Demi-Gods? I need clarification. Please help me understand.

[Bee]

Hello, I’m sure this question has been asked many times but I need some clarification because I am very confused.

 

Bhagavad-gītā 7.23

 

SYNONYMS

 

anta-vat — perishable; tu — but; phalam — fruit; teṣām — their; tat — that; bhavati — becomes; alpa-medhasām — of those of small intelligence; devān — to the demigods; deva-yajaḥ — the worshipers of the demigods; yānti — go; mat — My; bhaktāḥ — devotees; yānti — go; mām — to Me; api — also.

 

Can you clarify the use of the word “also” at the end? It seems to say that “those of small intelligence worship demigods (devas) and their fruits are temporary and limited. Those who worship demigods go to the demigods (devas) and my devotees go to me also.” I do not fully understand the meaning behind demi-god.

 

I have taken it to mean that one should not approach other Gods thinking that they are separate than Brahman (because Brahman is Krishna and so is Shiva, Kali etc). If you think you are going to get more benefit by worshiping Shiva, Kali, than by worshiping Brahman (the source) then you just entered demi-god worship but if you think they are same with different names and forms then it is not demigod worship because you know that all your prayers are being answered from the same source.

 

I know that Puranas like Sriman Bhagvatam glorify Vishnu as the supreme being. But I have also been told that Puranas are not authentic scriptures and the real scriptures are Vedas, Upanishads and Geeta. I was told Puranas were written for those people who could not grasp the deep seated philosophy of our Dharma so simple stories with hidden meanings were given to the illiterates, farmers, etc in order to help them understand the concepts better. I don't know how true this is but many other writings seem to glorify other gods as well.

 

Edit : Sorry for making this so long. Hope I didn't confuse anyone...

[Ravindran Kesavan]

Dear Bee,

 

There are no demigods. There is only one god. This one god has been conceived in many ways by people with many many names and forms.

On this Veda is very clear and categorical. "Truth is one . Sears call it by many names" - RigVeda.

 

The Concept of Demigods is not a spiritual concept . It is a political conception of the bhaktas to glorify their own form and faith is superior and other's are inferior. There is no support of this calim anywhere in Veda. It is all in all Puranic creation.

 

There is a myth that puranas are be written by Veda Vyas. It is a myth . Puranas were not written by one person - certainly not by any one who knows Veda thoroughly. Indologist have evidences to the effect that Puranas were written at various periods of time by various people in various regions. That is why one find so much of contradidictions amoung them.

 

For authendic Spiritual knowledge do not depend on Puranas. Depend only on Vedas.

 

K.Ravindran

[MikeMalaysia]

To say that all the gods are various forms of the one Impersonal Brahman is the Mayavada Philosophy taught by Shankaracharya.

 

However, there is some confusion over the term "demigod" as it is not exactly accurate. This is mainly a language issue.

 

The Sanskrit word that is translated as "demigod" by Srila Prabhupada is deva. Deva means "god" and is the root of the Latin word divinus, which is where the English words "divine" and "divinity" come from. However, the Scriptures state that the devas are subordinate to Lord Krishna, the Supreme Lord. Lord Krishna states that He is the origin of the devas. The term used to refer to Lord Krishna is Bhagavan, meaning "He who possesses all opulences in full".

 

In order to emphasize Krishna's supremacy and show the subordinate position of the devas, Srila Prabhupada translated the Sanskrit word "deva" as "demigod". Let's keep in mind that he was preaching to a Western audience, whose concept of God arose mainly from Christianity. If Srila Prabhupada had started talking about "gods", then many people would have run a mile thinking that he was teaching polytheism, when in fact the devas occupy a position similar to angels in the Judeo-Christian tradition.

 

The word "Bhagavan" is the Sanskrit word for God in the traditional monotheistic view - the Supreme Being that created the universe. Deva refers to a lesser divine being, a "god" with a small "g" (let's face it, we talk about the Greek "gods" and we don't believe that they are supreme, do we?). The word "god" simply means a divine being.

 

The term "demigod" is also not very accurate. "Demi" means "half" in Latin, and it does not make sense in a Hindu context. If Lord Shiva is half god, what is the other half of him made up of?

 

However, talking about "gods" can also confuse people. I think that the best thing to do is to use the original Sanskrit word "deva" and then explain to people what it means and the relationship between Bhagavan and the Devas.

