Talk:Brahma/Archive 1

Page move
Given that Brahma the god is the only thing mentioned in Wikipedia which is called Brahma, other than a brand of beer, why don't we move this page to Brahma and move the current contents of Brahma to Brahman (disambiguation)? - Nat Krause 14:46, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

How was Brahma created?
The Hindus say that Brahma sprouted out of Vishnus navel in a lotus flower. Shiva created Vishnu. Brahma and Vishnu had to help create Earth and humans. Brahmas son was King Daksha.

Shiva doesn't create Vishnu
According to Vaishanvism, Vishnu is eternal and Shiva is a manifestation of Vishnu. According to Shaivism, Vishnu is a manifestation of Shiva. But shiva didn't create Vishnu.

Brahmastra
There should be some discussion / hyperlinks to Brahmastra, the arrow/weapon made by Brahma.

link here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahmastra

--58.107.194.151 05:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)--58.107.194.151 05:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Merge request
Seems like the Thai form of Brahma deserves attention in itself. If the articles are merged it will be important to retain attention to the Thai contexts of Brahma veneration as an important link to Hindu practices in Thailand, showing the continuity within the Indic/Dharmic religious tradtion into the wider context of Thai Buddhism. It might be worth coonsdiering a longer essay on Thai religion, or a more expanded discussion in the Thai Buddhism article of the role of the Hindu devas in Thai worship.

CharlusIngus.


 * I agree - the Phra phom article is better as a page in itself, or as an additional entry on another page. Is sounds similar to the Brahma (Buddhism) entry also. I am removing the merge notice. GourangaUK 11:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I think most of the iconography is same in Phra phom and Brahma. The Phra phom article starts with saying "Phra Phrom is the Thai representation of the Hindu god Brahma". So Phra Phrom can be merged in Brahma or a reference to Phra phom can be included in Brahma article.--Redtigerxyz 10:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Lead image
The current image is a sculpture but I think so it should be an image or an old painting for the time being and later into a modern image.--Donrub 18:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Even i think it can be an PD-art image.--Redtigerxyz 12:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Speculations on Biblical connections
I found in the page talking about Abraham 'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham' a section called "Speculations on Hindu connections" that talks about alleged connections between biblical Abraham and hindu Brahma. So whether such a connection is true or not, i think if it is mentioned in the page of Abraham why isn't it in this article, too. Well it should be since it is shared information about both, especially that it is supported by references. I am not very good in wiki or even english so i did what i thought is best. I didn't know how to add the references. so if u can help that would be great. the only thing i changed is the title from "Speculations on Hindu connections" to "Speculations on Biblical connections" since that would make more since when posted about the Hindu Brahma. – — … ° ≈ ≠ ≤ ≥ ± − × ÷ ← → · § Samimas: Samimas (talk) 14:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately that whole section is poorly sourced to Hindu, Muslim, and Christian blogs/extremist sites. If you wish to add relevant information please find appropriate sources, such as scholarly articles or books on the subject. Abecedare (talk) 06:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I thought that perhaps there is a reliable Proto-Indo-European dictionary out there that can connect the words together, just like Zeus and Dyaus Pitar. But of course, a major hole in this hypothesis is that Hebrew isn't an Indo-European language, and that the established etymologies for each word are fairly different. Maybe they have a common ancestor in the Proto-World language, but until qualified experts begin researching this is more detail and publish their views in the form of reliable sources, the "speculation" will remain as WP:OR. GizzaDiscuss  &#169; 07:15, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, any etymological connection would have to be sourced to a scholarly source. AFAIK, the whole Brahma-Abraham link is based on an isolated quote from Voltaire's, 1764 Dictionnaire philosophique (see page 18) where he writes (emphasis added):

Given the minor and admittedly speculative sentence, I don't think this needs to be mentioned in the article; but if others feel otherwise, at least it is verifiable. However, references to hinduunity.org, cyberistan.org and viewzone.com, to establish currency of such beliefs is silly. There was a recent attempt by now-banned User:DWhiskaZ and his socks to draw links between Mohammad and the Bhavishya Purana etc on various pages (see for example); I don't know if this is linked in anyway since another of his sock User:Hindustan10 recently edited this article too. Abecedare (talk) 07:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Carnatic music
As per the texts quoted, the 9 Brahmas are : Angirasa, Atri, Kasyapa, Pulastya, Pulaha, Brigu, Marichi, Vasishta and Daksha. VasuVR ( talk,  contribs ) 17:47, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Who told Vedas are 4?. It is five
Comment moved from Talk:Brahma Creator God, where it would almost never be seen. Also converted to lowercase to make it much easier to read. Astronaut (talk) 15:07, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Who told Vedas are 4?. It is five

1. Rig Veda 2. Yajur Veda 3.Sama Veda 4.Adarva Veda 5.Pranava Veda

Veda Vyasan he redused Vedas 5 in to 4.

