14 Jan Good vs. Evil; Devas vs. Asuras; Good Planets vs. Bad Planets: If We are Scientific, Why We Should Even Bother With Stuff Like Myth, Movies & Astrology?
There is a story one of the biggest Hindu Gods (Brahma) lusting after his own daughter. She would try to escape his line of vision but he kept creating himself new faces, so he could continue to look upon her in this creepy way.
There are more than a few stories of gods—even the Big, Important ones, doing creepy things. It begs the question: what is the difference between the gods or devas (generally considered benevolent etheric beings) and asuras (demons–generally considered malevolent etheric beings). As I wrote to a friend, “I mean, they all say, ‘if you propitiate me sufficiently I will make your life great and if you disrespect me I will cause you great suffering.’ And they all go about having sneaky sex with people they shouldn’t or killing people or tricking people. So. What is the difference?”
My friend replied that he had been told the difference was that the devas are interested in mokṣa (spiritual liberation) and the asuras are not. I resonated with this yet felt it wasn’t the whole story.
The question nagged at me during the week my friend Dr. Robert Svoboda and I were co-teaching a course on the planets in Vaidyagrāma, because we were talking about the role of the planets in Jyotiṣa (Indian astrology) and Ayurveda. And there is a lot of overlap between planets, and the devas and asuras and a fair amount of emphasis on which are the “good” ones and which are the “bad” ones.
Like devas and asuras, some planets are considered “good” and some “bad.” For example, Jupiter is generally taught to embody the qualities of teacher, preceptor, wisdom, expansion, earth, sweets, etc. He is also considered to be the preceptor of the devas—the “good guys.” Lots of “good” things associated with Jupiter. Good stuff is associated with Venus too. And the moon. Sometimes. And Mercury, as long as he is hanging out in good situations, with good company.
Saturn, on the other hand is considered to be ugly, lame, slow, frightening and exacting in his deliverance of difficulties. (Actually, he’s just seeing to it that we reap what we ourselves have sown, but nobody looks forward to that, when it comes time to reap thorns we have sowed). So, Saturn is associated with, “bad” stuff. As is Mars, Rāhu and Ketu (which are nodes. Not really planets. But never mind that now). And the Sun. And the Moon. Sometimes. And Mercury sometimes.
When it gets right down to it, it is hard to tell the difference between devas, asuras and the planets. Indeed, they are often related by close familial ties. Consider these associations between the planets and other planets, planets and the devas, and devas and other devas:
- Venus is considered to be the son of Lord Shiva.
- Mars is also the son either of Lord Shiva or of Parvati (depending on what story you read).
- Saturn is the son of the Sun.
- Mercury is the son of the Moon.
- Jupiter is the grandson of Brahma.
- Kaśyapa Rishi is the father of all the asuras, devas and deities. They were born to his two wives: Aditi and Diti. This makes all the planets, stars and constellations full siblings with all the devas and deities, and half-siblings with all the asuras. And it makes all the asuras and devas either siblings or half-siblings with each other.
When we begin to learn Jyotiṣa, we find that each planet takes a turn governing us in our lives. We begin to dread the turns of the, “bad” planets and look forward to the, “good” ones.
But the asuras and devas are all half-siblings and the planets are mixed in with them and each other and the gods and goddesses to such an extent that it is hard to separate the good from the bad.
Certainly, anybody who has studied Jyotiṣa a bit will acknowledge that the tough planets are not all bad, of course. Consider, for example, that Saturn is also the planet of discipleship. Through discipline, much can be achieved and purified. Mars, as well as indicating anger and irritability can also indicate motivation and courage. Lots of “good” things are associated with “bad” planets. (But often these good things are products of difficulty. Like, you could write a grade-school-type essay on, “what my difficult time taught me” and the, “good,” valuable “lessons” that emerged, but those “good” things were by-products of “bad” things).