 

Here is what Lord Krishna says about the Devas:

"Neither the hosts of devas nor the great sages know My origin or opulences, for, in every respect, I am the source of the devas and sages." (Bhagavad-Gita 10:2)

Hare Krishna!

[Ravindran Kesavan]

I do not know Mayavada is true or not as In veda there is no explict statement to the unreality of the world. Maya theory is Sankaras, interpretation. On which I have no disaggreement.

 

But The concept on oneness of the God Or the Ultimate truth , is by no means Sankaras invention. It is explicitly stated in Veda. Rgvedic gods (Devas) are 33 in number, and after after introducing them , Rg Veda declares explictly that there is only one Deva.

 

Bagavat Geeta belongs to the class of Purana and not of Veda. In spiritual matters , I would go by Vedic declaration rather than on other latter works. Neither Sankara nor Krishna are more authentic than Sruti (Vedas).

 

K.Ravindran

[Amlesh]

Gita is Sruti as well as Smriti...

 

Known as the 13th Upanishad.

 

Gitopanishad.

 

But more special than any other Upanishad.

[Amlesh]

At one instance in The Gita... The Lord even classified Vedas as Pushpittam Vaacham... {flowery words}.

 

But of course, there is no doubt about the authority of the Vedas.

[Bee]

 

Dear Bee,

 

There are no demigods. There is only one god. [...]

 

For authendic Spiritual knowledge do not depend on Puranas. Depend only on Vedas.

 

K.Ravindran

Thank you for clearing that up.

 

 

To say that all the gods are various forms of the one Impersonal Brahman is the Mayavada Philosophy taught by Shankaracharya.

 

[...]

 

Here is what Lord Krishna says about the Devas:

"Neither the hosts of devas nor the great sages know My origin or opulences, for, in every respect, I am the source of the devas and sages." (Bhagavad-Gita 10:2)

Hare Krishna!

I did not say that Brahman is impersonal or personal. As for your quote, please go to my quote as I have changed it a bit. This is why I was so confused.

 

" Bhagavad-gītā 7.23

 

anta-vat — perishable; tu — but; phalam — fruit; teṣām — their; tat — that; bhavati — becomes; alpa-medhasām — of those of small intelligence; devān — to the demigods; deva-yajaḥ — the worshipers of the demigods; yānti — go; mat — My; bhaktāḥ — devotees; yānti — go; mām — to Me; api — also.

 

Emphasis is on the word “also” at the end. It seems to say that “those of small intelligence worship devas and their fruits are temporary and limited. Those who worship devas go to the devas and my devotees go to me also. It seems as though he is calling himself a deva. So you are right, Prabhupada has called all the others demigods in order to promote Krishna Consciousness.

 

I think that maybe its trying to say that one shouldn't approach other devas thinking they'll derive different benefits from them because they are ultimately getting their benefits from the same source -- which is Brahman (who is also the source of the devas and sages including Krishna)

[Bee]

 

Gita is Sruti as well as Smriti...

 

What does this mean? I would appreciate definitions

[Amlesh]

Sruti means words coming directly from the mouth of God....

Smriti means explanations of Sruti.. maybe from Prophet, Great sage et al.

 

Vedas is commonly regarded as Sruti...

Puranas as Smriti.

[bhaktajan]

There is a family tree and Grandpa is in charge.

In the Bhagavata-purana the family tree Starts with & proceeds as follows:

1) Brahma's Birth [155 Trillion B.C.] — Brahma's children — Brahma's Daughter-in-law & Son-in-laws — Brahma's grandchildren — Brahma's great-grandchildren

2) Brahma's first 50 years of his life have already passed —

3) Brahma's awakes afresh at the start of the Present Day (kalpa) — the first Manu (svayambhuva) is born — Kasyapa & his cousins re-populate the Universe (prajapatis)

4) The first to 6th Manus born, live and pass.

5) The 7th Manu is born

3) At the end of the 1st Maha-yuga of the 7th Manu— Mother Revati leaves to seek Husband (and 27 Maha-yuga later arrives to marry Balarama).

4) We are here now in the 28th Maha-yuga epoch [out of 71] of the present 7th Manu.

5) The family tree continues until the 11th Century CE.

Brahma is the First born person in the cosmos --he proceeded to populate the Brahmanda [universe] --the Family Tree of Personalities comprising the descendents of Brahma are enumerated thoroughly in the Bhagavata-purana.

The first and second generation of Brahma's Grandchildren are the Demigods.

