Demigod worship different from worshiping para-atma?

[Omkara]

The reality is that God has left ample scope for everyone to have his choice of form and name to worship depending upon his liking.

So if I visualize God in the form of Sunny Leone or Pamela Anderson and pray, I will be blessed by Him?

[Amrut]

Namaste,

From my observation I have seen that


Vaishnava-s say that others accuse them of being intolerant, narrow minded and for forceful interpretation, while we say that Vishnu is supreme based on Veda-s.

The reason I have found out is that

We agree that there is one God but this does not end here, the verses says, There is one God, but appears as many. Here, the part and whole theory is not applied.

So when it is said that Sriman Narayana is an antaryamin, then for some verses, like in Sri Rudram, etc, we see this interpretation as adding words in-between lines.

So we agree that there is one God, but when you say that that God is a person, Vishnu / Krishna, and that he stays at a place, a heavenly kingdom, called Vaikuntha, then there is a problem.

Since it is illogical to give supreme status to another deity, as a person, hence they must be shown inferior to Sriman Narayana. Here again the rival sects / other sects have problems.

Due to this, we feel that Vaishnava-s make implied or forced interpretation so that the status to their deity is always maintained as supreme. Vishnu, who has sudarshana chakra does not have a trishul and vice versa. So both of them have distinctive characteristics and live in different places.

This is what I call it as 'Lets paint the while world Pink', as there is truth in their claim that Sriman Narayana is shown as supreme in Veda-s, but it is half truth, there are other deities who are also shown as supreme which is logically not possible.

So when someone tries to prove this supremacy, then I call it as 'My daddy strongest game'

If I say that truth is one omnipresent entity and appears in different forms, then the same truth, can appear as Shiva and Vishnu. The problem will be solved. Here too there is only one God as supreme, the difference is just in appearance.

But for a personal deity, this may be a tough thing to do. If somehow one can accept that Vishnu appears as Shiva, by his own lila and performs Shiva Lila (not with part and whole theory) then problem would be solved.

We do have verses which indicate unity of both.

I do not intend to start debate on this issue, but feel that it is important to understand the reason behind someone accusing, so that misconceptions can be removed.

I have added in this thread, as this and many other threads have turned into the debates we are seeing, of which I too am a part.

Any solutions?

Hari OM

[Amrut]

So if I visualize God in the form of Sunny Leone or Pamela Anderson and pray, I will be blessed by Him?

maybe a better one, if you meditate to acquire heaven or siddhi-s, then Lord Indra may send RambhA, and MenakA, to break your meditation.

EDIT: I forgot to add, she may bless you with a charming and dashing son, like in Shri Vishvamitra's case

[devotee]

So if I visualize God in the form of Sunny Leone or Pamela Anderson and pray, I will be blessed by Him?

Sure, Omkara ! There is no doubt at all. Not only being blessed by God but you will get whatever you want including Moksha.

We had debates earlier and it seems to me that you are still carrying a lot of misgivings against me (it so seems through your posts, like declaring the quoted Upanishads as "fake"). ... and you know I don't like to engage with anyone with such biases. But still your doubts are valid and I would reply ...

See, can you see God in Sunny Leon ... as pure and as omnipotent and as omniscient as you feel God should be ? If you can do it, rest assured without doubts that you will certainly attain her as God. ... and that is true for any form and name that you can choose. It is your devotion, the one-minded pure devotion that makes God alive in the chosen form and name and not the form and name itself.

OM

[Alter ego]

Non-vedic deity? that must be the reason Krisha talked about "moodha" who don't realize his nature.

"vedaischa sarvai aham eva vedyaha" - and he is non vedic, shed your ego, you can not understand Rig Veda without that.






They are not compatible? who are you to decide that?

All learned acharyas acknowledges the compatibility , you being mimasaka ignoring the reason behind same Veda go on and show the Vedanta.

Mimamasa in itself is not complete . While "Athaatho dharma jignaasa" is intial point of mimamsa, "Athatho Brahma jignasa" is its ending point and initiation for next level.

On this forum , I see some Vaishnavas claiming that vedic gods are inferior to Shri vishnu.

I would remind them of Ramayana .6.107 Aditya hrdayam

Some quotations from this hymn to Surya:

Brahmeshaana achyuteshaaya suuryaayaadityavarchase. Bhaasvate sarvabhakshaaya raudraaya vapushhe nama. 19




Salutations to the Lord of Brahma, shiva and Achyuta, salutations to the powerful and to the effulgence in the Sun that is both the illuminator and devourer of all and is of a form that is fierce like Rudra.


Eshhah brahmaa cha vishhnushcha shivah skandah prajaapati. Mahendro dhanadah kaalo yamah somo hyapaam pati. 8


He is Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva, Skanda, Prajapati. He is also Mahendra, kubera, kala, yama, soma and varuna.


Aadityah savitaa suuryah khagah puushhaa gabhastimaan. Suvarnasadrsho bhaanu rvishvaretaa divaakarah. 10


He is the son of Aditi, creator of the universe, inspirer of action, transverser of the heavens. He is the sustainer, illumination of all directions, the golden hued brilliance and is the maker of the day.










