1882:
issue. The only matter for debate is that the puranic view of Brahma is not the only or even primary depiction of Brahma across Hindu denominations. In fact if we're agreed that Brahma is not often worshiped in the popular religion, then maybe you could concede that we are depicting the historical development of Brahma (who was around for thousands of years before the
Vaishnav Puranas. It's like defining Moses by the New Testament. Sure it mentions him, but it's not a book about him. The Krishna Sourcebook in no way claims to be about Brahma, it just mentions him. The fact that Brahma is viewed multiple ways is being undercut by your biased edit. You don't add anything new to the article, you just rearrange it to emphasize your position which doesn't make the article better, but clearly makes neutrality issues. You are presenting your point in an undue way by putting this definition at the top. One author interpreting Brahma as different than Prajapati doesn't mean that there aren't as many (or more) that define him as the same. And the fact that Bryant isn't a fringe author doesn't mean that the Puranas he describes aren't sectarian (because Bryant clearly says they are in the quote you furnished). No one is trying to remove the view of 'secondary creator'; it just needs to be placed appropriately. It is not the primary definition or even a general definition (and no other encyclopedia seems to put any emphasis on this fairly insignificant concept). Rather it is just one of several sectarian views that (no matter how poplular) should not be presented as the primary view. My sources clearly show the many darshanas that don't hold the 'puranic' view your asserting. So stop arguing facts about Prajapati and Bryant which are not at issue and read up on how the intro is supposed to look. We just want a balanced presentation of all views. That's how wiki works. Not by stubbornly guarding an article like it's yours.
1767:. Where's your source that says "the popular/mainstream view of Brahma in Hinduism is as a secondary creator"? To mix those to make your conclusion is exactly synthesis and OR. And, like many puranas, the Kanda Purana doesn't even mention Vishnu or Brahma in its creation myth "There are three major ontological categories or principles of being in the kandapuranam: Shiva, Shakti, and asura (or, the "demonic"), in this descending order of encompassment." Myths of Murugan: Asymmetry and Hierarchy in a South Indian Puranic Cosmology, Author(s): Don Handelman Source: History of Religions, Vol. 27, No. 2 (Nov., 1987), pp. 133-170. Meanwhile if you want to accuse me of making things up name a single example of something I made up. You made baseless claims against every source I've offered for me to refute one-by-one. First you ask for secondary sources. Then you say they don't reference their sources even when the first sentence of the first full quote is a list of sources. You say they are unreliable and primary but they are all academic, from journals of religious studies and secondary sources. The quote from the Rig Veda was the only primary source I gave and I was pointing to that page's citations, not just the quote (though the source of the translation, Griffith gives the same interpretation of Brahma). And the only actual issue debated here is that the popular view (which you only partially present) does not trump the general view, the historical view, or the mainstream academic view in an article's introduction. These need to be presented side by side and none gets the weight you assign here.
1469:"With the basic elements thus evolved, Brahmã-Prajãpati is introduced, and the creation of beings and all the world commences (sarvabhutãni cãdãya tapasaš caranãya ca / ãdikartã mahãbhutam tam evãhuh prajãpatim ¡¡sa vai srjati bhiitãni sa èva purusah parafi / ajo janayate brahmã devarsipitrmãnavãn / / Mbh. 12. 224. 44-45, cr. ed. ). Here, then, the basic elements are created, and not préexistent, but after their creation, they do exist as the basic ontic stuff of the world. It is noteworthy that they evolve out of brahman (n.), but are the instruments of Brahma (m.) in his formation of the phenomenal world. As no mention is made of Brahma's origin, we may presume at least a vague identity with brahman, especially as it is mentioned in verse 29 that the cycle of creation and dissolution corresponds to the waking and sleeping of the Lord (iśvara ). This verse is possibly an insertion, for it is missing from the South Indian edition,18 but its inclusion in the present text suggests the development of a theistic framework which, even if vague here, makes it a precursor of the mythology of Visnu sleeping on the ocean of milk, a motif which is accompanied by the hiranyagarbha image." THE CREATION ACCOUNT IN MANUSMṚTI, Author(s): James W. Laine, Source: Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Vol. 62, No. 1/4 (1981), pp. 157-168 (p.162)
1296:
tri-mûrti. The other two are Vishnu (as
Preserver) and Shiva (as Destroyer). Brahma must be carefully distinguished from brahman, which is the eternal, impersonal foundation of existence transcending all deities." -Feuerstein. Answer the question I've repeatedly asked you and stop dancing around citations. Your change alters the tone drastically and you're avoiding defending it. We both know that Vishnu is not worshipped as a primary deity in the samhitas of the Rig Veda where the Hiranyagarbha Sukta comes from. In fact Brahma was clearly a big deity with his own cult at different historical points. Prajapati refers to Brahma. I do not exactly have JSTOR access at home right now without driving to across town to Loyola, but any academic book on Brahma or the Rig Veda will agree with me, even if your book on Krishna is being presented as disagreeing (Bryant's quote says "In the Puranas" he was a secondary creator, and is explaining the puranas as alternately propping up Shiva or Vishnu, context missing from your contribution). Hiranyagarbha is born in the void. Hiranyagarbha = Prajapati. Prajapati = Brahma. How about two quotes from the glossary of The Yoga Tradition to elucidate on the Hiranyagarbha Sukta:
1346:. I'm pretty sure the other source, is the same one Bryant cites here, unless you happen to have that $ 100 hardcover sitting around. You don't give citations from anything about Brahma. And you haven't once tried to defend placing this in the intro, because that's the issue. You haven't once said the word intro/lead/lede in this whole conversation. My sources clearly state general facts about Brahma, Hiranyagarbha, Prajapati, etcetera without the qualifiers of 'in the puranas' or 'in the mahabharata'. Are you saying my sources don't disprove your sources? There not supposed to: they're giving the generalized view I think should be in the lede. Citing Feuerstein's definition of Brahma is adequate for that. There is no source that directly says 'Brahma is not a secondary creator', only ones that say he is the creator God. Your citations say he is a secondary creator in specific contexts. Specific contextual definitions of the subject go in the body.
1455:"In the beginning there was no sun, no moon, no star, no sky nor earth. There were only the great waters. Then a great egg (anda) like a hen's egg, arose, golden and brilliant all around. As it hatched it broke into two halves. The half which was above became heaven; the other half which was below became earth. In the middle sphere between these two was born Brahma, the fore- father of all living beings. He created all things, both the living and the lifeless. The dissolution of all these things, the living and the lifeless, into him, is called nirvana. Thus, those heretics who hold the doctrine of the egg teach that the great egg produces Brahma, who is eternal and who is the cause of nirvana." Upanisadic Tradition and The Early School of Vedānta as Noticed in Buddhist Scripture, Author(s): Nakamura Hajime, Source: Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies, Vol. 18, No. 1/2 (Jun., 1955), pp. 74-104 (p.95)
1426:"Worship of Mahat is enjoined in the Manu Samhitã ( Chapter 12 ). Mahat is Brahmã according to the Pafícarãtra texts ( See Schrader's Introduction to Pancarãtra ), as well as in the Vedãnta. Both Brahmã and Mahat were known as the first thing produced by Brahman, according to the Indian creation legends, and by Purusa-Prakrti in the Sãmkhya Philosophy. Hence the earliest object of worship in India was Brahmã. He was known by various names, of which ' Prajäpati ' occurs in the Veda and Brähmanas. The name Brahma was not a creation of the Purãnas." THE AVESTA, ṚGVEDA AND BRAHMĀ CULT, Author(s): Tarapada Bhattacharyya, Source: Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Vol. 51, No. 1/4 (1970), pp. 31-50. quote from p.49. Ignore all the pdf copy errors. I just remembered my jstor password.
1554:
puranic perspective (while I have clearly disproven that). Your original synthesis of ideas through the new
Frazier quote is flimsy at best and does not supersede the the long quotes I just added showing the academic view (expressed in the Mahabharata no less, an itihasa, and expressed in puranas) of hiranyagarbha emerging from the primordial waters with no allusion to Vishnu and Brahma as "svayambhu"-self born and a direct quote from a secondary source saying the hiranyagarbha story predates the Vishnu's navel story (which, again, I have shown is not universal to the puranas). But it's seemingly quite easy for you to keep dancing around the point with obtuse arguments instead of defending your edit.
