Talk:Hindu deities/Archive 1


 * ............... This is an archive ..............

Nirguna Brahman / Brahman worship
What about Hindu's who exclusively worship Brahma, Brahman or Nirguna Brahman? ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 18:10, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, I don't think they would go on this page, given that it is about dieties, and nirguna brahman is held in oppositions to dieties or Ishwara- personal God. Sethie 06:27, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

This whole category needs clarity
I'm putting my comments on the discussion page for Hindu deities not because I've seen a problem, specifically, with this article, but rather because it's the main article for the Hindu deities category. My concern has to do with what I perceive to be difficulties in the entire category, rather than with this article in particular.

I understand what LordSuryaofShropshire is saying at the top of this talk page, but I'm afraid it begs the question. What I mean is that most of the articles on Hinduism in the English-language Wikipedia are written with the assumption that the reader has at least a rudimentary knowledge of the basic tenets and vocabulary of Hinduism. In an English-language encyclopedia, this is not a reasonable assumption. I realize that there are millions of Hindus worldwide who speak English as natives, or at near-native fluency, but they still make up a distinct minority of English speakers.

I know somewhere between very little and nothing at all about Hinduism. When I look up an article in Wikipedia on a topic related to Hinduism, I'm routinely confronted by sentences that are so full of unfamiliar terms and concepts that I can't unravel the meaning. Usually (though not always) these sentences are liberally hyperlinked to other pages that purport to explain the terms in question, but they're often just as obscure as the referring material, full of further links to other confusing and often contradictory information.

Above, LordSuryaofShropshire wrote the following:
 * You assume that everything has to jive with Christian perceptions of the world, and yet that is not the case. They are deities, and that's a perfect word for it. But the term deity takes on a different meaning in the Hindu context.

It's true that not everything in the world has to interface neatly with a Christian understanding of reality. On the other hand, if we wish to teach something to people who grew up in a world infused with these perceptions, we need to start out using terms they can relate to. While not all native speakers of English are Christians, it's true that most of us grew up in societies heavily influenced by Christian thought, and, unless we have made a concerted effort to step away from the norms of our society, our views of the world are necessarily colored by that influence.

Processing novel information is part of the learning experience, of course. But if I read a ten-word sentence and I have to look up four to six of the words in that sentence in order for the meaning to be clear, then I'm no longer simply reading&mdash;I'm translating. I'm happy to do so when I read (as best I can) articles in the Russian or Esperanto Wikipedia, but in the English Wikipedia, I shouldn't have to do that.

To be fair, LordSuryaofShropshire went on to say,
 * i think if someone comes to the page and reads it, and then, perhaps frustrated, reads even a bit of the Hinduism page, his/her confusion will be largely dispelled.

This is probably, at least to a large extent, true (I've skimmed that article and it seems to offer a well-presented introduction). However, I don't know that this really addresses the concern that I share with Nat Krause. There isn't anything in any of the Hinduism-related articles I've read that says, "If you find parts of this article impenetrable, please read the Hinduism article to familiarize yourself with the necessary terms and concepts." In fact, such a disclaimer shouldn't be necessary. While a hypertext encyclopedia, by its nature, relies on and benefits from this kind of linking, it should also be possible to get a clear, if often incomplete, overview of a subject by just reading the single article that deals with it. If, in order to get a basic idea of what Article A is trying to say, I have to read one or more other articles, then Article A probably needs revision.

The Kali article is an excellent example of how these articles can be improved. When I first saw the article, it was a nightmare of unintelligible sentences and incomplete thoughts. Now, thanks to the work of several editors (of which I was not one), the article is clear and concise.

I apologize if I sound intolerably preachy. Please take these comments in the spirit in which they were intended. I'm just confused and ignorant, with more curiosity than free time. &mdash;CKA3KA (Skazka) 23:17, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Smartism
There is no doubt that there is an undercurrent of Smartism or Advaita Vedanta in almost all denominations of Hinduism. However, this article tries to sell the Smarta philosophy to the exclusion of all others. We need to make this article more balanced. HeBhagawan 13:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Blue Skin
Small point, but in the picture of Rama, Lakshmana and Sita, the explanation states that Rama was depicted with blue skin implying his divinity, but as far as I know, this is simply not true (unless someone can provide me with a solid reference to this).

Rather, blue skin was used in many paintings/pictures to depict someone with a darker overall complexion than others. Krishna is also depicted as blue, because he was considered to have a very dark complexion, in stark contrast to his brother Balarama, who was considered to have a very fair complexion. Asherek 20:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

NPOV Tag
I think this article is more 'messey' than having any specific POV undercurrent, but still I've tagged it as such because what is being described in many of the sections does not read as strictly from a neutral perspective in my opinion. For example "The various devas and devīs are personifications of various aspects of one and the same God (Ishvara)" is a statement of opinion, but is given within the text as accepted fact. There are numerous statements similar to this throughout the article, both subtle and direct which take away from the accuracy of the details included. Ys, Gouranga(UK) 15:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

A new intro?
I would love to see a shorter more concise intro. Why do we need info about Ramakrishna here?

Obviously, a page about Hindu Dieties needs something about the relationship between dieties and The One, however, how about one that is a little more friendly, less throwing out 16 hindu concepts in 3 short paragraphs?

just my thoughts, Sethie 06:27, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be more helpful to say that Hinduism was not a 'theistic' model, rather than not a 'monotheistic' model. After all, the problem comes with the theism (which exists in parts of Hinduism, particularly the devotional Vaisnavites and Saivites.

Also, it is rather out of date to call the early Vedic gods 'polytheistic'. The Samhitas refer to them all, or at least many, in language of the Absolute. This is henotheism: the worship of many each as the One.

