Demigod worship different from worshiping para-atma?

[Devi Dasi]

Pranam-s, Everyone:

^Very nice example from Shruti on how Vishnu being the Supreme One God doesn't make logical sense, Rig Vedic-wise as per Rig Vedic theology, since this supposed "Supreme One God" is singing the praises of Indra.

Hare Krsna,

The specific sloka is given expressing that Lord Vishnu, also called Surayanaya in Vedas is higher than the Surayas or Devas, to explain the term "demigod" in relation.

In regards WHO IS GREATER, Lord Indra or Lord Vishnu, Lord Vishnu is referred to as Upendra here, which is His manifestation as avatar Vamana Dev, explaining the three strides. Without Lord Vishnu to save King Indra, what would have become of this world? Is that not why Lord Vishnu's praises are sung thusly in Rg Veda? But the pertinent point being, the relation of devatay to the Divine Light of Lord Vishnu which is so high, the lesser lights look to His feet.

16) “May God protect the Prathivi belonging to seven places by stepping on it.
17) “Vishnu acquires the universe by taking three steps.
His dusty foot covered the entire universe.
18) “He is the protector of all. No one is capable of deceiving him. He follows the rules (of trinities) and then takes three steps.
19) “The prowess of Vishnu lies in the rules of all the forces
of nature. He is the mate and friend of Indra.
“All Devtaas of nature are integral parts of Vishnu”. [R.V. 1.40.11]
20) “The eyes scan the sky systematically to recognize His
Param Pada (supreme spiritual stature).
21) “The conscious and wise praise and find His supreme and highest Pada in their heart and mind which is all pervading.

http://www.expressnewsindia.com/mkdave/54.pdf


-please forgive my mistakes

[brahma jijnasa]

Namaste

Exactly for this reason the word Devas should not be translated. Do they translate Dharma? Do they translate Karma? No that would create confusion. With "demigods" they create deliberate "confusion" by using a foreign word in a new meaning.

This will not cause confusion among those who are well acquainted with the scriptures.

Or rather humiliation as the literal meaning simply is "halfgod". Half a God, how respectful does that sound to you?

Suppose we polytheists called Vaishnavas "halfwits" en then say: This is not an insult, it only means in our polytheist tradition we regard Vaishnavas as having a lesser understanding of reality. We had trouble finding a good translation for Vaishnavas. So for westerners we translated Vaishnava with "halfwit". But some of our translators also use Vaishnava. (So westerners can make the link Vaishnava=halfwit)

Because that is the kind of the argument you are making. You are defending one insult with another insult without even being aware of it.
... Many Vaishnavas do not seem to have reached the level of consciousness on which it becomes apparent that publicly broadcasting that Devas are only servants of their God, is somehow offensive for Polytheists.

No, that's not my argument. My argument is this:
The scriptures themselves describe devas as such. There is nothing disrespectful and insulting in telling and repeating what is said in the scriptures.
Now, may I ask you something? You said "without even being aware of it". Are you aware, or should I say, do you understand what is said in those verses that I quoted in post #61 in this thread? There I quoted 3 verses from Bhagavatam: 10.14.10, 10.14.30 and 12.13.16, and also Bhagavad gita 10.12. Do you understand what is said in these verses? Please read carefully these verses and then tell me do you understand their meaning.

Now about devas as parts of some other God, Lord Krishna in this case. There are plenty of such verses in the scriptures, here I am giving just one typical example.
If you read Bhagavatam canto 1, chapter 3 (http://vedabase.net/sb/1/3/en) from the beginning up to the verse 1.3.28 (http://vedabase.net/sb/1/3/28/en) you'll see it mentioned many gods and finally in verse 1.3.28 says:

ete cāḿśa-kalāḥ puḿsaḥ
kṛṣṇas tu bhagavān svayam

"All of the above-mentioned incarnations are either plenary portions or portions of the plenary portions of the Lord, but Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa is the original Personality of Godhead."

Especially pay attention to the words aḿśa and kalāḥ which means "parts, portions". So all gods mentioned are Lord Krishna's parts.