2032:
the
Puranas, is viewed as the god of creation. His creative role is often secondary to that of Vishnu/Shiva/Krishna/Prajapati etc" I won't say yes to you selectively quoting another source to synthesize support for your shape-shifting argument. But honestly I don't care. Talk about balance and the format of a lede. Even once. This is the issue. The only actual issue. I'm not disagreeing with your content, only your presentation. I have made this abundantly clear. Repeatedly. You haven't even grazed the issue. We're not having a theological debate because our opinions are not important: we're having a balance and arrangement disagreement. Don't make new issues. Resolve the issue at hand.
2136:@Vic: The word "sect" may not be the right one for Hinduism, since Vaishnavism texts acknowledge and revere Shiva/Devi/etc, Shaivism texts acknowledge and revere Shiva/Devi/etc, and so on. See Julius Lipner, Flood, and others. Smarta not major, but Saura was major? Which page numbers of Sanderson or Flood are you referring to? Are they discussing Brahma in southeast Asia? Henotheism is the best generic approximation of the Hindu texts, where each god or goddess is supreme and others are aspects or manifestations of the same universal - see PT Raju, Structural Depths of Indian Thought, SUNY Press,
1569:
no cherry picking: I just searched for 'birth of brahma', 'hindu creation', and 'hiranyagarbha'. I have found the quote from your first source and shown it only refers to a contextual definition that it does not claim is preeminent, and superseded the claims of your second source by showing how hiranyagarbha is treated in the
Mahabharata. And my sources also define him in Vedantic, Samkhyan, Pañcaratran, Vaisheshika and Itihasa contexts. Your standing on swiss cheese here, mate.
780:
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:
226:
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:
2186:@Vic: Flood doesn't state, on page 7, that "Brahma was never viewed as a supreme deity". Nor does he use the word "sect" there. He is just discussing Tantra movements. There were sub-movements with Shaivism/Vaishnavism/etc, but let us keep our focus on Brahma and this article. I do not see where Sanderson is stating "Brahma was never conceived/viewed as a supreme deity" on page 43 or 53; his only mention of "supreme deity" is on page 290, footnote 692.
31:
1088:
interpretation of Brahma first and undercuts other views, ignoring the greater role he is afforded in the older vedic religion. It is nice that it isn't pushing the
Vaishnav angle exclusively thanks to elegant verbiage on your part, but the citations are coming from a 'Krishnaist' perspective. Do we have anything from Shiva, Devi, or other Puranas about Brahman to balance it? If not I would think this should be in a 'puranic' section.
1705:
another one of my sources describing hiranyagarbha as "a precursor of the mythology of Visnu sleeping on the ocean of milk". And popular conception is not what goes in the lede. The general view goes in the lede. This goes under popular conception in context. My first source alone represents the view in more than half of the darsanas of hinduism (vedanta, vaishesika, samkhya) as well as in the most popular itihasa in India.
1441:"In these accounts Hiranyagarbha does not create Brahmâ, he is rather born himself as Brahmâ Svayambhü. Candrânanda does not tell us what position he attributes to Brahma in the process of creation: was Brahma created by, or rather identical with the highest God?" GOD'S ARRIVAL IN THE VAIŚEṢIKA SYSTEM, Author(s): JOHANNES BRONKHORST, Source: Journal of Indian Philosophy, Vol. 24, No. 3 (June 1996), pp. 281-294 (pp.9-10)
611:
2107:, page 229; Doniger in her book Purana Perennis, and others. I left the lead wording on Trimurti and Trinity alone, as it seems fine, but added a footnote to address the valid points of @Vic. I also added some wording on primary and secondary creator, keeping it brief to avoid making this "Brahma" article into a "Trinity in Hinduism" article. Please review and revise it where appropriate.
1198:. If anything the earlier vedic view should be presented first and elaborated upon with the common secondary place he found in these sources as well as śaiva and other sources. It looks like you're just conveying the supremacy of Vishnu in popular modern practice (not a purely pan-Hindu concept) in an article that isn't about Vishnu.
1729:
popular religion and another unrelated source saying Brahma's role in the puranas becomes your synthesis conclusion. I have shown that the hiranyagarbha story is older, given way more sources and offered definitions of Brahma that are equally academic to Bryant's and not written on in the context of sectarian milieus.
1223:
2247:
Although there is scant information on Brahma's cult worship, there is a book entitled 'The Cult of Brahma'. I have only found a few pieces of it, but I've seen it referenced in other works. I don't know that it makes any conclusive argument for a Brahma cult's existence, but it might be worth a look
1553:
so you've changed your argument from 'this is the pan-Hindu view' to 'this is the most popular view' even though it's not what your edit or used citations say. And you still haven't explained why the contextual definition of puranic Brahma should come before the others or proved that this is the only
1392:
And
Feuerstein is actually a perfectly fine citation, as is the Encyclopedia of Puranas, and the Rigveda. You're either being obtuse or not reading my responses. You still haven't addressed a single issue I've brought up. You're just playing with strawmanning my argument and avoiding the issue. Get a
779:
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
1568:
There is a serious flaw with defining Brahma exclusively by later texts that directly obscure his worship. It's equivalent to defining Judaism with the new testament. Read the three quotes that came off of JSTOR that I put up because they undercut literall everything you're saying. And they required
1377:
Are you not even reading?! I didn't add anything to the article. I don't need citations. I want the article returned to how it was. That is already defended by the old version. YOU made the changes. Your citations are for the puranas and mahabharata. You made undefended changes with bad citations in
1087:
belongs in the body and not in the lede. Especially as this 'puranic' perspective on brahman is a sectarian view that isn't fully representative of how Brahma is or has been viewed in Hinduism (especially beyond India proper). In fact, just from a chronological standpoint, this gives a late medieval
2099:
See page 214 of Jan Gonda source in this article, where he states, "it seems worthwhile to collect in this paper, some data relating to the rise and development of the Trimurti idea and to rectify more or less current errors and misconceptions". Gonda's work is now widely accepted: See e.g. Antonio
2031:
And I specifically answered. We clearly have sources that indicate Brahma was mentioned outside of the puranas, but that's not what we're discussing. One source does not trump another. They both deserve inclusion. I would have no problem with the sentence: "Brahma, sometimes said to first appear in
2007:
I think we should imitate the tone of the whole paragraph. Which is how the old edit was. The 'makes his appearance in the Puranas' is a little questionable. But the fact that the paragraph says "generally considered the creator of the universe, but there are many different accounts of this act" is
527:
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
225:
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
145:
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
1295:
The burden of proof is on you. Why does this go in the lede? What's the quote from your sources that says Brahma is primarily viewed as a secondary creator across denominations? The lede should look like this "Brahma. The Creator-God of the famous medieval Hindu triad of deities, which is known as
1655:
as eighteen, and these texts, as we have them today, are essentially a vast repository of stories about kingship; the gods and their devotees; sectarian theologies; traditional cosmologies; popular religious beliefs concerning pilgrimages, holy places, and religious rites; and yogic practices—the
1142:
Yes, Edwin Bryant is actually very unpopular among Gaudiyas for some of his writing. My point was that this was not a book on pan-hindu concepts but rather on vaishnav philosophy (and not a book about Brahma or Trimurti or smartha, etc). And the point still stands. It may be commonly mentioned in
785:
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
1881:
Again you miss the point. Fringe is a bit harsh. The only point is that not all Puranas list Brahma coming from Vishnu's navel. The conclusion you're edit is based on is (that A: the puranas inform the popular religion B: many puranas describe Brahma coming from Vishnu's navel) is not what is at
1728:
You haven't shown anything to suggest this is more popular only that it is sectarian. Nor have you represented the Saiva or Buddhist or Samkhyan or Vedantic perspectives. You're literally propping up one view in the lede with undue weight through your own OR. One source saying puranas inform the
1597:
sources don't say which texts they're from and you don't offer any quotes (because between the two of us, I'm apparently the only one who owns the Bryant book, and neither of us has ever seen the other or you would have furnished a quote at one of my previous 5 requests). And you defend edits to
1592:
Um, yes they do very explicitly if you read them: Rig Veda, Mahabharata, Manu Smriti, Vaisheshika texts (I forget which ones, but the article gives a list in it's intro that didn't make it to the quote), "Mahayana sources" and Pancaratra texts (which also includes the Mahabharata). It's actually
1185:
You're misunderstanding. First, as I already explained: it's not the authors you cited who are sectarian, it's the things they're describing: puranas and the Mahabharata. Vishnu puranas describe him making the universe like Shiva puranas describe Shiva making the universe. And there are Thai and
585:
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
1704:
Yes: in the puranas. The puranas are a bad source of information on Brahma and are a "vast repository of...sectarian theologies". The four sources I listed are about Brahma. The navel story is presented as the only story when in fact it is a later sectarian persepective as is directly stated in
1050:
It seems in the "edit war" my note was removed. Not everyone in this world has the benefit of being a Sanskrit scholar so it seems beneficial to have to an indication of the difference between a and ā. To whomever felt it necessary to edit the note before it was deleted: the matra at the end of
558:
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,
1919:
The source you just said we should model this on presents it the same way we want it presented. It mentions his secondary role as an aside at the end of the introductory paragraph the same way it was here before your edit. And it explicitly says he is "generally considered the creator of the
1221:
Again: not about your sources (but a book on the doctrines of the Mahabharata is undeniably about a vaishnav weltanschauung because it's a vaishnav text). These statements don't go in the intro. And there are plenty of sources about Brahma as supreme and not secondary, they're just primarily
323:
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.