Thats why he clled as Veda Vysa. That means who reduced Veda known as Vysa.

And 1 thing is that

Brahma- Brihaspathi-Lord Viswakarma-(all are same we can see in Vedas in different Rik) has five heads

1.1st head-Brahma (Creation) 2.2nd head-Vishnu (Stiti) 3.3rd head-Rudra (Samharam)

According to Hindu mythology there Brahma has only 3 heads

But in Vedas not in Puranas

There are 2 heads also.each have different responsibilities.

4. 4th head-Maheswara (Thirobhavam) 5. 5th head- Sadasiva (Anugraham)

In Hindu mythology we can see all gods have troubles.

That time they preying for some one ? Who is that............?

That is creator. Lord Brahma.

In Hindu Pojja we are having Ganapathi Pooja,,,,,,,,,,?

Who is Ganapathi,,,,,,,,,,?

Ganam means a group. Pathi means head of something

So how can we cay this elephant headed shape can has a Pathi

In Puranas we can see he is son of Siva..

So how can he become Pathi of a group?

Thats what we can see Vyasa reduced Vedas. Because he want to reduce the importance of Brahma or Jagatpita or Viswakarma.

In Ganapathi Pooja we can understand that Manthra indicate or it giving for Brahma.....

That start from like that....

ommm sahasra sheersha purusha sahasraksha

sahasrapal....like.

According to Veda god is one

That is Brahma

He created all things Brahma the creator and almighty of entire universe

In Purana describes only based on earth but in Vedas it describer entire universe

That is the different between Vedas and Puranas —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.172.112.77 (talk) 08:00, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I have to disagree almost completely to the above comment for the following reasons: 1. The Vedas are infinite in number. They are infinitely long, but are classified into 4 for convenience. Veda Vyasa did not reduce 5 to 4. What he actually did was increase it from 3 to 4 (or 1 to 4, because the 3 Vedas were together at that time), from Trayeevidya to Chaturvidya. Atharva Veda was not accepted by the Trayeevidya school of thought back then, because it does not lead one to salvation. When the Vedas, which were one, yet many, were thus not clearly classified, Vedavyasa split them into 4.

2. Brahma, Bruhaspati and Vishwakarma are different. Brahma has 4 heads, not 5. His 5th head was chopped by Shiva. By the way, Shiva has 5 heads.

3. Neither Shiva nor Vishnu is quoted in the Puranas, Itihasas or Vedas to have asked Brahma to save them from trouble.

4. The mantra you relate to Ganapati Pooja has nothing to do with Ganapati in particular. It is a shloka from Purusha Sookta, and the last word of the first line is Sahasrapat, not Sahasrapal.

5. The Vedas say that there's only one God. This God is Brahman, not Brahma. Vyasa did not want to reduce the importance of Brahma. He split the Vedas to make it easier for beings like us to learn them, because in the Kali Yuga, man is said to lose his ability to become a Chaturvedi.

6. Last, but not the least, Veda Vyasa is believed to be Vishnu himself. As the popular shloka goes,"Vyasaaya Vishnuroopaaya Vyaasaroopaaya Vishnave".

7. I couldn't understand the reason behind your mentioning of Ganapati. I request you to explain further.

-- Srinath Ravi

Trinity reference
Unless anybody has some good evidence as to why the word Trinity appears in this sentence: "Bhrigu then set off to find the greatest among the Trinity." Then I suggest it is replaced by the word triad. Mind you a trinity is not 3 dieties, but 3 Persons (who's) in 1 Being (what). Unless Vishnu, Brahma, and Shiva inhabit 1 body, its a triad, or three different beings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Glorthac (talk • contribs) 16:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The page for Trimurti claims: "One type of depiction for the Trimurti shows three heads on one neck, and often even three faces on one head, each looking in a different direction." Which is exactly what you said; three persons in one being. The Being being the Brahman.  Trimurti may be the best word, but I think your aversion to the word Trinity is your perception of it in relation to Christianity. 74.78.219.170 (talk) 05:58, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Brahma's wife
Some say that Gayatri is his wife on earth and Savitri his wife in heaven. Is this a legend only not to be mentioned? Is there no difference between consort and wife in Hinduism?
 * Austerlitz -- 88.75.93.130 (talk) 21:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Gayatri is another name for Savitri. Both are same.--Powerprowess (talk) 09:46, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Isn't Saraswati the daughter, not the wife, of Brahma? Pravingandhino1 (talk) 10:27, 30 August 2012 (UTC) Pravingandhino1

