Jump to content


Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


I've never seen the th spelling before, and google says:

Searched the web for Trimurthi. Results 1 - 10 of about 353. Search took 0.08 seconds.

Did you mean: Trimurti

Searched the web for OMGTrimurti. Results 1 - 10 of about 9,820. Search took 0.09 seconds.

Mkweise 19:38 19 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Who is "Robare"? Unlinked, the name is mentioned once and never again. Sloppy!

Would it be possible to include dates for the historical material, please? I'm trying to follow up on the development of concepts of divine Trinity generally, and terms like the Brahmapa period convey nothing to me. (Sorry to be Eurocentric.)—Copey-- 03:00, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who is Freda Matchett[edit]

From the article: Freda Matchett characterizes the Trimurti system as one of "several frameworks into which various divine figures can be fitted at different levels."

Why should the world care about how this Freda Matchett characterizes an idea/entity that has been around for thousands of years? This looks like a clever marketing strategy to somehow lend credibility to this person. Please note that the above line does not really add anything significant to the article. The statement does not even make any sense. The fact that only western books are referred here is very sad.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ram7890 (talkcontribs) 06:21, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know much about Hinduism, but that sentence about Matchett seemed very out of place to me, especially to be in the beginning of the article. I think that it is just that somebody read this book about this lady, or perhaps she put it there herself, and since the rest of this article does not mention her, I think it is without question out of place in the lede.

I agree, why should this thousand-year old topic be introduced by a sentence including some lady who wrote a book, and who, when searched for on google.com, only returns results that are from Wikipedia and not from elsewhere?

I'm going to just move this sentence to the bottom of the page, where it will continue to be out of place (not to mention, it doesn't really make sense and could be interpreted several ways!), but because of the wiki-bureacracy it is like impossible to delete sentences that are referenced. I would like it to be deleted completely though if it were just my decision. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Makeswell (talkcontribs) 05:00, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It has been moved to the section, "Evolution of the concept", yet it's still very out of place and likely a very insignificant view to quote from, is there anything on wikipedia that enables us to delete sentences that come from people who aren't very well-qualified. Also, the sentence doesn't clearly make sense, and if there are other gods being fit into the triune, which is what the sentence might be suggesting, then perhaps the names of those gods should be given as well. Overall I think, for the benefit of the general reader, this sentence should be destroyed in a Shiva-like act of Backspace, Backspace, Backspace. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Makeswell (talkcontribs) 05:04, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply][edit]

This is a fairly common fallacy, that precedence provides causationMikereichold 05:30, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The intro asserts that Trimurti is similar to the unforgetable "traditional view" of the Christian Trinity, yet the illustrative quote from Swami Sivananda describes a view that corresponds to modalism, which was rejected as heretical in the third century. Is there some other source that illustrates this differently, so as to justify the statement in the intro? TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TCC is correct - the article compares the Trimurti to a Modalist account of the Trinity, which is starkly heretical. It seems to me that the question of similarities between the Trimurti and the Christian Trinity admits of enough subtleties that it ought not to be thrown into the introduction like this. Consequently, I'm deleting the follwing sentences from the article: "A somewhat similar symbolization exists in the Christian trinity of God as the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. However the interpretation and philosophy behind the Christian and Hindu concepts of the trinity differ." If someone feels that comparisons between the religions ought to be included, I think they should flesh that subject out into its own subsection. Innocent76 (talk) 05:14, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article flawed[edit]

(Maitri Upanishad 5.2): "That part of Him which is characterized by tamas is called Rudra. That part of Him which belongs to rajas is Brahma. That part of Him which belongs to sattva is Vishnu."

Isn't this nuff to clarify the origins of trimurthi? Maitri upanishad is an upanishad derived from Krishna(or Black) Yajur Veda.

Max muller noted the difference in grammatical pecularities thus testified it belongs to an early period.