In fact every living being is a part of Lord Krishna. This is said in the Bhagavad gita 15.7 (http://vedabase.net/bg/15/7/en) :

mamaivāḿśo jīva-loke
jīva-bhūtaḥ sanātanaḥ

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

Here also we have word aḿśaḥ "part". This applies to demigods because they are also jivas.

To know that you would actually have to empathize with people with other ideas. You would actually have to try see things from other peoples perspective.

I have no problem with the positions of other views or traditions. Is it not that Hindu dharma is a world of variety of approaches, traditions, philosophies and their different points of view? There is no question of imposing views to each other.

regards

[Jaskaran Singh]

ps - R.V.1.22.20 is translated as the following: “The princes evermore behold that loftiest place where Vishnu is, laid as it were an eye in heaven." I think DD mixed up verse 21 with 20. However, there is no statement that can be translated as "All other gods look always to his feet", since there is no mentioning of "anyā-devānām" or "anyā-devā".

ps#2 - Sowwie, I couldn't resist! The mentioning of Rig Vedic verses compels me to join in on the conversation. Hehehehe.

Not necessarily, sUriH (of which the shabda "sUrayaH" is the plural form) can refer a chief, but more often refers to a lord/deity, celestial being, or sage and is related to svàr (heaven), suraH/suro (god) and surI (goddess). So, it could be translated as gods/sages look to his feet, but it doesn't specify how many, so "all other" would still be mere speculation.

[Sudas Paijavana]

Not necessarily, sUriH (of which the shabda "sUrayaH" is the plural form) can refer a chief, but more often refers to a lord/deity, celestial being, or sage and is related to sv�r (heaven), suraH/suro (god) and surI (goddess). So, it could be translated as gods/sages look to his feet, but it doesn't specify how many, so "all other" would still be mere speculation.

Sowwie, brah. But it just doesn't make sense:

tad viṣṇoḥ paramam padaṃ sadā paśyanti sūrayaḥ divīva cakṣur ātatam

Sounds like they are speaking about gifted and exalted humans, brooo. Not Gods, brooo. The princes have taken "refuge" at Vishnu's highest congregation. These "princes" are the "singers", brooo. This would be in line with the spirit of Hymn 22 from Mandala 1, since it is dedicated to numerous Gods - and is similar to other hymns that have conclusion-like verses at the end that usually [always] "over-flatter" the Deity that is invoked last, brooo.

[Avyaydya]

My personal take on Vaishnava claims of Supreme God in the Vedas, [Warning, this personal opinion may be disagreeable for monotheists]:

Lets look at more neutral translation of the text that is considered by Vaishnavites as proof of Vishnu being a Supreme God
HYMN XXII. Asvins and Others

1 WAKEN the Asvin Pair who yoke their car at early morn: may they
Approach to drink this Soma juice.
2 We call the Asvins Twain, the Gods borne in a noble car, the best
Of charioteers, who reach the heavens.
3 Dropping with honey is your whip, Asvins, and full of pleasantness
Sprinkle therewith the sacrifice.
4 As ye go thither in your car, not far, O Asvins, is the home
Of him who offers Soma juice.
5 For my protection I invoke the golden-handed Savitar.
He knoweth, as a God, the place.
6 That he may send us succour, praise the Waters' Offspring Savitar:
Fain are we for his holy ways.
7 We call on him, distributer of wondrous bounty and of wealth,
On Savitar who looks on men.
8 Come hither, friends, and seat yourselves Savitar, to be praised by us,
Giving good gifts, is beautiful.
9 O Agni, hither bring to us the willing Spouses of the Gods,
And Tvastar, to the Soma draught.
10 Most youthful Agni, hither bring their Spouses, Hotra, Bharati,
Varutri, Dhisana, for aid.
11 Spouses of Heroes, Goddesses, with whole wings may they come to us
With great protection and with aid.
12 Indrani, Varunani, and Agnayi hither I invite,
For weal, to drink the Soma juice.
13 May Heaven and Earth, the Mighty Pair, bedew for us our sacrifice,
And feed us full with nourishments.
14 Their water rich with fatness, there in the Gandharva's steadfast place,
The singers taste through sacred songs.
15 Thornless be thou, O Earth, spread wide before us for a dwelling-place:
Vouchsafe us shelter broad and sure.
16 The Gods be gracious unto us even from the place whence Visnu strode
Through the seven regions of the earth!
17 Through all this world strode Visnu; thrice his foot he planted, and the whole
Was gathered in his footstep's dust.
18 Visnu, the Guardian, he whom none deceiveth, made three steps; thenceforth
Establishing his high decrees.
19 Look ye on Visnu's works, whereby the Friend of Indra, close-allied,
Hath let his holy ways be seen.
20 The princes evermore behold that loftiest place where Visnu is,
Laid as it were an eye in heaven.
21 This, Vishnu's station most sublime, the singers, ever vigilant,
Lovers of holy song, light up.