His Daughter
Is it true ,that Bhrama had create with his daugther all creatures, i mean animals and humans? I just want to know it... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.204.137.222 (talk) 10:35, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Big Problem
I've noticed (being a Sanskritist) that there is big problem with this article, that is that the term Brahma is most often used in Hindu canon to refer to Brahman, rather than the deva (demigod) Brahma of this article. Yet the mention of the difference is not at the beginning of the article and it is not very clear, I think it needs to be moved to the beginning and made more clear that Brahma more often means Brahman. This is a problem if people come across a reference to Brahman written as Brahma in Hindu shastras, and then look it up here and read only the beginning of this article and then think it refers to the demigod rather than Brahman, for example this from the beginning of the 1st chapter of the Mahabharata (Ganguly edition) is a good example:

"Sauti then said, 'Having bowed down to the primordial being Isana, to whom multitudes make offerings, and who is adored by the multitude; who is the true incorruptible one, Brahma, perceptible, imperceptible, eternal; who is both a non-existing and an existing-non-existing being; who is the universe and also distinct from the existing and non-existing universe; who is the creator of high and low; the ancient, exalted, inexhaustible one; who is Vishnu, beneficent and the beneficence itself, worthy of all preference, pure and immaculate; who is Hari, the ruler of the faculties, the guide of all things moveable and immoveable; I will declare the sacred thoughts of the illustrious sage Vyasa, of marvellous deeds and worshipped here by all."

As is seen, the use of Brahma is meant as Brahman. This is common in Sanskrit Hindu shastras, see in more detail at the Brahman article subsection etymology, Brahman

shivadas 66.8.247.82 (talk) 17:19, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Kalpwasi as worshippers of Brahma
The Tribune is the only source (July 2013) which makes the assertion that Kalpwasi are part of the Akhara that worship Brahma. This seem to be a WP:FRINGE and this blog (Jan 2013). The Tribune is not a WP:RS on matters of religion. I did not find this claim in any scholarly book. Kalpwasis are defined in most scholarly books, as pilgrims who live an asutere life in the month of Magha and are related to the Kumbha Mela. Pilgrimage and Power: The Kumbh Mela in Allahabad, 1765-1954 By Kama Maclean (Oxford University Ptress), Hinduism Today, The Hindu, BBC. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 07:56, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

AKS.9955's deletion of RS, insertion of nonRS and incorrect formatting of the page
There is no excuse for any of this.VictoriaGraysonTalk 18:32, 26 August 2015 (UTC)


 * VictoriaGrayson, I am sorry but neither your subject line nor the comments make any sense. Please be more clear.  Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk)  18:35, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * 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.VictoriaGraysonTalk 18:38, 26 August 2015 (UTC)


 * VictoriaGrayson, 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. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk)  18:40, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not blanking the page. You obviously don't know what that means. I am not adding anything.  I'm reverting a removal.VictoriaGraysonTalk 18:44, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

AKS.9955 is now using false edit summaries. He is the one who is refusing to discuss on talk page.VictoriaGraysonTalk 18:51, 26 August 2015 (UTC)


 * VictoriaGrayson, STOP and do not engage in edit warring. 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 WP:NOTHERE to contribute. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk)  18:54, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * See WP:IRONY.VictoriaGraysonTalk 18:55, 26 August 2015 (UTC)