540:
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.
2600:
Brahmi is an incarnation of Lordess Saraswati in the Ashtamatrikas and Lordess Saraswati and Lord Brahma were both created by Lord Vishnu and Lordess Lakshmi and Lordess Saraswati is Lord Brahma's wife. Lordess Gayatri is the combined incarnations of Lakshmi, Saraswati and Parvati.
1143:
google results (and remember there are seemingly many more Vaishnavs on the internet at least as evidenced by the amount of biased Gaudiya edits this site gets) but that doesn't make it a balanced presentation for the lede. And the puranas are notorious for sectarian POV info.
2122:
Brahma was never conceived as a supreme deity. There never was such a thing as a Brahma sect. The 4 major sects of Hinduism were Saivism, Vaishnavism, Saura (Surya) and Goddess. Saura got absorbed into Saivism in the middle ages. See Sanderson's Saiva Age or Flood's Tantric
1341:
You're still dancing. The Bryant quote is literally only talking about the Puranas: "The three chief gods in the puranas are brahma, the secondary creator..." it's a statement about the Puranas emphasizing Shiva or Vishnu as primary in their sectarian creation stories
174:
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
2008:
literally the only thing at issue. We are not trying to present our view individually or by consensus, we are trying to present the multiplicity of views that have legitimate academic sources which means Hiranyagarbha and Vishnu's navel. Not one or the other.
1920:
universe, but there are many different accounts of this act." It does not even address the Prajapati myth. And we're not saying the relation between Hiranyagarbha and Brahma didn't come later than the Rig Veda. All of this is later than the Vedas. Stop making
2312:, among others, which do discuss Brahma. These texts formulate Buddhist Brahmakayika gods, goes the theory, whose chief is Mahabrahma, the lord of the sufferers and Buddha is above both Brahma and Indra. FWIW, both Brahma and Indra (Thagyamin, Phra-In,
1057:
is most certainly vertical not horizontal and it is not called a macron. Please learn to correctly distinguish between horizontal and vertical and between the Devanagari and Latin alphabets before making any edits in reference to any of those again.
2296:
as Brahman (n.). This theory states that Brahma, Buddha and Indra were the Buddhist triad, and the Brahma cult existed but merged into Buddhism and influenced Buddhist art (by the way, another theory merges part of the Brahma cult into Jainism).
2209:@Vic: Indeed. The sub-movements were different flavors of tantra and non-tantra, but that is irrelevant to this article. The article already states "Brahma does not enjoy popular worship", and "is rarely worshipped as a primary deity in India".
1816:
1812:
1808:
1804:
1987:
1948:
1898:
1847:
1800:
1186:
Buddhist perspectives too. His universal aspect is as the creator god and that's what the intro should emphasize first. Either your sources and additions are both describing beliefs in a system specifically oriented to one god as supreme (
1157:
But it appears you're just doubling down with more sectarian sources. The Mahabharata is primarily a Vaishnav text. It's popularity doesn't supersede our obligation to give a balanced summary in the introduction. This is profoundly
241:
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.
1672:, Shiva, the destroyer, and Vishnu, the maintainer, and a number of stories speak of the competition between these three for ultimate supremacy. Brahma is never, in actuality, a serious candidate, and the main rivalry in the
1194:). So academic sourcing isn't the issue. It's the inappropriate placement of the material within the article. You still have not once responded to the core complaint, instead we keep arguing about your sources. The issue is
843:
2430:). I wonder which variant is correct. Brahmā (ब्रह्मा) is mentioned in dictionaries (for the masculine personal god meaning), however, i was unable to find even a single occurrence in the Cologne corpus, but hundreds of
2055:
And I'm sorry the answer wasn't just yes or no. You haven't answered any of my questions and I'm not a witness at a trial for you to badger. Multiple views exist. We don't get to decide which ones matter or which are
1792:
The definition of "secondary creator" does not reflect the Hindu belief as well as RS definitions of Brahma. He is the creator in the Trimurti and features an important god in Hindu legend. "secondary creator" is a
976:. What reverting a removal are you talking about? You deleted 1,000 characters (without edit summary) and did not add anything to the article. If you have a point, then make it else do not waste my time if you are
318:
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
2571:
When Brahma needed knowledge to create the universe, Saraswati came out from his head to help him. Brahma never created her and she is hardly regarded as his daughter. Brahmani is the warrior form of Saraswati.
1924:
arguments. The Prajapati association is still the default academic explanation of the Hiranyagarbha myth which doesn't mention Vishnu either. All that matters is presenting the spectrum which you are suppressing.
268:. 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
1687:
Brahma is the creator of all the forms in the universe in the sense of being their engineer, but he is not the creator of the primordial universal stuff itself. He is born from the lotus stemming from Vishnu’s
909:
You keep deleting material from The Continuum companion to Hindu studies, an academic book. The formatting of the page is all wrong. You keep inserting an image of a Brahma sculpture in an incorrect position.
528:
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.
146:
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.
1949:
https://books.google.co.in/books?id=OgMmceadQ3gC&pg=PA89&dq=brahma+encyclopedia&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CDIQ6AEwBGoVChMIqZPv4b-PyQIVERmOCh26wgVK#v=onepage&q=brahma%20encyclopedia&f=false
925:, you are the one blanking the page without citing reasons. If you want to add something, feel free - you must be knowing the procedure. Cant update anything without reasons or references. Follow procedure.
837:
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
2165:
pg. 7. Brahma was never viewed as a supreme deity. There never was a Brahma "sect" or whatever term you want to use. The 4 major sects of Hinduism were Saivism, Vaishnavism, Saura (Surya) and Goddess.
1332:. You can call it "dancing around citations", but its how Knowledge works. Please provide secondary academic sources which support your POV. These citations from Feuerstein don't support your claims.
1172:
Neither academic book makes their claim within the context of Vaishnavism. They are both making general statements about pan-Hindu concepts. Even in Shaivism, Brahma grows out the navel of Vishnu. See
637:; 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.
2316:) are common in SE Asia and Japan. Perhaps after your review of Bhattacharji and related literature, you can summarize the relevant Brahma-related literature in one of the sections of this article?
2275:@Iṣṭa Devatā: Indeed. The likes of Tarapada Bhattacharya's theory is among them. See the bit old, yet still a good summary by S Bhattacharji (1970), The Indian Theogony, Cambridge University Press,
2248:
if you can get access to it. I'd definitely be curious to know its arguments. Brahma's worship in the diaspora would be hard to explain without some former popularity, even if it were pre-puranic.
786:
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
537:
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.
1994:"Brahma is a divinity who makes his appearance in the post-Vedic Indian epics (c. 700 B.C.E-100 C.E.). He has an important role in the stories of the great gods in the epics and Puranas."
1905:"Brahma is a divinity who makes his appearance in the post-Vedic Indian epics (c. 700 B.C.E-100 C.E.). He has an important role in the stories of the great gods in the epics and Puranas."
