|Brahma has been listed as a level-4 vital article in Philosophy. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as C-Class.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
- 1 Trinity reference
- 2 Page move
- 3 Merge request
- 4 Brahmastra
- 5 Lead image
- 6 Speculations on Biblical connections
- 7 How was Brahma created?
- 8 Shiva doesn't create Vishnu
- 9 Carnatic music
- 10 Brahma's wife
- 11 Who told Vedas are 4?. It is five
- 12 File:The Genealogy of Bharata.png Nominated for Deletion
- 13 His Daughter
- 14 Big Problem
- 15 Kalpwasi as worshippers of Brahma
Unless anybody has some good evidence as to why the word Trinity appears in this sentence: "Bhrigu then set off to find the greatest among the Trinity." Then I suggest it is replaced by the word triad. Mind you a trinity is not 3 dieties, but 3 Persons (who's) in 1 Being (what). Unless Vishnu, Brahma, and Shiva inhabit 1 body, its a triad, or three different beings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Glorthac (talk • contribs) 16:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
- The page for Trimurti claims: "One type of depiction for the Trimurti shows three heads on one neck, and often even three faces on one head, each looking in a different direction." Which is exactly what you said; three persons in one being. The Being being the Brahman. Trimurti may be the best word, but I think your aversion to the word Trinity is your perception of it in relation to Christianity. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 05:58, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Given that Brahma the god is the only thing mentioned in Wikipedia which is called Brahma, other than a brand of beer, why don't we move this page to Brahma and move the current contents of Brahma to Brahman (disambiguation)? - Nat Krause 14:46, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Seems like the Thai form of Brahma deserves attention in itself. If the articles are merged it will be important to retain attention to the Thai contexts of Brahma veneration as an important link to Hindu practices in Thailand, showing the continuity within the Indic/Dharmic religious tradtion into the wider context of Thai Buddhism. It might be worth coonsdiering a longer essay on Thai religion, or a more expanded discussion in the Thai Buddhism article of the role of the Hindu devas in Thai worship.
- I agree - the Phra phom article is better as a page in itself, or as an additional entry on another page. Is sounds similar to the Brahma (Buddhism) entry also. I am removing the merge notice. GourangaUK 11:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
- I think most of the iconography is same in Phra phom and Brahma. The Phra phom article starts with saying "Phra Phrom is the Thai representation of the Hindu god Brahma". So Phra Phrom can be merged in Brahma or a reference to Phra phom can be included in Brahma article.--Redtigerxyz 10:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
There should be some discussion / hyperlinks to Brahmastra, the arrow/weapon made by Brahma.
link here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahmastra
The current image is a sculpture but I think so it should be an image or an old painting for the time being and later into a modern image.--Donrub 18:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- Even i think it can be an PD-art image.--Redtigerxyz 12:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Speculations on Biblical connections
I found in the page talking about Abraham 'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham' a section called "Speculations on Hindu connections" that talks about alleged connections between biblical Abraham and hindu Brahma. So whether such a connection is true or not, i think if it is mentioned in the page of Abraham why isn't it in this article, too. Well it should be since it is shared information about both, especially that it is supported by references. I am not very good in wiki or even english so i did what i thought is best. I didn't know how to add the references. so if u can help that would be great. the only thing i changed is the title from "Speculations on Hindu connections" to "Speculations on Biblical connections" since that would make more since when posted about the Hindu Brahma. – — … ° ≈ ≠ ≤ ≥ ± − × ÷ ← → · § Samimas: Samimas (talk) 14:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- Unfortunately that whole section is poorly sourced to Hindu, Muslim, and Christian blogs/extremist sites. If you wish to add relevant information please find appropriate sources, such as scholarly articles or books on the subject. Abecedare (talk) 06:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
- I thought that perhaps there is a reliable Proto-Indo-European dictionary out there that can connect the words together, just like Zeus and Dyaus Pitar. But of course, a major hole in this hypothesis is that Hebrew isn't an Indo-European language, and that the established etymologies for each word are fairly different. Maybe they have a common ancestor in the Proto-World language, but until qualified experts begin researching this is more detail and publish their views in the form of reliable sources, the "speculation" will remain as WP:OR. GizzaDiscuss © 07:15, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, any etymological connection would have to be sourced to a scholarly source.
