Demigod worship different from worshiping para-atma?

[Eastern Mind]

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.

Vannakkam: Very well written and detailed advice which sums things up nicely. Of the two choices you gave, I was of the first variety, and now, after many years, am just so thankful I did that. The operative word being 'practice'. That choice is in the minority.

Watching so many people come on the internet and ask so many questions and get so confused trying to put it all together makes me ponder on how to help them not get so confused. As you say, it's a very difficult task.

A middle ground would perhaps be to select a tradition, and commit to it for a one year period, without undue influence from other traditions. Then, after a year, evaluate. That might work. Otherwise it is just this continuous go-round, mix and match, change my mind, hear new advice and change it again, give up for awhile ....

But thank you for reminding me how lucky I am.

Aum Namasivaya

[Avyaydya]

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

Namaste Spirit Seeker,

My very personal understanding as a Polytheist
[Warning: this opinion may be disagreeable for monotheists]

There is Brahman and Creation.
The Divine Principle Brahman has neither form nor qualities
Still Creation rises from Brahman and Brahman is in every aspect of it.
Creation has qualities and/or form
Creation encompasses all beings including the Devas
The Devas and Sages are the most noble beings in creation

It is clear and simple, is it not? So why all the complexity?

Here comes my personal explanation:
So why so much confusion? Because some people promoted their Deva to be Brahman as well. It grew from their desire to place their Deva above all other Devas ("My God is bigger" is good for the ego, but also for business). We see the results of this all over the world and has been the fertile ground for religious conflict. It also created a trillion dollar business. These people call themselves monotheists. They call their construct: "God".

I think:
Because this is illogical, their philosophical creation, this "God", becomes highly contradictory. "He" has both form and no form, he has both gunas and no gunas. Their God is a shifter, what ever he needs to be for the believer, he becomes. And he is always heralded as the highest, and so his religion. Just like football supporters herald their club as the highest, so do devotees herald their religion as the highest. I believe this can not be helped as monotheism is lower form of consciousness called "belief".

As I see it:
Monotheism creates incredibly complex philosophies to explain all the contradictions. But as your own signature also indicates, they ultimately never really succeed. Still these intellectuals spend endless time over hairsplitting and the true nature of things. Abstract things they often have never experienced but are simply constructs of their mind they love to play with.

In my mind:
Monotheism turned subtle experience into a belief-thing. Individuals that have a personal relation with their Devas are turned into "Followers" of a "God". Followers must believe the creations intellectuals put in writing. They become believers, which in my mind is a lower slavish state of the mind. There are a lot of believers in the world, and they spread their beliefs in turn. Richard Dawkins called "memes" or mental virusses. I tend to agree with him on this part.

As I see it:
Monotheist will always claim that all other Gods are really their God, because their "Supreme God"-concept is the only one. So all other Gods are simply lower manifestations of their "Supreme God"-thing. That is another thing about monotheists. They associate their God with with power. Their God is all powerful, all knowledgeable, most merciful etc. He is the best. Their idea of a supreme God, is supreme power. But when you ask their all "powerful God", simple things, he is seldom at home. Then they come with explanations that their God gives you the bliss of not wanting anything. It all you fault, you should not desire anything. Thus they hide that their "God" is simply a concoction of the mind without any power to grant people blessings.

In my perception:
The only blessing you get from this "God" is in retrospect. When you survived a car accident, they will say: See, that is the blessing of our God. When you wife dies in a car accident, then they will not draw the logical conclusion that that is the punishment of God. no then they prefer different explanations. Yes they have an answer for anything, after all they produced tons of papers with theories for that. And if you are a good boy and learn them by heart, you to will be in a position to answer the questions that arise from other people. You will be a believer. A believer has to be somewhat slavish to his God, and accept all the teachings. There is little room for deviant ideas in monotheism. It is mono, monomania, monopoly, monocracy. On God, one truth, one set of rules. Everything is one.