1855:"Brahma is a divinity who makes his appearance in the post-Vedic Indian epics (c. 700 B.C.E-100 C.E.). He has an important role in the stories of the great gods in the epics and Puranas."
101:
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.
312:
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.
1266:
Being a Swami does not preclude one from being an academic. Look at the Rig Veda: Hiranyagarbha, self-manifested from the void. The Hiranyagarbha page is replete with citations.
109:
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.
1225:
He had a rise and fall in worship. His secondary status is something that developed not how it is and was. The Vishnu's navel story is not universal, even within the Puranas.
2374:
It seems that this variant is more common in Bangladesh / east India. But i don't dare to insert this info based on my tiny personal research, since i am not an indologist.
2331:
That could be a fun research project. We'll see where I'm at when finals are done! Either way that's a very interesting concept to explain the Buddhist use of Brahma.
2478:
The closest to correct pronunciation (and transliteration) is Bramhā. It is one of the rare examples where Sanskrit is not phonetic. Ditto for Brāhman. Fixed here.
1763:
Your conclusion is a synthesis of two quotes from different sources. 1)Puranas inform the popular religion 2)Brahma is secondary and born from Vishnus navel in the
1310:
Feuerstein, Georg (2013-09-11). The Yoga Tradition: It's History, Literature, Philosophy and Practice (Kindle Locations 15715-15716). Hohm Press. Kindle Edition.
1302:
Feuerstein, Georg (2013-09-11). The Yoga Tradition: It's History, Literature, Philosophy and Practice (Kindle Locations 15891-15892). Hohm Press. Kindle Edition.
1507:. To assess the weight, you need to examine how many of the sources from among a broad sample of sources contain these ideas. How many of the sources cited on
1378:
the wrong section. Move it to a proper section or defend its placement and seriously stop talking about citations! Defend your edit or I am removing your edit.
791:
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,
272:, 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
1307:"Hiranyagarbha (“golden germ”), (i) The mythical originator of Yoga, (ii) Cosmologically, the condition preceding manifestation, corresponding to Brahma."
1965:
And we've all seen you can edit war forever with your fingers in your ears. How about finding someone to support you. Right now it's three against one.
544:
6. Last, but not the least, Veda Vyasa is believed to be Vishnu himself. As the popular shloka goes,"Vyasaaya Vishnuroopaaya Vyaasaroopaaya Vishnave".
2313:
74:
Given that Brahma the god is the only thing mentioned in Knowledge which is called Brahma, other than a brand of beer, why don't we move this page to
1133:
Google Books search turns up many books which use the exact phrase "secondary creator". And many books state the same concept with different words.
1103:
The source is Edwin Bryant, a top indologist. Just because the topic of the book is Krishna, doesn't mean this info is from a Krishna perspective.
963:
878:
531:
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.
2427:
Currently, there's an inconsitency just at the beginning of the article perex, ब्रह्म (Brahma) vs Brahmā (ब्रह्मा). (See also older discussion
1797:
term that does not need to be included in the lead sentence, promoting the views of a scholar. Some other encyclopedia entries to think about:
1598:
Brahma with sources that aren't about Brahma from books that are about Vishnu. My first source is from a book with "Brahma Cult" in the title!
1947:
I'm not talking about that edit. I'm talking about the perfectly fine intro that this article had before your first edit. It agreed with this
1676:
is played out between the two transcendent lords Vishnu and Shiva. Despite the usually playful rivalry between Vishnu and Shiva, much in the
851:
192:
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.--
2499:
783:"Sauti then said, 'Having bowed down to the primordial being Isana, to whom multitudes make offerings, and who is adored by the multitude;
760:
509:
1212:
I am not misunderstanding. You are making all sorts of claims without reading the books cited. Neither is talking about Vishnu puranas.
587:
2279:
2140:
2104:
701:
657:
617:
2336:
2253:
2061:
2037:
2013:
1970:
1956:
1929:
1887:
1772:
1734:
1710:
1619:
1574:
1559:
1474:
1460:
1446:
1431:
1398:
1383:
1355:
1319:
1275:
1230:
1203:
1163:
1148:
1093:
798:
670:
2456:
2452:
1614:
is being patently stubborn and defending her edits by synthesizing ideas from almost exclusively Vaishnav puranic perspectives.
1938:
What are you talking about? The first 2 sentences of Redtigerxyz's edits are not remotely close to the first 2 sentences here.
1112:
Well, the picture of Lakshmi pressing the feet of Vishnu says it all, doesn't it? (Sorry, couldn't resist, I am after all the
1022:, either you comply to WP guidelines OR refrain from editing. Should you not comply and continue with disruptive editing, you
1119:
But the terminology of "secondary creator" credited to Bryant is not mainstream. I agree that it shouldn't be in the lead. -
574:
360:
As per the texts quoted, the 9 Brahmas are : Angirasa, Atri, Kasyapa, Pulastya, Pulaha, Brigu, Marichi, Vasishta and Daksha.
696:
his wife in heaven. Is this a legend only not to be mentioned? Is there no difference between consort and wife in Hinduism?
947:
I am not blanking the page. You obviously don't know what that means. I am not adding anything. I'm reverting a removal.
753:
Is it true ,that Bhrama had create with his daugther all creatures, i mean animals and humans? I just want to know it...
475:
Thats what we can see Vyasa reduced Vedas. Because he want to reduce the importance of Brahma or Jagatpita or Viswakarma.
2557:
As i know the wives of lord bhrahma are goddess Gayatri and goddess Brahamani while Saraswati is Daughter of lord Brahma
2391:
2332:
2249:
2086:
2057:
2033:
2009:
1966:
1952:
1925:
1883:
1865:
1768:
1730:
1706:
1615:
1570:
1555:
1470:
1456:
1442:
1427:
1394:
1379:
1351:
1315:
1271:
1226:
1199:
1159:
1144:
1089:
534:
3. Neither Shiva nor Vishnu is quoted in the Puranas, Itihasas or Vedas to have asked Brahma to save them from trouble.
377:
666:
788:; I will declare the sacred thoughts of the illustrious sage Vyasa, of marvellous deeds and worshipped here by all."
1583:
None of your "long quotes" indicates which ancient text they are talking about. So you have not disproven anything.
2606:
2484:
undid my correction to the transliteration. Might I invite him/her to a discussion? I believe he/she is incorrect.
300:
38:
735:
2495:
2321:
2214:
2191:
2148:
2112:
83:
764:
513:
591:
2562:
705:
397:
802:
157:
article is better as a page in itself, or as an additional entry on another page. Is sounds similar to the
1680:
point to the fact that it is Vishnu who as a rule occupies a position of preeminence in the earlier texts.
731:
721:
656:
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant
586:
word, but I think your aversion to the word Trinity is your perception of it in relation to Christianity.
547:
7. I couldn't understand the reason behind your mentioning of Ganapati. I request you to explain further.
2491:
847:
132:
128:
2602:
2514:
830:
2558:
844:
Pilgrimage and Power: The Kumbh Mela in Allahabad, 1765-1954 By Kama Maclean (Oxford University Ptress)
717:
430:
Brahma- Brihaspathi-Lord Viswakarma-(all are same we can see in Vedas in different Rik) has five heads
2487:
2201:
2166:
2124:
2094:
2047:
2023:
1998:
1939:
1910:
1872:
1784:
1755:
1720:
1693:
1609:
1601:
1584:
1545:
1491:
1369:
1333:
1287:
1257:
1213:
1177:
1134:
1104:
1079:
1019:
1007:
969:
960:
948:
922:
910:
884:
875:
756:
562:
505:
269:
90:
2046:
I am asking you specific things about presentation and arrangement, with simple yes or no questions.
400:, where it would almost never be seen. Also converted to lowercase to make it much easier to read.
2317:
2210:
2187:
2144:
2108:
1516:
1124:
1059:
959:
AKS.9955 is now using false edit summaries. He is the one who is refusing to discuss on talk page.
405:
346:
257:
247:
1350:. Your citations don't claim to express a pan-hindu view of anything. You can't even pull a quote.
887:, I am sorry but neither your subject line nor the comments make any sense. Please be more clear.
