Bramha, Trimurti explanation?

[Madhuri]

Recently I've been explaining to people that the reason Brahma is not worshipped the way Vishnu and Shiva are is due the fact that it is described in some scriptures that the trimurti are manifestations of manifestations. For example, the Srimad Bhagavatam tells us that Maha Vishnu manifests and Garbhodashiya Vishnu who again manifests in the material universe where the trimurti are then manifest.

This means the trimurti are not direct manifestations, so that when we worship Vishnu, we are actually worshipping Maha Vishnu rather than Vishnu who is part of the trimurti and Shiva in the spiritual realm rather than Shiva of the trimurti. And hence why we would not worship Brahma of the trimurti.

I'm no expert on this topic. It just seems like the logical reason. So I asked dad today, who is only knowledgeable in Gaudiya Vaishnava teachings and he says that Vishnu and Shiva of the trimurti are neither quantitatively or qualitatively different to their original forms and that unlike them, Brahma is created as a material entity just like the other demigods and just like all material beings.

So my question is, what is the understanding that you all have on this matter?

 

[Shuddhasattva]

The loss of Brahmā's worship is one of the main problems undermining modern Hinduism's authenticity; Brahmā is properly Pushan; Hiranyagarbha; Yogeshvara, the Lord of the Vedas, Brahman manifest and self-created.

 

[Andal]

Maybe this is faulty and an authenticity problem with modern Hinduism but I have heard two different reasons. The first is a puranic story that Brahma had gotten into an unseemly relationship and as punishment his worship was wiped from the earth... with the exception of a couple of places.

The other explanation is that Vishnu and Shiva are inseparable. Shiva is the other side of Vishnu- Harihara. Brahma on the other hand is not a permanent deva. Brahma is a position, like one of us could be Brahma in a future life. Brahma is a material being an not immortal.

I don't necessarially hold to either of these views so please don't take them as personal statements of faith.

Aum Hari Aum!

 

[Sumit]

So my question is, what is the understanding that you all have on this matter?

It's due to two stories from puranas. The first story is from shiva purana.

once Brahma and Vishnu were fighting over each other’s prowess. Horrified at the intensity of the battle, the other gods asked Shiva to intervene. To make them realize the futility of their fight, Lord Shiva assumed the form of a flaming Linga in between Brahma and Vishnu and challenged both of them by asking them to measure the gigantic Linga
Awestruck by its magnitude, Brahma and Vishnu decided to find one end each to establish supremacy over the other. Lord Brahma took the form of a swan and went upwards while Lord Vishnu assumed the form of Varaha - a boar and went into the earth towards nether land. Both searched for thousands of miles but neither could find the end.

On his journey upward, Brahma came across Ketaki flower. Exhausted and bewildered with his search to find the uppermost limit of fiery column, Brahma made Ketaki assent to lie that he had seen the top of the column where the flower had previously resided. Accompanied by his accomplice, Brahma confronted Vishnu and asserted that he had indeed discovered the origin of the cosmic column.

At this point, the central part of the pillar split open and Shiva revealed himself in his full glory. Overawed, both Brahma and Vishnu bowed before him accepted lord Shiva’s supremacy.
Lord Shiva was angry with Brahma for making a false claim. The Lord cursed Brahma that no one would ever pray to him. Lord Shiva also punished the Ketaki flower for testifying falsely and banned her from being used as an offering for any worship.

:biglaugh:
The second story is

Brahma created Kaamdev and blessed him that he can cupid any person with his power and can wake up a will in him for Kaam. Now lord Kaamdev thought to test that power blessed by Brahma. He shot his arrow on Lord Brahma to test his blessing. So as the blessing of Lord Brahma was true, he got attracted for a lady, who was in relation to his daughter.

