Brahma - important or not?

[mradam83]

Namaste.

I've been researching a lot lately on the main deities and presences in the Hindu pantheon.

As far as I can fathom, Vishnu and Shiva are worshipped by a majority as main deities and incarnations of Brahman with their own specific lines of worship and then there is Shakti/Suri/Parvati who are given prominence in their own right (especially Parvati who I understand as consort of Shiva and some consider sister of Vishnu) and then there are the other gods such as Ganesh (Son of Shiva/Parvati?) and avatars such as Lord Rama, Lord Krishna and I'm not sure but Hanuman who I have read is an incarnation of Shiva?

The one thing I don't get is Brahma. It seems the main schools have their own focus and chief gods but I can never see where Brahma fits in.

I always understood the Trimurti consisting of Brahma who's birth, Vishnu being Life and Shiva being death/destruction. However, in looking at the different schools such as Vaishnaviam and Shaivism I never see where Brahma is.

I'm wondering if people on here could give me some insight on this. Is he regarded as the "placenta to Vishnu's foetus" as I read it put somewhere else?

I don't mean to cause offence by this, but I am genuinely unsure.

Thanks all.

[Shuddhasattva]

Namaste

This is an excellent question. My guru places great importance on Brahma, and takes the view that Hinduism has forgotten and 'misplaced' proper worship of Brahma. He especially emphasizes the importance of worshiping Brahma when eating/drinking, and refers to the teachings of the Mahanirvana tantra in this regard, which are rather veiled but apparent to a close reading.

The agamas say that those who believe the trimurti is separate/distinct are mistaken.

A stock answer to your question is that Brahma is cursed - you'll find a variety of reasons cited, from the supposed sin of supposed incest, to his denial of Shiva's supremacy, etc. that his worship will disappear.

But I want to note something important.

In the Vishnu-centric traditions, Vishnu is not being adored as Supreme because he is the preserver. It is because he is identified as being beyond the trimurti - beyond creation, preservation and destruction/tranformation, and emanating/supporting those three roles (and corresponding gunas). In a word, Mahavishnu - Ishvara.

Likewise, the same with Shiva or Shakti in their respective traditions.

No tradition that I know of ever developed which identified Brahma as Ishvara. This is likely because Brahma's 'place' is much more narrowly defined than either Shiva or Vishnu. He, though a Creator, is himself a created being, with a limited lifespan correlated to that of the universe.

Namaste

[mradam83]

Namaste.

Thank you for your great reply - I had no idea of the supposed incest or that a god could even be cursed.

I suppose that Brahma and Vishwakarma have something in common in that respect, in that both had elevated status in the beginning (I Think Vishwakarma was featured in Rig Veda quite prominently but then mentions died down over the years) and now it seems that with the exception of a few devotees then the others are now preferred as Ishvar.

On the subject of Vishnu, do you think Parvati is considered his sibling by some because of her being the regulator/giver of energy and it fits nicely with Vishnu's traditional role of preserver? (I hope I have the right Deva in Parvati, if not then is it Shakti?)

Thanks again.

[shian]

i think the point is,

you have some miss in the basic of Hinduism
the function of Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva is aspect for us to meditate the quality of God,
When Shaivite student worship Shiva, that is not mean they not worship Vishnu - Brahma - Ganesha - Shakti and another,
worship Shiva is mean already worship Brahma and Vishnu (also Shakti and others)
worship Vishnu is mean already worship Brahma and Shiva and others
they are one.

When we sick, we will pray :
"Oh God , Thou art the destroyer of sicknes."
in Hindu language, this is become :
"Lord Shiva , please cure my diseases, make me halth"

When we need God help in begining of works :
"Oh God, Thou art the destroyer of obstacles."
in Hindu language this is :
"Lord Ganesh, please destroy all obstacles."

When we pray for prosperity :
"Oh God, Thou art is the Lord of all prosperity and auspicious."
In Hindu language , that is become :
"I bow and refuge to the Mother Lakshmi."

So , when we feel gratefull when see beautiful view :
"Oh God, Thou art the creator, wonderfull."
In Hindu language that is :
"i bow and refuge to Lord Brahma."