227:
2587:
1538:
or the emotive poems of the bhakti saints that are most influential on the religious life of the
1063:
1033:
987:
932:
894:
570:
193:
2586:
I thought Sarswati being the daughter of brahma was a misconception created by anti hindus lol.
2284:
2276:
2137:
2101:
1986:
Do you agree we should model the first 2 sentences of the lead based on the first 2 sentences
1747:
1365:
977:
621:
283:
231:
158:
117:
There should be some discussion / hyperlinks to Brahmastra, the arrow/weapon made by Brahma.
1647:, in Sanskrit, signifies ‘‘that which took place previously,’’ that is, ancient lore. Several
2591:
2577:
2464:
2439:
2413:
1818:
1794:
1500:
859:
826:
369:
338:
331:
205:
176:
819:
1751:
1497:
1003:
162:
87:
298:
AFAIK, the whole Brahma-Abraham link is based on an isolated quote from Voltaire's, 1764
478:
In Ganapathi Pooja we can understand that Manthra indicate or it giving for Brahma.....
1512:
1504:
1120:
1113:
869:
821:
is the only source (July 2013) which makes the assertion that Kalpwasi are part of the
642:
401:
342:
243:
1496:
You are totally missing the point. We are saying that these ideas are have been given
1329:
1173:
1028:
982:
927:
889:
649:
566:
524:
I have to disagree almost completely to the above comment for the following reasons:
433:
1.1st head-Brahma (Creation) 2.2nd head-Vishnu (Stiti) 3.3rd head-Rudra (Samharam)
327:
855:
2525:
2510:
2289:
834:
277:
273:
2100:
Rigopoulos (1998), Dattatreya: The Immortal Guru, Yogin, and Avatara, SUNY Press,
1744:
What do you mean by unrelated sources? Everything I just quoted is from one book.
1528:
I completely understand thats what you erroneously believe. However Frazier says
870:
AKS.9955's deletion of RS, insertion of nonRS and incorrect formatting of the page
499:
In Purana describes only based on earth but in Vedas it describer entire universe
739:
725:
709:
337:
for example); I don't know if this is linked in anyway since another of his sock
2573:
2529:
2481:
2460:
2435:
2409:
2362:
2292:). Note Bhattacharji spells deity Brahma as Brahman, and refers to metaphysical
839:
816:
361:
305:
296:
Yes, any etymological connection would have to be sourced to a scholarly source.
265:
47:
46:
If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
17:
1864:
refutes that Brahma is the same as Vedic Prajapati and Hiranyagarbha, an idea
610:
2300:
To support their Brahma-Buddhism theory, they refer to these Buddhist texts:
645:
then you may need to upload it to Knowledge (Commons does not allow fair use)
2519:
1951:
in every way without your shift in emphasis which added no new information.
663:
This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image
424:
Thats why he clled as Veda Vysa. That means who reduced Veda known as Vysa.
315:
Others say that he was the Brahma of the Indians, which is not demonstrated.
154:
1846:
Please model the first 2 sentences of the article based on your own source
559:
Brahma, and Shiva inhabit 1 body, its a triad, or three different beings.
2610:
2595:
2581:
2566:
2544:
2468:
2443:
2428:
2417:
2340:
2325:
2257:
2218:
2204:
2195:
2169:
2152:
2127:
2116:
2065:
2050:
2041:
2026:
2017:
2001:
1974:
1960:
1942:
1933:
1913:
1891:
1875:
1823:
1787:
1776:
1758:
1738:
1723:
1714:
1696:
1623:
1587:
1578:
1563:
1548:
1520:
1478:
1464:
1450:
1435:
1402:
1387:
1372:
1359:
1336:
1323:
1290:
1279:
1260:
1234:
1216:
1207:
1180:
1167:
1152:
1137:
1128:
1107:
1097:
1067:
1039:
1010:
993:
951:
938:
913:
900:
864:
806:
768:
674:
595:
578:
517:
409:
385:
350:
286:
251:
235:
208:
196:
179:
165:
135:
1921:
1746:
You don't even know what OR and synthesis means. You are always quoting
1508:
496:
He created all things Brahma the creator and almighty of entire universe
1719:
The majority view should be in the lede. Minority views go in the body.
2293:
1664:
rather than the old Vedic corpus of texts. The three chief gods in the
792:
693:
689:
445:
4. 4th head-Maheswara (Thirobhavam) 5. 5th head- Sadasiva (Anugraham)
418:
1. Rig Veda 2. Yajur Veda 3.Sama Veda 4.Adarva Veda 5.Pranava Veda
2352:
1897:
We should model the first 2 sentences based on the first 2 sentences
1393:
second opinion, because Kautilya agreed with me, as will anyone else.
822:
79:
75:
2200:
There is no "sub-movement" associated with Brahma. Thats the point.
1299:"Prâjapâti (“ lord of creatures”). Creator, same as Hiranyagarbha."
260:
dictionary out there that can connect the words together, just like
1750:
and then making stuff up about them. This is really the height of
1639:
Here are the 2 quotes of top mainstream indologist Edwin Bryant:
2022:
I am specifically asking about the first 2 sentences. Yes or No?
261:
1267:
451:
That time they preying for some one ? Who is that............?
1256:
Please cite academic sources instead of Swami Parmeshwaranand.
25:
1268:
https://en.wikipedia.org/Hiranyagarbha#Translation_in_English
466:
So how can we cay this elephant headed shape can has a Pathi
442:
There are 2 heads also.each have different responsibilities.
436:
According to Hindu mythology there Brahma has only 3 heads
121:
602:
File:The Genealogy of Bharata.png Nominated for Deletion
457:
In Hindu Pojja we are having Ganapathi Pooja,,,,,,,,,,?
222:
2448:
1286:
Thats a primary source. Please cite secondary sources.
1085:
730:
Isn't Saraswati the daughter, not the wife, of Brahma?
335:
2393:
Bangla Pronunciation Rules and a Text-to-Speech System
448:
In Hindu mythology we can see all gods have troubles.
716:
Gayatri is another name for Savitri. Both are same.--
330:
and his socks to draw links between Mohammad and the
2351:
Brahma, and some related words are often pronounced
463:
Ganam means a group. Pathi means head of something
1364:Your sources are not reliable or are primary. See
648:If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no
502:That is the different between Vedas and Puranas
2080:Trimurti, Trinity, Primary and secondary creator
1544:page 19 of Continuum Companion to Hindu Studies.
2524:and the title can't be changed on the basis of
1992:
1903:
1853:
1683:
1641:
310:
1909:This is one of Redtigerxyz's tertiary sources.
1606:seriously need a second opinion here, because
1052:
658:image page (File:The Genealogy of Bharata.png)
626:Media without a source as of 16 February 2012
8:
161:entry also. I am removing the merge notice.
1850:. Your own source's first 2 sentences say:
1084:I feel like the material in your last edit
256:I thought that perhaps there is a reliable
221:I found in the page talking about Abraham '
484:ommm sahasra sheersha purusha sahasraksha
469:In Puranas we can see he is son of Siva..
1530:"...it is the itihāsa narratives of the
421:Veda Vyasan he redused Vedas 5 in to 4.
326:There was a recent attempt by now-banned
204:Even i think it can be an PD-art image.--
2382:
825:that worship Brahma. This seem to be a
472:So how can he become Pathi of a group?
1503:and putting them in the lead violates
1270:This is the view that goes at the top.
1188:Religious Doctrines of the Mahabharata
974:STOP and do not engage in edit warring
44:Do not edit the contents of this page.
620:, has been nominated for deletion at
7:
1660:Hinduism of India today essentially
308:) where he writes (emphasis added):
217:Speculations on Biblical connections
874:There is no excuse for any of this.
793:Brahman#Semantics_and_pronunciation
652:then it cannot be uploaded or used.
2347:Alternative pronunciation "bramha"
415:Who told Vedas are 4?. It is five
341:recently edited this article too.
122:http://en.wikipedia.org/Brahmastra
24:
833:(Jan 2013). The Tribune is not a
812:Kalpwasi as worshippers of Brahma
618:File:The Genealogy of Bharata.png
391:Who told Vedas are 4?. It is five
78:and move the current contents of
609:
223:http://en.wikipedia.org/Abraham'
29:
2282:(2007 Reprint), pages 346-349 (
1862:Encyclopedia of Ancient Deities
616:An image used in this article,
481:That start from like that....
