Is there One God worshipped with many forms and names or are there many ?

[Seeker123]

Pranams,
More to the point, you have acknowledged that devas are different from Brahman and gain liberation by understanding Him. In that case, how can it follow that one can worship such a deva and get liberation? Is it logical to suggest that worship of an entity who has not attained liberation, can help one attain liberation?
regards,

Namaskar,
Intially you think you are different and later by knowledge you realize you are the same. Devas are not really different. In Kena Upanishad before liberation Devas (Agni, Vayu, Indra) thought they were different from Brahman. As long as a human or deva (Agni, Yama etc.) considers himself as this body alone he thinks he is different from Brahman (there is duality) but when he gains knowledge and owns up to the Brahman then there is only Brahman which is liberation. Generally people do not worship entities that have not attained liberation. But once a deva or human is liberated he/she is worthy of our worship. As I said in the last post it is great if one can worship the formless Brahman but it is hard so form worship helps develop bhakti which is an important Sadhana for liberation. Same way Nirguna dhyana is harder than Saguna dhyana.

[Seeker123]

I've read it all, multiple times. However people always tell me different things, no ones answer seems to be in union.

Halo IcySFX,

As I said in the other thread read Advaita, Dvaita, V. Advaita thorougly and make up your mind which one to pursue in depth. Philosoraptor had a more specific suggestion which I liked. Read B. Gita not the slim paper-back variety. For Advaita version I recommend Swami Dayananda Saraswathi of AVG which runs 2200+ pages (other members may suggest their version). I am sure Phil can suggest a good Dvaita version and you can ask in V Advaita section too. If this sounds too much you can ask for suggestions for good basic books on the 3 philosophies. Good luck.

[devotee]

Namaste,

There is difference between "violating Shruti" and "violating one's wrong understanding of Shruti". Shruti is not to be violated but "wrong understanding of Shruti must be violated for getting correct understanding of Shruti and other scriptures.

What I have been quoting here are all Upanishads mentioned under 108 PramANik Upanishads as mentioned in MuktikA Upanishad. However, there are nearly 200 Upanishads which have been accepted as authoritative.

It is nothing but Kutarka to club all Upanishads except the ones which have been commented upon by Shankara as not-authoritative or less authoritative. Did Shankara say that all those Upanishads are not authoritative ? It is highly mischievous to club the authoritative Upanishads with "Allah Upanishad" which has be specifically discarded by all schools and revered saints of Hindu Dharma.


*********************************

When due to our poor understanding of Shruti/Smriti there is violation of a number of Smritis then it is almost sure that the understanding is wrong. Let's see what various Shruti and Smritis say :

1. That one God alone creates, nourishes and destroys this creation. He alone is known as BrahmA, Vishnu and Mahesh. (Vishnu PurANa 1.2.66)

2. That (Brahman) alone is Agni, Surya, VAyu, ChandramA (moon), Shukra, BrahmA and VaruNa. (Yajur VedA 32/1)

3. That beginningless, unborn (Brahman) is called as Shiva by some, as Vishnu by some and BrahmA buy some. (VrihnnAdIya PurANa 12.5)

4. Due to my qualities for giving birth to this creation, nourishment and destruction of it, I appear different as BrahmA, Vishnu and Shiva. In reality, my swaroopa (form) is always non-dual/undifferentiated. ( Shiva PurANA 2.1.9.28)

... and finally, this mantra tells us not to differentiate between various forms of God :

YA BrhamA sa Harih prokto y o Harih sa Maheshwarah |
YA KAli saiva Krishnah syAd yah Krishnah saiva KAlikA ||
Devam Devim samuddisya na kuryAdntaram kvachit |
Tatra bhedo na mantavyah ShivaShaktimayam jagat ||

He who is BrahmA is Hari. He who is Hari is Maheshwara (Shiva). She who is KAli is Krishna, He who is Krishna is alone KAli. It is not correct to create differences in mind in the matter of DevaS and Devis. DevatAs may have a number of names and forms, all are same. This world is full of Shiva and Shakti.