.
First of all the attentive reader will notice that this text is not titled Vishnu. Vishnu's name is not even mentioned in the title. How strange. Would the Sages classify Vishnu as "others" if he were considered the "Supreme God" or even an important God? Unthinkable! It suggests that in the time this part of the Vedas was written Vishnu is rather one of the less important solar deities. This idea is strengthened when we look at the number of texts that carry the name Vishnu. They are very few, I counted six with makes Vishnu a minor God.

The fact that it says "the friend of Indra" and not "Vishnu whose friend is Indra" in a subtle way suggesting he is less important than Indra, unless in other texts it also says: Indra who is friend of Vishnu. Though the words friend itself suggest they regard each other as equals, the worshiper writing the text seems to find Indra more important (At least at that moment in time, see below why).

Vishnu is only mentioned in the last six sentences of the text. The bold text does not do more than say that Vishnu has a lofty abode that is admired by the other Devas. To translate that in their submission is more than misleading. The fact that Vishnu is mentioned last, even indicates a lowest status amongst the "others".

The praises we read here are the courtesies with which visitors are announced in courts. Even today when famous invitees are welcomed they will first be heralded for their important position and great achievements and qualities. And it is good custom to exaggerate to make the person feel welcome but also not to hurt his feelings. For people of importance often have great pride.

In the old days this was a highly complicated science in itself. In fact small differences in announcements would tell a great deal about peoples status. Small omissions in details could be regarded by the nobles as grave injustices leading to resentment and even war. So for the untrained eye it may seem that all Devas are treated with equal respect, but that is an outer appearance carefully created for the common public. No one wants to see his Lord being disrespected. The real art is to give every God just the right amount of respect according to his present relative and absolute status.

To understand the importance better a nice story in this regard is "Journey to the West" from Wu Cheng. This is one of the great popular stories of China and a very funny one too. It is about a Demon Ape who acquires enormous powers and creates a lot of havoc. But he has a good heart, so the Sages, Bodhisattvas and Gods of heaven try to civilize him. When the monkey king comes to heaven the Emperor of Heaven decides to appease him by giving him an official title. But there are few vacancies in heaven, so he is appointed to "superintendent in the Imperial Stables". The monkey is pleased with this high position. It takes some time before he finds out that things are not what they seem (see page 50):

In the middle of the party the Monkey King suddenly put down his cup and asked, "What sort of office is this
'Protector of the Horses?'"
"What the name suggests, that's all."
"Which official grading does it carry?"
"Unclassified."
"What does 'unclassified' mean?"
"Bottom grade," the others replied, going on to explain, "It is a very low and unimportant office, and all you
can do in it is look after the horses. Even someone who works as conscientiously as Your Honour and gets the
horses so fat will get no more reward than someone saying 'good'; and if anything goes at all wrong you will
be held responsible, and if the losses are serious you will be fined and punished."

The Monkey King flared up on hearing this, gnashed his teeth, and said in a great rage, "How dare they treat
me with such contempt? On the Mountain of Flowers and Fruit I am a king and a patriarch. How dare he trick
me into coming here to feed his horses for him? It's a low job for youngsters, not for me. I won't do it, I won't.
I'm going back." He pushed the table over with a crash, took his treasure out of his ear, and shook it. It
became as thick as a rice bowl, and he brandished it as he charged out of the Imperial Stables to the Southern
Gate of Heaven. As the celestial guards knew that his name was on the register of immortal officials they did
not dare to block his path, but let him out through the gate.