Everyone got worried and atlast Lord Shiv came in between both them,regenerated and brought back Bramha's conscience and cursed Bramha and announced that no one in this world will be allowed have physical relations with females who are like their daughter,sister,mother or a higher social relation,any one till the end of this world,committing such crime will be punished who ever it might be,So Lord Bramha,I curse you that you will not be worshiped due to the crime which you were going to do with a lady who is like your daughter.

 

[Shuddhasattva]

The puranic stories are "retconned" accounts of the loss of Brahma's worship, and one of them a terrible distortion of the Vedic creation narrative (eg RV 1.164.33)

 

[Sumit]

However I think that Brahma is Mortal so not worshipped. it's lifespan is 311.04 trillion human years. I will give here a little info about hindu system of time.

a Paramāṇu=16.8 microseconds
Aṇu = 2 Paramāṇus
Trasareṇu = 3 Aṇus
Truṭi is 3 Trasareṇus= 1/3290th of a second.
Vedha = 100 Truṭis.
Lava = 3 Vedhas.
Nimeṣa= 3 Lavas
Kṣaṇas = 3 Nimeṣas.
Kāṣṭhās = 5 Kṣaṇas, about 4.1 seconds.
Laghu = 15 Kāṣṭhās, or about 1 minute.
15 Laghus = one Nāḍika
2 Daṇḍas = one Muhūrta.
7 Muhūrta =one Yāma, or 1/4 of a day
1Divine yuga = set of four yuga(Treta+Dwapar+Satiyug+kaliyuga) and it's duration is 4,320,000 human years.
1Mahayuga= 1200 divine yuga
1000Mahayuga= 1kalp=1day of Brahma
2 kalp=1day+1night of Brahma (8.64 billion human years)
1 year of Brahma = 3.1104 trillion human years
100 years of Brahma = 311.04 trillion human years
So after every 311.04 trillion new Brahma takes the charge of creation.

 

[Madhuri]

The loss of Brahmā's worship is one of the main problems undermining modern Hinduism's authenticity; Brahmā is properly Pushan; Hiranyagarbha; Yogeshvara, the Lord of the Vedas, Brahman manifest and self-created.

How do we know this?

 

[Shuddhasattva]

How do we know this?

We know Hiranyagarbha = Pusan = Prajapati.

We know all 3 can be correlated with Brahmā.

Ko ham syam ity abravit, etat pradayeti, etat sya ity abravit
uyad etad bravisiti, ko ha vai nama Prajapatih ya evam veda

The purpose of his worship as the Lord of Yoga has been lost to us

 

[Madhuri]

Thanks guys! I'll research this more thoroughly with the info you provided.

 

[Gaura Priya]

I honestly believe that Trimurti is a modern invention by the British occupation in India to somehow parallel the Christian Trinity, but that's my speculation!

The reason I say this is because I honestly believe that Vaishnavism, Shaivism, Shaktism, etc. were separate religions with their own codes, rituals and beliefs, and that they all shared Hindu culture (although I believe that such is a modernism). While Vaishnavism and Shaivism (and later also Smartism) thrived throughout the centuries, Brahma worship declined. This also happened with Sauram (worship of Surya-deva) and Ganapatyam (worship of Ganesha as Supreme God).

 

[Shuddhasattva]

British imposition even though the trimurti appears in puran, itihas (to a lesser extent, to be sure), and the agamas?

 

[Maya3]

I honestly believe that Trimurti is a modern invention by the British occupation in India to somehow parallel the Christian Trinity, but that's my speculation!

The reason I say this is because I honestly believe that Vaishnavism, Shaivism, Shaktism, etc. were separate religions with their own codes, rituals and beliefs, and that they all shared Hindu culture (although I believe that such is a modernism). While Vaishnavism and Shaivism (and later also Smartism) thrived throughout the centuries, Brahma worship declined. This also happened with Sauram (worship of Surya-deva) and Ganapatyam (worship of Ganesha as Supreme God).

Me too actually. It would make sense that missionaries tried to tie in the culture and religion in India to "help" people convert.