And, as the bad planets are not all bad, the “good” planets are not always that good. Here are a few examples:
- Jupiter, considered the most benefic planet in the zodiac, once forced himself (that is called, “rape” in less delicate language) on his brother’s wife. (#cosmicmetoo)
- The Moon (who we sometimes see as benefic and sometimes not so much) absconds with his guru’s wife. (His guru is Jupiter). The moon and Jupiter’s wife have a bit of a serious fling. That is how Mercury is conceived. (#cosmicdaliance)
- Venus, the second most benefic planet in the zodiac is….wait for it… the guru of the asuras (the, “bad” guys). (#thingsareweird)
So, the question remains: what is the difference between the good guys and the bad guys, when one cannot necessarily decipher this through their actions?
There are at least a couple possible answers.
One possible answer relates to parentage. Remember that Diti is the mother of the asuras and Aditi is the mother of the devas and deities, including the stars, constellations and planets. Diti means “split, divided”. Aditi means, “undivided”. So the answer is in their names: the nature of the good guys is to serve to unify and the bad guys to divide, fracture and separate.
A second possible answer relates to imagination. One of the first days of my stay at Vaidyagrama, my friend and colleague, Erick Schulz leant me a book. My Gita, by Devdutt Pattanaik. It is a reflection on the Bhagavad Gita—one of the preeminent spiritual texts in India. I’d had it laying about my room for a few days, when I picked it up and opened to this passage:
“Vishnu ascribes greater value to the devas over the asuras, for the former look beyond the material, for some time at least. Both the Pandavas and the Kauravas are fighting over property, but at least Arjuna is listening to the possibilities beyond.” (p. 129)
While this is simply Mr. Pattanaik’s opinion, I found it noteworthy that I should open to this page when this was my very question, and so I perhaps found more meaning in the passage than I may have otherwise. I read further that the asuras are confined to paying attention to the literal and measurable, while the devas are paying attention also to metaphorical and non-measurable possibilities.
From this point of view anyway, the difference between the devas and asuras– between good and bad, is the willingness to be open to possibilities we cannot necessarily measure.
That lens mattered to me at the conference we were attending. Some had criticized the association of
Āyurveda, a rigorous medical science, with Jyotiṣa, dismissing the latter as unscientific or irrational.
While one does not need to believe in Jyotiṣa in order to practice Āyurveda, exploring it can be useful in the cultivation of the very qualities that distinguish daivic and āsuric approaches to life and medicine.
If a daivic qualities act to unify rather than divide, we can examine which tendencies predominate in us and consciously strengthen the former and prune the latter. One of the four qualities of an effective physician described in the Āyurveda classics is purity. Cultivating coherence, integration, and humility—qualities that unify—while reducing habits that fragment and divide, directly serves that aim.
If a daivic orientation remains open to realities beyond the measurable, the literal, and the immediately rational, we are again given a practical action. We can cultivate openness and curiosity, and temper the impulse to narrow reality to what we already understand.
Possibility itself may be, as Devdutt Pattanaik suggests, the doorway to a daivic way of being. It may be unwise—certainly unhelpful—to become so attached to our idea of medical science that we close ourselves off from what we cannot yet explain.
Practitioners of medicine (and astrology, for that matter) work daily in the presence of suffering. No matter which system we practice, we encounter the limits of measurement and rational explanation. Engaging with myth, story, and symbolic systems such as astrology becomes a practical exercise in openness. It allows us to entertain possibilities for healing that might otherwise remain unseen.
As I discuss more fully in The Four Qualities of Effective Physicians, trusting in possibility itself may have therapeutic value. Confidence grounded in openness, rather than certainty, can positively shape the healing process for those we serve.
For discussions on each of the planets of Jyotiṣa, consider taking our online course, The Planets: Exploring Our Relationship with the Nine Archetypal Personalities, co-taught by Dr. Robert E. Svoboda and Dr. Claudia Welch.
Note: while I have studied Jyotiṣa, I am not a Jyotiṣi (astrologer). I don’t give readings. I do not teach astrology. In this course, I simply share my understanding of the nature associated with each planet.
by Dr. Claudia Welch January 2016