*************
I will take up what is wrong in arguments forwarded in Phil's posts in due course but not now to avoid this thread getting derailed over avoidable silly arguments.

OM

[devotee]

Namaste Icy,

However, the understanding of Hindu Scriptures is not left to vagaries of one's understanding. You approach any non-sectarian Hindu, any Self Realised saint and ask this question, you will get the same answer : "All forms and names of God refer to One God alone".

Let's try to find the truth which is echoed in various scriptures in various forms. Some scriptures say, "Shiva is Supreme. He alone exists. There nothing except Shiva.". As we have seen above that some other scriptures say the same thing about Indra, Vishnu, Mother Goddess, Sarasvati, Gayatri, Ganpati, Sun God etc.

Now the question is which scripture to accept and which to reject ? If you accept one, the other is apparently violated. Some of us try to think that a few of the scriptures which speak contradictory to the belief they want to hold on are less authoritative (Refer Phil's posts) and should not be considered. However, if we say so, then we assume that all the revered saints who considered these scriptures authoritative must have been less intelligent than us ! That is a sort of Himalayan AhamnkAr !

Certainly the understanding of the scriptures is wrong and not any of the scriptures. What is the catch here ? Let's see the following facts :

a) The Hindus have tried to reach the ultimate worshiping various forms and names of God and have been successful. The Vaishnavas did it through Vishnu, The Shaivas through Shiva, the ShAkta through Shakti. You will find God realised saints in all these paths. So, that proves beyond doubt that God can be found through any of the paths.

b) Hindus have also tried to attain the Ultimate by worshiping and meditating on formless, Nirguna Brahman and have been successful. There are many Self-realised Advaitic Gurus.

c) The Upanishads or the whole of VedAnta is not revealed to a single Self-realised Rishi and so are the various volumes of the SamhitA parts of the Vedas. There are various Rishis who have contributed to the Vedas as we find it today. Some of the Rishis must have been Vaishnavas, some the Shaivas , some the ShAkta, some the devotees of Ganapati, Surya, Indra etc. However, all were God Realised and therefore saying of all of them are authoritative. In fact, the Brahman is also perceived as the food, water, the space etc.

d) What does the c) above tell us ? It only says that the forms and names chosen by the seeker is immaterial as long as he is seeing that form as the Supreme God's. If you call Rose by any other name, will the rose change ? No. It won't.

e) Let's take the help of Mudgala Upanishad quoted by me :

III The single God becoming many; unborn, is born as many. The Adhvaryus worship him as Agni. This as Yajus unites everything. The Samavedins worship as Saman. All is established in him. The serpents meditate on his as poison. The knowers of snake-lore as snake, gods as energy, men as wealth, Demons as Magic, the manes as sustenance. The knowers of the superhuman as superhuman. Gandharvas as beauty, Apsarases as perfume. He becomes whatever he is worshipped as

This sentence is very important : "He becomes whatever he is worshipped as". God is what it is. It has no name and no form. However, a form and name is required for focusing on God due to the nature of our mind. That is why God is worshipped by various names and forms ... and all names of forms and names of God are valid. By giving a particular name, a particular form, God cannot change. God is unchangeable by definition. So, it is the bhAvanA of the devotee which makes the name and form of God as the devotee wants.

OM

[grames]

Dear.,

Gita can be interpreted by three ways! . Out of the three, two will firmly declare the Bhagavan aspect as the Supreme with personality or guna as His Svarupa (inherent nature). One another interpretation will give a feel of so called Brahman as made of nothing and then everything else is made of ..mm.. No nothing is is actually made and only the Brahman alone exists.

What is convincing you! It depends on your nature in terms of your understanding capabilities, rationality and believing with proof by the means of various evidences. A simple plain statement like, God exist has no value in the Hindu Dharma system so why you have three different interpretations.

Also a note of caution... Gita now has million interpretations and everyday there is few more new ones available in the market. Most of them are mixing and matching to please the reader rather than conveying what actually Gita conveys. Be sincere.., u will be given the right understanding of Gita. Thats Krishna's promise.

Hare Krshna!

