Demigod worship different from worshiping para-atma?

[grames]

hmmm with universal view or shruti view etc. now calling the 'question' itself as Bashing. Why so??

Supreme - Cannot be a title to all in a group unless the group is called as Supreme Group. If Agni a group? or individual? Is Indra a group or an Individual? What your shruti says about it?

If everyone is called as "Parama", then offering an explanation is in fact, to honor the Shuruti as consistant rather insulting when asked. Even as a "Sectarian" as you believed to be, there are explanation offered to uphold and honor the Shruti as THE TRUTH.

Whats your's is the question... you don't have to side step and consume or subsume the answer as long as you have one, share it please.

Thanks

[Eastern Mind]

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.

Vannakkam: So how do you practice? (If you find my questioning intrusive, just tell me. I'm still trying to get a handle on what people see in simplistic advaita, or how people get trapped there.) Or is philosophical discussion the extent of your practice?

Aum Namasivaya

[isavasya]

Dear Spirit seeker,

There is no word called demi-God as mentioned in Vedas. We have Devtas. Devta has various interpretations. One interpretation could be name of God, other could be attribute of God. There are still more interpretations.

Oxford Dictionary says Demi = partially; in an inferior degree:
Calling our vedic devtas as inferior is not very respectful to these beings who are praised so highly by venerable Vedas.. One is free to believe in or not believe in Devta, but it is not wise to call them as demi. When we have the Sanskrit word devta why use demi. Regarding worship, we are fully entitled to worship our devtas. All of them are highly praised in our Vedas.

[Spirit Seeker]

Vannakkam: So how do you practice? (If you find my questioning intrusive, just tell me. I'm still trying to get a handle on what people see in simplistic advaita, or how people get trapped there.) Or is philosophical discussion the extent of your practice?

Aum Namasivaya

Namaste EM. I don't mind. Like I said I'm still new to Hinduism. Right now I don't have an 'official' Hindu method like Bhakti or murti puja. While I do read about and study various philosophies inside and outside of Hinduism, my actual views would be closest to vishiadvaita. Right now I'm just reading and studying whatever I come across and the extent of which I admire and praise would be in honoring and recognize In the various divine images/forms of para-atma. Philosophy aside I feel it's my own curious nature which keeps myself unsteady in a "mode" mentally in order to progress spiritually. My mind is all over the place concerning forms of god and devas and how they exist or relate to each other exactly instead of simply just connecting. Everyone else thank you for your responses, I didn't mean to start a quarrel nor do I hope it continues in this thread. I can understand Gita May not be universal to all Hindus. I was just wondering about how Krishnas words can make sense when he refers to the devas as 'other' beings (assuming in the correct translations) , meanwhile one can find philosophical discussions all over this forum saying "all gods are the same so same results." Etc thank you

[Eastern Mind]

Namaste EM. I don't mind. Like I said I'm still new to Hinduism. Right now I don't have an 'official' Hindu method like Bhakti or murti puja. While I do read about and study various philosophies inside and outside of Hinduism, my actual views would be closest to vishiadvaita. Right now I'm just reading and studying whatever I come across and the extent of which I admire and praise would be in honoring and recognize In the various divine images/forms of para-atma.

Vannakkam: I still don't get what you mean by practice. Do you meditate? Do you have a home shrine room? Do you go to a temple? Do you do japa? Hatha yoga? Reflective walking? Singing of bhajans? These are the things I am asking about.

Philosophical study is just one aspect of it, and it might be a rather small one at that. Internet forums are skewed in that direction. In order to practice Hinduism, you need to get away from a computer and books.

I don't read philosophy. I do go to temple. I do do home puja. I do do service work. Still I find some time to come onto Hindu forums and chat, but not so much discuss the intricacies of philosophy.

Maybe we're just on different wavelengths.

Aum Namasivaya

[Ganeshprasad]

Pranam

In Bhagvat Gita Lord Shree Krishna does not use the word Demigod anywhere neither there is any such use in the Vedas.
Demigod is a pathetic word used to describe Devas.
Nicely describe here by Sarbhanga
http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/sho...igod#post14966

Jai Shree Krishna

[govind_das]

Pranam-s,

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

It isn't very logical either. For example, if I were to say that Krishna is a "demigod", how would you feel? You would feel insulted, correct?

I don't think it's intended as an insult or an attempt to degrade or lessen the Gods. Most of the people who call them "demigods" are monotheistic (like ISKCON, etc) who cannot logically acknowledge other Gods (otherwise they would have to stop being monotheists), so their only logical choice is to call them demigods.