But the amazing part is, if you already choose one name to concentration in your everyday spiritual life, for example Ganesha's name and form :

when you sick, when you feel gratefull with all wonderful creation, when you need pray for prosperity etc, you only need to say :
"Om Gam Ganapataye Namah !"
acctually every name and form is ONE, and ONE is all.
so, in Hinduism there is we doing spiritual practice with art of devotion, art is beautiful but maybe become confusing and little bit difficult to understand for others who dont have the sense of art

[ShivaFan]

thank you Shian for your reply, I learned a lot today and it gave me a prayer to meditate on.

As for the post from Mr 84, all I know is Brahma is important to me, also homas fire sacrifice.

The ultimate fire for me will be my pyre so that my ashes will be thrown into Mother Ganga at Manikarnika in Kashi.

Today I think of Manikarnika Devi who is a Divine Girl and Devi. May She bless all those of this forum.

Jai Lord Brahma, You See from Every Direction.

[philosoraptor]

the function of Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva is aspect for us to meditate the quality of God,

Shian's views as expressed above most closely resemble the post-modern Hindu leaders of the last 2-3 centuries.

For most Vedaantic schools (i.e. those predating the colonial period and who base their proofs on shAstra), Vishnu is not merely an "aspect" of God - He is God 100%. The other devatas are subordinate entities who, empowered by Him, could be said to represent an aspect of His glories.

This point (equating Vishnu with Brahman) is brought out several times in mainstream texts like the Gita. For example, "arjuna uvAcha: paraM brahma paraM dhAma pavitraM paramaM bhavAn" (gItA 10.12) among others.

regards,

[mradam83]

i think the point is,

you have some miss in the basic of Hinduism
the function of Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva is aspect for us to meditate the quality of God,
When Shaivite student worship Shiva, that is not mean they not worship Vishnu - Brahma - Ganesha - Shakti and another,
worship Shiva is mean already worship Brahma and Vishnu (also Shakti and others)
worship Vishnu is mean already worship Brahma and Shiva and others
they are one.

When we sick, we will pray :
"Oh God , Thou art the destroyer of sicknes."
in Hindu language, this is become :
"Lord Shiva , please cure my diseases, make me halth"

When we need God help in begining of works :
"Oh God, Thou art the destroyer of obstacles."
in Hindu language this is :
"Lord Ganesh, please destroy all obstacles."

When we pray for prosperity :
"Oh God, Thou art is the Lord of all prosperity and auspicious."
In Hindu language , that is become :
"I bow and refuge to the Mother Lakshmi."

So , when we feel gratefull when see beautiful view :
"Oh God, Thou art the creator, wonderfull."
In Hindu language that is :
"i bow and refuge to Lord Brahma."

But the amazing part is, if you already choose one name to concentration in your everyday spiritual life, for example Ganesha's name and form :

when you sick, when you feel gratefull with all wonderful creation, when you need pray for prosperity etc, you only need to say :
"Om Gam Ganapataye Namah !"
acctually every name and form is ONE, and ONE is all.
so, in Hinduism there is we doing spiritual practice with art of devotion, art is beautiful but maybe become confusing and little bit difficult to understand for others who dont have the sense of art

Namaste,

Thank you Shian, that was great - it also helped me with ideas on who to pray to which is something that I'm starting to look into now and I want to make sure I'm speaking to the right gods.

If I'm praying to Krishna or Rama, is this the same as praying to Lord Vishnu?

[mradam83]

Shian's views as expressed above most closely resemble the post-modern Hindu leaders of the last 2-3 centuries.

For most Vedaantic schools (i.e. those predating the colonial period and who base their proofs on shAstra), Vishnu is not merely an "aspect" of God - He is God 100%. The other devatas are subordinate entities who, empowered by Him, could be said to represent an aspect of His glories.

This point (equating Vishnu with Brahman) is brought out several times in mainstream texts like the Gita. For example, "arjuna uvAcha: paraM brahma paraM dhAma pavitraM paramaM bhavAn" (gItA 10.12) among others.

regards,

Namaste.

This was something I was unsure on, if Vishnu or Shiva was classed as the main god or if they are all classed as aspects.

It may seem an odd question, but was Brahma ever incarnated as an Avatar?

[philosoraptor]

Namaste.

This was something I was unsure on, if Vishnu or Shiva was classed as the main god or if they are all classed as aspects.

It may seem an odd question, but was Brahma ever incarnated as an Avatar?

Pranams. All good questions.