The way I look at it:
Hinduism is originally polytheistic. Let us do an experiment: The Vedas are said to be the very foundation of Hinduism. Suppose we would listen to monotheists first and gobble up their ideas, than you would form a picture what is in the Vedas, the scriptures accepted to be "authoritative".

What would I expect?
I would expect the Vedas to be one big ode, hymn to the supreme God. After all he is the big elephant in the room. What else would the Sages talk about than their supreme master. And as Monotheists suggest in mild or very condemning terms it is wrong to worship anyone but the supreme God, that would be off limits. So of course the Sages in the Vedas would abstain from that, being the wisest of the wise. They would only mention them casually as mere manifestations of the Supreme, not worshiped by those that possess higher knowledge.

Now if for a moment one can stop being a believer asking others what to believe, and become a independent thinking person using his faculties, than one can read the Rig Veda and draw ones own conclusions. Then whatever one finds here, it will forever be ones own possession.
The Rig Veda

Good Luck!

[P.S. No one wants to be called "half man" or "semi human". So please not call the Devas demigods, if treated respectfully and earnest the Noble Ones do grant our wishes, but they have great pride. Do not insult them, or you may become one of those that want to know why adversity does not stop. Alas western monotheist do these insult casually as they do not "believe" in anything but their "God". By the way I do honor all the Devas, even though I do not accept them any more as Brahman than myself]

[And by the way, I noticed your signature:
"For those who believe, no explanation is necessary. For those who do not, none will suffice. ~Joseph Dunninger".
I look at this as a typical monotheist cop-out to stop people from asking difficult questions and thinking for themselves, blind belief is turned into a merit. So my question: If that is your slogan, why ask questions on this forum? Why not Just believe and be happy with what Joseph Dunninger and co feed you? Just asking.]

[rama_t]

Namasthe

I love the truth in these words.

"'There is Brahman and Creation.
The Divine Principle Brahman has neither form nor qualities
Still Creation rises from Brahman and Brahman is in every aspect of it.
Creation has qualities and/or form
Creation encompasses all beings including the Devas
The Devas and Sages are the most noble beings in creation"

Ekoham Bahushyami. All our divine expressions of the same source.

IMHO
There is no contradiction in scriptures. we can worship who we like..if you already reach the state of your worshipped then if you are worth you will be directed to another. Many Gurus has done this. They will send their disciples to another for further studies.
But one has to first choose someone as Guru and start sadhana or the walk then one can see for himself the next step.

Pranams

[Spirit Seeker]

Namaste all,

Thank you highly for all your well written responses and assisting me in getting a better understanding. I highly appreciate it.

[P.S. No one wants to be called "half man" or "semi human". So please not call the Devas demigods, if treated respectfully and earnest the Noble Ones do grant our wishes, but they have great pride. Do not insult them, or you may become one of those that want to know why adversity does not stop. Alas western monotheist do these insult casually as they do not "believe" in anything but their "God". By the way I do honor all the Devas, even though I do not accept them any more as Brahman than myself]

I understand this and I did not foresee that this terminology would be offensive to devotees here, being that the material I have come across has used it, but later in my posts I mindfully switched it towards Devas. I did not intend to offend anyone.

[And by the way, I noticed your signature:
"For those who believe, no explanation is necessary. For those who do not, none will suffice. ~Joseph Dunninger".
I look at this as a typical monotheist cop-out to stop people from asking difficult questions and thinking for themselves, blind belief is turned into a merit. So my question: If that is your slogan, why ask questions on this forum? Why not Just believe and be happy with what Joseph Dunninger and co feed you? Just asking.]

Yes, this is my slogan as I'm fully grounded that Understanding of one's own personal experience comes before the Opinions of others whichever way they lean toward to.

This might be my own projection, or maybe not, but I feel some people on this forum are sensitive or over-reactive to my posts especially since discussions I have started in the past, the way 'some' individuals reacted towards me negatively.. While yes, I value Personal Experience Highly above and Beyond, this doesnt stop me from seeking to have a better understanding of other's points of view. I NEVER want to stop Learning, as life and the universe itself is rich with experiences. I am a Naturally Curious human being and I cannot help it. Is this so wrong? Why is it so wrong that I keep asking questions?

