Talk:Vishvakarma

Arbitary heading

Moved this excerpt that was posted to the main page here, so as not to lose it (I'm not the author of this excerpt):

In fact Viswakarma is not the son of Brahma, but he is the creator of the whole universe. Here the meaning of Viswakarma according to sanskrit is Viswasya Karmanah itiya Viswakarmanah.i.e The one who created this whole universe with his work. Here "Viswa" means "The Universe", "Karma" means work which refers to the Ominipotent creator. Also Viswakrma is also called as "Panchanan".i.e. Viswakarma with five faces. Also he is the creator of Brahama, Vishnu, Maheswara, Indra and Surya who are called as PanchaBrahmas. Any suggestions and clarification plese mail to viswazna_0@yahoo.co.in --Vivek 19:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Kindly read "Yajur Veda 4.3.2" I've changed the article. Kindly have a look at the same.BalanceRestored 05:47, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

---

Ditto the above:

  VISWAKARMA, VISWABRAMAN, VIRAD VISWA BRAMAN.
                 

According to the mythology of traditional artisan like Black smith,Carpenter,Copper smith,Stone sculpter and Gold smith the viswakarma is the personification of Virad viswa braman,the ultimate reality. Viswabramapurana and Moolastambapurana is giving a picture of Viswabrama incarnated out of nothingness having five heads such as Sadyojatham ,Tathpurusham ,Akhoram ,Eeshanam , Vamadevam and ten hands weilding trident ,tools of creation,four vedas and fifth veda of Pranavam[vasthu shastram].Five prajapathies such as Manu ,maya ,Toshtwa, Shilpy and Viswagjna originated from his five heads .This concept of god of creation must have been crystelized during the formative period of arts and crafts in india and closily associated with the advent of metal technology . vedic period presented this concept with Brahmanaspathy and Brahaspathy. Later puranas giving a mutilated form of brama with four heads and his epithet [or the remaining head] became another viswakarma as a divine architect. In this phase of hinduism ,one can see the Brama is loosing his supreme[Viswakarma] status and Siva is metamorphosing as Kalabraman.This may be reflectng the social change such as supermacy of clericks and knights over creative working class.???.Any way now Brama temples are very less in India and Viswakarma in the form of Virad Visawa Braman is being worshipped by traditional artisans . In south india some them are still wearing sacred thred and following their vedic traditions.

DocWatson42 13:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Removal of image

The image on this page was removed as it did not belong to Vishwakarma but to Brahma !!

I added new vishwakarma god's image with five rishis — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raghu chandran (talk • contribs) 04:15, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Shloka in "Vasishtha Purana"

OM Vishawakarma Parabrahma Jagada Dhaŕ Muklakaha | Tanmukhani Tuvai Pancha - Pancha Brahmo Tyuhradat (3.6.11)

This means Vishwakarm created 5 Brahma from each for his 5 Mukhas to create the Srusti (Universe)

BalanceRestored 11:51, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Vishwakarma and Tvastr are not different

There is a quote which says "Vishwakarma in later mythology sometimes identified with Tvastr". This is wrong. There is a clear narration in the Shrimad Bhagawatam(here deva shilpi is coated and not virat vishwakarma) ISBN 81-7276-376-X the following.

Page 162 Tvaṣṭā was very angry with Indra for having killed his son(vishwarupacharya). He performed a homa and the invocation was: "Arise! Indrashatru come out and kill your enemy"

after that Indrashatru starts to dictate his terms with devas and, then the devas after panicing meet Lord Vishnu

Page 163 For this lord Vishnu suggest to collect the devas to collect the bones of Rishi Dadhichi and tells to pray virat vishwakarma and take boon to guide and order deva shilpi.

"Out of his bones deva shilpi Vishwakarma created dreadful weapon and call it VAJRAYUDHA"BalanceΩrestored ^Talk 05:30, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

So, this makes it very clear that Vishwakarma and Tvastr are different deities if we refer Shrimad Bhagwatam. Now I do not understand what Monier-Williams is stating?BalanceΩrestored ^Talk 05:32, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

you did note, didn't you, the "sometimes"? It means that sometimes, they aren't identified. dab (𒁳) 09:17, 31 May 2008(UTC)

which publication of Monier-Williams is stating that. It will be great if you give a proper reference. Currently the reference is just stating Monier-Williams(1899). If you let me which book by Monier-Williams, it will help me read the exact narration, as it seems very interesting. BalanceΩrestored ^Talk 06:33, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Here is one ref which identifies both of them. [1][2]--Redtigerxyz (talk) 06:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