 * VictoriaGrayson, either you comply to WP guidelines OR refrain from editing. Should you not comply and continue with disruptive editing, you will be reported. Make no mistakes.  Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk)  19:00, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Matra and pronunciation
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 ब्रह्मा 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. Waerloeg (talk) 17:40, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Disagree with last edit
I feel like the material in your last edit 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 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.Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 21:14, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 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.VictoriaGraysonTalk</b> 21:23, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 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 Kautilya :-)
 * But the terminology of "secondary creator" credited to Bryant is not mainstream. I agree that it shouldn't be in the lead. - Kautilya3 (talk) 21:52, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Google Books search turns up many books which use the exact phrase "secondary creator". And many books state the same concept with different words.VictoriaGrayson<b style="font-family:Helvetica Neue;color:#707">Talk</b> 21:57, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 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 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. Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 03:01, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 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 unbalanced.Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 03:05, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 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 WP:VNT.VictoriaGrayson<b style="font-family:Helvetica Neue;color:#707">Talk</b> 04:24, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 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 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 (Religious Doctrines of the Mahabharata and Krishna: A Sourcebook). 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 placement. 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.Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 04:58, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not misunderstanding. You are making all sorts of claims without reading the books cited. Neither is talking about Vishnu puranas.VictoriaGrayson<b style="font-family:Helvetica Neue;color:#707">Talk</b> 05:01, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 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 historical perspectives. 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.Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 05:07, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Please cite academic sources instead of Swami Parmeshwaranand.VictoriaGrayson<b style="font-family:Helvetica Neue;color:#707">Talk</b> 05:18, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 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. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiranyagarbha#Translation_in_English This is the view that goes at the top.Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 05:23, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thats a primary source. Please cite secondary sources.VictoriaGrayson<b style="font-family:Helvetica Neue;color:#707">Talk</b> 05:24, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 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 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:
 * "Prâjapâti (“ lord of creatures”). Creator, same as Hiranyagarbha."
 * Feuerstein, Georg (2013-09-11). The Yoga Tradition: It's History, Literature, Philosophy and Practice (Kindle Locations 15891-15892). Hohm Press. Kindle Edition.
 * "Hiranyagarbha (“golden germ”), (i) The mythical originator of Yoga, (ii) Cosmologically, the condition preceding manifestation, corresponding to Brahma."
 * Feuerstein, Georg (2013-09-11). The Yoga Tradition: It's History, Literature, Philosophy and Practice (Kindle Locations 15715-15716). Hohm Press. Kindle Edition.
 * Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 06:00, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * See WP:VNT. You can call it "dancing around citations", but its how Wikipedia works. Please provide secondary academic sources which support your POV.  These citations from Feuerstein don't support your claims.VictoriaGrayson<b style="font-family:Helvetica Neue;color:#707">Talk</b> 06:16, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 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 (not pan-hindu). 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. that's the argument here. Your citations don't claim to express a pan-hindu view of anything. You can't even pull a quote.Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 06:34, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Your sources are not reliable or are primary. See WP:WPNOTRS.VictoriaGrayson<b style="font-family:Helvetica Neue;color:#707">Talk</b> 07:13, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 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 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.Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 08:24, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 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 second opinion, because Kautilya agreed with me, as will anyone else.Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 08:30, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

"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.Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 10:17, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * "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)Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 10:23, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * "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)Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 10:36, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * "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) Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 11:13, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

(ec) You are totally missing the point. We are saying that these ideas are have been given undue weight and putting them in the lead violates WP:NPOV. 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 Hinduism contain them? - Kautilya3 (talk) 10:39, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I completely understand thats what you erroneously believe. However Frazier says "...it is the  itihāsa narratives of the epics and Purānas or the emotive poems of the bhakti saints that are most inﬂuential on the  religious life of the majority." page 19 of Continuum Companion to Hindu Studies.VictoriaGrayson<b style="font-family:Helvetica Neue;color:#707">Talk</b> 17:34, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 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 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. Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 18:20, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 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 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.Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 18:39, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * None of your "long quotes" indicates which ancient text they are talking about. So you have not disproven anything.VictoriaGrayson<b style="font-family:Helvetica Neue;color:#707">Talk</b> 18:43, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 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 your 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 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! seriously need a second opinion here, because  is being patently stubborn and defending her edits by synthesizing ideas from almost exclusively Vaishnav puranic perspectives.Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 18:55, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Here are the 2 quotes of top mainstream indologist Edwin Bryant: "pg. 6-7 The word purana, in Sanskrit, signiﬁes ‘‘that which took place previously,’’ that is, ancient lore. Several Puranas list the total number of Puranas 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 popular Hinduism of India today essentially stems from the Puranas rather than the old Vedic corpus of texts. The three chief gods in the Puranas are Brahma, the secondary creator, 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 Puranas is played out between the two transcendent lords Vishnu and Shiva. Despite the usually playful rivalry between Vishnu and Shiva, much in the Puranas point to the fact that it is Vishnu who as a rule occupies a position of preeminence in the earlier texts."

"pg. 18 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 navel." VictoriaGrayson<b style="font-family:Helvetica Neue;color:#707">Talk</b> 19:04, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 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 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.Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 19:39, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The majority view should be in the lede. Minority views go in the body.VictoriaGrayson<b style="font-family:Helvetica Neue;color:#707">Talk</b> 19:43, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 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 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.Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 20:13, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by unrelated sources? Everything I just quoted is from one book. You don't even know what OR and synthesis means.  You are always quoting primary sources and then making stuff up about them.  This is really the height of WP:IRONY.VictoriaGrayson<b style="font-family:Helvetica Neue;color:#707">Talk</b> 20:25, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 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 puranas. 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.Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 20:46, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Its the same book.VictoriaGrayson<b style="font-family:Helvetica Neue;color:#707">Talk</b> 20:46, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 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 WP:FRINGE 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:
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * Redtigerxyz Talk 11:29, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

""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.""
 * Please model the first 2 sentences of the article based on your own source HERE. Your own source's first 2 sentences say:

VictoriaGrayson<b style="font-family:Helvetica Neue;color:#707">Talk</b> 14:48, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note that Encyclopedia of Ancient Deities refutes that Brahma is the same as Vedic Prajapati and Hiranyagarbha, an idea was constantly promoting.
 * 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 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.Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 18:08, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

We should model the first 2 sentences based on the first 2 sentences HERE: ""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.""