This is a Discussion forum, and I want to learn more about Hinduism, so I will post questions relevant to Hindu Topics.

There is NO Malicious intent to divide members behind my query, and I will keep re-stating it again and again and again and again, incase people have suspicious or doubts about me for being an "outsider".

That is all, nothing more Nothing less.

Thank you for the Link, I'll get right on it! Be well friends.

[grames]

Hi.,

As B. J ji mentioned, people who are not familiar or attempt to learn Hinduism often have their own way of approach and what is also true is that, such new learners do "have their own philosophy as well as hatred for their "circumstantial faith and belief which they want to get away with" and also they are very strict and confidant that, there new found philosophy should be considered as "Authentic Hindu" as well. A Thomas or john after reading some indologists translations very strongly believe and consider the followers of SD in the land of India are headless creatures with no brains and its only them who are the gifted nobles who can understand and explain or explain away the Hindu philosophies. What about someone from birth learning this from the parents, from the social setup they live, from the engagements of their day to day life as in practice and practical living and also their rational quest to know and cherish the grand meanings of Veda and its teachings? Above all, adding to the list, how can there be any better learning and understanding than the one who also takes shelter under an Acharya, who comes in the diciplic succession?

Of course, there are lot of honest learners regardless of the direction of their birth and living who "admit' that, what appeals to them is what they are chasing after and also start to follow until they encounter discomfort or questions that are not answered in their chosen following. Such honest people do evolve in their knowledge learning and evolve faster and of course, open up the doors to knowledge.

If you go back two message above, the major traditions in the SD do subscribe to the idea of "Supreme God" and these traditions are under the school of "Vedanta"! In that list, Advaita is also included practiced by the Shaiva, smarta and others and these schools do subscribe to the idea of "Supreme" concept and their practice and sadhana does not authorize equating a deva or devata to the Paramatma or Brahman or Shiva. (I said, Sadhana as in Advaita schools, ultimate has no difference - but in the empirical there is difference and difference causing the ranks... Strength of Maya in Advaita and Mala or association with impure in Shaiva). Some Neo-Advaitin's just for the sake of universal appeal, do advocate equality of all but such equality has no support in the Vedanta or Advaita itself.

Not knowing or understanding monotheism and assuming a semitic rationale as universal, this message carries lot of unfortunate statements and at least for sure, Hinduism does not give out to polytheism and there is no room for polytheism and Advaita is more close to Pantheism rather than Polytheism. So, polytheism is alien to Hindu and in fact, Hinduism being non-polytheistic itself was so difficult for indologists to understand and comprehend and i am sure, those who take their learning from such, will only believe Hinduism is polytheistic in nature.

Oṃ tad viṣṇoḥ paramam padam sadā paśyanti sūrayaḥ

Hare Krshna!

[isavasya]

If you are saying that ISKCON or Vaishnavism can't be polytheistic....I totally understand....but, if you are saying that HINDUISM as a whole can't be polytheistic....than the Rig Veda disagrees....and, in the process....the Rig Veda, Herself, disapproves of your thought and thus dissects in Her entirety from what you view as Hinduism.

Namaste Sudas

I totally agree with you and its always a pleasure to read your views.
Sanatan dharm has always respected multiple views. Personally I try to respect all schools of Hinduism, including 'Neo-Vasinavism' or for that matter any non-Hindu school too if that school does not teaches bigotry and hatred. We as a Hindu have always been free to represent our view unless that is not hateful. Pantheism. Polytheism, Monism, Qualified Monism, Monotheism and Atheism have been part of hindu culture ever since beginning.

Purva Mimamsa - Belief in vedic devtas but no supreme devta or creator God ( polytheism as far as rituals were concerned, Non-theism as far as doctrine was concerned).