AFAIK, the whole Brahma-Abraham link is based on an isolated quote from Voltaire's, 1764 Dictionnaire philosophique (see page 18) where he writes (emphasis added):
For the rest, this name of Bram, or Abram, was famous in Judæa and in Persia. Several of the learned even assert that he was the same legislator whom the Greeks called Zoroaster. Others say that he was the Brahma of the Indians, which is not demonstrated. But it appears very reasonable to many that this Abraham was a Chaldæan or a Persian, from whom the Jews afterwards boasted of having descended, as the Franks did of their descent from Hector, and the Britons from Tubal.
Given the minor and admittedly speculative sentence, I don't think this needs to be mentioned in the article; but if others feel otherwise, at least it is verifiable. However, references to hinduunity.org, cyberistan.org and viewzone.com, to establish currency of such beliefs is silly.
There was a recent attempt by now-banned User:DWhiskaZ and his socks to draw links between Mohammad and the Bhavishya Purana etc on various pages (see  for example); I don't know if this is linked in anyway since another of his sock User:Hindustan10 recently edited this article too. Abecedare (talk) 07:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
How was Brahma created?
The Hindus say that Brahma sprouted out of Vishnus navel in a lotus flower. Shiva created Vishnu. Brahma and Vishnu had to help create Earth and humans. Brahmas son was King Daksha.
Shiva doesn't create Vishnu
According to Vaishanvism, Vishnu is eternal and Shiva is a manifestation of Vishnu. According to Shaivism, Vishnu is a manifestation of Shiva. But shiva didn't create Vishnu.
Who told Vedas are 4?. It is five
Who told Vedas are 4?. It is five
1. Rig Veda 2. Yajur Veda 3.Sama Veda 4.Adarva Veda 5.Pranava Veda
Veda Vyasan he redused Vedas 5 in to 4.
Thats why he clled as Veda Vysa. That means who reduced Veda known as Vysa.
And 1 thing is that
Brahma- Brihaspathi-Lord Viswakarma-(all are same we can see in Vedas in different Rik) has five heads
1.1st head-Brahma (Creation) 2.2nd head-Vishnu (Stiti) 3.3rd head-Rudra (Samharam)
According to Hindu mythology there Brahma has only 3 heads
But in Vedas not in Puranas
There are 2 heads also.each have different responsibilities.
4. 4th head-Maheswara (Thirobhavam) 5. 5th head- Sadasiva (Anugraham)
In Hindu mythology we can see all gods have troubles.
That time they preying for some one ? Who is that............?
That is creator. Lord Brahma.
In Hindu Pojja we are having Ganapathi Pooja,,,,,,,,,,?
Who is Ganapathi,,,,,,,,,,?
Ganam means a group. Pathi means head of something
So how can we cay this elephant headed shape can has a Pathi
In Puranas we can see he is son of Siva..
So how can he become Pathi of a group?
Thats what we can see Vyasa reduced Vedas. Because he want to reduce the importance of Brahma or Jagatpita or Viswakarma.
In Ganapathi Pooja we can understand that Manthra indicate or it giving for Brahma.....
That start from like that....
ommm sahasra sheersha purusha sahasraksha
According to Veda god is one
That is Brahma
He created all things Brahma the creator and almighty of entire universe
In Purana describes only based on earth but in Vedas it describer entire universe
I have to disagree almost completely to the above comment for the following reasons:
1. The Vedas are infinite in number. They are infinitely long, but are classified into 4 for convenience. Veda Vyasa did not reduce 5 to 4. What he actually did was increase it from 3 to 4 (or 1 to 4, because the 3 Vedas were together at that time), from Trayeevidya to Chaturvidya. Atharva Veda was not accepted by the Trayeevidya school of thought back then, because it does not lead one to salvation. When the Vedas, which were one, yet many, were thus not clearly classified, Vedavyasa split them into 4.