[Amrut]

Namaste SS,

I will brief what Kanchi Paramacharya has said in his book The Voice of the Guru: The Guru Tradition, part 7

Paramacharya says that if you consider only the specific functions attributed to them then even the trinity is not capable to do everything.

Brahma can only create, Vishnu can only Sustain and Mahesh can only destroy. But we know that Vishnu and Shiva both have been said to be the creator, preserver and destroyer. This means that they are endowed with all powers, which means that they are rooted in Paramatman.

Paramacharya was explaining the verse Gurur Brhama, Gurur Vishnu, gurur Devo Maheshawara
Gurur Shashsat Para-Brahma, Tasmaishri Gurve Namah.

Here Paramatman is separate from he trinity, hence if only their sole function is considered, then they also have limited powers.

To add to the above, devata-s also have specific powers and thee is phala-shruti of worshipping all. We see that Vishnu, Shiva, Ganesh, Kali, Skanda, etc are shown to bestow moksha, while some gods like Agni do not.

However, according to veda-s, all Gods are supreme at some point of time, and they are manifestations of same divinity, the all pervading, omnipresent entity. Even Narayana is said to get omni-presence after performing sacrifices for 5 nights.

So if they are seen a personification of Paramatman, then they are all powerful, but if you see them w.r.t to their alloted work and powers, then it may look like they cannot do any other work.

Vedic Karma Kand is different and Agni is the most important as he is the bridge between us and other deva-s and can take our offerings to respected deva-s, as only Agni can travel in all directions and all loka-s.

I am not proficient in veda-s but this is what I have heard.

Aum

[grames]

Hi.,

This is never ending but interesting question and answers suiting to different tastes.

For a Mono Theistic system, it is not possible to give out Supremacy to more than one entity regardless of the choice of verbiage in the Shrutis. There is no room for multiple supreme or equal footed multiples collectively considered as supreme and that violates the fundamental understanding of the nature of reals and that One Supreme. If you are not a Mono Theist in strict sense, your need and wanting of not using the "demi" may be justified but, understanding that such has no room in the Mono Theism as Only ONE can be the highest and Supreme and the rest cannot be on par with that Supreme at all. So, devata for a mono theist strictly and logically expands as partial manifestation of the Supreme, as per His will and grace and such understanding and definitions does not violate any sort of Vedas.

The expectation of Devata not to be treated sub par with the Supreme is not Vedic idea and it is very well known that, Devata is not equal footed with Paramatma or Brahman of Veda. If Deva to be taken as just "divine" or "deity", it is not at all ambiguous and this is also perfectly fine with the mono theistic system. Also, asking for an understanding of Deva to be "Part of God" rather partial manifestation of God's qualities is not possible in the school of realists or even monists. A partless Brahman cannot have parts and if all are divine with equal merit in the projected/reflected state, the Vedas are obviously against it as it recommends submitting to particular deities for specific purposes and also promises that those who submit to a particular devata goes to its dominion etc.

The mono theists like Vaishnava's worship Lord Vishnu to be the Supreme and rest of the devatas, who deserve our utmost respect and honor are always not on par with Him, the Only One.

The Shaivas, who adhere to Vedas do not subscribe to this all "Devata"s are equal footed and they do worship Lord Shiva, as the Supreme.

The Classical Advaitin school of Shankara, though believe in One Brahman, do not give equality to all devatas, even if they are Saguna manifestation of that One Brahman but still keep the Vishnu as the highest Saguna form. (Smarta is not equal footing all 33 but just 5 and again not because of the merit of the five but because of the fact that, the path to enlightenment is not resting with just some devata worship but worshiping the inner most Brahman who is the substratum of all such Devata and yourself as well - and that too by not differentiating the worshiper from the worshiping)

No popular Hindu faith or practice in fact, can admit or provide equal status to the ParaBrahman with any of the Devata and asking for such is only for looking nice in the eyes of an outsider. An Indra can never function as Vishnu and Vishnu can function as Indra at any time and in fact, He says, He is Indira among the Devata. Logically, it can be understood in few different ways...