Demigods are the superintendents of universal management.

Some demigods where the progenitors only and then resigned themselves to live lives of pleasure and preveledge in the realms of the celestial planetary systems which exist high above the north star [Dhruvaloka].

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Bhagavata-Purana 1.2.26:

"Those who are serious about liberation are certainly nonenvious, and they respect all. Yet they reject the horrible and ghastly forms of the demigods and worship only the all-blissful forms of Lord Vishnu and His plenary portions."

 

 

 

PURPORT

 

The Supreme Personality of Godhead Sri Krishna, who is the original person of the Vishnu categories, expands Himself in two different categories, namely integrated plenary portions and separated parts and parcels. The separated parts and parcels are the servitors, and the integrated plenary portions of Vishnu-tattvas are the worshipful objects of service.

All demigods who are empowered by the Supreme Lord are also separated parts and parcels. They do not belong to the categories of Vishnu-tattva. The Vishnu-tattvas are living beings equally as powerful as the original form of the Personality of Godhead, and They display different categories of power in consideration of different times and circumstances.

The separated parts and parcels are powerful by limitation. They do not have unlimited power like the Vishnu-tattvas. Therefore, one should never classify the Vishnu-tattvas, or the plenary portions of Narayana, the Personality of Godhead, in the same categories with the parts and parcels. If anyone does so he becomes at once an offender by the name pashandi. In the age of Kali many foolish persons commit such unlawful offenses and equalize the two categories.

The separated parts and parcels have different positions in the estimation of material powers, and some of them are like Kala-bhairava, ShmaShana-bhairava, Shani, Mahakali and Candika. These demigods are worshiped mostly by those who are in the lowest categories of the mode of darkness or ignorance.

Other demigods, like Brahma, Shiva, Surya, Ganesha and many similar deities, are worshiped by men in the mode of passion, urged on by the desire for material enjoyment. But those who are actually situated in the mode of goodness (sattva-guna) of material nature worship only Vishnu-tattvas. Vishnu-tattvas are represented by various names and forms, such as Narayana, Damodara, Vamana, Govinda and Adhokshaja.

The qualified brahmanas worship the Vishnu-tattvas represented by the Shalagrama-Shila, and some of the higher castes like the kshatriyas and vaishyas also generally worship the Vishnu-tattvas.

Highly qualified brahmanas situated in the mode of goodness have no grudges against the mode of worship of others. They have all respect for other demigods, even though they may look ghastly, like Kala-bhairava or Mahakali.

They know very well that those horrible features of the Supreme Lord are all different servitors of the Lord under different conditions, yet they reject the worship of both horrible and attractive features of the demigods, and they concentrate only on the forms of Vishnu because they are serious about liberation from the material conditions.

The demigods, even to the stage of Brahma, the supreme of all the demigods, cannot offer liberation to anyone. Hiranyakashipu underwent a severe type of penance to become eternal in life, but his worshipful deity, Brahma, could not satisfy him with such blessings.

Therefore Vishnu, and none else, is called mukti-pada, or the Personality of Godhead who can bestow upon us mukti, liberation. The demigods, being like other living entities in the material world, are all liquidated at the time of the annihilation of the material structure.

They are themselves unable to get liberation, and what to speak of giving liberation to their devotees. The demigods can award the worshipers some temporary benefit only, and not the ultimate one.

It is for this reason only that candidates for liberation deliberately reject the worship of the demigods, although they have no disrespect for any one of them.

[mahak]

most of my peers think that all but krsna is "merely" a demigod, but further study of great theistic works like the teachings of lord chaitanya clear this issue up quite well. I cringe every time i hear Brahma and Siva referred to as demigods, as if they are like mick jagger (referred to as a demigod by srila prabhupada).

 

Demigod refers to extraordinarily empowered persons, but Avatars are incarnations of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Ganesha is not merely a powerful person, he is the scribe of the Supreme Person who gives us sruti and smriti. Durga is a partial expansion of the supreme goddess without any tinge of being ordinary yet powerful.

 

Anyway, nuff said, I have heard years and tears of disrespect toward my heroes by those who are displeasing Krsna by vilifying his devotees, These personalities are fully worthy of worship (knowing, of course, whom they worship, as narada acknowledged in Lord Brahma), not disdain or consideration as something not owrth even mentioning as vaisnavas.