BalanceRestored, for how long have you been editing Hinduism-related articles? Monier-Williams is chiefly known because he "compiled one of the most widely-used Sanskrit-English dictionaries". If you are interested in any Sanskrit term, your first stop is MW. There is no excuse for not consulting MW, these days, because the full text is online. dab (𒁳) 06:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Rig Veda HYMN LXXXII. Visvakarman.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/rigveda/rv10082.htm Can someone help add/add details to the main content BalanceΩrestored ^Talk 12:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Vajra weapon

 Viswakarma is also credited with creating the missiles used in the mythological era, including the Vajra, the sacred weapon of Lord Indra, from the bones of sage Dadhichi. He is regarded as the supreme worker, the very essence of excellence and quality in craftsmanship.

vajara weapon was made by Tvastari is mentiond in hindu mythology, vedic and puranic by W.J Wilkins, page no.75. And the refferance of anand K coormaswamy is not about this. that is about virat vishwakarma —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajeshpn80 (talk • contribs) 12:09, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Sources

This article is appallingly sourced, where it is sourced at all. It appears to rely extensively on primary material and it also shows a disregard for the provisions of WP:NOENG, Can anyone fix these issues? - Sitush (talk) 09:13, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

ब्राह्मणों और विश्वकर्मा वंशियों के बीच 1928 में विवाद हुआ जिसमें  ब्राह्मणों द्वारा  विश्वकर्मा वंशियों को शूद्र बताया गया यह विवाद तत्कालीन सुप्रीम कोर्ट में वाद दायर संख्या 500 और 501 के तहत पंजीकृत हुआ जिसमें सुप्रीम कोर्ट द्वारा जो निर्णय हुआ उसमें ब्राह्मणों से विश्वकर्मा जाति के लोगों को उच्च बताया गया मैंने यह Google सर्च में पढ़ा था क्या यह सही है अगर सही है तो राजस्थान के मुख्यमंत्री हाल ही में ब्राह्मण और विश्वकर्मा वंशज की भेंट के दौरान मुख्यमंत्री महोदय ने अपमान किया कि आप पिछड़ी जाति में आते हो मैं राजस्थान ही नहीं पूरे भारत के विश्वकर्मा वंश से अपील करता हूं कि इस मुद्दे को उठाया जाए और इस महारानी को अवगत कराया जाए कि हमारा स्थान कहां है सत्यवीर सुथार (talk) 04:42, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Quote Farm

Regarding the revert [3] citing overuse of quotes. The Wikipedia policy or guideline "WP:QUOTEFARM" says "While quotations are an indispensable part of Wikipedia, try not to overuse them". I guess those two quotes were the only ones in the article. So, why they felt to be an overuse of the WP:QUOTE. I intended to keep it for this reason "quoting a brief excerpt from an original source can sometimes explain things better and less controversially than trying to explain them in one's own words" Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 17:16, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

We had what amounted to an entire section comprising mostly unintelligible quotes, shown both in English and in Indic script and using primary sources. No way. You want to read a page of quotes, go buy a dictionary of quotations. BTW, there is no need to tell me every time you post something here. In fact, I would rather that you did not. - Sitush (talk) 19:04, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

How can Ralph T.H. Griffith's Translation on "The Rig Veda" be considered a primary source? Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 03:23, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

You are not quoting Griffith's opinion etc, but merely his translation. A primary source is primary in any language. And the quotes were meaningless/had no context. I suggest that you drop this: you are not going to get your way unless you massively adjust the contribution. - Sitush (talk) 08:56, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

You also edited this passage earlier [4] citing "remove gibberish". Which wiki policy was that? Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 03:33, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Gibberish is gibberish and needs no policy. If it makes no sense, lacks any context or is merely a collection of indiscriminate "facts" then it has no place in the article. Even India-based contributors at WT:INB have noted that it is quite common to find abysmal writing in India-related articles, usually because of the language comprehension issues. People naturally think that they are ok writing in English but really they are not. Sometimes the writing can be copyedited, and sometimes it cannot. Occasionally, it is so bad that after a while the contributor finds themselves being guided towards one of the many Indic language Wikipedias, where their input might be of more benefit because they would be using their native language. - Sitush (talk) 08:56, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Vishwakarma Puja

On 17th September (Kanya Sankranti Day), every year.124.247.213.35 (talk) 08:15, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Clarification

Any comments about vishwakarmas like Bhraguvanshi Vishwakarma and Sudhanwa Vishwakarma i got this info from below 3rd party site http://www.jangidbrahminsamaj.com/history/eng.htm may it help.