He descended by cloud and was back on the Mountain of Flowers and Fruit in an instant. Seeing the four
Stalwart Generals and all the kings of the monsters drilling their troops there he shouted in a shrill voice,
"Children, I'm back." The monkeys all bowed to him, took him into the heart of the cave, and asked him to sit
on his throne, while they prepared a banquet to welcome him back.
"Congratulations, Your Majesty," they all said. "After over a dozen years up there you must be coming back
in glory and triumph."
"What do you mean, over a dozen years?" asked the Monkey King. "I've only been away for a fortnight or
so."
"Your Majesty can't have noticed the time passing in heaven. A day in heaven lasts as long as a year on earth.
May we ask what office you held?"
"It hurts me to tell you," replied the Monkey King with a wave of his hand. "I feel thoroughly humiliated.
That Jade Emperor doesn't know how to use a good man. A man like me−−'Protector of the Horses'. That
meant I had to feed his animals for him and wasn't even given an official grading. I didn't know this at first, so
I fooled around in the Imperial Stables until today, when I found out from my colleagues how low the job
was. I was so angry that I pushed the table over and quit the job. That's why I've come back."
"Quite right too," the other monkeys said. "Your Majesty can be king in our cave paradise and enjoy as much
honour and pleasure as you like, so why go and be his groom?" Then they gave orders for wine to be brought
at once to cheer their king up

In the same way we have to read the Vedas. Modern people will totally misunderstand it. The world of Noble men is so far from their modern world. But in Hinduism through sriptures like the Vedas and the Mahabharata and Ramayana honour still playes a mayor role. In fact it is a mayor principle in Dharma. Protecting Dharma means giving each being the respect it deserves. But this is not equal respect like western protestants may easily conclude coming from an egalitarian tradition. No this is carefully weighing the importance of each being in the present circumstances. To create harmony among the beings in the Universe Devas and Sages deserve highest respect, than come the Kings. Etc. Each Deva is giving separate respect for the domain they are presiding over. And so the Kings. But a King from a village does not have the status of that of a land with a huge army. To protect harmony each must get his due, no more, no less.

Yes the great message of the Vedas is that all beings in creation deserve respect. All are manifestations of Brahman. That is why mantras start invariably with OM. In all we revere Brahman. except of course the Hare Krishna mantra that omits the word OM. This illustrates the claim that Krishna himself is Brahman. With the omission of OM in their Mantra HK puts itself outside of Hindu tradition. For to place OM in front of a mantra is a recognition that the Deva/principles of Nature one invokes is a manifestation of Brahman.

For Brahman can not be invoked as Brahman is all and nothing. To invoke Brahman would mean to invoke everything in the universe and still more. It would mean to invoke every possible universe at once. Their is no limit to Brahman. So to turn Brahman into an entity is greatest blasphemy possible.

The Vedas do not have such a supreme God. We have to understand that polytheists have always understood that like Man goes through the cycles of rebirth, Gods go through cycles of reign. Gods will reign in turn. So in one Era Indra may be the King of heaven and in a later era it may be Shiva or Vishnu.

The ancient understood that like we have seasons in which different aspects of the Sun (solar Gods) would be dominant, there were even bigger cycles in which Gods would rise or descend in power. That is why we do not have one God in the Vedas but many. They take leadership in turns. Vishnu is just one of the Solar dieties. The solar dieties were called, Suras or Devas, and the non-solar deities, Asuras. For the ancients is was important to understand which principles were ruling at any given time to create the right harmony. Because that is what Nature religions are all about, creating harmony.

But harmony is easily destroyed, in an orchestra it takes just one person playing out of tune to create disharmony. If only one does not understand what harmony is about, he spoils the whole effort. Such false players must be removed from the orchestra. It does not matter if they themselves think they are the greatest musicians on earth and it is everyone else's fault for not following their suit.

Sadly we have such harmony breaker in Hinduism, but it only knows indignation for it feels more important than all others.

