Talk:Murti

I removed the reference to monotheism. I have nothing against it, I just couldn't see the logical connection. Prater 20:25, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The current text states that Murthi is a Cult image. The Cult image states that a cult image is made by man. This is incorrect, for Murthi need not be sculpted or formed by man. For example, Dwaraka Sila [1], Salagrama Sila or sila (murthi) [2], Govardhana Sila [3] are not formed by man, nor is Amarnath Sivalingam [4], all of which are worshipped.Similarly, Banalinga, a natural stone, in the shape of a phallic symbol, found in the Narmada river in Madhya Pradesh is worshipped as Shiva by the Smartha brahmins and Shaivites.

I think the original text of "deities or images" is superior. --BostonMA 22:55, 23 January 2006 (UTC) A second reason why "deity" is more suitable than "cult image". Trimurthi refers to three deities, or to three forms of a single god. It does not refer to three "images". --BostonMA 00:36, 24 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Are there examples somewhere of the term murti being used to describe Buddhist statuary? If not, I'm not sure why Buddhism should be mentioned on this article any more than Christian icons, etc. would be. Also, is this sentence NPOV?: "This view of murtis being 'idols' misapplies Abrahamic ideas to Hindu practices and fails to reflect actual Vedic philosophy and Hindu belief." Clearly, a Christian or Muslim critique of Hindu practices does apply Abrahamic ideas; that it is a misapplication sounds like someone's opinion. - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 00:40, 22 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

I will offer my opinion that the paragraph you cite regarding Abrahamic ideas represents only a particular POV. I am not an expert in the meanings of the words icon vs idol, but according to the Wikipedia article Icon, an icon

"is an image, picture, or representation; it is a sign or likeness that stands for an object by signifying or representing it..."

I think many people would take the POV that God is in everything, and therefore God is in murthi, and therefore murthi is a form of God, and not merely a representation or likeness--a representation being something which is other than that which it represents. I would not oppose that section being deleted or changed, but did not delete it or change it myself out of concern for the POV of the author. --BostonMA 01:23, 22 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

I agree with User talk:Nat Krause and tried to address the issue. – Hillel 03:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

there shouldn't be any mentions of critics of murtis, otherwise abrahamic pratices should have critics sections. This has nothing to do with the practices, it's irrelevent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.227.171.33 (talk) 21:01, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

"The murti is regarded by [??] and also by some Mahayana Buddhists..." In the second paragraph. Is there a missing subject? I don't see a source for this statement, so can't check if something was left out... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.111.111.10 (talk) 21:29, 27 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

The word "murthy" should be better explained. It is a name given to so many people in Andhra Pradesh (if not other states too) and I think that needs a mention in the aritcle. Elncid (talk) 12:09, 11 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Murthy can be made into a disambig. Murthy (the surname) and Murthy as an alternate spelling of murti - image are different. So need not be mentioned here. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 12:12, 11 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

"Murti" is also appended to many names and pseudonyms: e.g. Krishnamurti, Anandamurti. If there was ever a disambig page, it seems to be gone, now. --Rags (talk) 09:37, 20 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

I have removed the following sentence: for God is eternal, He is 2 or four-handed, but it is rather so that humans are similar to God, but not that God is created by human and humans ascribe to Him human features: "Those who adhere to the Māyāvāda philosophy of anthropomorphism say, "The Absolute Truth is impersonal, but because we are persons we imagine that the Absolute Truth is also a person." This is a mistake, and in fact just the opposite is true. We have two hands, two legs, and a head because God Himself has these same features. We have personal forms because we are reflections of God."). This is clearly ISKCON related theology and has no place in the article, it is not represenative of the Hindu tradition as a whole. Furthermore, no reference was provided. (Rory Moores) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.189.127.37 (talk) 15:42, 21 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

The distinction between Murti and idol, with the distinction being said to be the difference that the Murti actually contains part of God or God resides in it, is a false one. All cultures that had cult images, including the Greeks, believed the same thing. There is no difference. They treated them the same exact way modern Hindus do: They bathed them, clothed them, took them out on palanquins or carts, and had banquets for them and fed them. The Greeks, Romans, Norse, Egyptians, Babylonians and Sumerians all did these things. There is no difference, just an attempt to create one by people offended by the association.

Agreed. And there are plenty of Hindu sources saying a Murti is an idol, eg [5]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 13:52, 9 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Now we have a new article Poles in mythology, Please see and include suitable improvements , if any, in article Poles in mythology.

Rgds Mahitgar (talk) 09:23, 7 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Murthy (surname) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 12:49, 11 February 2019 (UTC)Reply