Vishvakarman = Vishnu

According to Krishna (black) Yayur Veda VII.1.5 Vishvakarman is identified with Prajapati then with the boar, which lifted the earth out of the waters, which means with Vishnu. There is also stated that he as Vishvakarman wiped the earth after the deluge.--91.17.206.44 (talk) 07:25, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 July 2018

Ankith2005 (talk) 11:52, 3 July 2018 (UTC) Can i edit vishwakarman to vishvakarma

 Not done: page move requests should be made at Wikipedia:Requested moves. If I have misunderstood your request please reopen it with further clarification. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 13:29, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I want to merge it into this article (all vedic info about him in the Vedas section) because:

• According to the following sources, "Puranic" Vishvakarma and "Vedic" Tvastar are identified to be the same god (according to this source [5], the craftsman deity version of Vishvakarma was referred as Tvastar in Vedic literature. Also as per source, Tvastar was Vedic version of Vishvakarma, similar to other Vedic-Puranic pairs like Saranyu-Samjna, Savarna-Chhaya. In some Puranas, another deity emerged with the name Tvastar and this is why there's so much for confusion. The article Tvastar is about the Vedic deity, so Vedic Tvastar=Vishvakarma)
• The article Tvastar has multiple problems and is badly sourced
• Tvastar is too short too
• Vishwakarma is Common name and gets far more page views.
• See, [6][7][8][9][10][11] and [12] (last one is a later addition to the proposal)

Regards, .💠245CMR💠.•^👥📜 06:59, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Oppose Tvashtar and Vishvakarman are two distinct deities. They have different origins and are only occasionally conflated in later texts due to both being involved in craftsmanship. Vishvakarman is not just Puranic deity, but is also a Vedic deity. Just because the Tvashtar page is in a poor state does not mean it the correct decision to merge it with only a tangentially related deity. The second source you put is by absolutely no means WP:RS, and is easily discarded. The third source also states he is Vishvakarman is only sometimes identified with Tvashtar. The fourth source is also only about the Puranas, and makes no mention of the entire history of the deity. The fifth source also reiterates my statements about conflation in later times. User:245CMR, you cannot always be pushing a Puranic view of these deities, as evidenced by behavior on many similar pages. The Puranic versions and myths of Hindu deities are not the official versions of them, and you cannot put them on a pedestal over all other traditions. The other earlier traditions are just as notable as the epic and puranic traditions, and deserve equal weight, not just be relegated to the back by claiming the Puranas are the standard. Tvashtar and Vishvakarman are separate deities and notable in their own rights, and it would be incorrect to merge the two, as that would just be adhering to a certain religious traditions narrative (Puranic) and not recognizing they are separate and notable deities. Chariotrider555 (talk) 17:33, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Chariotrider555 If you oppose this, then it's ok. But you can't put a personal attack on me. There is no such "authentic version of a legend" in Hinduism as it is not just a history, but a culture of beliefs and faiths. Puranic ones are equally important and authentic while talking about Hinduism. .💠245CMR💠.•^👥📜 18:18, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Repeating the prior statements, the first, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh sources you provide still state that this identification between the two deities is only occasional and in the Puranas. As for the 7th source it indeed states that Tvastri was known as Vishvakarma in early times. However, I heavily doubt whether we should give greater weight to the testimony of this book, as it is a tertiary encyclopedia of all ancient deities, and its authors are not Indologists with credentials required to analyze Hindu deities. However, noted Indologists Monier Monier-Williams and Arthur Macdonell both state that in the Vedas, Vishvakarman is more closely identified with Prajapati, not Tvastar. They reiterate that this was only in later mythology (Puranas) that they were both identified with each other. To merge the two articles despite would be to subscribe to the Puranic identification of the two, meaning that the Vedic seperateness is not notable somehow, and that rather the Puranic version is more notable. This would possibly be a violation of NPOV, as we would be suscribing to a particular religious sect's pov rather than another religious sect's POV. A good precedent for this merger would be how Yahweh, El, El Shaddai, and God in Judaism all have separate pages. While they were after a point conflated and identified with each other as being the same deity, they had different origins and editors recognize that they're individually notable before their conflation. The previous problems about Tvastr have been fixed, with the article being rewritten with top-notch reliable sources from experts in the field, and it still has room to grow. Thus, the article should not be merged on the grounds that Tvastr is only occasionally identified with Visvakarman specifically in the Puranic tradition, and that Tvastr is notable in its own right and has a properly sourced article that has room and sources to grow. Chariotrider555 (talk) 17:48, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

References

Requested move 9 March 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:32, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