 

mahaksadasa

[vedicnotes]

As we create a wish list of finite objects while worshipping, we do not try to connect to the One Who is Absolute Truth, Consciousness, and Infinite Bliss but apply for the blessings of a finite potency that can fulfill our dreams.

 

In Hindu spirituality, this concept becomes explicit as certain expressions of divinity have become culturally associated with specific objects or gains that they can bestow upon us. While the principal forms of God, including Lord Krishna and Lord Shiva, are worshipped selflessly by followers as the manifestations of Brahman (the Absolute Reality), the lesser forms (demigods) are traditionally remembered only when their followers need a specific object in life.

 

In the Bhagavad Gita, Lord Krishna promises that whenever we desire something due to our ignorance and select a demigod to achieve it, He fixes our faith on the selected form so that our wishes may be easily fulfilled (VII: 20-21). Along these lines, the thousands of demigods in Hindu mythology, all elements of the same divinity, can also be understood as God’s reciprocation to our own desires.

 

(excerpted from my article at vedic.notes.googlepages.com/wishlist.htm)

[Bee]

Ufff , seriously this is confusing . I give up. I have tried my very best to seperate these Gods in my head but I cannot. Refering to them as demi-Gods is also very demeaning. Yes I cringe too everytime I hear it. For one thing, my family are not Vaishnavas. They worship one God, not for any material benefit. My favourite God is Krishna, but the problem arises when I have to accept that my family are foolish and stupid for worshiping another God. I cannot think of them like that. For me, this is like trying to take joy from a faith which tells me that my good parents are going to hell for worshipping the wrong "God". Where is the spirtuality/peace in this? I am no better than my parents, and I do not want to end up with an ego over my head saying I am superior and more clever than my parents for worshipping right God over "demi-God". And to be honest, I have noticed some people with such ego over their head. Sorry about the rant there but this is seriously very confusing.

[CCC]

 

Ufff , seriously this is confusing . I give up. I have tried my very best to seperate these Gods in my head but I cannot. Refering to them as demi-Gods is also very demeaning. Yes I cringe too everytime I hear it. For one thing, my family are not Vaishnavas. They worship one God, not for any material benefit. My favourite God is Krishna, but the problem arises when I have to accept that my family are foolish and stupid for worshiping another God. I cannot think of them like that. For me, this is like trying to take joy from a faith which tells me that my good parents are going to hell for worshipping the wrong "God". Where is the spirtuality/peace in this? I am no better than my parents, and I do not want to end up with an ego over my head saying I am superior and more clever than my parents for worshipping right God over "demi-God". And to be honest, I have noticed some people with such ego over their head. Sorry about the rant there but this is seriously very confusing.

 

I understand your confusion... when I have this kind of confusion i just take my japa and chant the holy name, the maha mantra will give you peace of mind

[MikeMalaysia]

 

Ufff , seriously this is confusing . I give up. I have tried my very best to seperate these Gods in my head but I cannot. Refering to them as demi-Gods is also very demeaning.

 

Well, refer to them as gods. god (with a small 'g') is the actual meaning of deva anyway. Srila Prabhupada used the word 'demigod' because there is no accurate translation of deva in the English language and he wanted to emphasise Krishna's supremacy, which is taught in the Vedic literature. But the word 'deva' does mean 'god'. The Latin word 'divinus' comes from the Sanskrit word 'deva'. Even the Latin word for god, Deus (spelled DEVS), probably came from 'deva' (Sanskrit -a ending corresponds to Greek -os and Latin -us endings, e.g. Sanskrit 'pada' = Greek 'podos'). I would not be surprised of the original Latin spelling of 'Deus' was 'Devus' ('DEVVS' as Latin had no letter 'u').

 

So just refer to the gods as 'gods' or 'devas'. I hope that this will clear up any issues.

 

 

Yes I cringe too everytime I hear it. For one thing, my family are not Vaishnavas. They worship one God, not for any material benefit. My favourite God is Krishna, but the problem arises when I have to accept that my family are foolish and stupid for worshiping another God. I cannot think of them like that. For me, this is like trying to take joy from a faith which tells me that my good parents are going to hell for worshipping the wrong "God". Where is the spirtuality/peace in this? I am no better than my parents, and I do not want to end up with an ego over my head saying I am superior and more clever than my parents for worshipping right God over "demi-God". And to be honest, I have noticed some people with such ego over their head. Sorry about the rant there but this is seriously very confusing.