454:That is creator. Lord Brahma.
131:05:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)--
1:
2611:13:55, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
2513:spell the deity as "Brahma" (
2161:pg. 43 and 53. Gavin Flood's
2066:19:38, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
2051:19:36, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
2042:19:31, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
2027:19:08, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
2018:19:05, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
2002:18:56, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
1975:18:51, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
1961:18:49, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
1943:18:44, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
1934:18:40, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
1914:18:34, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
1892:18:08, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
1876:14:48, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
1824:11:29, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
865:07:56, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
675:12:41, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
596:05:58, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
490:According to Veda god is one
104:
2567:07:06, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
2341:08:19, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
2326:09:09, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
2258:05:19, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
2219:02:28, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
2205:01:33, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
2196:23:34, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
2170:23:12, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
2153:22:59, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
2128:20:45, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
2117:14:58, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
1788:20:46, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
1777:20:46, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
1759:20:25, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
1739:20:13, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
1724:19:43, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
1715:19:39, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
1697:19:04, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
1624:18:55, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
1588:18:43, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
1579:18:39, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
1564:18:20, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
1549:17:34, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
1521:10:39, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
1479:11:13, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
1465:10:36, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
1451:10:23, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
1436:10:17, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
1403:08:30, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
1388:08:24, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
1373:07:13, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
1360:06:34, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
1337:06:16, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
1324:06:00, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
1291:05:24, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
1280:05:23, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
1261:05:18, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
1235:05:07, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
1217:05:01, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
1208:04:58, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
1181:04:24, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
1168:03:05, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
1153:03:01, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
1138:21:57, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
1129:21:52, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
1108:21:23, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
1098:21:14, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
1026:reported. Make no mistakes.
769:10:35, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
726:09:46, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
460:Who is Ganapathi,,,,,,,,,,?
439:But in Vedas not in Puranas
386:17:47, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
166:11:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
136:05:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
2596:14:31, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
2582:03:33, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
1068:17:40, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
1040:19:00, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
1011:18:55, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
994:18:54, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
964:18:51, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
952:18:44, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
939:18:40, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
914:18:38, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
901:18:35, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
879:18:32, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
807:17:19, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
740:10:27, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
710:21:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
624:in the following category:
209:12:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
197:18:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
105:Shiva doesn't create Vishnu
2626:
2469:11:44, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
579:16:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
518:08:00, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
410:15:07, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
334:etc on various pages (see
301:Dictionnaire philosophique
236:14:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
2545:08:45, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
2522:is based on these sources
2444:17:50, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
2418:17:20, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
1868:was constantly promoting.
1651:list the total number of
1222:historical perspectives.
1053:
692:is his wife on earth and
351:07:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
287:07:15, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
252:06:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
180:10:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
2451:, to be consistent with
1348:that's the argument here
93:14:46, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
84:Brahman (disambiguation)
2553:Consort of lord bhrahma
2390:Sen, Aniruddha (2004).
1073:Disagree with last edit
1046:Matra and pronunciation
398:Talk:Brahma Creator God
97:How was Brahma created?
2528:. Hope you understand.
1996:
1907:
1857:
1691:
1682:
1662:stems from the Puranas
667:CommonsNotificationBot
321:
1192:Krishna: A Sourcebook
427:And 1 thing is that
42:of past discussions.
2314:Sakka in Buddhaghosa
683:
487:sahasrapal....like.
270:Proto-World language
2285:Bhattacharji's book
396:Comment moved from
258:Proto-Indo-European
1782:Its the same book.
650:fair use rationale
2526:original research
2490:comment added by
1670:secondary creator
1643:pg. 6-7 The word
1030:Arun Kumar SINGH
984:Arun Kumar SINGH
929:Arun Kumar SINGH
891:Arun Kumar SINGH
759:comment added by
681:
680:
630:What should I do?
622:Wikimedia Commons
581:
565:comment added by
554:Trinity reference
508:comment added by
412:
294:<deindent: -->
159:Brahma (Buddhism)
67:
66:
54:
53:
48:current talk page
2617:
2603:Vishal Kandasamy
2541:
2539:
2511:reliable sources
2503:
2423:Brahma vs Brahmā
2401:
2400:
2399:(simple’04 ed.).
2398:
2387:
2306:Assalayana Sutta
2098:
2090:
1821:
1668:are Brahma, the
1613:
1605:
1511:contain them? -
1495:
1083:
1056:
1055:
1036:
1031:
990:
985:
935:
930:
897:
892:
862:
771:
742:Pravingandhino1
641:If the image is
613:
606:
605:
560:
550:-- Srinath Ravi
520:
395:
382:
374:
366:
339:User:Hindustan10
332:Bhavishya Purana
63:
56:
55:
33:
32:
26:
2625:
2624:
2620:
2619:
2618:
2616:
2615:
2614:
2555:
2532:
2530:
2515:WP: Common name
2485:
2476:
2425:
2406:
2405:
2404:
2396:
2389:
2388:
2384:
2349:
2302:Majjhima Nikaya
2202:VictoriaGrayson
2167:VictoriaGrayson
2143:, pages 10-14.
2125:VictoriaGrayson
2095:VictoriaGrayson
2092:
2084:
2082:
2048:VictoriaGrayson
2024:VictoriaGrayson
1999:VictoriaGrayson
1940:VictoriaGrayson
1911:VictoriaGrayson
1873:VictoriaGrayson
1819:
1785:VictoriaGrayson
1756:VictoriaGrayson
1748:primary sources
1721:VictoriaGrayson
1694:VictoriaGrayson
1610:VictoriaGrayson
1607:
1602:Joshua Jonathan
1599:
1585:VictoriaGrayson
1546:VictoriaGrayson
1492:VictoriaGrayson
1489:
1370:VictoriaGrayson
1344:(not pan-hindu)
1334:VictoriaGrayson
1288:VictoriaGrayson
1258:VictoriaGrayson
1214:VictoriaGrayson
1178:VictoriaGrayson
1135:VictoriaGrayson
1105:VictoriaGrayson
1080:VictoriaGrayson
1077:
1075:
1048:
1034:
1029:
1020:VictoriaGrayson
1008:VictoriaGrayson
988:
983:
970:VictoriaGrayson
961:VictoriaGrayson
949:VictoriaGrayson
933:
928:
923:VictoriaGrayson
911:VictoriaGrayson
895:
890:
885:VictoriaGrayson
876:VictoriaGrayson
872:
860:
814:
777:
754:
751:
732:Pravingandhino1
686:
604:
556:
503:
493:That is Brahma
393:
378:
370:
362:
358:
219:
190:
143:
115:
107:
99:
72:
59:
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
2623:
2621:
2554:
2551:
2550:
2549:
2548:
2547:
2517:}. Sorry, but
2492:216.228.112.22
2475:
2472:
2424:
2421:
2403:
2402:
2381:
2380:
2376:
2348:
2345:
2344:
2343:
2318:Ms Sarah Welch
2280:978-0521053822
2273:
2272:
2271:
2270:
2269:
2268:
2267:
2266:
2265:
2264:
2263:
2262:
2261:
2260:
2232:
2231:
2230:
2229:
2228:
2227:
2226:
2225:
2224:
2223:
2222:
2221:
2211:Ms Sarah Welch
2188:Ms Sarah Welch
2177:
2176:
2175:
2174:
2173:
2172:
2145:Ms Sarah Welch
2141:978-0887061394
2131:
2130:
2109:Ms Sarah Welch
2105:978-0791436967
2081:
2078:
2077:
2076:
2075:
2074:
2073:
2072:
2071:
2070:
2069:
2068:
1984:
1983:
1982:
1981:
1980:
1979:
1978:
1977:
1895:
1894:
1870:
1869:
1852:
1851:
1843:
1842:
1841:
1840:
1839:
1838:
1837:
1836:
1835:
1834:
1833:
1832:
1831:
1830:
1829:
1828:
1827:
1826:
1814:
1810:
1806:
1802:
1637:
1636:
1635:
1634:
1633:
1632:
1631:
1630:
1629:
1628:
1627:
1626:
1486:
1485:
1484:
1483:
1482:
1481:
1424:
1423:
1422:
1421:
1420:
1419:
1418:
1417:
1416:
1415:
1414:
1413:
1412:
1411:
1410:
1409:
1408:
1407:
1406:
1405:
1313:
1312:
1311:
1305:
1304:
1303:
1254:
1253:
1252:
1251:
1250:
1249:
1248:
1247:
1246:
1245:
1244:
1243:
1242:
1241:
1240:
1239:
1238:
1237:
1117:
1074:
1071:
1047:
1044:
1043:
1042:
1016:
1015:
1014:
1013:
997:
996:
980:to contribute.