131.111.8.104 19:06, 29 November 2005 (UTC)


 * ok I wrote up a brand new article on the discussion page of Hindu gods; see if any of you like that better. Credits could be added later if the content seems to be clearer than this article --Ne0Freedom 04:22, 9 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ne0Freedom (talk • contribs)

Confused
It might just be a sheer ignorance in my part but the conflict between this article and the other article (List of Hindu Dities) does not seize to bother me. This article portrays Balaram to be the eighth avatar while List of Hindu Dities article portrays Krishna to be the eighth avatar and Buddha to be the ninth avatar. Being born and raised in a hindu environment of Nepal, I always believed that Buddha was the ninth avatar and Balaram (the elder brother of Krishna) was an avatar of the divine serpent the Sheshnag. The same God (Vishnu) taking two avatars at a time wud not make sense.


 * Balarama is described as an avatar of Vishnu within the Puranas because He is in the same 'category' as Vishnu, but is understood to be a different personality (an expansion). For more details see the main Balarama article. Regards, Gouranga(UK) 15:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

-- Always thirsty for answers.


 * The Shaktyavesa incarnations are classified as two kinds
 * direct (sakshat) Vishnu himself descends or a direct shaktyavesa-avatara
 * indirect (avesa) Vishnu empowers some living entity to represent him who is called an indirect or avesa incarnation
 * --Ne0Freedom 04:51, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I changed the phrase 'smarter Hindus' to 'more intellectually inclined Hindus' in the first line of the short section on popular belief since the former makes those who see the deities as individuals, not as manifestations of a single deity, stupid.

I don't think it changes the sense of the sentence/paragraph.

Bernie (obscure02)

Merge and redirect ?
This article contains/duplicates content that is/should be better covered in God in Hinduism. I suggest that: Any comments or alternate suggestions ? Abecedare (talk) 03:41, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) The content of this article be merged with God in Hinduism
 * 2) This article be redirected to Deva (Hinduism),  List of Hindu deities, or made into a disambiguation page.
 * This article be retained, although a cleanup is needed.-- Redtigerxyz Talk 10:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * \i agree with Redtiger -- better is to do the clean up rather then a merge/redirect.  Wikid as&#169; 11:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Hierarchy of Gods
At the moment it is not easy to find out how the different deities are related to each other. Could something like this be helpful for this article? It is a framework/diagram sourced from Myth = Mithya: A Handbook of Hindu Mythology by Devdutt Pattanaik (2006). Wiki-uk (talk) 14:00, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

There is an error in text regarding greek mythology.

In greek cosmology all life started with Uranus and Earth. Earth bore the Titans and the giants(among others). The Titan Cronus wounded Uranus and became master of the world. Gods and Godesses(12 in total) were born by titans. Zeus overthrew them after winning the Battle with the Titans. The Giants revolted against the Gods of Olympus but the Gods and Godesses won. Children of the Gods are the various gods and godesses

So the article has 2 mistakes 1st that the Giants were the predescessors of Titans 2nd that there are no Gods and Godesses in Greek mythology — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.210.121.175 (talk) 02:51, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

330 Million Gods
'''I have added a new section entitled '330 Million Gods' explaining a controversial subject within Hinduism. I have sourced it adequately, so before deleting it as some people may be inclined to do on the grounds that they may hold other views, please note that I have tried to make the section as unbiased as possible. As the source says, Hinduism is best judged by it's insiders, not by scholars observing from the outside. Thanks, GoldRock 23 (talk - my page - contribs)''' 15:26, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Please stop using bold text, read MOSBOLD.
 * I've removed this para from "Polytheism" section — "Note:  'Hindu theology is consistent with monotheism, though it contains seeds of polytheism and idolatry' ~ H. T. Coolebrooke. See the Hinduism article for more details." We don't add notes in the mid of an article. Place it somewhere or make a proper prose. undefined — Bill william compton  Talk   13:34, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I didn't know that italics are used for emphasis instead of bold text. It would have been nice of you to change the text from bold to italics, as you have probably read MOSBOLD yourself and you are surely aware that italic text is used for emphasis. "We don't add notes" - come on, I know I did something wrong so please don't emphasise my mistake using italics! See WP: Don't bite the newcomers for more information. I will add the note in an appropriate place next time. Thanks, GoldRock 23 (talk - my page - contribs) 13:49, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I apologize if somehow unintentionally I offended you, but I didn't use italics to emphasize on your mistake; I did it to avoid mixing up with my commentation, which people usually do. And, I know how to behave with newcomers, happy editing :). undefined — Bill william compton  Talk   13:59, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, a misunderstanding on my behalf. I see you do work with the Wikipedia Welcoming Committee and I would like to congratulate you for that. Happy editing to you too, :). Thanks, GoldRock 23 (talk - my page - contribs) 14:15, 8 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Please do not references that support a counter-view about 330 million deities.-- Redtigerxyz Talk 15:51, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Counter view?! If anything, the one on the article before I changed it was a counter view! I am afraid there is no such thing as a counter view within Hinduism, and I assure you that the view given by the source I put on is accepted by the majority of Hindus. Thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by GoldRock23 (talk • contribs) 10:46, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I have provided 3 sources for the section '330 Million Gods'. Source 22 is a trustworthy and well-known website on Hinduism, and as for the 'counter-view' reference, the reference is to a book accepted by England's Standing Advisory Council for Religious Education (SACRE), the main Religious Education board, as a book that has been recommended for use to study Hinduism at GCSE(Year/Grade 10 exams) level and A-level(Year/Grade 12 exams). It has also been acknowledged and approved, as stated in the book's preface, by world-famous Hindu scholars and religious authorities, namely, H.H. Jagadguru Shankacharya Shri Swami Vasudevanandji Maharaj of Badrika Peeth, and ex-Shankaracharya Pujya Swami Satyamitrananda ji Giri of Bharat Mata temple, Haridwar, India. The first edition of the book published by RMEP reportedly received excellent reviews and has sold out. Happy that my source is trustworthy, now? This reference is for the whole section, but I added others in to back up parts of the section. Please stop altering and deleting the section and don't keep adding the sentence about expansion to 330 million gods as I have just proven that it violates WP:Point of view. Unless the British Educational Authorities are wrong, are they? I mean, what with such poor standards of universities in England...(that was sarcastic, if you couldn't tell). I am happy that this issue has been solved. Thanks, GoldRock 23 (talk - my page - contribs) 16:17, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Popular deities
I would like to quote my post on Redtigerxyz's talk page for further discussion on the matter:

