And then considering the Lord and the demigods on the same level. Or assuming that there are many Gods. God is one. It is nonsense to think that there are many Gods. If there are many Gods, then there is no meaning of "God." Ekam eva advitīyam. The Vedas say God is one, without any second, without any competitor. If God has competitor, then He's not God. The definition of God is that supreme.
So if there are many, then how God can be Supreme? God is great. "God is great" means nobody is greater than Him, nobody is equal to Him. Everybody is under Him. You may have very high qualifications, but you cannot be equal to God. God is one. Therefore the Māyāvādīs' philosophy that, "You can accept, by imagination, any form of God and that is all right," no. You should have the actually the form of God.
Just like Kṛṣṇa says, mam ekam. Ekam means only one, "Unto Me." Of course, there are many other forms of God, but in order to concentrate your mind perfectly, you should only think of Kṛṣṇa. Mām ekaṁ śaraṇaṁ vraja (BG 18.66). So we do not accept this nonsense philosophy that any name we chant, it becomes God. No. God's name. Of course, a God's name may be sounding . . . just like you say "water", I say jala.
But it means . . . that object is the same. Similarly, if you have got actually any name for God, that's all right—otherwise take to Kṛṣṇa. Kṛṣṇa means "all-attractive," and God's name cannot be otherwise. If God is not all-attractive, then He's not God. If God is attractive for a certain type of man or certain class of men and not attractive for others, then He's not God.
So you see Kṛṣṇa's activities, Kṛṣṇa's bodily feature, Kṛṣṇa's instruction, it is one, sublime. Sublime. Therefore He's God. And it is not our sentiment, but it is confirmed by the Vedic literature. Bhagavata says, kṛṣṇas tu bhagavān svayam (SB 1.3.28): "Kṛṣṇa is the Supreme Personality of Godhead." Brahma-saṁhitā says, īśvara parama-kṛṣṇa (Bs. 5.1). There are many gods, demigods, but God is one. Arjuna says, paraḥ brahma, every living entity is Brahman, but He's paraḥ brahma, the Supreme Brahman.
And Kṛṣṇa says in the Bhagavad-gītā, mattaḥ parataraṁ nasti kiñcid asti dhanañjaya (BG 7.7): "There is nothing more superior than Me." So these . . . are we have to take evidences from the śāstra, kṛṣṇas tu bhagavan svayam. So nobody should think that, "If I chant the name of this demigod or that demigod, this is equal to chant the name of Hari or Kṛṣṇa." No, that is an offense. This is third offense.
Then neglecting the orders of the spiritual master. The beginning of initiation is to voluntarily accept the spiritual master, to abide by his order. So, if you disobey his order, then it is offense. This is fourth offense.
Fifth offense: interpreting the holy name of God. Interpreting. Because we have got very fertile brains, we can interpret in so many ways. Māyā gives us such knowledge, this way and that way, that way. No. Don’t try to interpret. Therefore we are presenting Bhagavad-gītā as it is. No interpretation. Kṛṣṇa says that, mām ekaṁ śaraṇaṁ vraja (BG 18.66). Kṛṣṇa says: "Just surrender unto Me," and we are teaching, "Just surrender to Kṛṣṇa." Is there any difference? No difference. Therefore in speaking we are actually the representative of Kṛṣṇa. Kṛṣṇa says: "Surrender unto Me." And we, in the disciplic succession of this Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement, we are also speaking, "Just surrender to Kṛṣṇa."
We do not imitate, do not interpret that, "This 'Me' means me." The Māyāvādī philosopher, they say, everyone can say: "Me" means "I", "unto me." But is that grammatically correct? Eh? If I say that, "Please give me a glass of water," now if everyone of you say that, "This 'me' means me," so you take every one of us wants a glass of water, this is nonsense interpreting. But the Māyāvādī philosophers, because they are atheists, because they do not accept the existence of God, they interpret the śāstras in different way so that . . . but that cannot stand. That may be very nice to some foolish men, but actually, if some . . . they meet some intelligent man, then they are dividend . . . so this sort of interpretation is useless.