Erik wrote:
> Well, whadya know! That seems to be *true*!
>
Well, whadya know - there's no mention of any "Devata"
in the Vedas. Or any Yakshis dwelling in a *Kadamba* tree!
bob_brigante wrote:
> > > 'So in the common terminology he saw Rishi, he
> > > saw Devata value...
> > >
Richard J. Williams wrote:
> > There's no mention of any "Devata" in the Vedas, Bob.
> > Or any Yakshis dwelling in a Kadamba tree.
> >
> > The idea of Devata came much later with the rise of the
> > Bhakti sects. There are no 'devatas' in the Vedas, that
> > is, there are no household or sylvan deities, apart from
> > or in addition to the supernal devas such as Surya, Indra
> > or Vishnu.
> >
> > Devatas belong to earth and do not share in the
> > charateristics of Devas. Devatas are all minor mind-made
> > demi-gods such as Shiva and Durga. Devatas are just
> > potencies, instruments, or in some cases, deified heros
> > such as Vasudeva, Krishna, or Ramchandra. The names
> > Krishna, Balarama, Vasudeva, and Rama do not occur in
> > the Rig Veda.
> >
> > On the other hand, a Deva is a 'celestial' power, the
> > deification or personification of natural forces and
> > phenomena, distiguised by name and attributes in the
> > Rig Veda and the Zend Avesta. Devas are believed to be
> > auspicious if propitiated, such as Surya, Agni, Usas,
> > or Saraswati, all derived from Prajapati.
> >
> > According to the Rig Veda (I.139,11), they number
> > thirty-three.
> >
> ye de\'vaaso di\`vy ekaa\'dasha\` stha pR^i\'thi\`vyaam adhy
> ekaa\'dasha\` stha |\\
> a\`psu\`kShito\' mahi\`naikaa\'dasha\` stha te de\'vaaso ya\`j~nam
> i\`maM ju\'Shadhvam || \EN{1}{139}{11} \\
>
> 11 + 11 + 11 (ekaadasha divi, pRthivyaam and apsu)...