[Jaskaran Singh]

For Brahman can not be invoked as Brahman is all and nothing. To invoke Brahman would mean to invoke everything in the universe and still more. It would mean to invoke every possible universe at once. Their is no limit to Brahman. So to turn Brahman into an entity is greatest blasphemy possible.

Are you influenced by the the philosophical view of the Abrahamic cults, by chance? Such a view is not espoused by the upaniShad-s, which describe brahman as saguNa and nirguNa, and most definitely as an entity; more specifically, as the puruSha as described in the veda-s.

Let's look at the third adhyAya of the shvetAshvataropaniShad:

ततः परं ब्रह्म परं बृहन्तं यथानिकायं सर्वभूतेषु गूढं।
विश्वस्य एकं परिवेष्टितारमीशं तं ज्ञात्वा अमृता भवन्ति॥७॥

Transliteration:
tataH paraM brahma paraM bR^ihantaM yathAnikAyaM sarvabhUteShu gUDhaM|
vishvasya ekaM pariveShTitAramIshaM taM j~nAtvA amR^itA bhavanti||7||

tataH - this place/all this; paraM - greater/beyond; brahma - brahma (not to be confused with brahmAdeva); bR^ihantaM - lofty/mighty/vast (in dvitIyA vibhakti); yathA - just as; nikAyaM - dwelling place/body; sarva- all; bhUteShu - in living beings; gUDhaM - concealed; vishvasya - everything (sense of belonging); ekaM - one; pariveShTitAram - fully encloses in place; IshaM - lord; taM - he; j~nAtvA - knowing [this]; amR^itA; immortal bhavanti - becomes

Translation: "He who knows the mighty brahma, [who is] greater than all this, just as [he] is concealed in the bodies of all living beings, [as] the Lord who alone fully encloses and sets everything (as part of him), becomes immortal."

वेदाहमेतं पुरुषं महान्तमादित्यवर्णं तमसः परस्तात्।
तमेव विदित्वाति मृत्युमेति नान्यः पन्था विद्यतेऽयनाय॥८॥

Transliteration:
vedAhametaM puruShaM mahAntamAdityavarNaM tamasaH parastAt|
tameva viditvAti mR^ityumeti nAnyaH panthA vidyate'yanAya||8||

vedAham - I know; etaM - that; puruShaM - puruShaH, i.e. person; mahAntam - great; Aditya - the sun (Aditya is another name for sUrya); varNaM -appears; tamasaH - darkness; parastAt -beyond/apart; tameva - him surely; viditvAti - who knowing; mR^ityumeti - escapes death; nAnyaH - no other; panthA - path; vidyate - exists ; ayanAya - for going/progress (often for refuge)

Translation: "I know that great "person" who appears like the sun and is beyond darkness; [one who] knows him truly escapes death; there exists no other path on which to go [to escape death]."

This nonsense view which you stated in which viShNu (or shiva, for that matter) is lesser than the "supreme brahma" rather than the saguNa form of brahma (puruSha) is nonsense, why else would shrIkR^iShNa say "mattaH parataraM nAnyat" in the gItA? Even the puruShasUktam from the kR^iShNa yajurveda (which, if you are Hindu, you must accept as authoritative) states that the puruSha is the husband of lakShmI and hrI/bhUmi (hrIshcha te lakShmIshcha patnyau). Are you going to tell me that pati of shrIlakShmI is any other than viShNu? The view that brahma is only nirguNa and who cannot be viewed as an entity is even further nonsense and sounds surprisingly Abrahamic:

זִכְר֥וּ רִאשֹׁנֹ֖ות מֵעֹולָ֑ם כִּ֣י אָנֹכִ֥י אֵל֙ וְאֵ֣ין עֹ֔וד אֱלֹהִ֖ים וְאֶ֥פֶס כָּמֹֽונִי׃

Transliteration:
zikru rishonot meolaam ki anochi el va'en owd elohim wa'efes kamo[w]ni

zikru -remember; rishonot - the former things; meolaam - long past; ki - because; anochi - I am; el - God; wa'en - and none; owd - more/else; elohim - God; wa'efes - and none; kamo(w)ni - like

Translation: "Remember the former things long past because I am God and none else; [I am] God and there is none like me" - Yeshayahu/Isaiah 46:9, Bible