"The gods you have listed in your explanation of your revertion of my edit in the article Hindu deities are in fact all avatars of the ultimate reality Brahman, God's manifestation in the universe. While I understand where you are coming from (e.g. Vishnu has ten avatars; he is not an avatar himself), he is in fact in all technicality an avatar, or deity, of Brahman. It would be wrong to call Vishnu a god, as he is only one aspect (a deity) of Brahman. This mistake is commonly made by people who misunderstand Hindu concepts. I will continue this discussion on the Hindu deities talk page and will be willing to listen to suggestions. Thanks, GoldRock23(talk - my page - contribs) 1:31 pm, Today (UTC+1)"

Thnaks, GoldRock 23 (talk - my page - contribs) 12:34, 8 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Though they are considered aspects (ansha) of Brahman, they are NOT termed avatars. In Shaivism, Vishnu may be termed just an aspect of higher Shiva, but he is called termed an avatar. Avatar as term applies is a descent of a deity on earth or a temporary aspect. Please provide references to back your assertion that all Hindu deities are avatars of Brahman, not gods is not a point of view, but general Hindu belief. I can provide you innumerable references which call those deities gods and goddesses.-- Redtigerxyz Talk 15:45, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Since these deities are considered aspects of Brahman, they can be worshipped in different forms such as murtis. These forms, or physical manifestations, of the deities, can be correctly termed avatars. Hindus do not worship the idols themselves but they use them to get closer to the ultimate reality Brahman. This is the reason I used the word 'avatars' as terming those deities gods or godesses in their own rights is incorrect - to call them gods suggests they are seperate and thus that Hinduism is generally polytheistic. While a small minority could be considered polytheists, it is definitely a point of view to term these deities 'gods' as they are, as you said, only different aspects of Brahman. I have the following sources for you to look at, and would appreciate your innumerable sources posted here for me to look at.

For a start, look over at Wikipedia's very own Avatar article. It says that the word avatar is more correctly translated as manifestation, and as these deities act as manifestations of Brahman to many Hindus (e.g. in temples as statues, idols, or images used to feel closer to the ultimate reality), they can be properly considered avatars

Still in Wikipedia, but this time look over at the Hinduism article. I quote this from the 'Definitions' section: The characteristic of comprehensive tolerance to differences in belief, and Hinduism's openness, makes it difficult to define as a religion according to traditional Western conceptions. meaning that Hinduism is open to beliefs and that while I accept the term avatars being used to describe the deities listed may not be mainstream, I have to say that the term 'gods' is even less so as it contradicts basic Vedic beliefs about the monotheism of Hinduism.

See this website: http://hinduism.iskcon.org/practice/305.htm - incarnation is a technically incorrect translation of the word avatar. I quote this: ''Another important notion is that God, or a specific deity, can expand and multiply him or herself into unlimited divine forms. In other words there may be different forms of a deity even if they are not avatars''. This explains that all deities can have different forms that can be properly classed as avatars (like murtis).

I look forward to seeing your references. Thanks, GoldRock 23 (talk - my page - contribs) 10:22, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Also, I have just noticed that some of the deities listed, such as Kali or Rama, are actually avatars in the way that you use the word 'avatar'. For example, Rama is one of the 10 avatars of Vishnu, so, for this reason, I have altered your use of the word deities in the article slightly to make sense as Rama is technically not considered a deity in himself (according to you, anyway - you say that avatars are deities on earth, and deities have no form, therefore Rama cannot be both). Thanks, GoldRock 23 (talk - my page - contribs) 10:44, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I think that I may have you at a stalemate here. If you say 'but deities are not avatars as avatars are physical and deities have no form' than that will prove Rama is an avatar, and if you say 'Deities and avatars are both physical/both have no form' then that will prove Vishnu is an avatar. Both of these deities, or avatars, are in the list, therefore if you reverted my edit explaining that the list includes avatars or deities that have avatars it would be an incorrect action as my edit is, from both sides of this argument, correct. Game over. Thanks, GoldRock 23 (talk - my page - contribs) 11:03, 9 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I still do not see a reference that says Vishnu, Shiva, Devi, Ganesha, Surya are avatars of Brahman and yes Rama is considered as an avatar, but that does not mean he is not a deity, though Ramanandis worship him as Para-Brahman. The following references refer to, , , + additionally a references  that explicitly refers to Rama as a deity or god. Your whole other argument is nothing but original research in wikipedia terms.  -- Redtigerxyz  Talk 16:51, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Before I continue this discussion, I regret having to warn you that I may have to report you for breaking the three-revert rule. While it is good that you have responded to me on this article's talk page, I find your constant revertion of my edits, even after telling you in my edits to stop and to wait until this discussion has concluded, fairly intimidating and very unreasonable as you are not giving me the time to reason with your point of view. Edit warring does not solve an argument. Even though you are obviously more experienced than me, I think you are in the wrong here (please correct me if I'm wrong. Please respond as soon as you can before we continue this argument. Thanks, GoldRock 23 (talk - my page - contribs) 18:08, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I have not reverted all your edits, but made a WP:Bold edit in response to your bold edit, per BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Also, no references (please read WP:RS) are provided to back the claim that "avatars of Brahman" is more widely used term than "aspects of Brahman" and that "avatars of Brahman" are NOT Hindu deities or gods is a widely held view. Please provide references to back these claims. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 18:23, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I've told you before, the terms avatar and aspects are interchangeable. I was unhappy before as you called the deities 'gods of Brahman' by your first revertion of my edit(s), and this is definitely not a majority view. I have provided references that "avatars of Brahman" can be used and that "gods" cannot be. I am now satisfied that the first matter on the word "aspects" has been solved, but the list of deities includes aspects that the majority consider avatars, not deities. None of your sources as far as I know (correct me if I'm wrong) state that their view is the view held by the majority of Hindus. You say that Rama (an avatars) can be described as a deity. This is the said in the same way that Vishnu, a deity, can be described an avatar. Neither of these views are of the majority. Your reference for this I still do not see a reference that says Vishnu, Shiva, Devi, Ganesha, Surya are avatars of Brahman  is Wikipedia's own Avatar article, for a start. The article says they are avatars of their respective deities, and as deities are merely aspects of Brahman, they are, technically, avatars of Brahman. As for your WP:Bold edits, that explanation for your reverts still leaves me in doubt... please clarify in what way were these suitable actions under WP:Bold. Also, I have proved earlier that the terms avatar and aspects are interchangeable, therefore both have the majority. I look forward to seeing why you think there are so many jumbled deities and avatars in the list within the text. Maybe... it's because... deities and avatars could be the same thing (like I've been proving all along)? I wonder... Thanks, GoldRock 23 (talk - my page - contribs) 18:50, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