I've read it all, multiple times. However people always tell me different things, no ones answer seems to be in union.

[IcyCosmic]

First of all I must thank everyone who replied, and to Philos. who sent me a very in-depth PM, it definetely helped clear the air a bit. I won't lie and say that I'm still not confused.

To me the intricacies are very important and irrelevant at the same time, from what I have always thought as a child the bottom line should be your devotion, faith, and love for god - being a good citizen in society, following the fundamental rules set within hinduism like (ahimsa) and leading a pure life and with that knowledge even if other details are followed incorrectly then there should be no issue or problem at all, after all most of you preach that unlike the abrahamic misconceptions god is not a sky-ruler dealing punishments for all, and he will not buy your love with threat of pain. So in essence, it is my (personal) belief a pure soul, who worships the lord with a pure heart, with pure intentions [to put it simply] will have no issue achieveing god. There shouldn't even be a shadow of doubt. Whether he calls god, Bubblegum and worships him through a rock if the intentions are crystal clear then nothing bad will happen. If thats due to my lack of current gross understanding or just my naivity I don't know but thats what I've thought since I was a child.

So if I can simplify things to such a level why am I making it more difficult for myself? After all most Yogi's and Gurus who are presented with devotees problems often break them down and simplify them so the person who asks understands that in the grand scheme of things it not a big problem at all, and their worrying was irrelevant. It's just in my nature to be very finicky with details, and get to the root of things. I'm obviously not as well versed with these scriptures as you all at the moment. Is it not possible that all three philosophies? Advaita, Dvaita and what not are all correct at the same time, and are equally as righteous towards achieveing the supreme? Why must we argue which path is wholly more beneficial - I do think that god will have created so many different ways, paths, beliefs, choices, within hinduism so that the user can mould hinduism to his own nature. That is why is it so flexible. That is why other people from other faiths often clash with scriptures as it is frozen expression, if one does not follow the set rules of the qu'ran or bible, they are wrong. period. However hinduism has that leeway of freedom so surely it is the individual who can (within reason) choose a righteous path that will be most effective for him personally. I see no reason why god will have an issue with someone worshipping him impersonally (if he doesnt have the correct knowledge) and he is doing it from the heart. That is from what I understand of hinduism. I don't know. I'm still trying to understand.

Every single Hindu elder I meet, I'm sure to ask them, is worshipping Shiva as the supreme a correct thing to do? Some will say yes, there is no issue. Some will say, no adamantly and say it is foolish. None will say that its up to you, or that worshipping Shiva or Krishna is the same. When I bring up the line within the Gita where Krishna says worshipping Shiva will send you to his planet, and not gods adobe - some say, 'oh its a wrong translation', others 'no that is wrong you may worship shiva', others will say 'its fine as long as you have the knowledge of their difference', others will say 'yes you will go to shivaloka and not achieve moksha'. Where is the oneness in the answers? To this point, I still have no idea what is going on. The only thing I can and still believe in is what I mentioned earlier. Be a good human being and as per karma the lord will ensure you reap what you sow. Period.

[philosoraptor]

Namaskar,
Intially you think you are different and later by knowledge you realize you are the same. Devas are not really different. In Kena Upanishad before liberation Devas (Agni, Vayu, Indra) thought they were different from Brahman. As long as a human or deva (Agni, Yama etc.) considers himself as this body alone he thinks he is different from Brahman (there is duality) but when he gains knowledge and owns up to the Brahman then there is only Brahman which is liberation. Generally people do not worship entities that have not attained liberation. But once a deva or human is liberated he/she is worthy of our worship. As I said in the last post it is great if one can worship the formless Brahman but it is hard so form worship helps develop bhakti which is an important Sadhana for liberation. Same way Nirguna dhyana is harder than Saguna dhyana.