1.ParaBrahman is full of all potencies and that too in full and the devatas are blessed with specific potency but again either full or partial - Creation rests with Lord Vishnu but the act of creation is governed by the Devata Brahma. Lord Krshna's expansion of He being the Meru, Shambu, SKanda etc. fits in to this mono theistic model and taking this as view of Vedas, there is no scope of equality for all Devatas on par with the Parabrahman.
2. ParaBrahman is manifesting Himself as Indira etc. and in that case, a Devata is only a contextual title but the subject is always ParaBrahman. But, the devatas are imperfect, devatas goes through different maya spell which invalidates the theory that, it is the ParaBrahman who is manifesting as the devata. If it is part of ParaBrahman, there is no Moha and also considering a "part" here cannot mean objective part or elemental part as Brahman is partless so it can again, only mean the Potency rather than object. Since He is partless, such manifestation of potenticies of Him should be identical to Him and with out any blemishes but devatas going through moha means, it is not the subject ParaBrahman who is manifesting devatas as Part as it is only the Jivas who are in touch with Moha and Maya etc. Thus, devatas who are in fact exalted Jivas, are never on par with the ParaBrahman and what they are empowered with, is ultimately the grace and potency of the Lord, by His will! So, no room or scope for considering them all are equal.
3. Saguna Manifestation of Nirguna - Here all should be equal footed and the names and forms or their ranks should not matter. Until the Nirgunatva is experienced, it doesn't matter who is higher and who is lower as all are "equal" reflection of the very same Brahman, you are that. This idea is acceptable to only few schools and not sure the basis of such equality even though technically it violates the tattvas involved. So, if there is a loud noise to equate all, such noise can only come from these schools but i would be more interested to know the reasons why it should be so. The Sagunatva of Advaita does have "difference" in terms of the Upadis that creates that reflection of the Brahman and the highest close to Nirguna Brahman is the Lord Krishna or Vishnu! As long as you are experiencing VS, you do experience difference or dvaitam and dvaita means, RANKS and obviously you have higher manushiya and higher than manushiya devata, higher than devata saguna brahman etc.

So, why it is wrong or what is driving this noise over and over again with out much reasoning? Are you guys saying, Mono Theists of Hinduism like Vaishnavas or Shaivas are not Hindus? Or even the classical schools of Shankara Advaita? Please understand that your ask is only your love for such Devata but with such love, do not try to bring down the majesty of the Supreme Lord.

Hare Krshna!

[brahma jijnasa]

Namaste Spirit Seeker

I am new to Hinduism
I am just very confused with the varying viewpoints on this subject
Right now I'm just reading and studying whatever I come across

Of course you're confused. What else could you be when "I'm just reading and studying whatever I come across". What else did you expect will happen to you?
This is usually a problem, a big big problem faced by all newcomers to Hindu dharma. Every newcomer even after a little inquiring and searching soon see that Hindu dharma is a world of diversity of approaches, traditions, philosophies and their different points of view. Then what is the next step that a newcomer makes? He does exactly what you are doing "I'm just reading and studying whatever I come across". And what is the result of all this? The result is this:

Unfortunately there is no easy way to overcome this problem. As far as I know usually people are trying to resolve this problem in one of two ways:
Some choose a tradition and do not bother much with different philosophies from other traditions. They are satisfied with what they have chosen. Not only that but some who did so do not even consider that to study philosophy of their own tradition is very important. They are more like a practical people. They give more importance to practice, worship, etc., than to philosophy itself.
There are other people who are very concerned about all these different approaches and philosophies and strive to find one that suits them, or one that is "right" or "true". However, this approach is much more complicated than the first one because it requires years of study (or even a lifetime) and it is assumed that the person is very well-read in the scriptures and interpretations of various traditions.
Now, whatever group of these two you belong to, you should know that reading the forums and surfing online at Hindu websites is not the proper way to gain knowledge. Knowledge is acquired by studying books that great acaryas have left us.

my actual views would be closest to vishiadvaita

I suppose what you really meant is Viśiṣṭādvaita Vedānta: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vishishtadvaita

Ramanuja (Ramanujacarya), the main proponent of this philosophy was the leader of Sri vaishnava tradition (sampradaya).
For starters I suggest you to find a translation of his commentary on Bhagavad gita and study it.

What is considered a "Demi-god" really and how is it different from THE bhagavan itself?