 

Lord Krishna says in the Bhagavad-Gita: "As soon as one desires to worship some deva, I make that faith of his steady so that he can devote himself to that particular deity. Endowed with such a faith, he endeavors to worship a particular deva and obtains his desires. But in actuality these benefits are bestowed by Me alone" (Bhagavad-Gita 7:21-22)

 

Lord Krishna also states that "Those who are devotees of other gods and who worship them with faith actually worship only Me, O son of Kunti, but they do so in a wrong way" (Bhagavad-Gita 9:23).

 

Just devote yourself to Krishna, chant His Holy Names, sing kirtan, eat Krishna-prasadam, and don't worry about your family. Concentrate on your own devotion to Krishna, and perhaps they will also become Krishna devotees.

[vedicnotes]

 

Ufff , seriously this is confusing . I give up. I have tried my very best to seperate these Gods in my head but I cannot. Refering to them as demi-Gods is also very demeaning. Yes I cringe too everytime I hear it. For one thing, my family are not Vaishnavas. They worship one God, not for any material benefit. My favourite God is Krishna, but the problem arises when I have to accept that my family are foolish and stupid for worshiping another God.

While I can not come up with a comprehensive list, selected forms of Brahman have become traditionally associated with selfless worship in the Hindu world:

 

Vishnu (Rama and Krishna), Shiva, Mother Goddess (Durga), Ganesha, Katikaye, Hanuman, Savita (Gayatri mantra)

 

To respect all followers of Sanatana Dharma, we should atleast refrain from using "demigod" (even "deva" with an inferior meaning) for any of these forms. We all have to understand that each Purana presents similar spiritual tales from different perspectives. Puranas for Krishna assume that He is the Supreme Soul. Similarly, literature for Ganesha shows that He is the Lord. Yet they were all written by the same author (Ved Vyas).

 

The beauty of Sanatana Dharma is that it gives us a choice to make our own spiritual model. We can even worship all these forms together (without specifying an ista-devata) with the belief that the same Brahman manifests in all these forms. And we can also opt for an Impersonal God.

[gHari]

I think Lord Krishna has used the word 'also' meaning: just as someone goes to them if they worship them, those who worship Me come to Me.

[Trivedi]

 

There is a family tree and Grandpa is in charge.

 

Hey maha prabhu , all depends on which "family tree book" you refer to. In Godess mythology (Pradamika Rakashya of Devi bhagavatam) the tree is very different for example.

 

Godess is the head and in charge. From goddess emerged three pairs . From satva guna of goddess manifested the satva pair Siva and Saraswati both White in colour as brother and sister. From the rajas guna of the suprime goidess came the rajas pair Bhrama and Lakshmi Yellow in colour. From Thamas guna of the goddess emerged the thamasic pair Vishnu amd Kali both dark in colour . Then Siva married to Kali Brahma to Saraswati and Vishnu to Lakshmi . Amd from these three pairs of husband and wife all other beings came.

 

There are other family trees as well in other purana texts.

 

It seems there is no one single family tyree. Truth is no one knows who came from whome Mahaprabhu.

 

Trivedi

[MikeMalaysia]

 

To respect all followers of Sanatana Dharma, we should atleast refrain from using "demigod" (even "deva" with an inferior meaning) for any of these forms. We all have to understand that each Purana presents similar spiritual tales from different perspectives. Puranas for Krishna assume that He is the Supreme Soul. Similarly, literature for Ganesha shows that He is the Lord. Yet they were all written by the same author (Ved Vyas).

 

There are eighteen Puranas.

Six are in the mode of goodness:

Vishnu Purana

Bhagavata Purana

Naradiya Purana

Garuda Purana

Padma Purana

Varaha Purana

 

Six are in the mode of passion:

Brahmanda Purana

Brahma Vaivarta Purana

Markandeya Purana

Bhavishya Purana

Vamana Purana

Brahma Purana

 

Six are in the mode of ignorance:

Matsya Purana

Linga Purana

Agni Purana

Shiva Purana

Skanda Purana

Kurma Purana

 

The Bhagavad-Gita states that goodness is better than passion and ignorance, so naturally we would want to go with those Puranas in the mode of goodness.

 

The "Ganesha Purana" which I am assuming you are referring to with regard to scriptures saying that Lord Ganesha was the Supreme Lord, is not listed with the other Puranas. That is because it was a later creation, written by people who already believed that Lord Ganesha was the Supreme Lord, to justify their beliefs. It contains the "Ganesha Gita" which is pretty much a plagiarism of the Bhagavad-Gita but with Ganesha put in the place of Krishna as the Supreme Lord. Such a thing would be like re-writing Lord of the Rings but putting Sam Gamgee or Merry or Pippin as the Ringbearer instead of Frodo.