-- Redtigerxyz Talk 17:45, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) I have not used "gods of Brahman". Some "aspects of Brahman" are regarded deities or gods in  Hinduism. As you may know, Hindus believe that the universe including you and me is an aspect of omnipotent, omnipresent Brahman. But as you know, you and me are not deities or gods. I really can't understand your revert of the word "deity" in an article called Hindu deities.
 * 2) The article Avatar is NOT a reliable. References  and  are also not reliable. Your argument based on the avatar article: "The article says they are avatars of their respective deities, and as deities are merely aspects of Brahman, they are, technically, avatars of Brahman." is pure original research.
 * 3) Why are you removing  and  which reference "These 33 later became expanded into 330 million deities, a figure symbolizing infinity.", an alternate theory?
 * 4) "Some popular Hindu deities that have avatars and/or are considered avatars in themselves" is wordy. As proved by references, even avatars like Rama are defined as a god or deity, so "Some popular Hindu deities" sums up the whole thing
 * 5) "aspect of Brahman" 1990 is a much popular (more accurate IMO) term than "avatar of Brahman" 15. Both have the majority is inaccurate. If you believe avatar = aspect, why oppose to the popular term?

Ok, I'll answer your questions:
 * 1) I was talking about when at the beginning of this discussion, an IP address made the word avatar into the word god. I reverted this edit in good faith. You reverted my edit in good faith (without any reasonable discussion beforehand) back to the word god. This is what I was not happy with earlier, but now this issue has been solved.
 * 2) The references I am quoting from in the article Avatar are from the end of the opening paragraph, perfectly reliable sources 1 and 2. You have not explained why my sources are unreliable. Source 8 maybe, but I don't think that source 9 violates WP:RS in any way. Just because it's a website, and most people can make their own websites, doesn't make it unreliable. Even then, I have given you a perfectly reliable source in the first place, and this is why none of your questions are about that source - you know that it obviously meets WP:RS, so you are avoiding that subject! Remove source 8 and possibly (but I disagree) source 9, but that will give you no excuse for putting the Citation needed note again as it already has a citation and if you do, I will just take it out immediately on the grounds of WP:RS.
 * 3) "These 33 later became expanded into 330 million deities, a figure symbolizing infinity." is a sentence no longer in the article. Keep the sources if you want (I have ensured they stay in the article), but you cannot have two opposing theories in one article as stated in the religion section of WP:POV: "Some adherents of a religion might object to a critical historical treatment of their own faith because in their view such analysis discriminates against their religious beliefs. Their point of view must be mentioned if it can be documented by notable, reliable sources, yet note that there is no contradiction". Listen to the bit that says yet note that there is no contradiction. And also the bit where it says that their point of view must be mentioned if it can be documented by notable, reliable sources (like I have done). Source 2 (you have given) never states anywhere the sentence that is above, nor does it even support the idea of 330 million gods (it says traditionally 330 million gods)! As well as this, that very same source labels Krishna and Rama as avatars, not calling them deities, proving that avatar is the word used to describe them by the majority! The description given with this source has quotes that don't exist. Unless the source is unreliable... And in the second source, it never says anywhere that it is due to these 33 devas that the number of deities is 330 million. It says that it is not the result of an actual count but doesn't say what it is the result of. These sources both violate WP:RS as neither of them source the information they are meant to be sourcing.
 * 4) "Some popular Hindu avatars" is what the majority use so this is why I put the wordy phrase in as you would not accept this even though numerous sources (such as Source 2 that you yourself gave) for this are above so I decided it should say both. So "Some popular Hindu avatars" sums up the whole thing, and I will be changing it to that.
 * 5) And finally, I never said that I opposed to the popular term - I said both would do. I agree that aspects of Brahman should be used, but the list itself contains what the majority term avatars.

