Originally Posted by
Perceiver
Forpersons of the monist, monotheist, pantheist, and panentheist perspectives, Iseek to propose a word that can describe celestial beings (in any religion orculture) whose roles and status are very much like the devas in Hinduism andarchangels. This is also intended to distinguish such celestials from theformless Ultimate Reality/The Absolute/GOD and primary personal forms like theSaguna Brahman in Hinduism. This is not about replacing the use of"God/Goddess" for the formless Godhead or primary form(s) like theSaguna Brahman. Specifically, I am proposing an alternative to the use of"gods" for celestials like the devas in Hinduism, the aeons inGnosticism, and the celestials in Neoplatonism, Hermeticism, and other similarreligions. That proposed word is “ons” (plural form is onses).
Theuse of capital letters for the monotheist "God" is not alwayspractice. Some forms of penmanships, formats, and prints (e.g. comic books, graphic novels) use allcapital letter makes it harder to tell apart "god(s)" and "God.”Some online programs or mega online video games do not let you use capitalsother than the first word of a sentence. Moreover, some electronicappliances or texts may only allow lower-case letters. While capital andlower case letters can be seen from writings and texts, not so for speaking. Theonly difference between "deity" and "god" is usage wherethe latter implies a religious connotation. Additionally, "deity" issometimes used in the same monotheist matter of capitalization (e.g. "TheDeity").The monotheist use is also done in the same matter by pantheist,panentheist, and deist contexts.
Translating "deva" from Hindu contexts into English as"god" sometimes causes people from a strict monotheist background tothink of Hinduism as polytheist, yet Hinduism is not quite that. Also, in English,"deva" is used to refer to celestials in Hinduism and Buddhism. The spelling of "daeva" in Zoroastrianism is used to distinguish it from Dharmic "deva." While “God” inEnglish tends to refer to the Formless Godhead/The Absolute/Ultimate Reality,it is not always uniform. While the use of capitals is intended for thedistinctions, it can still create ambiguity and misconceptions.
Nowfor how I developed my proposed word:
I sought out a Germanic word for my proposed word. OldEnglish "os" originally referred to the Anglo-Saxon celestials. Itfell out of use during Christianization and only survives as a prefix for namestoday (e.g. Oscar, Oswin, Osbourne) and its old plural form ēse” is just notappealing. Nor is making "os" plural as "osses.""Aesir" only refers to the Nordic celestials. Also, “aesir" isthe plural form. Singular form is "áss." Then I looked at the OldHigh German & Gothic cognate, "ans" (Gothic plural form is“anses” while the Old Higher German plural form is “anseis”). They derive fromProto-Germanic "ansuz" (plural form "ansiwiz"). Ans, aesir,and Old English os also share the same root with “asura” and “ahura.”Proto-Indo-European "ansu" has also been defined as meaning either"god," "ancestrial spirit," "life,""air," or "breath."
Moreover, Gothic "ans" and “anses” sounded good. So my proposed wordis “ons.” I go with this spelling due to the fact that it fits more withinModern English spelling and pronunciation. Also, the plural form of the “an”article is ans. The word "ons" is pronounced as ONS, like"on" with the addition of an "s" ("ons" is saidin just one syllable). The plural form “onses” is pronounced as ON-siz. While"ons(es)" is intended to be gender neutral I will not rule out theuse of a feminine singular form (“onsess” is pronounced as ON-sess), since Istill see singular "goddess" used at times. The use of “ons(es)” is aterm for celestial beings whose roles and nature are like those in Hinudism,Neoplatonism, Gnosticism, and Hermeticism and other religions with similarcosmologies and hierarchies. Additionally, "ons" and"onsess" can be used like how "god" and "goddess"is used for a celestial's affinity (e.g. fire ons, ons of thunder, onsess ofwisdom, water onsess, etc.).
Bookmarks