Pranams,

From what I have read in the Upanishads so far (by Upanishads, I mean those texts that are accepted by all as such, not merely the later potentially spurious texts assumed by some to be genuine), "sameness" in the matter of Brahman and the jIva refers to realization of one's self as a part or mode or attribute of Brahman rather than an absolute sameness. Brahman is said to be of the nature of knowledge while the jIvAtma has the propensity to become deluded by contact with prakRti. For two things to be absolutely the same, they must have identical properties, and that is not the case here. In the Gita, Sri Krishna explains that He is higher than both aparA-prakRti (matter) and the parA-prakRti (constituting the jIvas) - see chapter 7. Arjuna never realizes he is Sri Krishna in the Gita. Indeed, the whole idea that they are same results in logical problems. First, according to this point of view, has Sri Krishna attained Brahman-realization or not? If not, then He is also deluded by association with prakRti and His words do not carry absolute authority. If He has realized this Brahman/oneness with everything, then how is it that He is perceiving Arjuna as a separate entity and instructing him in knowledge? This is merely one of many inconsistencies in Advaita.

regards,

[philosoraptor]

First of all I must thank everyone who replied, and to Philos. who sent me a very in-depth PM, it definetely helped clear the air a bit. I won't lie and say that I'm still not confused.

To me the intricacies are very important and irrelevant at the same time, from what I have always thought as a child the bottom line should be your devotion, faith, and love for god - being a good citizen in society, following the fundamental rules set within hinduism like (ahimsa) and leading a pure life and with that knowledge even if other details are followed incorrectly then there should be no issue or problem at all, after all most of you preach that unlike the abrahamic misconceptions god is not a sky-ruler dealing punishments for all, and he will not buy your love with threat of pain. So in essence, it is my (personal) belief a pure soul, who worships the lord with a pure heart, with pure intentions [to put it simply] will have no issue achieveing god. There shouldn't even be a shadow of doubt. Whether he calls god, Bubblegum and worships him through a rock if the intentions are crystal clear then nothing bad will happen. If thats due to my lack of current gross understanding or just my naivity I don't know but thats what I've thought since I was a child.

So if I can simplify things to such a level why am I making it more difficult for myself? After all most Yogi's and Gurus who are presented with devotees problems often break them down and simplify them so the person who asks understands that in the grand scheme of things it not a big problem at all, and their worrying was irrelevant. It's just in my nature to be very finicky with details, and get to the root of things. I'm obviously not as well versed with these scriptures as you all at the moment. Is it not possible that all three philosophies? Advaita, Dvaita and what not are all correct at the same time, and are equally as righteous towards achieveing the supreme? Why must we argue which path is wholly more beneficial - I do think that god will have created so many different ways, paths, beliefs, choices, within hinduism so that the user can mould hinduism to his own nature. That is why is it so flexible. That is why other people from other faiths often clash with scriptures as it is frozen expression, if one does not follow the set rules of the qu'ran or bible, they are wrong. period. However hinduism has that leeway of freedom so surely it is the individual who can (within reason) choose a righteous path that will be most effective for him personally. I see no reason why god will have an issue with someone worshipping him impersonally (if he doesnt have the correct knowledge) and he is doing it from the heart. That is from what I understand of hinduism. I don't know. I'm still trying to understand.

Every single Hindu elder I meet, I'm sure to ask them, is worshipping Shiva as the supreme a correct thing to do? Some will say yes, there is no issue. Some will say, no adamantly and say it is foolish. None will say that its up to you, or that worshipping Shiva or Krishna is the same. When I bring up the line within the Gita where Krishna says worshipping Shiva will send you to his planet, and not gods adobe - some say, 'oh its a wrong translation', others 'no that is wrong you may worship shiva', others will say 'its fine as long as you have the knowledge of their difference', others will say 'yes you will go to shivaloka and not achieve moksha'. Where is the oneness in the answers? To this point, I still have no idea what is going on. The only thing I can and still believe in is what I mentioned earlier. Be a good human being and as per karma the lord will ensure you reap what you sow. Period.

Pranams,

Icy, if you will pardon me for saying this, I think your confusion is not due to the philosophy or because you are not intelligent. It is because, you are still trying to reconcile what you are reading with what you see being done amongst your friends and family.

I had the same confusion once.