As for the article from catholic.com, it has certain errors as Brahma wasn't a duplicated god, but is same as Prajapathi, whose aspects by no means differ from that of Brahma of trimurti. Also, Brahma wasn't an impersonal deity, what he is referring to might be a reference to BRAHMAN.

Changes in the article should be made as soon as possible to reflect this.

Brahman is the Supreme Being, pervading all others. Vaishnav say Vishnu is Brahman. Saiva say Shiva is Brahman. Upanishads say that brahman is represented by these three. Ved vyaas revealed both upanishads as well as puranas, where puranas were written for laymen. Vaishnavs hold Vishnu Puraana as real authority while Saivas hold Shiva Puranaa as real authority. There are also brahma puraana if im not mistaken. Thus the hypothesis is misconceived.

I'm removing the opinion of non-hindus because its a mere allegation, with no sufficient proof.

Questioning the prevalence of the trimurti[edit]

I would like to introduce a couple of references that will question the extent to which the trimurti system actually represents a major force in Hindu thinking, as opposed to a Western "packaging" of some Hindu ideas. I mention this prior to doing so because it is possible that this material will not be familiar to other other editors. Currently the article lead has an unsorced linkage between the trimurti and Smarta tradition, which as far as I know is unfounded. Orthodox Smarta practice involves worship of five primary deities with the option for substitution of an ishta devata of the worshippers choice. Also, there are simply not very many references to the trimurti system in Indian literature, according to Winternitz. I would like to put out a call for all the regular editors on this article to assist me in locating references that will pin down the prevalence of this concept in Hindu sources, as opposed to Western sources. Buddhipriya 00:12, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like an excellent idea, though I have no idea where to start. IPSOS (talk) 14:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In my own search for references in older Hindu sources, the only one that comes up as as an unambiguous reference prior to contact with Western influences is now cited in the article (Kūrma Purana, 1.6; 1.9; 1.26). There may be more, but I need help in locating them. I would like to find when references to the Trimurti first appeared in Western literature and suspect that it may have had something to do with the Theosophical Society, but I am not familiar with their literature. Buddhipriya 17:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

just to let you guys no trimurti is sanskrit, in enlish it means three ways, because brahman and Shiva and vishnu are one

umm once again its me, trimurti is sanskrit

Another source for evolution of the concept[edit]

I have located another good source for evolution of the concept in The Cultural Heritage of India and will add some citations to it which are along the same lines of the other debunking material that has previously been added. We are now down to a fairly well-sourced but shorter article. I think we have enough material on the origin of the idea now so some adjustment to the sections will help get the new material in. Buddhipriya 19:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The introduction mentions the three persons, their names and roles multiple redundant times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul Murray (talkcontribs) 01:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So who believes this?[edit]

So this article states that 3 of the 4 major Hindu groups reject the Trimurti and a scan of the Shaktism article doesn't mention the concept at all. Do any Hindus actually believe this? Has it just become a popular idea in the West because of comparisons drawn to the Christian Trinity?--Lairor (talk) 07:41, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In case you haven't yet been given any clarification, the three major hindu sects reject this. But majority of hindus are non-denominational. leaflord (talk) 19:30, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Austerlitz -- (talk) 15:55, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Biased Image[edit]

Consider this imagefor deletion as it eulogises shiva over other members of Trimurti. Since this is a neutral article we need to remove this image though it is within the shaivism paragraph.-Brahmadutta (talk) 11:57, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lingodbhava murti

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Trimurti. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:14, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding confusion with Bramhan and Bramha[edit]

However, this argument overlooks the obvious correlation of Brahmā with Brahman. The identification of Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva as one being is strongly emphasized in the Kūrma Purāṇa, wherein 1.6 Brahman is worshipped as Trimurti; 1.9 especially inculcates the unity of the three gods, and 1.26 relates to the same theme.

At article , second last paragraph, Bramha is compared with Bramhan. Above mentioned shlokas (1.6 and 1.9 and 1.26 do not confuse Bramha with Bramhan). It just seems to be the view of the editor. killer bee10:01, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]