2. Brahma, Bruhaspati and Vishwakarma are different. Brahma has 4 heads, not 5. His 5th head was chopped by Shiva. By the way, Shiva has 5 heads.
3. Neither Shiva nor Vishnu is quoted in the Puranas, Itihasas or Vedas to have asked Brahma to save them from trouble.
4. The mantra you relate to Ganapati Pooja has nothing to do with Ganapati in particular. It is a shloka from Purusha Sookta, and the last word of the first line is Sahasrapat, not Sahasrapal.
5. The Vedas say that there's only one God. This God is Brahman, not Brahma. Vyasa did not want to reduce the importance of Brahma. He split the Vedas to make it easier for beings like us to learn them, because in the Kali Yuga, man is said to lose his ability to become a Chaturvedi.
6. Last, but not the least, Veda Vyasa is believed to be Vishnu himself. As the popular shloka goes,"Vyasaaya Vishnuroopaaya Vyaasaroopaaya Vishnave".
7. I couldn't understand the reason behind your mentioning of Ganapati. I request you to explain further.
-- Srinath Ravi
File:The Genealogy of Bharata.png Nominated for Deletion
|An image used in this article, File:The Genealogy of Bharata.png, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 16 February 2012
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:The Genealogy of Bharata.png)
Is it true ,that Bhrama had create with his daugther all creatures, i mean animals and humans? I just want to know it... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 10:35, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
I've noticed (being a Sanskritist) that there is big problem with this article, that is that the term Brahma is most often used in Hindu canon to refer to Brahman, rather than the deva (demigod) Brahma of this article. Yet the mention of the difference is not at the beginning of the article and it is not very clear, I think it needs to be moved to the beginning and made more clear that Brahma more often means Brahman. This is a problem if people come across a reference to Brahman written as Brahma in Hindu shastras, and then look it up here and read only the beginning of this article and then think it refers to the demigod rather than Brahman, for example this from the beginning of the 1st chapter of the Mahabharata (Ganguly edition) is a good example:
"Sauti then said, 'Having bowed down to the primordial being Isana, to whom multitudes make offerings, and who is adored by the multitude; who is the true incorruptible one, Brahma, perceptible, imperceptible, eternal; who is both a non-existing and an existing-non-existing being; who is the universe and also distinct from the existing and non-existing universe; who is the creator of high and low; the ancient, exalted, inexhaustible one; who is Vishnu, beneficent and the beneficence itself, worthy of all preference, pure and immaculate; who is Hari, the ruler of the faculties, the guide of all things moveable and immoveable; I will declare the sacred thoughts of the illustrious sage Vyasa, of marvellous deeds and worshipped here by all."
As is seen, the use of Brahma is meant as Brahman. This is common in Sanskrit Hindu shastras, see in more detail at the Brahman article subsection etymology, Brahman#Semantics_and_pronunciation
Kalpwasi as worshippers of Brahma
The Tribune  is the only source (July 2013) which makes the assertion that Kalpwasi are part of the Akhara that worship Brahma. This seem to be a WP:FRINGE and this blog (Jan 2013). The Tribune is not a WP:RS on matters of religion. I did not find this claim in any scholarly book. Kalpwasis are defined in most scholarly books, as pilgrims who live an asutere life in the month of Magha and are related to the Kumbha Mela. Pilgrimage and Power: The Kumbh Mela in Allahabad, 1765-1954 By Kama Maclean (Oxford University Ptress), Hinduism Today, The Hindu, BBC. --Redtigerxyz Talk 07:56, 24 November 2014 (UTC)