 

 

The beauty of Sanatana Dharma is that it gives us a choice to make our own spiritual model. We can even worship all these forms together (without specifying an ista-devata) with the belief that the same Brahman manifests in all these forms. And we can also opt for an Impersonal God.

 

Lord Krishna states in Bhagavad-Gita (9:23) that those who worship other gods actually worship Him but in a wrong way.

 

To believe that God is impersonal is to indirectly deny the existence of God.

 

Since we possess individuality, it is logical that our ultimate source doesn't possess individuality? Since we can normally observe that personality is superior to an impersonal energy, we can conclude that personality is superior to impersonal energy. Since the Vedanta sutra explains that the Absolute Truth is the source of all existence, it must also be the source of personality and possess personality.

 

The Mayavadis (impersonalists) say that the Brahman is manifested in a personal form in this material world. How can something personal be manifested from something impersonal? Where do we have an experience of such a phenomena? Lord Krsna explains in Bhagavad-Gita 7:24 that this theory is extremely illogical and indicates a lack of intelligence.

 

Furthermore, the Padma Purana states:

 

vedartavan mahashastram mayavadam avaidikam |

maya eva kathitam devi jagatam nashakaranat ||

 

"The theory of Mayavadism - though given a facade of great importance and claiming itself to be derived from the Vedas - is in truth a non-Vedic theory. O Goddess (Parvati)! It is I [Lord Shiva] who has propagated this concocted theory, which will become the cause of the world’s destruction."

[Trivedi]

 

Well, refer to them as gods. god (with a small 'g') is the actual meaning of deva anyway. Srila Prabhupada used the word 'demigod' because there is no accurate translation of deva in the English language and he wanted to emphasise Krishna's supremacy, which is taught in the Vedic literature. But the word 'deva' does mean 'god'. The Latin word 'divinus' comes from the Sanskrit word 'deva'. Even the Latin word for god, Deus (spelled DEVS), probably came from 'deva' (Sanskrit -a ending corresponds to Greek -os and Latin -us endings, e.g. Sanskrit 'pada' = Greek 'podos'). I would not be surprised of the original Latin spelling of 'Deus' was 'Devus' ('DEVVS' as Latin had no letter 'u').

 

So just refer to the gods as 'gods' or 'devas'. I hope that this will clear up any issues.

 

There is no small g and big G in the case of God. God is one and is always big G . The small g comes from the smallness or petiness of the devoties.

 

 

 

Lord Krishna says in the Bhagavad-Gita: "As soon as one desires to worship some deva, I make that faith of his steady so that he can devote himself to that particular deity. Endowed with such a faith, he endeavors to worship a particular deva and obtains his desires. But in actuality these benefits are bestowed by Me alone" (Bhagavad-Gita 7:21-22)

 

That again proves the point that the small g is actually the big G (Krishna) . All worship goes to one God.

 

Lord Krishna also states that "Those who are devotees of other gods and who worship them with faith actually worship only Me, O son of Kunti, but they do so in a wrong way" (Bhagavad-Gita 9:23).

 

Again proves explictly there is only one God. (The "wrong way" refered to here refers to the petiness of the devoties - their ignorance of thinking that there are different gods - there is no other wrongness) .

 

Just devote yourself to Krishna, chant His Holy Names, sing kirtan, eat Krishna-prasadam, and don't worry about your family. Concentrate on your own devotion to Krishna, and perhaps they will also become Krishna devotees.

 

Devote to that One God. There is nothing wrong with your Parents except thinking you are worshipping a demigod . Dont commit that mistake your self . Know that they and you are worshipping the same One God only.

 

Trivedi

[MikeMalaysia]

 

There is no small g and big G in the case of God. God is one and is always big G . The small g comes from the smallness or petiness of the devoties.

 

Lord Krishna is the Supreme Lord. He is the source of all spiritual and material worlds, and everything emanates from Him.