---

Vishvakarman → Vishvakarma – The common name of this deity is Vishvakarma not Vishvakarman, for sources see [13][14][15] .💠245CMR💠.•^👥📜 03:53, 9 March 2021 (UTC) —Relisting. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 00:30, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Indifferent They are just different grammatical forms of the same word, as the third source illustrates. Different sources will use the different form of the word, and as long as both are clear in the lead sentence, it doesn't really matter that I know of. Note: I do not know Sanskrit grammar and cannot comment on what would be the normal tense of the word. Someone who is familiar with Sanskrit grammar hopefully can comment on what would be the default state of the word. Chariotrider555 (talk) 04:27, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

@Chariotrider555: Vishvakarma, Vishwakarma and Vishvakarman are just different writing styles in English. Eg पूजा is written like Puja or Pooja, लक्ष्मी - Laxmi or Lakshmi. Vishvakarma is more widely used than Vishvakarman. .💠245CMR💠.•^👥📜 05:34, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Would like more participation before closing considering the large amount of watchers. (Non-administrator comment) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 00:30, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Unsourced and poorly sourced content.

The article contains lots of unsourced content which I am going to remove, but anyone can re-add it if they can find a reliable source to verify that statement. Also, there are many statements attributed to poor sources that are inappropriate for an article about a deity, such . The reasons are given in the edit summaries, and feel free to discuss here on the talk page. Some poor sources include primary religious texts (which qualifies as original research, and sources attributed to people who have no credentials to be writing in the field they did. Chariotrider555 (talk) 17:04, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

How are you determining whether a person has the appropriate credentials "to be writing in the field they did"? And how are you determining which statements are "attributed to poor sources" and what is "inappropriate for an article about a deity"? Please don't be so eager to remove material that you feel is currently unsourced, I am sure there is much on Wikipedia that is equally unsourced, that you don't seem as eager to remove. Could it be that you aren't approaching this article from a neutral perspective? 48Pills (talk) 19:07, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

First, unsourced material is unsourced material. Those are the many paragraphs that do not have a source attributed anywhere within them.

Someone with unqualified credentials would be Coomaraswamy. He was trained as a geologist and mineralogist, yet is being used as a source for a deity. He is not qualified to be used as a source here, and it would be much better if someone who is a religious scholar, historian, Sanskritist, Indologist, etc. Btw, if you look at my edit history you will find I spend most of my edits removing and reverting unsourced content, it is not out of the ordinary for me to remove content that violates WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:OR. If you wish to retain such content, it is your burden to find a reliable source for it. Chariotrider555 (talk) 21:35, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

@48Pills: @Chariotrider555: IMO, instead of removing such amount of content, it would be much better if you changed it accordingly (add sources or change grammatical errors) This is what did for the articles Sati (Hindu goddess), Shachi, Drona and Bhishma

The most important thing is that the author (whether a geologist or historian) must provide a reference to other books or to the scriptures itself. If you can find another source, then replace the previous one. .💠245CMR💠.•^👥📜 04:03, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

It is your WP:BURDEN to find a reliable source if you want to retain unsourced content and poorly sourced content. Coomaraswamy is not an ideal source, but if you want to keep him one could make an argument for it. However, the other unsourced content and content attributed to a primary religious text must go for now, and you can re-add it when you find a reliable source for it.Chariotrider555 (talk) 17:47, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

It's really hard to say what is correct and what is wrong source, since there are many references on wikipedia, where they are actually false. Any one can raise how can i say that. There are books and palm leaf scriptures that are still not revealed outside, nor can be attached. the idea of referencing here is good. but we actually can't rely on the references. it's just saving our history that has left. there are many truth's. Have you ever noticed regarding lord Ayyappa, there are no perfect scriptures, the palm leaf manu scripts are burnt and some of them are still missing. the references about his birth or something is still a question mark. Each and every state's culture has its own way of sayings regarding ancient scripts or folk lore. but every thing is reference by some one, but not actual scripts. the versions of Ramayan and mahabharat are transalated by different authors. we consider the most popular book and follow them. It's in reality we are following his/her thought on the epics, but not on actual texts. "The article contains lots of unsourced content which I am going to remove" - the line above mentioned, please don't remove the content, there must be some folklores that might tell them. if you really concerned about it have a separate talk on it. Because many things doesnot have an actual reference. "attributed to poor sources" - Sorry to mention, but we cannot say every source is great or rich either, if we ask to produce some reference to some idea, also we need to provide reference when we say something is poor. Do you really have something really supportive docs / manuscripts to say its poorly sourced ?. (just a thought, not offending any one). "appropriate credentials" - Brothers, chill, Wikipedia is some thing which is owned by all, it's not one person property. there will not be credentials to own, so its not a worth discussion to do, before asking that question, How do we know whether we have right credentials ?.So just don't to the extent of personal intriguages. At the end we all need our culture to be not missing in this changing history. try to add things that are relevant, some may not have, have you ever visited Srinatha page, a great poet and has been called as emperor of the poets. Many duely know about him. unfortunately, we lost most his works and scripts. only few left. have you all guys ever known about lord Nataraja, the mystery behind him. All the texts and scripts are still missing in the history. Please don't refer the television serials. Have you ever noticed Lord Ganesh is treated as eldest and Lord Skanda / kumara swamy / Kartikeya as younger in south India (especially in tamil nadu where he is the supreme god) ?. have you ever known that Ganga is considered as wife of shiva in many purana's and as wife of shantanu in Mahabharata. We cannot either say which Purana is Wrong or Right. Have you ever read about Vedamati and Sita in Ramayana?. There are many things that actual Valmiki Ramayana says. So i request respect every writer who contributes, because we all still in process of knowing.