After a while, I came to realize that not everything I saw being practiced and preached in the name of Hinduism was necessarily genuine, nor was it all necessarily false. It is the reality that what we call "Hinduism" has devolved considerably from its ancient, philosophical roots. This is not to say that you have to be in conflict with other people over differences. Rather, you should feel free to pursue the path that is taught in shAstra and tolerate the fact that others around you may not be doing so and/or might just be on their own/different/indirect paths. Once I got free of the idea that I had to reconcile what I read with every practice or belief I saw within the umbrella of Hinduism, it became a lot easier for me to commit myself to sincere study.

You should respect your elders and family members, naturally. But recognize that, if you are reading and they are not, you may be in a different position to evaluate the merits or lack thereof of certain beliefs.

Hopefully you will figure out in time what I am saying.

[philosoraptor]

Halo IcySFX,

As I said in the other thread read Advaita, Dvaita, V. Advaita thorougly and make up your mind which one to pursue in depth. Philosoraptor had a more specific suggestion which I liked. Read B. Gita not the slim paper-back variety. For Advaita version I recommend Swami Dayananda Saraswathi of AVG which runs 2200+ pages (other members may suggest their version). I am sure Phil can suggest a good Dvaita version and you can ask in V Advaita section too. If this sounds too much you can ask for suggestions for good basic books on the 3 philosophies. Good luck.

I gave some recommendations in another forum, I think it was the "Is Brahma Important or Not" thread.

Also, if you just want straightforward text without commentary, you can try the edition by Gita Press. However, I do recommend that you read the commentaries, preferably more than one, and that you stick to the traditional acharyas. Most of the newer commentaries that I have seen are largely useless.

[philosoraptor]

Pranams,

What I have been quoting here are all Upanishads mentioned under 108 PramANik Upanishads as mentioned in MuktikA Upanishad. However, there are nearly 200 Upanishads which have been accepted as authoritative.

Accepted by whom is the question which I keep raising. So far as I can see, they seem to be only accepted by your sect, which again brings to mind the question about quoting only sectarian texts to win intersectarian debates.

I'm aware of the Muktikaa Upanishad listing 108 Upanishads. But again, who knows for certain that Muktikaa Upanishad is genuine? I would like to believe that it is, but I only know of an Advaitin yogi who commented on it in the 1800's. Prior to that I know of no references to it. Perhaps there are older references that can attest to its antiquity, but I'm sure many members would appreciate knowing what those are before assuming that all these Upanishads (which none of the ancient commentators appear to have commented on) are real.

It is nothing but Kutarka to club all Upanishads except the ones which have been commented upon by Shankara as not-authoritative or less authoritative. Did Shankara say that all those Upanishads are not authoritative ? It is highly mischievous to club the authoritative Upanishads with "Allah Upanishad" which has be specifically discarded by all schools and revered saints of Hindu Dharma.

The problem is, I didn't do that. I simply asked for some reasonable standard of evidence by which I can infer that the Upanishads you quoted are genuine. Of the Upanishads you quoted, can you show where for example, they were at least quoted by Shankaracharya in his commentaries? Can you show where any of them were quoted in the writings of any acharya before, say 16th or 17th centuries? If not, then how do you know they are really shruti, as opposed to spurious texts authored in later times?

I would appreciate some reasonable attempt to answer these questions, instead of the current tactic of knocking down strawmen.

When due to our poor understanding of Shruti/Smriti there is violation of a number of Smritis then it is almost sure that the understanding is wrong.

First of all, you and I both know you don't believe that. I can quote abundantly from Varaaha Puraana, Vishnu Puraana, and Bhaagavata Puraana (among others) to show that only Narayana is Brahman while other devas are His devotees. Would you accept such evidence? Let's see:

bhAgavata purANa 4.29.42-44: States that Brahmaa, Shiva, and the devarshis, despite being masters of the Vedas, cannot know the Parama Ishvara prefectly.
bhAgavata purANa 6.9.42: The devas pray to Vaasudeva, comparing themselves to mere sparks to His fire.
bhAgavata purANa 8.6.2: The devas are blinded by Vishnu's effulgence. Later, Brahma prays to Vishnu as a devotee.
bhAgavata purANa 9.4.52-56: Durvaasa Muni goes to Brahmaa and then to Shiva seeking protection from Lord Vishnu's sudarshana chakra. Both of them tell him they cannot protect him because they themselves are surrendered devotees and do not equal him in power.
bhAgavata purANa 10.35.14-15: When Krishna plays His flute, even Brahmaa, Shiva, and other devas headed by Indra become enchanted and bow in reverence.