957:
956:
955:
954:
942:
941:
919:
918:
917:
916:
904:
903:
871:
868:
848:Hinduism Today
813:
810:
776:
773:
761:89.204.137.222
750:
747:
745:
715:
713:
712:
700:Austerlitz --
688:Some say that
685:
682:
679:
678:
654:
653:
646:
632:
631:
614:
603:
600:
599:
598:
555:
552:
523:
510:122.172.112.77
392:
389:
357:
356:Carnatic music
354:
325:
297:
295:
292:
291:
290:
289:
218:
215:
214:
213:
212:
211:
189:
186:
185:
184:
183:
182:
169:
168:
153:I agree - the
149:CharlusIngus.
142:
139:
133:58.107.194.151
129:58.107.194.151
126:
114:
111:
106:
103:
98:
95:
71:
68:
65:
64:
52:
51:
34:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2622:
2613:
2612:
2608:
2604:
2598:
2597:
2593:
2589:
2584:
2583:
2579:
2575:
2569:
2568:
2564:
2560:
2552:
2546:
2542:
2538:
2535:
2527:
2523:
2521:
2516:
2512:
2508:
2507:
2506:
2505:
2504:
2501:
2497:
2493:
2489:
2483:
2479:
2473:
2471:
2470:
2466:
2462:
2458:
2454:
2450:
2446:
2445:
2441:
2437:
2433:
2429:
2422:
2420:
2419:
2415:
2411:
2395:
2394:
2386:
2383:
2379:
2375:
2372:
2370:
2369:
2367:
2360:
2359:
2357:
2346:
2342:
2338:
2334:
2330:
2329:
2328:
2327:
2323:
2319:
2315:
2311:
2310:Milinda Panha
2307:
2303:
2298:
2295:
2291:
2288:, p. 346, at
2287:
2286:
2281:
2278:
2259:
2255:
2251:
2246:
2245:
2244:
2243:
2242:
2241:
2240:
2239:
2238:
2237:
2236:
2235:
2234:
2233:
2220:
2216:
2212:
2208:
2207:
2206:
2203:
2199:
2198:
2197:
2193:
2189:
2185:
2184:
2183:
2182:
2181:
2180:
2179:
2178:
2171:
2168:
2164:
2160:
2156:
2155:
2154:
2150:
2146:
2142:
2139:
2135:
2134:
2133:
2132:
2129:
2126:
2121:
2120:
2119:
2118:
2114:
2110:
2106:
2103:
2096:
2088:
2079:
2067:
2063:
2059:
2054:
2053:
2052:
2049:
2045:
2044:
2043:
2039:
2035:
2030:
2029:
2028:
2025:
2021:
2020:
2019:
2015:
2011:
2006:
2005:
2004:
2003:
2000:
1995:
1991:
1989:
1976:
1972:
1968:
1964:
1963:
1962:
1958:
1954:
1950:
1946:
1945:
1944:
1941:
1937:
1936:
1935:
1931:
1927:
1923:
1918:
1917:
1916:
1915:
1912:
1906:
1902:
1900:
1893:
1889:
1885:
1880:
1879:
1878:
1877:
1874:
1867:
1863:
1859:
1858:
1856:
1849:
1845:
1844:
1825:
1822:
1817:
1815:
1813:
1811:
1809:
1807:
1805:
1803:
1801:
1799:
1798:
1796:
1791:
1790:
1789:
1786:
1783:
1780:
1779:
1778:
1774:
1770:
1766:
1762:
1761:
1760:
1757:
1753:
1749:
1745:
1742:
1741:
1740:
1736:
1732:
1727:
1726:
1725:
1722:
1718:
1717:
1716:
1712:
1708:
1703:
1702:
1701:
1700:
1699:
1698:
1695:
1690:
1689:
1681:
1679:
1675:
1671:
1667:
1663:
1659:
1654:
1650:
1646:
1640:
1625:
1621:
1617:
1611:
1603:
1596:
1591:
1590:
1589:
1586:
1582:
1581:
1580:
1576:
1572:
1567:
1566:
1565:
1561:
1557:
1552:
1551:
1550:
1547:
1543:
1541:
1537:
1533:
1527:
1526:
1525:
1524:
1523:
1522:
1518:
1514:
1510:
1506:
1502:
1499:
1493:
1480:
1476:
1472:
1468:
1467:
1466:
1462:
1458:
1454:
1453:
1452:
1448:
1444:
1440:
1439:
1438:
1437:
1433:
1429:
1404:
1400:
1396:
1391:
1390:
1389:
1385:
1381:
1376:
1375:
1374:
1371:
1367:
1363:
1362:
1361:
1357:
1353:
1349:
1345:
1340:
1339:
1338:
1335:
1331:
1327:
1326:
1325:
1321:
1317:
1314:
1309:
1308:
1306:
1301:
1300:
1298:
1297:
1294:
1293:
1292:
1289:
1285:
1284:
1283:
1282:
1281:
1277:
1273:
1269:
1265:
1264:
1263:
1262:
1259:
1236:
1232:
1228:
1224:
1220:
1219:
1218:
1215:
1211:
1210:
1209:
1205:
1201:
1197:
1193:
1189:
1184:
1183:
1182:
1179:
1175:
1171:
1170:
1169:
1165:
1161:
1156:
1155:
1154:
1150:
1146:
1141:
1140:
1139:
1136:
1132:
1131:
1130:
1126:
1122:
1118:
1115:
1111:
1110:
1109:
1106:
1102:
1101:
1100:
1099:
1095:
1091:
1086:
1081:
1072:
1070:
1069:
1065:
1061:
1045:
1041:
1038:
1037:
1032:
1025:
1021:
1018:
1017:
1012:
1009:
1005:
1001:
1000:
999:
998:
995:
992:
991:
986:
979:
975:
971:
968:
967:
966:
965:
962:
953:
950:
946:
945:
944:
943:
940:
937:
936:
931:
924:
921:
920:
915:
912:
908:
907:
906:
905:
902:
899:
898:
893:
886:
883:
882:
881:
880:
877:
867:
866:
863:
857:
853:
849:
845:
841:
836:
832:
828:
824:
820:
818:
811:
809:
808:
804:
800:
795:
794:
789:
787:
781:
774:
772:
770:
766:
762:
758:
748:
746:
743:
741:
737:
733:
728:
727:
723:
719:
711:
707:
703:
699:
698:
697:
695:
691:
684:Brahma's wife
677:
676:
672:
668:
664:
660:
659:
651:
647:
644:
640:
639:
638:
636:
629:
628:
627:
623:
619:
615:
612:
608:
607:
601:
597:
593:
589:
588:74.78.219.170
584:
583:
582:
580:
576:
572:
568:
564:
553:
551:
548:
545:
542:
538:
535:
532:
529:
525:
521:
519:
515:
511:
507:
500:
497:
494:
491:
488:
485:
482:
479:
476:
473:
470:
467:
464:
461:
458:
455:
452:
449:
446:
443:
440:
437:
434:
431:
428:
425:
422:
419:
416:
413:
411:
407:
403:
399:
390:
388:
387:
383:
381:
375:
373:
367:
365:
355:
353:
352:
348:
344:
340:
336:
333:
329:
328:User:DWhiskaZ
320:
317:
316:
309:
307:
303:
302:
288:
285:
284:
281:
280:
275:
271:
267:
263:
259:
255:
254:
253:
249:
245:
240:
239:
238:
237:
233:
229:
224:
216:
210:
207:
203:
202:
201:
200:
199:
198:
195:
187:
181:
178:
173:
172:
171:
170:
167:
164:
160:
156:
152:
151:
150:
147:
141:Merge request
140:
138:
137:
134:
130:
124:
123:
118:
112:
110:
102:
96:
94:
92:
89:
85:
81:
77:
69:
62:
58:
57:
49:
45:
41:
40:
35:
28:
27:
19:
2599:
2585:
2570:
2559:Nilay Shukla
2556:
2536:
2533:
2518:
2486:— Preceding
2480:
2477:
2447:
2431:
2426:
2407:
2392:
2385:
2377:
2373:
2365:
2363:
2355:
2353:
2350:
2309:
2305:
2301:
2299:
2290:Google Books
2283:
2274:
2163:Tantric Body
2162:
2158:
2157:Sanderson's
2083:
1997:
1993:
1985:
1908:
1904:
1896:
1871:
1861:
1854:
1781:
1764:
1743:
1692:
1686:
1684:
1677:
1673:
1669:
1665:
1661:
1657:
1652:
1648:
1644:
1642:
1638:
1594:
1539:
1535:
1531:
1529:
1487:
1425:
1347:
1343:
1255:
1195:
1191:
1187:
1076:
1049:
1027:
1023:
981:
973:
958:
926:
888:
873:
815:
796:
790:
784:
782:
778:
755:— Preceding
752:
749:His Daughter
744:
729:
718:Powerprowess
714:
702:88.75.93.130
687:
662:
661:
655:
634:
633:
625:
557:
549:
546:
543:
539:
536:
533:
530:
526:
522:
501:
498:
495:
492:
489:
486:
483:
480:
477:
474:
471:
468:
465:
462:
459:
456:
453:
450:
447:
444:
441:
438:
435:
432:
429:
426:
423:
420:
417:
414:
394:
379:
371:
363:
359:
322:
314:
313:
311:
299:
293:
282:
278:
220:
191:
148:
144:
125:
119:
116:
108:
100:
73:
60:
43:
37:
2333:Iṣṭa Devatā
2250:Iṣṭa Devatā
2087:Iṣṭa Devatā
2058:Iṣṭa Devatā
2034:Iṣṭa Devatā
2010:Iṣṭa Devatā
1967:Iṣṭa Devatā
1953:Iṣṭa Devatā
1926:Iṣṭa Devatā
1884:Iṣṭa Devatā
1866:Iṣṭa Devatā
1820:Redtigerxyz
1769:Iṣṭa Devatā
1731:Iṣṭa Devatā
1707:Iṣṭa Devatā
1616:Iṣṭa Devatā
1571:Iṣṭa Devatā
1556:Iṣṭa Devatā
1471:Iṣṭa Devatā
1457:Iṣṭa Devatā
1443:Iṣṭa Devatā
1428:Iṣṭa Devatā
1395:Iṣṭa Devatā
1380:Iṣṭa Devatā
1352:Iṣṭa Devatā
1316:Iṣṭa Devatā
1272:Iṣṭa Devatā
1227:Iṣṭa Devatā
1200:Iṣṭa Devatā
1160:Iṣṭa Devatā
1158:unbalanced.
1145:Iṣṭa Devatā
1090:Iṣṭa Devatā
861:Redtigerxyz
840:Kumbha Mela
817:The Tribune
799:66.8.247.82
775:Big Problem
635:Don't panic
561:—Preceding
504:—Preceding
306:see page 18
266:Dyaus Pitar
206:Redtigerxyz
177:Redtigerxyz
36:This is an
18:Talk:Brahma
2378:References
1860:Note that
1366:WP:WPNOTRS
978:WP:NOTHERE
797:shivadas
188:Lead image
175:article.--
163:GourangaUK
120:link here
113:Brahmastra
2520:Knowledge
2159:Saiva Age
1795:WP:FRINGE
1513:Kautilya3
1196:placement
1121:Kautilya3
852:The Hindu
831:this blog
827:WP:FRINGE
402:Astronaut
343:Abecedare
244:Abecedare
155:Phra phom
88:Nat Kraus
70:Page move
61:Archive 1
2509:All the
2500:contribs
2488:unsigned
2459:pages. —
2457:sanskrit
1922:strawman
1752:WP:IRONY
1540:majority
1509:Hinduism
1114:Kautilya
1060:Waerloeg
1004:WP:IRONY
757:unsigned
643:non-free
575:contribs
567:Glorthac
563:unsigned
506:unsigned
380:contribs
2434:ones. —
2371:, ..).
2294:Brahman
1765:puranas
1685:pg. 18
1678:Puranas
1674:Puranas
1666:Puranas
1658:popular
1653:Puranas
1649:Puranas
1536:Purānas
1505:WP:NPOV
1054:ब्रह्मा
1035:(Talk)
1024:will be
989:(Talk)
934:(Talk)
896:(Talk)
694:Savitri
690:Gayatri
228:Samimas
39:archive
2588:950CMR
2574:245CMR
2482:245CMR
2461:Mykhal
2436:Mykhal
2432:brahma
2410:Mykhal
2368:aputra
2056:right.
1688:navel.
1645:purana
1501:weight
1330:WP:VNT
1174:WP:VNT
823:Akhara
364:VasuVR
319:Tubal.
194:Donrub
80:Brahma
76:Brahma
2453:hindi
2449:Fixed
2397:(PDF)
2123:Body.
1532:epics
1498:undue
1488:(ec)
835:WP:RS
279:Gizza
274:WP:OR
16:<
2607:talk
2592:talk
2578:talk
2563:talk
2496:talk
2474:Name
2465:talk
2455:and
2440:talk
2414:talk
2337:talk
2322:talk
2277:ISBN
2254:talk
2215:talk
2192:talk
2149:talk
2138:ISBN
2113:talk
2102:ISBN
2062:talk
2038:talk
2014:talk
1988:HERE
1971:talk
1957:talk
1930:talk
1899:HERE
1888:talk
1848:HERE
1773:talk
1735:talk
1711:talk
1620:talk
1595:your
1575:talk
1560:talk
1534:and
1517:talk
1475:talk
1461:talk
1447:talk
1432:talk
1399:talk
1384:talk
1356:talk
1328:See
1320:talk
1276:talk
1231:talk
1204:talk
1190:and
1164:talk
1149:talk
1125:talk
1094:talk
1064:talk
1002:See
858:. --
829:and
803:talk
765:talk
736:talk
722:talk
706:talk
671:talk
592:talk
571:talk
514:talk
406:talk
372:talk
347:talk
264:and
262:Zeus
248:talk
232:talk
86:? -
2537:CMR
2534:245
2364:bra
2354:bra
1116::-)
856:BBC
82:to
2609:)
2594:)
2580:)
2565:)
2543:•
2502:)
2498:•
2467:)
2442:)
2416:)
2366:mh
2356:mh
2339:)
2324:)
2308:,
2304:,
2256:)
2217:)
2194:)
2151:)
2115:)
2091:,
2064:)
2040:)
2016:)
1990::
1973:)
1959:)
1932:)
1901::
1890:)
1775:)
1737:)
1713:)
1622:)
1577:)
1562:)
1542:."
1519:)
1477:)
1463:)
1449:)
1434:)
1401:)
1386:)
1358:)
1322:)
1278:)
1233:)
1206:)
1166:)
1151:)
1127:)
1096:)
1066:)
972:,
854:,
850:,
846:,
842:.
805:)
767:)
738:)
724:)
708:)
673:)
665:--
594:)
577:)
573:•
516:)
408:)
384:)
376:,
349:)
276:.
250:)
234:)
127:--
2605:(
2590:(
2576:(
2561:(
2540:.
2531:.
2494:(
2463:(
2438:(
2412:(
2408:—
2361:(
2358:a
2335:(
2320:(
2252:(
2213:(
2190:(
2147:(
2111:(
2097::
2093:@
2089::
2085:@
2060:(
2036:(
2012:(
1969:(
1955:(
1928:(
1886:(
1771:(
1754:.
1733:(
1709:(
1618:(
1612::
1608:@
1604::
1600:@
1573:(
1558:(
1515:(
1494::
1490:@
1473:(
1459:(
1445:(
1430:(
1397:(
1382:(
1368:.
1354:(
1318:(
1274:(
1229:(
1202:(
1176:.
1162:(
1147:(
1123:(
1092:(
1082::
1078:@
1062:(
1006:.
801:(
763:(
734:(
720:(
704:(
669:(
590:(
569:(
512:(
404:(
368:(
345:(
304:(
246:(
230:(
91:e
50:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.