Talk:Trimurti
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. |
|
More information about this article...
|
|
 |
This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This Philrelig article has been rated B-Class on the assessment scale. |
I've never seen the th spelling before, and google says:
-
- Searched the web for Trimurthi. Results 1 - 10 of about 353. Search took 0.08 seconds.
Did you mean: Trimurti
-
- Searched the web for OMGTrimurti. Results 1 - 10 of about 9,820. Search took 0.09 seconds.
Mkweise 19:38 19 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Who is "Robare"? Unlinked, the name is mentioned once and never again. Sloppy!
evri 1 hu lukz at this page is gay!Would it be possible to include dates for the historical material, please? I'm trying to follow up on the development of concepts of divine Trinity generally, and terms like the Brahmapa period convey nothing to me. (Sorry to be Eurocentric.)—Copey--203.109.252.196 03:00, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] 64.136.49.228
This is a fairly common fallacy, that precedence provides causationMikereichold 05:30, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Contradiction
The intro asserts that Trimurti is similar to the "traditional view" of the Christian Trinity, yet the illustrative quote from Swami Sivananda describes a view that corresponds to modalism, which was rejected as heretical in the third century. Is there some other source that illustrates this differently, so as to justify the statement in the intro? TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Article flawed
(Maitri Upanishad 5.2): "That part of Him which is characterized by tamas is called Rudra. That part of Him which belongs to rajas is Brahma. That part of Him which belongs to sattva is Vishnu."
Isn't this nuff to clarify the origins of trimurthi? Maitri upanishad is an upanishad derived from Krishna(or Black) Yajur Veda.
Max muller noted the difference in grammatical pecularities thus testified it belongs to an early period.
As for the article from catholic.com, it has certain errors as Brahma wasn't a duplicated god, but is same as Prajapathi, whose aspects by no means differ from that of Brahma of trimurti. Also, Brahma wasn't an impersonal deity, what he is referring to might be a reference to BRAHMAN.
Changes in the article should be made as soon as possible to reflect this.
Brahman is the Supreme Being, pervading all others. Vaishnav say Vishnu is Brahman. Saiva say Shiva is Brahman. Upanishads say that brahman is represented by these three. Ved vyaas revealed both upanishads as well as puranas, where puranas were written for laymen. Vaishnavs hold Vishnu Puraana as real authority while Saivas hold Shiva Puranaa as real authority. There are also brahma puraana if im not mistaken. Thus the hypothesis is misconceived.
I'm removing the opinion of non-hindus because its a mere allegation, with no sufficient proof.
Categories: Unassessed India articles | Unassessed India articles of unknown-importance | Unknown-importance India articles | Wikipedia Version 0.5 | Wikipedia CD Selection-0.5 | Wikipedia Release Version | B-Class Version 0.5 articles | Philosophy and religion Version 0.5 articles | B-Class Version 0.7 articles | Philosophy and religion Version 0.7 articles