For the above reasons, I am reverting your edits. Please, wait until we have finished the discussion or at least tell me about it (like I have told you). Thanks, GoldRock 23 (talk - my page - contribs) 16:43, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm coming here from WT:IN and I've watchlisted the page. I will enter the discussion after I read the article and become conversant with the topic in a week or so (if the discussion is still on). Zuggernaut (talk) 04:16, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Feel welcome to join the above discussion on the "330 million gods" Hinduism is (mistakenly) said to have and Redtigerxyz's argument that sources that the British Educational Authorities recommend for the study of Hinduism during major exams violate WP:RS (I can't see why, but there you go, it's why I need a second opinion). Whereas this discussion might need some research, the above discussion requires you to read only one paragraph in the article. Thanks, GoldRock 23 (talk - my page - contribs) 15:43, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Though Hinduism is usually described as polytheistic,  its 330 million deities are believed to be aspects or forms of one Supreme Being, "many "masks" of one God". The number of Hindu deities varies from 33 gods of Vedic scriptures to 33 million mentioned in later Hinduism. According to one view, 330 million is a figure symbolizing infinity, indicating infinite forms of God.
 * If you go back in history of the article, an IP changed god/deity to avatar (I missed it), IP then changed it back and you reverted, which brought the section to my notice.
 * I have not added a, but a . Please explain how any of the clauses of WP:SCHOLARSHIP in WP:RS are satisfied. The references in question:
 * is a blog-like post by Agniveer. Why are his views notable? Is he a scholar? So why is a RS? Tomorrow I can write a blog like Agniveer saying there is no thing as Brahman and Wikipedia is a Hindu deity.
 * has no information about the author. It can be written by anybody. It declares that koti means a group, though no Sanskrit dictionary notes this. Surprising!!!
 * Removed references:
 * "330 million deities, a figure symbolizing infinity.":
 * http://books.google.com/books?id=vOzNo4MVlgMC&pg=PA45&dq=%22330+million%22&hl=en#v=onepage&q=%22330%20million%22&f=false
 * I suggest we rewrite the 330 millions gods section. A new proposal:

-- Redtigerxyz Talk 17:15, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Which source is recommended by British Educational Authorities? Please clarify. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 17:17, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Please, cease your fruitless edits and listen to me (By the way, thanks for posting what you're going to do and opening it up for discussion before actually doing it. It makes a nice change). The whole section '330 Million Gods', is referenced by the first one, Explaining Hindu Dharma, which also happens to be the one recommended by the British Educational Authorities. Please, stop trying to rewrite this perfectly sourced paragraph as I'll have to report this otherwise. By your principles, every single word in the article edited by me should have an 'unreliable source' tag put next to it! I feel really 'untargeted' (not!)! Please remember WP: Assume good faith and forget your own rule: Assume bad faith! I will revert again if you make the change to "330 Million Gods", although I understand your proposed removal of the "AGNIVEER" and "Hinduismfacts.org" references, and I have deleted them and will no longer try to enter them into the article. But this section is sourced adequately. I take no heed of your suggestion to rewrite, either, on the grounds that it is not required. Thanks, GoldRock 23 (talk - my page - contribs) 15:56, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:CONSENSUS. Did I place a besides the VHP source? I don't think so, please check the article history, before making accusations. Since you have decided to revert all edits, I will not waste your time by editing that section. I have asking for comment - a third opinion. -- Redtigerxyz  Talk 16:32, 14 October 2011 (UTC)


 * P.S. What's this meant to mean???:"33 million mentioned in later Hinduism." This makes no sense and it's not 33 million, it's 330 million! GoldRock 23 (talk - my page - contribs) 16:03, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That was a typos. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 16:32, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok, then. But what about my other points? Thanks, GoldRock 23 (talk - my page - contribs) 16:36, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for anything you took as an offence in my comments. Also, I meant that only if you didn't discuss with me about your edits should I revert them. Please, continue to contribute to this article! (Note: For now, we should both stop editing until a consensus is reached via a third opinion). I never accused you of adding the unreliable source tag to my VHP reference, I was only concerned about your addition of the citation needed tag next to the sentence: "This is generally thought to be incorrect by Hindus" as it was properly sourced (by the VHP reference). I am sorry if I offended you, but I believe that the apology should be both ways...("Why?" I hear you ask. It's because of your automatic assumption that my VHP reference was unreliable in the above '330 Million Gods' talk section, that's why). Thanks (and again, sorry), GoldRock 23 (talk - my page - contribs) 16:53, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Unconditional apologies. If you like, you may remove the "330 million gods" section altogether and paste it here until a consensual version is arrived on this talk, but that's your choice. I agree that we both stop editing that section. Thanks
 * "This is generally thought to be incorrect by Hindus" does not have a ref. It was not referenced to VHP, but to Agniveer . The "koti" claim is referenced to VHP, but no Sanskrit dictionary interprets "koti" as group - other meanings but not group. Can you please provide the exact quotes? May be it may be some other word than "koti". Also, "Some scholars misinterpreted the word 'koti', claiming that there are 330 million gods within Hinduism" is a VHP opinion, but not a fact. "This is generally thought to be incorrect by Hindus" is a huge claim and needs additional references. Other books like  by Klaus Klostermaier (p. 16 which says "All observers - including Hindus themselves - describe Hinduism as polytheistic") completely disagree or  by a Hindu author, founder of  balance both views that the pantheistic (Brahman view) as well as the polytheistic view. Additionally sectarian views like Shavism equates Brahman to Shiva or Vaishnavas who treat Brahman as a synonym for Vishnu or the Shakta Devi as Brahman or the Ganapatya Ganesha as Brahman need to be included. In these cases, Vishnu, Shiva, Devi or Ganesha is not just another aspect of Brahman. -- Redtigerxyz  Talk 17:49, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Modified proposal taking into consideration various POVs: Though Hinduism is usually described as polytheistic,  its 330 million deities are believed to be aspects or forms of one Supreme Being, "many "masks" of one God". The number of Hindu deities varies from 33 gods of Vedic scriptures to 33 million mentioned in later Hinduism. According to one view, 33 groups or classes (koti) of deities are described in the Vedas, however the word koti was misinterpreted to mean 10 million, leading to the figure 330 million. Another view contends that 330 million is a figure symbolizing infinity, indicating infinite forms of God.