Regarding your second question, I am not aware of Brahma (not to be confused with "Brahman" the latter term meaning God with a capital G) being said to take avatara per se. Brahma's realm is actually within the sphere of the universe of matter and thus is also temporary (see gItA 8.16). Thus, it's not really a "coming down" for him in the same sense of Vishnu coming down as avatar (the term avatar literally means "crossing over"). In the Bhaagavata Puraana 10th canto, there is a story of Brahma coming to earth to offer prayers to Sri Krishna. There is another story in the Bhaagavata of a king who goes to Brahma's world to ask for his advice on obtaining a suitable husband for his daughter. Despite waiting only a few "seconds" in Brahma's court for his audience, he is told that centuries have passed on Earth and that all of his known family members had passed on. What this demonstrates is that Brahma's realm is (like all other material realms) subject to time, but it is not in the same time frame as our plane of existence.

There is no doubt that in the scriptures, Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva, and Devi are in a class above that of the other devas like Indra, Agni, etc. As far as who is classified as an "aspect" and who is classified as "main god" (i.e. brahman) that is the major point of difference between different Hindu traditions. For the most part, the candidates for the proverbial title are Vishnu, Shiva, and Devi. I would even go so far as to say that the actual contenders are primarily the first two. Most Vedaantic schools that we know of today hold to the view that Vishnu is Brahman. There are even some who hold that Shankaracharya of the Advaita school is actually a Vaishnavite (I'm not sure about this personally but some of his writings seem to support that view). Certainly Vishnu's identity as Brahman is a recurring theme both in shruti and smRiti. It is indisputably a major theme in the Bhagavad-gita. A very well-researched book that summarizes the evidence of a Vishnu-centered system of interpretation is Dr. D.N. Shanbhag's _Brahman is Vishnu_ (http://www.exoticindia.com/book/deta...amount-NAC416/). It's a great read and easy to finish within 1-2 weeks, and is pregnant with quotations taken directly from a wide variety of scriptures.

regards,

[mradam83]

Pranams. All good questions.

Regarding your second question, I am not aware of Brahma (not to be confused with "Brahman" the latter term meaning God with a capital G) being said to take avatara per se. Brahma's realm is actually within the sphere of the universe of matter and thus is also temporary (see gItA 8.16). Thus, it's not really a "coming down" for him in the same sense of Vishnu coming down as avatar (the term avatar literally means "crossing over"). In the Bhaagavata Puraana 10th canto, there is a story of Brahma coming to earth to offer prayers to Sri Krishna. There is another story in the Bhaagavata of a king who goes to Brahma's world to ask for his advice on obtaining a suitable husband for his daughter. Despite waiting only a few "seconds" in Brahma's court for his audience, he is told that centuries have passed on Earth and that all of his known family members had passed on. What this demonstrates is that Brahma's realm is (like all other material realms) subject to time, but it is not in the same time frame as our plane of existence.

There is no doubt that in the scriptures, Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva, and Devi are in a class above that of the other devas like Indra, Agni, etc. As far as who is classified as an "aspect" and who is classified as "main god" (i.e. brahman) that is the major point of difference between different Hindu traditions. For the most part, the candidates for the proverbial title are Vishnu, Shiva, and Devi. I would even go so far as to say that the actual contenders are primarily the first two. Most Vedaantic schools that we know of today hold to the view that Vishnu is Brahman. There are even some who hold that Shankaracharya of the Advaita school is actually a Vaishnavite (I'm not sure about this personally but some of his writings seem to support that view). Certainly Vishnu's identity as Brahman is a recurring theme both in shruti and smRiti. It is indisputably a major theme in the Bhagavad-gita. A very well-researched book that summarizes the evidence of a Vishnu-centered system of interpretation is Dr. D.N. Shanbhag's _Brahman is Vishnu_ (http://www.exoticindia.com/book/deta...amount-NAC416/). It's a great read and easy to finish within 1-2 weeks, and is pregnant with quotations taken directly from a wide variety of scriptures.

regards,

Namaste.

Pardon my ignorance but I have never heard of the Bhaagavata Puraana - is it part of the Mahabharata or a separate work?

That is very interesting about the time difference in Brahma's realm - it strikes me as being very similar to the theory of travel at the speed of life in that time doesn't appear to change much for the one travelling but on earth, time has appeared to move faster. But the consensus is that Brahma lives in a temporary and material plane in our sphere of existence but very far away? I hope I have that right?

Thank you for the recommendation on the book, that's on my payday shipping list! :-D