Many people exploring Hinduism for the first time encounter (fairly quickly) the concept of the Brahma, Vishnu. Shiva trimurthi, and hit statements like Hindus worship these three Gods.
I'm not sure of the origins of this. It's not in the Vedas, it's not in the Gita, it's not in the Yoga Sutras. It seems like some later addition, and it's fairly misleading. It's not worshiped really anywhere, other than some obscure shrines, here and there. Probably more rare than Brahma shrines.
Firstly, if there is a big 3, it's Shiva, Vishnu, and Shakti, not Brahma.
To portray Shiva as only a destroyer is misleading at best, insulting at worst. (to Saivas) To portray Vishnu as only a preserver is misleading at best, insulting at worst. (to Vaishnavas) To portray Brahma as THE creator is just plain false.
In each of the 3 main sects, the Supreme does all 3 of those functions. It's also not in the Smarta tradition, as the 5 main deities there are Shiva, Vishnu, Surya, Ganesha, and Shakti.
It is in Britannica encyclopedia (at least used to be) and it's not in the modern version of an encyclopedia, wiki.
Thoughts: Any ideas on the origin of it? Do you agree it's misleading? Should we be taking active steps to correct it? (as I am here)
I'm not sure of the origins of this. It's not in the Vedas, it's not in the Gita, it's not in the Yoga Sutras. It seems like some later addition, and it's fairly misleading. It's not worshiped really anywhere, other than some obscure shrines, here and there. Probably more rare than Brahma shrines.
Firstly, if there is a big 3, it's Shiva, Vishnu, and Shakti, not Brahma.
To portray Shiva as only a destroyer is misleading at best, insulting at worst. (to Saivas) To portray Vishnu as only a preserver is misleading at best, insulting at worst. (to Vaishnavas) To portray Brahma as THE creator is just plain false.
In each of the 3 main sects, the Supreme does all 3 of those functions. It's also not in the Smarta tradition, as the 5 main deities there are Shiva, Vishnu, Surya, Ganesha, and Shakti.
It is in Britannica encyclopedia (at least used to be) and it's not in the modern version of an encyclopedia, wiki.
Thoughts: Any ideas on the origin of it? Do you agree it's misleading? Should we be taking active steps to correct it? (as I am here)