Talk:Hindu deities

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hindu mythology, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Hindu mythology. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Hinduism. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page. Guidelines: Manual of Style - Naming conventions How you can help: Notice board - Discussion board
???	This article has not been rated yet on the quality scale.

This article is being improved by the Cleanup Taskforce to conform with a higher standard of article quality. It is likely to change frequently until completed. Please see its Cleanup Taskforce page for more details.

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)

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? QuartierLatin 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)

Contents 1 Where is Rudra? 2 Nirguna Brahman / Brahman worship 3 A new intro? 4 Confused 5 This whole category needs clarity 6 Smartism

[edit] Where is Rudra?

I do not see a link to the deity Rudra. Can someone put on here (I do not know how to do this).

Rudra ;). I'd put it in the article, but I'm not sure where yet... (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 10:13, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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. -- Always thirsty for answers.

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)

[edit] 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—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. —CKA3KA (Skazka) 23:17, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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)