Christmas Easter and several other Christian holidays are Pagan in origin that the missionaries tried to combine to get people to accept Christianity easier.
So it would make sense if the same thing happened in India.

Maya

 

[Gaura Priya]

British imposition even though the trimurti appears in puran, itihas (to a lesser extent, to be sure), and the agamas?

I should have clarified myself! :cover:

The idea of Sri Trimurti as saguna aspects of the Divine is not my personal uncertainty, but rather the idea that they are all equally God (as well as its importance in conceptions of God), especially in regards to Shaivism and Vaishnavism having key doctrinal differences between each other and the declination of Brahma worship.

In both Vaishnavam and Shaivam, they recognise Trimurti as saguna manifestations of the trigunas with either Vishnu or Shiva as ultimately supreme, while somewhere Sri Brahmaji is left behind in worship practices.

The importance of Sri Trimurti (just like the Manu-smrti, IMMHO) came with the British since they were interested in making comparisons with their own Anglican Christianity, and that emphasis carried over into modern-day Hindu Dharma. Of course I could be completely baseless, but I suppose it's merely my basic understanding on why Brahma worship never grew into popularity.

If Sri Brahmaji was so important to the Hindu Trinity, I would have expected a little more than a few scarce temples. Perhaps it could be due to Puranic stories that have coloured common people from worshipping him?

 

[Vinayaka]

Speaking as a Shaiva, within the Nataraja image itself, AND within the sacred panchakshara, there is dissolution, (Siva) Na, emanation, (Brahma) Si, and sustaining, (Vishnu) Ya So is Shakti present within Nataraja as an earring. So it's all there, the whole trimurti, and more. Analogy: If your house has everything already in it, why go shopping for more?

 

[bp789]

Doesn't the idea of the Trimurti contradict Vaishnavism and Shaivism? As far as I know, Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva as a Trimurti are supposed to be equal. However, Vaishnavas believe that Vishnu and his incarnations are supreme while Shaivites believe Shiva is supreme, so how would that be reconciled with the concept of the Trimurti, especially since Brahma is nowadays ignored in modern Hinduism?

 

[Madhuri]

Doesn't the idea of the Trimurti contradict Vaishnavism and Shaivism? As far as I know, Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva as a Trimurti are supposed to be equal. However, Vaishnavas believe that Vishnu and his incarnations are supreme while Shaivites believe Shiva is supreme, so how would that be reconciled with the concept of the Trimurti, especially since Brahma is nowadays ignored in modern Hinduism?

It doesn't contradict Vaishnavism because the trimurti are functional manifestations of Vishnu. So there is no difference between Vishnu and Shiva; they are the same entity (God) appearing as different forms for different purposes.

 

[Vinayaka]

It doesn't contradict Vaishnavism because the trimurti are functional manifestations of Vishnu. So there is no difference between Vishnu and Shiva; they are the same entity (God) appearing as different forms for different purposes.

Same for Saivism ... except its functional manifestations of Siva. God Siva creates, God Siva sustains, God Siva dissolves. God Siva hides. God Siva reveals. Verily there is only Siva. So there is no contradiction. The very concept of trimurthi is something outside of Saivism as well.

You can`t contradict an English concept using French.

 

[Madhuri]

What is the account of trimurti according to Saivism? In Vaishnavism, Maha Vishnu manifests as Garbhodakasayi Vishnu who enters each material universe and then manifests the trimurti.

 

[Vinayaka]

My understanding is very limited, and it might vary from school to school. But from my personal limited understanding, in Saiva Siddhanta, the concept is pretty much non-existent. Siva in all, period. I'm with the theory that its something more or less invented by scholars with a Christian or Abrahamic subconscious seeking for some kind of explanation or parallel from that reference point.

But I tried to explain it in previous posts.

 

[Madhuri]

How can it be a Christian or Abrahamic invention when it is in the Puranas? It is part of the creation story in the Bhagavat Purana.