See, at this very thread you could see what is the Hindu world of variety of approaches, traditions, philosophies and their different points of view. Some of our members immediately protested against this term "demigod". Some of our members even said it is contrary to the shruti scriptures to say that there are some gods who are not supreme and are inferior to one Supreme God.
Let's see what the dictionary says about demigod: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/de...igod?q=demigod

a being with partial or lesser divine status, such as a minor deity ...
a mortal raised to divine rank

Does this definition fits the description given in the scriptures?
As far as I can remember there are statements in the scriptures that say Gods are parts of one chief or Supreme God. If we compare these gods with this Supreme One then we can say all the Gods are subordinate to Him and are minor or inferior to Him. There are also statements in the scriptures that we living entities are all parts of one Supreme God, and any of us can become one of these gods in the next life. If we collect pious merits in this life as humans, we can be promoted to the position of one of these gods and thus in the next life we can be born as one of these gods. Since we humans are jiva souls and are all just mortal beings who can be promoted to the position of one of these gods, it is quite appropriate to say "a mortal raised to divine rank" (see above the dictionary definition). See also above the dictionary uses expressions "partial", "lesser divine status" and "minor deity". All this has substantiation in the scriptures as I said above.
Taking all this into consideration, I think deva is perfectly translated as demigod, indeed I think it is perfectly literally!

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.
I was just wondering about how Krishnas words can make sense when he refers to the devas as 'other' beings (assuming in the correct translations) , meanwhile one can find philosophical discussions all over this forum saying "all gods are the same so same results."
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?
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?
... I can approach my para-atma through a deva or god form and know what to expect or get from it.

It is Bhagavad gita 7.23.
I suppose what you really meant is not "para-atma" but paramatma.
See again we meet with the Hindu world of variety of approaches, traditions, philosophies and their different points of view. Here I'll give you a vaishnava standpoint.
Some will say "all gods are the same so same results", but vaishnavas will not say that. Vaishnavas often cite this verse because it tells us that Lord Krishna is not all gods. He has his own existence as a separate being. In fact, everyone has his own existence as a separate and individual entity. We have this in Bhagavad gita 15.7 (http://vedabase.net/bg/15/7/en) :

"The living entities (jivas or jiva souls) in this conditioned world are My eternal fragmental parts."

See, every living being is a part of Lord Krishna and as such -- as a part -- every living being exists eternally. This also applies to demigods because they are also jivas. Understanding some of the basic concepts is the fundamental for understanding the Vaishnava philosophy. Thus one of the most important things is to understand the difference between jiva soul and paramatma or Supersoul. We living entities are jivas or jiva souls and devas or demigods such as Brahma, guna avatara Shiva, Indra, Agni, Vayu, Varuna, etc, and all others who are not demigods such as heavenly beings, Rakshasas, spirits, ..., humans, animals, plants, are all jiva souls, including wives of the demigods who are goddesses such as Kali ma. None of these beings is paramatma. It is only The Supreme entity (Supreme Lord) usually called Brahman or some entity which has the same status as Brahman that can be said is identical to paramatma. Thus Lord Krishna and His personal expansions such as Vishnu, Rama, Narayana, Sadasiva, Narasimha, Varaha, etc, are paramatma or The Supreme entity (Brahman or sometimes called Vishnu tattva). Their wives have also the status of The Supreme entity and thus we can even say that they are identical to paramatma. So goddesses Uma a.k.a. Durga (the wife of Lord Sadasiva, not the wife of guna avatara Shiva!), goddess of fortune Lakshmi a.k.a. Sri (the wife of Lord Narayana or Vishnu), goddess Sita (the wife of Lord Rama), goddess Radha a.k.a. Srimati Radharani (consort of Lord Krishna) are said to have the same status as their Lord because it is said that Supreme Lord although essentially one being manifests itself as two, purusha and shakti -- male and female, the Lord (God) and His spouse (Goddess) who is His power (shakti). They manifest as eternal divine couple whose relationship is unbreakable and eternal, and they are always together.
We have two completely different categories of beings (jivas versus vishnu tattva) that are not mutually comparable. Jivas or jiva souls are designated as jivatma or jiva tattva, "the self" or "individual living being" or "spiritual soul".
The Supreme entity (Supreme Lord) is designated as Brahman or paramatma or Bhagavan or Vishnu tattva, the Self, Supreme Lord, Supreme God, Supreme Self, Supreme Soul, Supersoul.

What does it all mean practically for us and our lives?
Liberation can be achieved only if we worship The Supreme entity. That is why Lord Krishna says in Bhagavad gita "The worshippers of the demigods go to (abode of) the demigods, but My devotees come to Me (My eternal abode where one becomes liberated soul)". Obviously one who worships a demigod is going to that demigod and thus will not achieve liberation. The demigods live on the planets within this material world, and if we go there we stay in the cycle of birth and death, and thus do not achieve liberation.

Respect should be offered to all the gods and goddesses even if they are jiva souls and thus inferior to the Supreme Lord, but if one aspires to attain liberation (mukti), one should dedicate his life unto the Supreme Lord, Brahman or paramatma who can be worshiped together with His eternal consort or Goddess.

regards