• User:48Pills Thanks for inviting me here to share my thought process.

@User:Saraffakarsh, that is not how Wikipedia works. Wikipedia is based upon reliable sources. If it is unsourced or sourced to a primary religious text, that qualifies as original research, which is forbidden on Wikipedia. If you want to keep the content, it is your burden to find a reliable source(s) to back up those claims. In the meantime, it shall be removed. Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's policies on reliable sources, verifiability, and original research. Chariotrider555 (talk) 01:33, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Vishvakarma God of all God

As per Vishwakarma suktam ( viśvakarma sūktam) is a collection of two hymns 10.81-82 of the Rigveda, dedicated to Vishwakarman, the "Cosmic creator” and the "Father of the gods". It explains the way of creation of the Brahmandam by Vishwakarman. It also finds mention in Krishna Yajurveda (Taittiriya Samhita - 4.6.2; Kathaka Samhita – 18.1,2; Kapisthala Samhita –28.2; Maitrayani Samhita – 2.10.2,3), and Shukla Yajurveda (Vajasaneyi-Madhyandina Samhita - 17.17-32, Kanwa Samhita – 18.2,3). The Rigvedic version of the suktam consists of 14 verses and the Yajurvedic (Taittiriya Samhita) version of the suktam consists of 17 verses (trishtubh meter) representing the seventeen fold Prajapati. It is the Sarvamedha (Universal sacrifice) performed by Vishwakarman for the creation of the universe in which he offered everything existing and sacrificed himself to himself. Thus, he himself is the Yajna (sacrifice). It is his desire to create, to become manifold and everything existing that led him to create the universe. Vishwakarman the cosmic creator emerges from the chaotic matter and creates everything by means of the Sarvamedha yajna. As the creator or Father of the gods, he is the one who assigned their names to the gods and being called with different names of gods he's one. Vishwakarma suktam explains the creation of womb (garbha) or the golden egg (Hiranyagarbha) in the primeval waters which rested set upon the navel of the unborn vishwakarman prajapati by means of a receptacle and that "Brahmanda" contains the universe. According to the Vishwakarma suktam of Yajurveda, the gods evolved from the womb are : (i) Vishwakarman [the Brahma of four faces, that is, chaturmukha Brahma - the Purusha having the solar soul (Adithyaathmaka) who resides in the Satyaloka] (ii) Gandharva [Agni] (iii) the father and begetter of plants [Soma according to Sayana and Parjanya according to Mahidhara and Uvata]. The emergence of Brahman (Virat) and Agni from Vishwakarman Prajapati is explained in detail in Satapatha Brahmana - 6.1.1.8-15 (Purushothpaththi) Prasadmarur (talk) 04:32, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

vishvakarma God of trimurthy brahma vishnu Shiva and refered as prabrahmma in veda

vishvakarma God of trimurthy brahma vishnu Shiva and refered as prabrahma in veda.Vishvakarma the creater of all living and non living things. Even today the childrens of vishvakarma creates non living thing ultra super method this is not by even follower of brahma,vaishnav ,shaiva brahmins themselves calls them as brillient.Vishnu done dashavatar means 10 methods to kill demons .But no history of vaishnav brahmin fighting with demons Babar,Alexander..

Brahmin not allowed vishvakarma become hindu god even though they chanting vishvakarma namo nama at first and several times. This is contradiction of brahmin and playing with spirituality... Prasadmarur (talk) 04:45, 26 August 2024 (UTC)