discussion which is found in all Samhitas, Aranyakas and Brahmanas (Hindu sacred books). Aryans/Hindus changed the calendar three times/three months over a period of 6,000 years to keep in step with the precession of equinoxes. It needs a change once more. The sun now rises on the day of vernal equinox in the asterism (Nakshatra) of Piscium (Revati) and not in β and γ Arietis (Ashwinis).

 

[ratikala]

I do not think that is the case. Stonehenge was for Sun worship and having a correct calendar, so equinoxes and solstices were as important to Druids as to the Indo-Aryans, i.e., the right time to begin the cycle of sacrifices so that the Gods are pleased and the seasons are fruitful. The Indo-Aryans were obsessed by the discussion which is found in all Samhitas, Aranyakas and Brahmanas (Hindu sacred books). Aryans/Hindus changed the calendar three times/three months over a period of 6,000 years to keep in step with the precession of equinoxes. It needs a change once more. The sun now rises on the day of vernal equinox in the asterism (Nakshatra) of Piscium (Revati) and not in β and γ Arietis (Ashwinis).

Namaskaram Aupmanyav ji

Agreed , that would appear to be so , and yes the solstices and equinoxes are important to the Druids , ...but as far as historians here are concerned stone henge is concerned it pre dates the Druids by some 2000 possibly 3000 years , ...not that historians are everything to go by , ... but yes the Druids used it and certainly it is an astronomical device , ....and agreed there are some remarcable concurences even to the point of the Druids being the holders of Knowledge , the preists interestingly enough , .(..these were my freinds thoughts) 'Dru' in sanskrit can conote tree or wood and 'Vid' knowledge , ...and amongst Druids them selves the word Druid is often translated to mean forrest sage , ... I dont want to draw conclusions here but just put forth a little that I understood from him .

 

[Aupmanyav]

True, Ratiben. The evidence is too scanty, thin, to connect "Dravida > Dramila > Damila > Tamila > Tamilar" (Wikipedia) with Druids.