So , The great Ramayana says that Surya is the the creator of universe and the lord of vishnu/shiva /brahma .I hope the everyone respects and agrees with this greatest epic.


PS-Please dont accuse me of follwing Indologist theology .This is the traditional interpretation of aditya hrdayam , and there is no other interpretation .Rama himself prayed to surya for victory in the battlefield

[Avyaydya]

Namaste,

The confusion arisen in this thread is unending because when we see so many gods and read scriptures which extol one deva at one place as supreme and another one at the other place ... people have a tendency to pick up what suits them and discard what doesn't suit them. We have to see the scriptures in entirety. If A is Supreme and B too is supreme then it actually tells us that A = B. There can't be two extremes. The whole of the Vedas are full of suktas where each deva has been praised as the Supreme in one or the other place. I can quote many such suktas from SamhitA portions of the Vedas. Now, it is upto us to choose the most desired deity from the lot and worship that deva as the supreme. ... and there is no problem with that. The form and characteristics of a particular form and name of God is derived from what the devotee feels towards that form and name. This is what Mudgala Upanishad tells us, "He assumed the form in which it was worshipped".

There is confusion wherever there is duality. Duality brings in fear. That is why Kathopanishad says, "Those who see differences here go from death to death".

********

God didn't make it clear beyond doubt what His name is and what his form is and whether he has a form at all. You read one scripture and you get one picture, you read another scripture and you get another picture. Someone claims that this particular incarnation was God and therefore Only that form is God's form whereas another person would claim otherwise. Abrahimic religions have shed huge amount of blood in fighting over for proving supremacy of their faiths. Why ? Different scriptures say totally different things as far as form and name of God is concerned. You see Muslims fighting against Christians, The Jews fighting against Christians, Christians fighting against ..... This is going on for centuries and still the dispute is unsettled !

How can a child who is born to a Vaishnava or who has came into the influence of Vaishnava's thoughts and if he believes that Only Narayana/ Vishnu/Krishna is Supreme is to be blamed for his thoughts ? Similarly, how can a child/person who is either born to a Shaiva's family or somehow has got influenced with Shaivite's thoughts and believes supremacy of Lord Shiva over all other deities can be blamed ! Similarly, we can't blame a ShAkta or a a Jew or a Muslim or a Chritian for their own notions of God.

The reality is that God has left ample scope for everyone to have his choice of form and name to worship depending upon his liking. Now, when He Himself has left scope for such a confusion ... being "father" of all beings and being compassionate and auspicious, omniscient and omnipotent ... what should He do ? Should He differentiate one devotee from the other just because one calls him Lord Shiva and another calls Him Lord Vishnu and yet another calls Him Indra or Jesus or YHWH or Allah or whatever ? Keep yourself in His place and think. God cannot be so mean-minded ! It is we who feel satisfied to show superiority of our thoughts over the thoughts of others. Does God love such people ? I highly doubt.

You have all rights to differ but I am unable to think otherwise.

OM ShAntih, ShAntih, ShAntih !

OM

Namaste Devotee,

I understand what you say, but this again is simply your view, not my view. Why is it that people want to believe that we all believe the same thing, but there is confusion that can be taken away, by explaining it to them? That is a view too. I do not share that view. I think it is not true and I think this view is the cause of continuous disrespect.

My view is not your view period. If you say "The reality is that God has left ample scope for everyone to have his choice of form ". I say: What God, I do not believe in such a God, that is your view not mine. There is no confusion here, we believe in different things. That may be unacceptable for you, it is not for me. For me an oak is not a beech because they are just different aspects of the same Brahman. I think that is pure nonsense. I think that is completely missing the point. If a supreme creator God (In which I do not believe) could have such intentions he would not have created diversity in the first place. That would be stupid. No an oak is meant to be not a beech and be respected in his own nature. Saying it is basically the same is denying its nature.

Nothing is the same in Brahman, Brahman is the same in everything

Yes Brahman is in you and me, but I am not you and you are not me. Your view is not mine, and my view is not yours. Your view is your view, I am not even very interested in what theologies say. I do not care a bit whether they conform with my views. I do not impose my views on you, I just present them as personal opinions, I limit their scope to myself, so stop imposing your views as for everybody on the planet. I am interested in personal views, not brainwashes. Even If you want to believe Devas are lower than the kitchen sink, fine with me, but have the decency not say so in my face knowing that I hold them high.

This is not about the right understanding, this is simply about decency. Stop putting your shared ideological beliefs in others peoples faces.

Let simply agree to disagree

Because you can say as often as you like we agree, but that is only an insult to me. I know what I believe and it does not correspond with that you say, period. And it is no problem with me, it need not be fixed. I do not want it fixed by you or anyone. I do not even want to share ideology with anyone, I want to remain a free thinking individual. Shared ideology I see like this.

This simply is about decency, taking into account other peoples feelings. Monotheist can not do that. When you tell them that your are hurt by their pushing their beliefs in your face, the flatly tell you, you can not be hurt, because it is not meant to hurt. That is low consciousness. In low consciousness the doer is defining whether his actions are hurting or not, not the victims. It is all about them, they decide that.