-- Redtigerxyz Talk 06:16, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Again, your suggested paragraph has typos and needs tweaking. But I believe that it is, generally, quite good. I have removed the part saying the word 'koti' means 'group', as this was from the AGNIVEER website. I will try to source the sentence: "This is generally though to be incorrect by Hindus" as I agree that it is a very big claim to make. I will also add a source confirming that 'koti' can mean 'class'. I agree that the claims about Vishnu etc. not being just aspects of Brahman need to be included, but I think it must be mentioned that this is a view supported by Vaishnavites and Shaivites, as so not to confuse the reader into believing that this is the general view of Hinduism. Also, there is already a section on the polytheistic aspects of Hinduism, in which I have added a quote in the opening paragraph saying that "Hinduism is monotheistic, though it contains seeds of polytheism and idolatry", also from the VHP source. We must remember WP: Point of view's section on religion which states that views must not contradict each other and that it must be stated which sects or groups of that religion believe the view to be true. An example is given of this in that section (e.g. Group X thinks this and Group Y thinks that. Group X is what the majority of followers of that religion believe). Also, maybe it should be said in the section "330 million gods" that 'It is thought that some scholars misinterpreted...' rather than 'Some scholars misinterpreted...'. I'm look forward to your reply. Thanks, GoldRock 23 (talk - my page - contribs) 12:47, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Also, I have found a source saying that 'koti' can not only mean '10 million', it can mean 'millions' and ultimately 'innumerable' and 'countless', which backs up your view of 330 million expressing infinity. Here it is: []. Let me know what you think and if both views can be included in some way. I have sourced the point that 'koti' means 'class', but I am still searching for somewhere that says it is generally thought to be incorrect by Hindus (the source that says 'koti' means 'class' also says that the definition of 'koti' meaning '10 million' is a misinterpretation, but does not say that this is the general Hindu belief). I may be forced to remove this sentence. Anyway, on the basis of these new sources, could we both try to come up with a rewritten version of the section? I'll give you how I think it should be rewritten after your next comment. Then hopefully we could work together on improving this article to GA standard (if you want to, of course, seeing as we've both done a lot with this article anyway). I have enjoyed this debate - it has cleared up a lot of things for me and finally, it seems we have a conclusion! Oh, and thanks for your apology! Thanks, GoldRock 23 (talk - my page - contribs) 13:25, 15 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, that the suggested para is imperfect. Please improve it. Vaishnavas, Shaivas, Shaktas, Ganapatyas all believe that their God/Goddess is Brahman and all others are just aspects of this Supreme Being. Since you are editing the section too, I am editing it too. I am removing "This is generally thought to be incorrect by Hindus", as it is a huge claim and needs more than 1 RS to back it. Just 1 reference may imply 1 view. Also, check [ which says that if you ask no of Hindu deities on a person on the street anywhere in India, he will say 330 million. As per you suggestion, I am adding to one view for koti. Also, I am adding the infinity view. --[[User:Redtigerxyz| Redtigerxyz ]] Talk 06:12, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

On the basis of our discussion, this is my proposed rewrite: "It is said that Hindus believe there are 330 million deities. In the Vedas, the different deities of Brahman are represented by different 'Devatas'. 33 of these are mentioned. . This is followed by the Sanskrit word 'koti', which is used for 'class' but can also be used for a number equal to 10 million . According to one view, some scholars misinterpreted the word 'koti' - which is meant to mean 'class', claiming that there are 330 million gods within Hinduism . Another view contends that 330 million is a figure symbolizing infinity, indicating infinite forms of God  . These first two views are supported by Smartism, the belief that all deities are aspects of the ultimate reality. A third view supported by Vaishnavism, Shaivism, Shaktism, and the Ganapatya sects or branches of Hinduism states that Vishnu, Shiva, Devi, and Ganesha respectively equate to Brahman, and that all other deities are aspects of their chosen deity ."

Thanks, GoldRock 23 (talk - my page - contribs) 10:39, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * "In the Vedas, the different deities of Brahman are represented by different 'Devatas" is original research. Where do the Vedas say that the 33 gods are aspects of Brahman. "These first two views are supported by Smartism, the belief that all deities are aspects of the ultimate reality" also needs a reference. On second thoughts, I felt that the last sentence was more appropriate elsewhere. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 16:21, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The VHP source backs up the 'Devata' claim so it is not original rsearch. There is already a reference for the Smartism bit (see last reference), and any view that supports deities of one god is smartist. See the smartism article for more details. I will add the last sentence elsewhere. Thanks, GoldRock 23 (talk - my page - contribs) 15:38, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Also, Hinduism is not believed to be polytheistic. The VHP source, amongst many others, states that the majority view is that Hinduism is monotheistic, with minority views considering Hinduism as polytheistic or as the worship of idols or statues (idolatry). None of your 3 sources state their view as being the majority view. Just type: 'Hinduism monotheism' into Google, and you'll see countless sources backing this up. But if you type: 'Hinduism polytheism' into Google, the majority of the sites/books that come up say that Hindusim being polytheistic is mistaken. Thanks, GoldRock 23 (talk - my page - contribs) 10:54, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

P.S. The Vedas, recognized as the supreme scriptural authority of Hindus, specifically state Hinduism as being monotheistic :


 * "They call him Indra (the resplendent), Mitra (the surveyor), Varuna (the venerable), Agni (the adorable), and He is the celestial, well-winged Garutmat (the great). The Truth is one but the learned call it by many names as they speak of the adorable as Yama (ordainer) and Maatarishvana (cosmic breath)." ~ Rig Veda, 1 - 164-46.


 * "Ekam sat viprah bahuda vadanti (the truth is one but the learned call it by many names)." ~ Vedas, numerous occasions.


 * "This is the Lord of all, this is the omniscient of all, this is the source and this is the beginning and end of all beings." ~ Mandukya Upanishad, 6th Mantra.


 * "One who rules over every single source." ~ Svetasvatara Upnaishad.