 

There is a great misconception about the gods or devas of this material world, and men of less intelligence, although passing as great scholars, take these devas to be various forms of the Supreme Lord. Actually, the devas are not different forms of God, but they are God's different parts and parcels. God is one, and the parts and parcels are many. The Vedas say, nityo nityanam God is one. Ishvarah paramah krishnah. The Supreme God is one — Krishna — and the devas are delegated with powers to manage this material world. These devas are all living entities (nityanam) with different grades of material power. They cannot be equal to the Supreme God — Narayana, Vishnu, or Krishna. Anyone who thinks that God and the devas are on the same level is called an atheist, or pashandi. Even the great devas like Brahma and Shiva cannot be compared to the Supreme Lord. In fact, the Lord is worshiped by devas such as Brahma and Shiva (shiva-virinci-nutam).

[gHari]

Yes, Lord Brahma can be seen as our father - certainly our ancestor, materially.

[Saraba Iyar]

 

Yes, Lord Brahma can be seen as our father - certainly our ancestor, materially.

 

But ARJ's the point is still valied. Threre is nothing that Mike Malasysia quotes -Krishna being the one god and the like - to be found anywhere in Vedas.

And Bhrama didnot write Vedas.

 

Saraba Iyar.

[Hiranyagarpa]

Dear Saraba Iyar,

 

Why are you Wasting your time ? Fools and fenetics will never learn even if you showthem the truth directly. Fools cannot learn And fanatics doesnot want to learn.

 

Your posting on the vetic gods is correct. I also heard of this in our own tradition, though I am not a vedic priest. I appreciate your post very much. It clarifies lots of issues. Your position is authentic.

 

But remember You are dealing with a bunch of fenetics, not with an open minded sincere spiritual learners. These fanactics are cock sure of their position, they will not change They dont understand logic and dont consider evidence. (I have some experience before you). Even if Krishna comes and tells them the truth, they will ceal the mouth of Krishna or murder him and continue to preach vehimently their own doctrine.

 

Dont waste your time and energy with these bunch of fanatics. Leave them with their own evil karma.

 

With High regards,

Hiranyagarpa.

[Bee]

 

Well, refer to them as gods. god (with a small 'g') is the actual meaning of deva anyway. Srila Prabhupada used the word 'demigod' because there is no accurate translation of deva in the English language and he wanted to emphasise Krishna's supremacy, which is taught in the Vedic literature. But the word 'deva' does mean 'god'. The Latin word 'divinus' comes from the Sanskrit word 'deva'. Even the Latin word for god, Deus (spelled DEVS), probably came from 'deva' (Sanskrit -a ending corresponds to Greek -os and Latin -us endings, e.g. Sanskrit 'pada' = Greek 'podos'). I would not be surprised of the original Latin spelling of 'Deus' was 'Devus' ('DEVVS' as Latin had no letter 'u').

 

Dear Mike, it is not as easy as you think. To me they are all forms of Brahman, regardless of whether Prabhupada thinks I am a “mayavad”. I cannot separate them in my mind. I always thought that Krishna is Brahman (the actual source) and you can worship Brahman in any form like Krishna. But reading the Gita (more specially the “as it is” version) I came across something entirely different to what I have been taught from birth.

 

 

The beauty of Sanatana Dharma is that it gives us a choice to make our own spiritual model. We can even worship all these forms together (without specifying an ista-devata) with the belief that the same Brahman manifests in all these forms. And we can also opt for an Impersonal God.

 

This is what I was saying. I agree with you, but I have encountered a whole host of people on the net who will call this form of worship “mayavad”, and I am inclined to think majority of these comments are coming from ISKCON followers because they keep quoting Prabhupada. I have never encountered such comments before. If I believe something different to them, then I am automatically a “mayavad” and foolish. I always thought Hinduism meant that “all paths are equally valid and true” but obviously this is not the case according to many Hindus.

 

 

Trivedi

Devote to that One God. There is nothing wrong with your Parents except thinking you are worshipping a demigod . Dont commit that mistake your self . Know that they and you are worshipping the same One God only.

 

Thank you.

 

 

Lord Krishna is the Supreme Lord. He is the source of all spiritual and material worlds, and everything emanates from Him.

I never disagreed with that because Lord Krishna is Brahman and everything emanates from Brahman. Shiva, Durga, etc are also Brahman. They are all supreme.

 

 

The Vedas say, nityo nityanam God is one.

You need not go further than that. The Rig Veda says that "Truth is one, the sages call it by many names." What troubles me most about ISKCON is that they put Jehovah, Buddha, Allah up there as being the same as Krishna but the rest are unintelligent, mayavadi worshippers of “demi-Gods” or Devas. Well I will continue to remain unintelligent.