If I say I am hurt, instead of an apology, I get a long explanation of their fantastic theology. That is what makes these people the most ruthless people on the planet. They have no sense of what they do to others. They only live in their theory about God, their belief. Keep it to yourself, I do not want it, I do not need it either. And you do not have to prostate yourself before your God in my presence either. Have the decency to that in privacy or with the rest of the believers. Stop this religious imperialism. I am here to meet people and discuss personal opinions, not to find an ideology that cult members want to share. You can not discuss with an ideology, that is like talking to a book. That is not discussing, that is proselyting, spreading the ideology.

There can only be peace if we accept diversity, not when we want to overcome diversity.

If you want to continue putting your beliefs in my face I will honestly tell you my beliefs and it will hurt you more than me, because I am not hung up on my beliefs, but you are. The monotheist gets upset if someone rejects his ideas. He just can not stand it. He has to correct them. He can not cope with diversity. Even all the diversity of Devas in the Vedas he can only accept as the one Deva he worships. The idea that we worship different Devas is unacceptable to him.

But not to me, understand that. I find this one God is all, a horrifying idea, a complete misinterpretation of what Brahman is. The bringing down of Brahman to the limits of human imagination. Brahman is limitless and unknowable to me. All you say about Brahman are illusions. Your one God is an illusion born out mans oneness, his ego. The ego can not accept one other, that is why its God has to be the only one supreme.

This discussion will go on forever because lower and higher consciousness will never be on the same level. The real underlying question is what should rule us, lower or higher consciousness. Intellect or subtle feeling. The book guys are only quoting texts without the slightest notion or care what others feel about that. They only know they have to overcome any resistance. They think intellect is the higher consciousness.

The Mahabharata describes this perfectly. The war was unavoidable because where ever the Pandavas went, it was never enough for Duryodhana, he had to rule everything, not even a village would he let them have. There simply was no room for them. The same with monotheist, they openly state, there is no room for polytheism in Hinduism. That is a declaration of war.

[Sudas Paijavana]

"This simply is about decency, taking into account other peoples feelings. Monotheist can not do that. When you tell them that your are hurt by their pushing their beliefs in your face, the flatly tell you, you can not be hurt, because it is not meant to hurt. That is low consciousness. In low consciousness the doer is defining whether his actions are hurting or not, not the victims. I is all about them, they decide that.

If you say I am hurt, instead of an apology, you get a long explanation of their theology. That is what makes these people the most ruthless people on the planet. They have no sense of what they do to others. They only live in their theory about God, their belief. Keep it to yourself, I do not want it, I do not need it either. And you do not have to prostate yourself before your God in my presence either. Have the decency to that in privacy or with the rest of the believers. Stop this religious imperialism."

"The monotheist gets upset if someone rejects his ideas. He just can not stand it. He has to correct them. He can not cope with diversity. Even all the diversity of Devas in the Vedas he can only accept as the one Deva he worships. The idea that we worship different Devas is unacceptable to him."

^That, plus this:

"I had an occasion to read the typescript* of a book [Rām Swarup] had finished writing in 1973. It was a profound study of Monotheism, the central dogma of both Islam and Christianity, as well as a powerful presentation of what the monotheists denounce as Hindu Polytheism. I had never read anything like it. It was a revelation to me that Monotheism was not a religious concept but an imperialist idea. I must confess that I myself had been inclined towards Monotheism till this time. I had never thought that a multiplicity of Gods was the natural and spontaneous expression of an evolved consciousness." -Indian Historian: Sita-Ram Goel

...equals: the truth.




EDIT for SS:

Goel, Sita Ram (1982). How I became a Hindu. New Delhi, India: Voice of India. p. 92.

[Spirit Seeker]

^That, plus this:

"I had an occasion to read the typescript* of a book [Rām Swarup] had finished writing in 1973. It was a profound study of Monotheism, the central dogma of both Islam and Christianity, as well as a powerful presentation of what the monotheists denounce as Hindu Polytheism. I had never read anything like it. It was a revelation to me that Monotheism was not a religious concept but an imperialist idea. I must confess that I myself had been inclined towards Monotheism till this time. I had never thought that a multiplicity of Gods was the natural and spontaneous expression of an evolved consciousness." -Indian Historian: Sita-Ram Goel

...equals: the truth.

Namaste Sudas, I am very intrigued by everything I have read in this thread so far, the very fact of the reassuring tone that "It is okay to believe in multiple gods" and that does not equate one to be of "Lower or Primitive consciousness" as one is mostly likely to come across and be exposed to in this day in age(especially in the west.)

There's not many polytheists one can come across these days and it's refreshing to see good arguments put forth for the foundation for their beliefs and why they believe it, in a world that constantly drowns them out. I admit, this is all new to me.

To satisfy my curiosity and delve further into this viewpoint, you wouldn't mind or happen to have by any chance the Title of this book to look up?

Thank you, and thank you everyone for your contribution.