For any fantasy writer/author who is interested in this proposed word and its concept

[Perceiver]

My reason for posting this proposal at this website is to see if any author/writer of fantasy with mythological, supernatural, or religious themes would be interested in using my proposed word and its concepts.

For those of the monist, monotheist, pantheist, and panentheist perspectives, I seek to propose a word that can describe celestial beings (in any religion or culture) whose roles and status are very much like the devas in Hinduism and archangels. This is also intended to distinguish such celestials from the formless Ultimate Reality/The Absolute/GOD and primary personal forms like the Saguna Brahman in Hinduism. This is not about replacing the use of "God/Goddess" for the formless Godhead or primary form(s) like the Saguna Brahman. Specifically, I am proposing an alternative to the use of "gods" for celestials like the devas in Hinduism, the aeons in Gnosticism, and the celestials in Neoplatonism, Hermeticism, and other similar religions. That proposed word is "ons” (plural "onses").

The use of capital letters for the monotheist "God" is not always practice. Formats and prints (e.g. comic books, graphic novels) that use all capital letter makes it harder to tell apart "god(s)" and "God.” Some online programs or mega online video games do not let you use capitals other than the first word of a sentence. Additionally, some electronic appliances or texts may only allow lower-case letters. While capital and lower case letters can be seen from writings and texts, not so for speaking. The only difference between "deity" and "god" is usage where the latter implies a religious connotation. Additionally, "deity" is sometimes used in the same monotheist matter of captilization (e.g. "The Deity").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 to think of Hinduism as polytheist, yet Hinduism is not quite that. Also, Hindu "deva" is not used to refer to the formless Godhead or primary personal forms like the concept of Saguna Brahman. Moreover, while "God” in English tends to refer to the Formless Godhead/The Absolute/Ultimate Reality, it is not always uniform. While the use of capitals is intended for the distinctions, it can still create ambiguity and misconceptions:
Hinduism is a Monotheistic Religion

Now for how I developed my proposed word:
Old English "os" originally referred to the Anglo-Saxon celestials. It fell out of use during Christianization and only survives as a prefix for names today (e.g. Oscar, Oswald, Oswin, Osborne) and its old plural form ēse” is just not appealing. Nor is making "os" plural as "osses." "Aesir" only refers to the Nordic celestials. Also, "aesir" is the plural form. Singular form is "áss." Then I looked at the Old High German & Gothic cognate, "ans" (Gothic plural form is "anses” while the Old Higher German plural form is "anseis”). They derive from Proto-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 word is "ons.” I go with this spelling due so it fits in more within Modern 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 said in 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 the use of a feminine singular form ("onsess” is pronounced as ON-sess), since I still see singular "goddess" used at times. The use of "ons(es)” is a term for celestial beings whose roles and nature are like those in Hinudism, Neoplatonism, Gnosticism, and Hermeticism and other religions with similar cosmologies 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 of wisdom, water onsess, etc.).

 

[Black Dragon]

Hey Perceiver,

That's a very thought-provoking proposal. I'm a fan of Hinduism, and I enjoyed reading your article on Hindu monotheism. While I agree that it is difficult to classify Hinduism, wouldn't it be most accurate to classify it as Pantheistic? After all, it is widely taught that we are all part of Brahman.

Getting back to your proposal, however, would adopting this new word erect a barrier to the reader understanding what the author is saying? I am interested in hearing some different perspectives on this.

 

[Neunzehn]

Tell us, point-blank-period, why you want us to use this word.

 

[Perceiver]

Getting back to your proposal, however, would adopting this new word erect a barrier to the reader understanding what the author is saying?

Well the author could have a an introduction or glossary/section of the specific word (along with any other words) that readers may be unfamiliar with. Alternatively, the author could have the word's meaning and usage be explained by characters within the story.

 

[Perceiver]

Tell us, point-blank-period, why you want us to use this word.

Literature is usually one of the best mediums for neologisms or obsolete words to become widely used. For the fantasy genre such examples incluce "orcs," "hobbits," "wights," "muggles," etc.

 

[Perceiver]

wouldn't it be most accurate to classify it as Pantheistic? After all, it is widely taught that we are all part of Brahman.

It can be pantheistic, panentheist, or monistic. It really depends on which Hindu sect.

 

[Perceiver]

My introduction post is gone! I was making a correction in it, I must have hit the wrong command key.

 

[Neunzehn]

Why do you want this word to be widely used?

 

[Black Dragon]

My introduction post is gone! I was making a correction in it, I must have hit the wrong command key.

I was able to put it back for you.

 

[Dr.Dorkness]

hmmmm interesting. need to think about this will get back on this.

 

[Perceiver]

I was able to put it back for you.

Thank you .

Why do you want this word to be widely used?

A word that monists, pantheists, and panentheists can use for celestial beings whose roles are like Hindu devas. I mentioned the ambiguities, misconceptions, and limitations of upper and lower case letters that "God(s)" and "god(s)" creates.

 

[Imperialis]

So one day there was just this decision to make a word to describe indeterminate holy beings? Interesting, and I really appreciate the work and research you put into this. However, do you not have any interest in writing up a world of your own? As I think only you have the clearest understanding of what exactly you want ons to mean, and I'm wondering why you wouldn't just write a story at least to explain the word in all its complexity and meaning, so that we all could understand. A word never used in context by its creator is unlikely to be in use. Show the writers and others what you mean, I think what bars this cool concept is a lack of exact understanding. We understand devas, we understand monism, pantheism, and panentheism. What at least I don't understand is how this word is both different from, more usable than, and an easy enough concept to understand as a replacement for god, the far and away most prominent word used in Western literature to describe the divine.

 

[Perceiver]

So one day there was just this decision to make a word to describe indeterminate holy beings? Interesting, and I really appreciate the work and research you put into this. However, do you not have any interest in writing up a world of your own? As I think only you have the clearest understanding of what exactly you want ons to mean, and I'm wondering why you wouldn't just write a story at least to explain the word in all its complexity and meaning, so that we all could understand. A word never used in context by its creator is unlikely to be in use. Show the writers and others what you mean, I think what bars this cool concept is a lack of exact understanding. We understand devas, we understand monism, pantheism, and panentheism. What at least I don't understand is how this word is both different from, more usable than, and an easy enough concept to understand as a replacement for god, the far and away most prominent word used in Western literature to describe the divine.

I do not have the skills to be a literary author nor would I be able to write a good story. My proposed word is not an outright replacement for "god(s)" and "goddess(es)." "Onses" are basically devas, the difference being the usage. "Deva" is used in English for referring to specific celestials within Hinduism and Buddhism. A person who is Gnostic would not use "deva(s)" when referring to aeons in Gnosticism. Nor would a Hindu use "aeon(s)" when referring to "devas." A person who is hard polytheist and rejects the notion of the Absolute would have no use for "ons(es)."

So "ons(es)" is term that refers to celestials in any monotheist, monistic, pantheist, or panentheist religion or theology whose roles and nature are just like devas and aeons. I mentioned how the ambigous use of "god" and "God" and the limitations of capital letters can create misconceptions.