Demigod worship different from worshiping para-atma?

[Spirit Seeker]

Namaste all, typing from my phone so please excuse the structure. I have a question regarding as to how one worships and honors god through form and attributes vs a formless impersonal Brahman. I can't cite it right away but I read in the Gita that Krishna himself says those who worship "demigods" go to the demigods , and those who worship him(para-atma) will be with him. The thing is, having read so many different viewpoints some will say that all forms of gods with attributes is the bhagavan himself, and not actual entity's. So I'm confused how can Krishna say worshipping a form of god is different from worshipping him (para-atma) and the results will be different, if from the viewpoint all forms of God is the one god himself in many forms? What is considered a "Demi-god" really and how is it different from THE bhagavan itself? http://www.gaudiyadarshan.com/posts/demigod-worship/. Thank you in advance

[Spirit Seeker]

I am confused whether to view Gods as beings that exist on a relative level vs a form of God one projects unto Atma with form and attributes by reading Krishnas words among other verses when he says results are different? I mean we can get into deep philosophical discussions over one god, many gods, one god in many gods, formless Brahman etc, but how can all that dance around Krishnas direct words? I'm just confused if one has the intention of worshipping the para-atma through a form will obtain same results of moksha or not or if that form is the medium and is indirect temporary method, meanwhile a god with form is still none other then god itself.. Aaaaeh!

[Spirit Seeker]

Namaste sudas. Thank you for your response. I am new to Hinduism and it wasn't my intention to insult or offend anyone with my curious post. I am just very confused with the varying viewpoints on this subject, and how some translations of the Gita will use the English word "Demi-god" to refer to a lesser god or being. That was my understanding of the word by the translations I have come across online, or from what I have read directly. If what I came across is incorrect then what is the actual stance of Krishna when he refers to worshipping gods when in fact all gods are him? If we are to discard the word and which it implicates. Thank you again.

[Viraja]

What a great question!

Here's my 2 cents:

When thinking of 'demi-gods', I think of planetary lords - the navagrahas as being them. Other than that, in the Shakta sect, the ministers and attendants of Ma Lalitha Tripura Sundari devi can be considered as demi-gods (Brahmi, Kaumari...). There are various other demi-gods too, such as the rulers of the 8 directions - ashtadik palakas. While the divine is present in all of them, it is being known that they are not capable of granting moksha. Thus, worshiping them, one would go to their sphere upon death, but based on their karma, they will continue from where they are spiritually in their next birth, which will include continuation of their faithfulness to the same devotee or totally not (even birth in other religions is possible).

[Eastern Mind]

Namaste all, typing from my phone so please excuse the structure. I have a question regarding as to how one worships and honors god through form and attributes vs a formless impersonal Brahman. I can't cite it right away but I read in the Gita that Krishna himself says those who worship "demigods" go to the demigods , and those who worship him(para-atma) will be with him. The thing is, having read so many different viewpoints some will say that all forms of gods with attributes is the bhagavan himself, and not actual entity's. So I'm confused how can Krishna say worshipping a form of god is different from worshipping him (para-atma) and the results will be different, if from the viewpoint all forms of God is the one god himself in many forms? What is considered a "Demi-god" really and how is it different from THE bhagavan itself? http://www.gaudiyadarshan.com/posts/demigod-worship/. Thank you in advance

Vannakkam: I have a question for you. Do you feel it will help with your sadhana or help you become a better person if you figure this out? If so, how exactly?

Aum Namasivaya

[grames]

It is even more insulting to call crores of God with the title of "Supreme" and unlike us, who seeks political favors, Vedas do not. What is your way of explaining the fallacy of "crores of Supreme" which is actually diluting the meaning of "Supreme" itself?

Can you throw some light on the "how it is an insult" when you want to call crores of God with same title might be the real insult to each and every one of them?

[Ganeshprasad]

Pranam all

Pranam-s,

The mere identification of various Shri Gods and Shri Goddesses as "demigods" is an insult of high degree.

------
To decry these Supreme Gods and label them as "demigods" is radically preposterous.

+1

could not agree more, there is no such thing as Semi or Demi Gods in Hindu Dharma. they are Devas and should be addressed as Deva simple.

If we read the Bhagvat Gita in context we would understand it is not the Deva worship that Lord Krishna condemns but our material desires that binds us in this bhotic world. Even worshiping Lord Krishna for material gain would result in returning to this world.

Jai Shree Krishna

[Spirit Seeker]

Vannakkam: I have a question for you. Do you feel it will help with your sadhana or help you become a better person if you figure this out? If so, how exactly?

Aum Namasivaya

Namaste EM. For me there is a good reason. A mindset like mine is better suited for Vedanta, but I'm more satisfied in connecting with The supreme through form and attributes. I know some here might say it shouldn't really matter which generally speaking I will agree to an extent. My mind is always questioning and pondering and bouncing around on about the nature of reality as it can hardly be still. The reason I ask, is for example for instance I'm interested in the Deva Kali ma. She is my favorite goddess. As I learn more about Hinduism and Bhakti , I am wondering what is appropriate to connect or bond with this God energy. There is so much philosophical discussion on this forum left and right between personal and impersonal god. I feel like while I can understand and appreciate philosophy it does not satisfy me. All this thinking in various constant ways just makes my spiritual progress unsteady and rocky, when instead I can approach my para-atma through a deva or god form and know what to expect or get from it. That is why I want to know the appropriate approach to be steady and balanced in spiritual progress for my own sake. If I choose Kali ma, in my naturally curious unsteady mind , I wonder if it is a projection unto para-atma or if para-atma comes to me in that form filtered with thoughts , feelings, and personality of the deva that will respond to me. Or if deva is being that comes In behalf of atman. Like I said, I have trouble understanding and progressing for my own sake which I hope I can get clear from those knowledgeable in practicing the religion, rather then just philosophy alone.

[grames]

It doesn't matter what background is our...our statements are regarding subject matter clarity and Truth requires no proof!'

Lets agree to that 33 and what is your idea of calling all of them as Supreme - As you know, calling more than just one with such title is an real insult isin't unless there is a basis where the title "Supreme" also has its own meaning! I am just curious and i am looking for as you say, a non-sectarian view that i believe you can provide.

Thanks

[Viraja]

I believe in the concept of 'demi-gods'. They are the ones who are represented in the puranas but do not have a temple dedicated to their worship, except a few, like Saniswara, Surya.

Sukracharya, Chandra, Brahmi, Kaumari and so forth are not worshiped in any temple, but they are vedic dieties - in other words, 'demi-gods'. This is my understanding.