This is one of Redtigerxyz's tertiary sources.VictoriaGrayson<b style="font-family:Helvetica Neue;color:#707">Talk</b> 18:34, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 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 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 strawman 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.Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 18:40, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? The first 2 sentences of Redtigerxyz's edits are not remotely close to the first 2 sentences here.VictoriaGrayson<b style="font-family:Helvetica Neue;color:#707">Talk</b> 18:44, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 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 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 in every way without your shift in emphasis which added no new information. Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 18:49, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 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.Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 18:51, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Do you agree we should model the first 2 sentences of the lead based on the first 2 sentences HERE: ""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."" VictoriaGrayson<b style="font-family:Helvetica Neue;color:#707">Talk</b> 18:56, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 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 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. Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 19:05, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I am specifically asking about the first 2 sentences. Yes or No?VictoriaGrayson<b style="font-family:Helvetica Neue;color:#707">Talk</b> 19:08, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 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 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.Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 19:31, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I am asking you specific things about presentation and arrangement, with simple yes or no questions.VictoriaGrayson<b style="font-family:Helvetica Neue;color:#707">Talk</b> 19:36, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 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 right.Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 19:38, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Trimurti, Trinity, Primary and secondary creator
, 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 Rigopoulos (1998), Dattatreya: The Immortal Guru, Yogin, and Avatara, SUNY Press, ISBN 978-0791436967, 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. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:58, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 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 Body.VictoriaGrayson<b style="font-family:Helvetica Neue;color:#707">Talk</b> 20:45, 5 December 2015 (UTC)


 * @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, ISBN 978-0887061394, pages 10-14. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:59, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Sanderson's Saiva Age pg. 43 and 53. Gavin Flood's Tantric Body 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.VictoriaGrayson<b style="font-family:Helvetica Neue;color:#707">Talk</b> 23:12, 5 December 2015 (UTC)


 * @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. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 23:34, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no "sub-movement" associated with Brahma. Thats the point.VictoriaGrayson<b style="font-family:Helvetica Neue;color:#707">Talk</b> 01:33, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * @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". Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 02:28, 6 December 2015 (UTC)


 * 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 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. Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 05:19, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

@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, ISBN 978-0521053822 (2007 Reprint), pages 346-349. Note Bhattacharji spells deity Brahma as Brahman, and refers to metaphysical Brahman 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).

To support their Brahma-Buddhism theory, they refer to these Buddhist texts: Majjhima Nikaya, Assalayana Sutta, Milinda Panha, 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, Sakka in Buddhaghosa) 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? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 09:09, 6 December 2015 (UTC)


 * 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. Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 08:19, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Alternative pronunciation "bramha"
Brahma, and some related words are often pronounced bramha (bramhaputra, ..).

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.

—Mykhal (talk) 17:20, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Brahma vs Brahmā
Currently, there's an inconsitency just at the beginning of the article perex, ब्रह्म (Brahma) vs Brahmā (ब्रह्मा). (See also older discussion ). 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 brahma ones. —Mykhal (talk) 17:50, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Fixed, to be consistent with hindi and sanskrit pages. —Mykhal (talk) 11:44, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Name
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.

245CMR undid my correction to the transliteration. Might I invite him/her to a discussion? I believe he/she is incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.228.112.22 (talk • contribs)
 * All the reliable sources spell the deity as "Brahma" (WP: Common name}. Sorry, but Wikipedia is based on these sources and the title can't be changed on the basis of original research. Hope you understand. . 245CMR . •👥📜 08:45, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Consort of lord bhrahma
As i know the wives of lord bhrahma are goddess Gayatri and goddess Brahamani while Saraswati is Daughter of lord Brahma Nilay Shukla (talk) 07:06, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

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. 245CMR (talk) 03:33, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

I thought Sarswati being the daughter of brahma was a misconception created by anti hindus lol. 950CMR (talk) 14:31, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

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. Vishal Kandasamy (talk) 13:55, 19 November 2021 (UTC)