Our Neo-monotheistic friends believe that it can't be possible for a Hindu to believe in Polytheism. They have been taught by their abrahmaic masters that polytheism or monism is sinful. So our great Mimsakas kumarila bhatta and Prabhakara Bhatta were not Hindus or were following false Hinduism according to these people. This is not to say that Monotheism was not followed in old days. We reed about Pashupata shaivism religion in Mahabharata and many more. But the thing is some people have lost humility. They can't live without talking that other devtas are lower. Of course one is right to see one God as supreme, but why use idiotic words like 'demi' for other devas. My father is a vaishnava (Ramanandi sect) but he never taught me to consistently degrade other Gods. My mother is a shiva devotee, she never taught to me that you should call God other than Shiva as demi. Our Hindu sanskar asks us to respect our Vedic god. Don't worship them if you don't want. Call your God as supreme too. No problem. But put your words wisely and in a manner which doesn't hurts other Hindus.

[isavasya]

Dear friend Avyaydya

[P.S. No one wants to be called "half man" or "semi human". So please not call the Devas demigods, if treated respectfully and earnest the Noble Ones do grant our wishes, but they have great pride. Do not insult them, or you may become one of those that want to know why adversity does not stop. Alas western monotheist do these insult casually as they do not "believe" in anything but their "God". By the way I do honor all the Devas, even though I do not accept them any more as Brahman than myself]

Very nice post.

There is Brahman and Creation.
The Divine Principle Brahman has neither form nor qualities
Still Creation rises from Brahman and Brahman is in every aspect of it.
Creation has qualities and/or form
Creation encompasses all beings including the Devas
The Devas and Sages are the most noble beings in creation

While polytheism is 100% legitimate doctrine among many doctrines of Hinduism. Your view is as much or more in line with pantheism and monism as in line with polytheism.

[grames]

Dear Sudhas.,

For your disappointment or being diplomatic in your expression, i am sorry i cannot help it as this is not my personal opinion but the way how SD is understood and practiced by the followers.

It is not the ISKCON idea or Vaishnava idea alone and not sure why you hand pick from the bag when i listed more than ISKCON and Vaishnavas in the message. It is also Shaiva, Smarta and every other popular until you name one school or group of followers who believes other way around. I also cautioned that some neo's actually propagate such idea just for the sake of universal appeal even though their own philosophy or fundamental practice does not stick to such or admit such!

In fact, to test you only i have put the one liner and surely you can translate with all your popular references of Rg! Let me know how that last line of message translates or understood so that at least you can appreciate your source of truth!

Veda-Anta - Is end of the Knowledge search of -Veda. We are not discussing anything that is outside the pursuit of Veda thus VedAnta here is basically end of ALL at least for us. The assurance of monotheism is from the Shrutis itself and the untenability of interpreting the Shruti's to give away multiple Gods of equal status and also from the Vendata schools philosophical strengths.

Also, i am open to the discussion or information or better knowledge how Hinduism can be polytheistic and my point here is not to deny if one such exists but to point out, it is not the "POPULAR" practice or faith and that's all in the schools which are blossomed out from Vedanta. No personal feelings here please.

Thanks

[grames]

Hi.,

Promoting hatred and dishonoring the deserved is not the idea of vaishnavas or vedanta shcool's followers regardless of their designation and follow ship. But, expanding your idea of everything is "alright" is not the idea of Hindu and if that is the case, we don't need something called Hindu in first place. Someone's imperfect activities or distasteful behavior does not translate to the faith and practice of the entire system.

Why it is not an insult or distasteful behavior, if at all, such "Supreme" is Supreme and all others are working under the guidance and power of that Supreme as their only means of life and existence? When this view is the view of all vedantic schools, in what sense your call for "respect" can be honored at the expense of "insulting" the supreme by equating undeserved with the Supreme, even though the "undeserved" is only in comparison with the Majesty of the Supreme and not from your stand of life and qualification? Asking for equality among non-equals is also great sin and Shruti's and Upanishads etc. are giving enough warning for doing such comparison or even assumption.