.قُلْ هُوَ اللَّهُ أَحَدٌ اللَّهُ الصَّمَدُ لَمْ يَلِدْ وَلَمْ يُولَدْ وَلَمْ يَكُن لَّهُ كُفُوًا أَحَدٌ

Transliteration:
qul hua allahu aahad[u] allahu assamad[u] lam yalid walam yuulad walam yakun lahu kufuwan ahad.

qul - say; hua - he; allahu - [is] Allah; aahadu - the one; allahu - Allah; assamadu- the eternal; lam -not; yalid - begets; walam - and not; yuulad - is he begotten; walam - and not; yakun - is; lahu - unto him kufuwan - equivalent; ahad - anyone

Translation: "Say he is is Allah, the one eternal Allah, he neither begets nor is begotten and there is not any likeness unto him." - Surat al Ikhlas, Qur'an

[Amrut]

Namaste Jaskaran,

Just to make a note that PuruSa as per advaita is defined as 'an omnipresent entity' by Sri VidyaraNya svami in PanchAdaSI and if I remember correctly by Sri Adi Shankaracharya in Tatva bodh.

1000 eyes, 1000 hands, etc symbolically represent infiniteness and omnipresence. Even 100 eyes or 100 heads, etc symbolize the same thing.

It is true that veda-s depict Brahman as person and as NirguNa. At times there is bheda, at times, Ishvara is an antarmAmin and at times there is non-duality.

Om Tat Sat

Amrut

[isavasya]

This nonsense view which you stated in which viShNu (or shiva, for that matter) is lesser than the "supreme brahma" rather than the saguNa form of brahma (puruSha) is nonsense, why else would shrIkR^iShNa say "mattaH parataraM nAnyat" in the gItA?

Very interesting. So you get all charged up when someone during the reply downplays one specific deity for the moment. Incidentally the reply is being made to people of a school who continuously call Shiva as demi god, albeit try to adulterate it by saying best of demi god. (the same Shiva who provides moksha according to rig veda and has been referred on innumerable instances as being purusha by shruti, including by the svetasvatara Upanishads which you are fondly citing) .I would rather like to see your reply to those who call shiva (the same purusha) a demi god first before your emotional outburst on someone who equates the vedic devtas and who has all the proof of doing so from the Vedas. Of course interpretations of vedanta are different. I will also like to tell you that in Advaita Vedanta (which I don't follow), Brahman is the absolute eternal state of existence. The ishwara disappears after moksha. Are they abrhamaic people ? Your attack on Avyaydya is unjustified.

[Amrut]

Namaste,

I would further add that when it is said that 'I create this world from my 1/4th part (anSa), it means that mAyA is 'eka DeSiya', as said by Sri VidyAraNya Svami in PancAdasI

Hari OM

[Amrut]

Namaste,

There are two versions - 16 verse and 24 verse. The 24 verse does say Laxmipati, while 16 verse version does not say anything specific.

Earlier a vaishnava by screen name 'Sri Vaishnava' had interpreted Sri Rudram as a hymn dedicated to Sriman Narayana with fierce aspect being Lord Narasimha.

If we go by grammar, then even Laxmi can be taken as common noun and can be interpreted as wife of Shiva.

LaxmI if we say stands for wealth, but which wealth? spiritual wealth, whose svAmI is Shiva, a symbol of Jnana.

Controller of Laxmi, shakti, mahAmAyA is Vishnu, the all pervading, hence laxmi pati

But I would prefer not to translate in such convoluted way, unless in exceptional cases. I prefer Vishnu remain Vishnu and Shiva remain Shiva and let them happily marry their consorts.

Kanchi ParamAcharya says something interesting with relation to trinity referring Devi bhagavat and Markandeya Purana

Laxmi and Brahma are brother sister --> they both sit on Lotus and both are said to have golden complexion.

Parvati and Narayana / Vishnu are brother and sister --> they both have dark complexion (Parvati as Maa Kali)

Sarasvati and Shiva are brother and sister --> they both represent Jnana (one lower form (arts) and one higher form. Both play veena and both have white complexion

Aum