Actually, I have so many notes from the puraanas that substantiate these points that I can never end the posting if I continue. Now, as devotee himself said, "When due to our poor understanding of Shruti/Smriti there is violation of a number of Smritis then it is almost sure that the understanding is wrong." Devotee, I have in my non-exhaustive notes, at least 54 references from 3 major puraanas substantiating the point that Naarayaana is the supreme Brahman, superior even to the devas. I also catalogued references equating devas to Naaraayana - there are about 22 such references from the same sources. In the latter case, the references never treat the anya-devatas as the one Brahman who supports everything. Now, since you believe that Narayana and the devas are all the same, independent, Supreme Brahman, are you, according to your own words, prepared to acknowledge that your understanding is "wrong?"

1. That one God alone creates, nourishes and destroys this creation. He alone is known as BrahmA, Vishnu and Mahesh. (Vishnu PurANa 1.2.66)

2. That (Brahman) alone is Agni, Surya, VAyu, ChandramA (moon), Shukra, BrahmA and VaruNa. (Yajur VedA 32/1)

3. That beginningless, unborn (Brahman) is called as Shiva by some, as Vishnu by some and BrahmA buy some. (VrihnnAdIya PurANa 12.5)

4. Due to my qualities for giving birth to this creation, nourishment and destruction of it, I appear different as BrahmA, Vishnu and Shiva. In reality, my swaroopa (form) is always non-dual/undifferentiated. ( Shiva PurANA 2.1.9.28)

So far as I can see, none of those references establish anything other than the fact that the one Brahman aka Narayana is also known by the names of anya-devatas (which was never under dispute). If there were not evidence showing that the same devas are subordinate to Brahman, then I would agree that your evidence would seem conclusive. Unfortunately, you ignored all of the evidence showing that those anya-devatas as subservient to Brahman:

Rig Veda 7.40.5: Rudra gets his strength by propitiating Vishnu
Rig Veda 7.99.1-4: Vishnu is said to create Suurya and Agni
Rig Veda 10.90.13: States that Brahman (here addressed as The Purusha) created Suurya, Agni, Indra, Vaayu, and Chandra
Rig Veda 10.121.2: States that He (here addressed as Hiranyagarbha) is the "Giver of vital breath, of power and vigour, he whose commandments all the gods acknowledge."
Rig Veda 10.190.3: States that Brahman (here addressed as Dhaatar) created Suurya and Chandra
Aitareya Upanishad 1.2.1-4: States that He created the devas, provided them with nourishment, and ordered them into their respective abodes
Brihadaaranyaka Upanishad 1.3.1-18: Refers to the devas as Prajaapati's sons, and explains how they had to surpass the asuras by learning the process of yagna (they could not do it without).
Brihadaaranyaka Upanishad 1.4.10: Says that only the devas "became that" (Brahman) by understanding knowing Brahman. But if the devas are already the all-knowing Brahman, then from whence the question of not understanding that?
Brihadaaranyaka Upanishad 2.1.20: States that all devas emanate from Brahman. Note that this mantra concludes the chapter in which Gargya speaks of meditating on Brahman within each of the devas.
Brihadaaranyaka Upanishad 3.6.1: Gaargi asks by what is the world of the devas pervaded. The ultimate answer is of course Brahman. But the point is, the devas, if Brahman, shouldn't be pervaded by something else.
Brihadaaranyaka Upanishad 3.9.1-11: This is the famous antaryaami Braahmana in which it is stated that Brahman inhabits (among other things) the various devas presiding over moon, sky, the directions, the sun, etc, yet is not known by them.
Brihadaaranyaka Upanishad 4.4.16: States that the devas meditate on that Brahman as light/longevity.
Brihadaaranyaka Upanishad 5.5.1: States that the devas, along with men and asuras are Prajaapati's sons.
Brihadaaranyaka Upanishad 5.5.1: States that Brahman created Prajaapati, and Prajaapati created the devas.
Chaandogya Upanishad 4.3.1-7: Describe He who swallowed the other four devas (agni, vAyu, ApaH, prAna), and then describes Him as the creator of all beings.
Katha Upanishad 2.3.3: States that the devas (Agni, Vaayu, Indra, Suurya, and Mrtyu) carry out their respective functions out of fear of Him (Brahman).
Kena Upanishad 2.1: States that knowledge of what the devas know is insufficient to know Brahman.
Kena Upanishad 3.1-12: States that Brahman won victory for the devas, and explains how neither Indra, nor Agni, nor Vaayu could overcome the power of Brahman, and how Uma had to teach them about who Brahman is.
Mundaka Upanishad 2.1.7: States that from Him emerged the devas and all other living entities.
Prashna Upanishad 2.1-4: Explains how the various devas presiding over different parts of the body are all subordinate to Praana.
gItA 3.10-11: Krishna says that He sent forth men and devas at the beginning of creation, and recommends yagna so that devas can supply various necessities of life.
gItA 7.23: Krishna says that one result is obtained by worship of anya-devatas and another result is obtained by His worship
gItA 9.23: Krishna says that those who worship other devas actually worship Him, albeit with improper understanding (avidhi-pUrvakam)
gItA 11.15 Arjuna says he saw Brahma and Shiva within the vishvarUpa along with all other devas
gItA 11.21 he says that some of the devas are fearful of Him while others are offering prayers to Him
gItA 11.37 Krishna is referred to as "Lord of the devas." (deva-Isha)
gItA 11.52 Krishna says that even the devas are ever wanting to behold this form of His

Thus, you have not really reconciled the bedha and abedha statements. All you have done is emphasize the abedha statements and ignore the bedha statements.

... and finally, this mantra tells us not to differentiate between various forms of God :

YA BrhamA sa Harih prokto y o Harih sa Maheshwarah |
YA KAli saiva Krishnah syAd yah Krishnah saiva KAlikA ||
Devam Devim samuddisya na kuryAdntaram kvachit |
Tatra bhedo na mantavyah ShivaShaktimayam jagat ||

He who is BrahmA is Hari. He who is Hari is Maheshwara (Shiva). She who is KAli is Krishna, He who is Krishna is alone KAli. It is not correct to create differences in mind in the matter of DevaS and Devis. DevatAs may have a number of names and forms, all are same. This world is full of Shiva and Shakti.

Can we have the source for this mantra, or is this another one of those things we are are supposed to accept as authoritative merely because you say it is?

I have found that ISKCON suffers from incurable wrong-thinking and feels compulsion to prove supremacy of Vishnu/Krishna over other forms of God. This has happened on this forum a number of times. Those who are again trying to do the same in this thread, automatically come under the doubts of being an ISKCONite.

I will take up what is wrong in arguments forwarded in Phil's posts in due course but not now to avoid this thread getting derailed over avoidable silly arguments.

OM

Frankly speaking, devotee, your style of argument has quite a bit in common with many ISKCON devotees with whom I've previously sparred with. Let me outline the similarities as I have observed them so far:

1) Like ISKCON, you have a tendency to quote from obscure pramaanas, especially when your understanding of mainstream pramaanas is questioned.
2) Also like ISKCON, you require people to accept the validity of said pramaanas solely on the basis that your own sect accepts them. Scrutiny of said position is met with hostility and outrage.
3) Again like ISKCON, when someone disagrees with you, you repeatedly accuse them of "kutarka" (well, ISKCON people will say "mundane wrangling" or something similar).
4) Again like ISKCON, you tend to filter out any and all evidence which contradicts your views.

Actually, as I read your postings, I thought up until now that you were an ISKCON devotee - until you started insinuating that I was one. What a strange world we live in....

regards,