Demi being an "derogatory" or insult only lives in your assumed idea - even though the same Vedas which you are running after shows clearly, there is ONLY ONE which is the supreme of all - Unless you can provide evidence of multiple reals and also that all are equal with no gradation among them, take the knowledge and also learn the most bothering "insult" of not addressing the supreme as supreme and boasting a deva as equal to a supreme.

Same time, it is very true that, devatas has to be honored and respected by us as they are exalted and with out their mercy and grace, there is no scope for progress. OTOH, all the devatas are automatically satisfied when the Supreme is honored and respected (this is the subtle point which is not grasped) and they themselves won't consider on par with the Supreme as they are also in the journey towards the Lord!

There are reasons why all non-vedantic schools are gone from the Vedantic system of India and also what needs to be understood is that, all darshanas were very much interwoven and the ultimate is given as "Veda Anta". So, going back to pre vedantic period and asking for their acceptance as final only make me ask whether we do eat and enjoy that still cooking food or happily eat the well cooked and served?

This is not NEO but the very same your parents also follow(ed). They being nice to you, does not mean they don't accept or didn't accept "Vishnu" as Supreme or "Shiva" as Supreme if they really follow the practice of those Parampara.

Sri Vaishnava - Lord Rama is Supreme - Bodhyana Vrtti existed for ages identifying Vishnu as the Veda's purport - Surely, not all devatas gets equal status in this one of the oldest system.

Shaivaism - Lord Shiva is Supreme - The tamil versions was brought to South by Sage Agastya - so again one of the oldest - not sure about the dating of North version but surely not new or latest invention - Does not give any equal status to even Vishnu and Brahma.

[Devi Dasi]

Hare Krsna, please allow me to share this quote:

It has been documented in Brihadaranyaka Upanishad - Chapter 3.


Śākalya: "How many gods are there?"
Yājñavalkya: "Three hundred and three." Then he says, "Three thousand and three."

Śākalya: "Is this the answer that you give me to my question, how many gods are there? Three thousand and three; three hundred and three! Have you no other answer to this question?"
Yājñavalkya: There are thirty-three gods.

Śākalya: "All right!" (not satisfied with answer) ...Tell me again properly; how many gods are there?"
Yājñavalkya: "Six are there."

Śākalya: "How many gods are there. Tell me again. Think properly."
Yājñavalkya: "Only three gods are there."

Śākalya: "How many gods are there? Tell again.
Yājñavalkya: "Two gods are there."

Śākalya: "Tell again; how many gods are there?"
Yājñavalkya: "One and a half gods"

Śākalya: "What is this you say, one and a half gods. Tell again properly; how many gods are there?"
Yājñavalkya: "One god is there,"

Śākalya: "All these numbers that you have mentioned – three thousand and three, three hundred and three – what are these gods? Give the names of these gods, the deities."

Yājñavalkya: "All these three thousand and all that I mentioned – they are not really gods. They are only manifestations of the thirty-three. The thirty-three are the principal manifestations, and others are only their glories, radiances, manifestations, magnificences or forces, energies, powers."

Śākalya: "But what are these thirty-three?"
Yājñavalkya: "The thirty-three gods are eight Vasus, eleven Rudras, twelve Ādityas, then Indra and Prajāpati – these make thirty-three gods."

Śākalya: "What are these Vasus which are eight in number?"
Yājñavalkya: "Fire is one deity; earth is one deity; air is another; the atmosphere is one deity; the sun is one deity; the heaven is one deity; moon is one deity; the stars are one deity. These constitute eight groups"

Śākalya: "Why do you call them Vasus?"
Yājñavalkya: "Everything is deposited as it were in these constituent principles. Therefore, they are called Vasus."

Śākalya: "Who are the Rudras?"
Yājñavalkya: "The ten senses and the mind make eleven. These are the Rudras."

http://spiritualsanatan.blogspot.com...lion-gods.html