These have been listed in the VHP book, and if you'd care to check the Vedas, I'm sure you would find all of these texts. Thanks, GoldRock 23 (talk - my page - contribs) 11:17, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yaksa's commentary (the oldest on the Vedas) says that all gods may be One or may be distinct. The Vedas do not side one view.  -- Redtigerxyz  Talk 16:21, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

330 million gods
I had proposed that the 330 million gods section be rewritten. See the proposal and the dispute in the Talk:Hindu_deities section. Please help build a consensus on whether a rewrite is necessary or not. The proposal: Though Hinduism is usually described as polytheistic,  its 330 million deities are believed to be aspects or forms of one Supreme Being, "many "masks" of one God". The number of Hindu deities varies from 33 gods of Vedic scriptures to 33 million mentioned in later Hinduism. According to one view, 330 million is a figure symbolizing infinity, indicating infinite forms of God. Redtigerxyz Talk 16:42, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I believe this section is perfectly sourced by a source recommended by the British Educational Authorities for the study of Hinduism at GSSE and A-level. For an unknown reason, the user above disputes this and chooses to ignore this source. I think this section is perfectly fine as it is, but I also wish for a third opinion on this subject. Thanks, GoldRock 23 (talk - my page - contribs) 16:57, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Also see the Talk:Hindu_deities section on the Hindu deities talk page. Thanks, GoldRock 23 (talk - my page - contribs) 17:00, 14 October 2011 (UTC)


 * It is clear there are differing opinions on the status of the deities as gods or avatars. The belief that all Hindu gods are aspects of a monotheistic god is one POV. There are others. Wikipedia should not state one POV as truth. Hipocrite (talk) 12:52, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Support The proposed rewrite is, in my view, an improvement over the existing version; "according to one view" doesn't seem to be POV-pushing, since it implies the existence of other points of view. The chief problem seems to be semantics, combined with an apparent sense of article ownership on the part of one editor. The semantic difference also exists within Christianity, particularly in the Roman Catholic Church. There are a large number of saints, to whom believers pray. To an outsider less vested in orthodox doctrine, at least some of these saints have taken on the role of "gods" in themselves.--Miniapolis (talk) 16:12, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment There are claims that the references to 330 million gods are found in Skanda Purana. In Sai Baba and the Nara Narayan Gufa Ashram- Part 1 there is reference to the caves at Patal Bhubaneswar, Uttar Pradesh, which is alleged to be the locale for these 330 million gods.Whiteguru (talk) 22:55, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


 * See also: Patal Bhuvaneshwar. Wiki-uk (talk) 16:05, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Discussion ended. I am satisfied with the outcome of this discussion, and the way that the "330 million gods" section has been written. It shows no obvious signs of bias. I will try to put that last sentence into the article as well, and I suggest that this article needs more sources for improvement. If Redtigerxyz is happy, then we can end this debate as I'm also happy with the outcome. Thanks, GoldRock 23 (talk - my page - contribs) 15:33, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Discussion ended. I am happy too. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 15:59, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Polytheism
Whoever wrote that it was polytheistic doesn't know anything about Hinduism. Go read up. --LordSuryaofShropshire 03:44, Mar 31, 2004 (UTC)

((Many believe somewhat the opposite, in many deities which are distinct, and from that view and this article holds a very westernized, monotheistic viewpoint, as does it look like many, many of its contributors in this discussion))--kV


 * Hmmm. Seems to me that an article called "Hindu deities" about a monotheistic religion is a little confusing. - Nat Krause 05:11, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Read up on Hinduism. It has been monist since the dawn of the Upanishads. Indeed, in reality, Hinduism can't be termed Polytheism or Monotheism, even in its earliest forms. The four Vedas have clearly monist ideas which duel with a henotheistic leaning. the Upanishads realize monism.

Hindus believe in One. Whether it's a formless principle Divine Ground Brahman or the single Personality, like Vishnu or Shiva, the other deities are seen as different colors on the same prism. You'll find this not only in philosophy but in daily practice, as the truth is one principle is widely shared. Westerners and non-Hindus like to talk about polytheism, but polytheism denotes separate entities, and Hinduism is a basically monist/monotheist religion which allows for emantions. If god is infinite, Hindus reason, God can manifest in infinite forms. Hence deities. --LordSuryaofShropshire 00:40, Apr 6, 2004 (UTC)


 * It still has many deities, though (also, 'deity' and 'devas' all came from PIE 'deiwos'), even if they are viewed as manifest aspects of an unmanifest reality. It could be seen as polytheistic within a monist shell if you'd like.  It could also be seen as practically monotheistic, since people, like in many similar pagan paths, often home in on one particular patron/matron deity.  :~Maiya78 15:04, 27 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Hmmm. This may be very true (I wasn't really expressing an opinion on Sanatana Dharma's monotheism vs. polytheism), but it only emphasizes my point that the page is (more than) a little confusing.  If I understand you correctly, the idea is that the Hindu deities are like the persons of the Christian God ... i.e., kind of a Multiune God.  But you don't see articles on "Christian deities", and, if you did, I think it would be a misnomer.  It's up to you, I'm certainly not going to mess with this page, but I think it would clearer to readers if you titled the page something else. - Nat Krause 04:28, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I disagree again. You assume that everything has to jive with Christian perceptions of the world, and yet that is not the case. They are deities, and that's a perfect word for it. But the term deity takes on a different meaning in the Hindu context. i think if someone comes to the page and reads it, and then, perhaps frustrated, reads even a bit of the Hinduism page, his/her confusion will be largely dispelled. --LordSuryaofShropshire 19:49, Apr 10, 2004 (UTC)

Guys, I had to clarify this view. This view is really a Smarta view which is an inclusive monotheistic view. See monotheism for the differences. This smarta view dominates the western view of Hinduism as the followers who brought Hinduism to the west were all Smarta in belief and that is the belief of only one denomination in Hinduism. Other denominations, such as Vaishnavism follow an exclusive monotheistic model, as in the Abrahmanic religions.

Hope this clears up. Raj2004 22:10, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Should this page maybe merge and redirect to Deva (Hinduism)? Or vice versa? Quartier Latin   1968  8 July 2005 16:28 (UTC)

No, Devas in Hinduism are akin to angels. They are respected but nowhere in the same level as Shiva, Vishnu who are considered personal aspects of the impersonal Absolute, Brahman in Smartism or God in the monotheistic religions of Shaivism and Vaishnavism

Raj2004 19:51, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Most of you are coming at it from the wrong angle. There are many Hindus who are (believe it or not) atheist, many monotheist, many are polytheist, but most are a combination of the later. It would be like having a conversation on Christianity in which we argued on the Trinity. Some are Trinitarians, some aren't. I think that this article is riddled with this sectarian bias, especially in the polytheism area where it claims that Hindus are monotheist, and that when they pray to statues, its not to the statue, or even to that particular deity, but to God. This is completely contrary to many sects (including the one I was in), in which the statue was the moulded embodiment of the deity, and we were to bathe, pray to, and even feed the statue. And we weren't bathing, feeding, or praying to God. Along with that, Brahman (at least in the sect I was in, and some of my friends) is impersonal deity, and the only way to communicate with the divine, was to pray to personal deities, like Parvati, Shiva, Ganesha, etc. It must be edited, it paints a seriously inaccurate picture of monotheism in Hinduism, and if no one else does, I will take the liberty onto myself_ CristianoAntonio ２１時２０１３年3月２２日 — Preceding unsigned comment added by CristianoAntonio (talk • contribs) 02:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Standard format of 'parabrahman'?
In the article, the concept of 'parabrahman' is variously rendered as the typical , the hyphenated , and the CamelCased . Can a standard be agreed-upon for this article? I'm inclined toward the first that I listed because it's more in-line with the spellings of other English words. Para isn't exactly a common prefix in English, and Brahman isn't very common either, so putting it behind a hyphen (Para-Brahman) doesn't really help much since most of us don't have a specific meaning for 'para'. The CamelCased one, although nifty and stressive of the divinity of Brahman, isn't something too commonly encountered in English orthography beyond things like brand names.
 * ~Maiya78 15:13, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

All Hindu Gods have a role in Human Life
When we talk about the GOD, Generator Organizer and Destroyer is non other that the supreme power. When we see the GOD Ganesha he symbolize the Mooladhara chakra, Shiva Lingam (Swadhisthana Chakra) Shakti Yoni (Swadhistrana Chakra), and so on. . there is lot research require to understand the Hindu Gods  and when we will Start studying our internal invisible power which is running in our body to help our body to function, the study will automatically let us know about the Hindu Gods and there importance ... They are not many they all are one .... i.e Our BODY .... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tejodhar (talk • contribs) 03:54, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Mythology vs Legends
I know that it is the accepted term in the west to call Hindu legends "mythology" but as it is still an active religion that is highly insulting to Hindus. So could it please be changed to legend rather than mythology? (66.41.226.217 (talk) 03:01, 18 December 2013 (UTC))

What about the classes of gods in the yugas?
According to the puranas there were different classes of gods ruling in the different yugas. The first was Brahma alone in Kritayuga. Then came the Jayas (sons of Brahma) in Tretayuga. After them the daityas in Dvaparayuga and at last the devas in Kaliyuga. Shouldn't this be mentioned in the article? It seems only to deal with the devas of Kaliyuga.--217.13.79.226 (talk) 05:41, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Archive started
As of November 1 2015. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 02:07, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

diverse sides and best way for NPOV
I had used a grid image for yantra, to show the diversity and for NPOV. Instead of the most important one (which depends on community), a 4 or 6 grid image that shows the diversity would be more encyclopedic in this article. Will you like to pick which yantras should go into the grid? I have no particular preference. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:33, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * All the 6 yantras were Shakta; there were 2 images of Sri yantra (The image labelled Meru being the 3D representation of the yantra). As per WP:GALLERY, similar or repetitive images are to be avoided. So Sri yantra, the most important Shakta yantra, was used as a representative.-- Redtigerxyz Talk 17:42, 2 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Different yantras are not similar or repetitive, but are different and show the diversity. Montage is encouraged, as you stated on my talk page, and montage is a grid of images presented together. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:53, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

all god
I was just wondering if we should label it as Hindu deities, since technically speaking all these "deities" are part of Brahma, and all the devas are simply aspects of Brahma, the all God. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.208.85 (talk) 15:13, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hindu deities. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140203215148/http://www.usefulcharts.com/religion/main-hindu-gods-chart.html to http://www.usefulcharts.com/religion/main-hindu-gods-chart.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:39, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Major regional and pan-Indian Hindu deities
It would be great if this table showed a summary of the deities. Right now you must click into the (many) articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xilliah (talk • contribs) 08:13, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

There is no 33 crore god there is 33 type of good
Please edit the hindu deities Sachin67s56 (talk) 18:57, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Did you mean theology?
"Major deities have inspired their own Hindu traditions, such as Vaishnavism, Shaivism and Shaktism, but with shared mythology, ritual grammar, theosophy, axiology and polycentrism."

This sounds right, but I'm pretty sure theosophy is a western religion. But maybe the wikipedia article on theosophy is wrong instead. Also, polycentrism is not a common term.

"The Hindu deity concept varies from a personal god as in Yoga school of Hindu philosophy..."

I assume this means in the sense of a god who lives within a person, rather than the more common meaning of a god who is person like.

2001:56A:71BA:6800:514D:ADA8:AF7C:7988 (talk) 10:08, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:22, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Bhagavan Vishnu.jpg