Talk:Vishnu/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Untitled

Something is terribly wrong with the changes made now by 24.128.246.90, and they should be reverted. He destroyed all non-ascii characters (changing them into question marks), and made the first paragraph much less informative (give me a break, why not mention "Hindu" there, to explain *who* believes in this God? NPOV!) user:nyh

As a relatively unenlightened infidel who doesn't know the language, I find the "Theological Attributes" and "Relations with other gods" sections difficult to follow. A lot of square brackets and such are giving me brainache. Perhaps the detail could be kept but rewritten for an audience not already acquainted with it? I wouldn't dare touch it myself. --Suitov

Animesh Says: Hello friends. I was unhappy with many aspects and words chosen in description of Lord. I edited many sections, based on my readings from Vishnu Purana, Bhagwat Purana, and Ramcharitmanas. Please have a look and suggest any changes. Saying fourteen names as "important" renders other names (like Krishna and Raam) unimportant. This is not correct. Every name has its own significance and we should not undermine any names. There are other changes too where someone refers Shri as the accompaniment of God in this + outside this world. This is again incorrect. God exists and His state is unknown beyond this universe, since we can only perceive things within this universe. Also, that shakti is nothing by Maayaa since according to the creation theory in Vishnupurana (most authentic), Vishnu created Maayaa to make the world. Please endorse or comment on my changes. animesh1978 AT gmail DOT com

Recent changes by Raj2004

Raj2004: I'm delighted with most of the recent work you've done on this article. It's added helpful info, and it's really helped clean the article up – but I worry about possible POV in one of the changes. It's a fact that many people believe that Vishnu is an actual god, and not just an aspect of a god. You might believe that those people are wrong, but we can't say "Vishnu isn't a god" if some believe he is. I know that serious Hindu scholars often see things differently than your average Hindu in India. How can we address this? – Quadell (talk) (help)[[]] 14:03, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

Quadel, I may have already distinguished that. Only Smartas believe that Vishnu is a personal aspect of God or one of many forms of God. Vaishnavites believe that God is only Vishnu exclusively. Also for Vishnu and Shiva, we generally don't preface with a lower case, (i.e., god); such notations are for devas. I am not saying Vishnu isn't God. Vishnu is God. Smartas simply believe that God has many forms such as Vishnu or Shiva; Again, Vaishnavites, however believe that God is only Vishnu-Narayana. That is the difference.

Raj2004 16:26, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Quadel, I may not have been clear so I added the following language: However, followers of Vaishnavism, unlike Smartas, do not believe that Vishnu is one of many personal forms of God or Saguna Brahman but believe Him to be the only Ultimate Reality Brahman exclusively. A Smarta, on the other hand, would consider Vishnu and Shiva to be the same but different aspects of the same Supreme Being. Thanks for your comments and help. Raj2004 18:09, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

--217.23.232.194 08:37, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)Bryan

Changes by Animesh

Animesh Says: Hello friends! I was unhappy with many aspects and words chosen in description of Lord. I edited many sections, based on my readings from Vishnu Purana, Bhagwat Purana, and Ramcharitmanas. Please have a look and suggest any changes. Saying fourteen names as "important" renders other names (like Krishna and Raam) unimportant. This is not correct. Every name has its own significance and we should not undermine any names. There are other changes too where someone refers Shri as the accompaniment of God in this + outside this world. This is again incorrect. God exists and His state is unknown beyond this universe, since we can only perceive things within this universe. Also, that shakti is nothing by Maayaa since according to the creation theory in Vishnupurana (most authentic), Vishnu created Maayaa to make the world. Please endorse or comment on my changes. animesh1978 AT gmail DOT com

Hi, Animesh I agree with your changes such as this: "Note that even though Vishnu is portrayed with human features, the purana state that Vishnu pervades everything and is not anthropomorphic. Attributing anthrompormorphic characteristics to Vishnu is a common misconception held by non-Hindus. Vishnu has no particular material form but can manifest in any form, and is a center of all the forces, power, will, auspiciousness, goodness, beauty, grace, responsiveness, etc. In short, whatever we can think of, and whatever we cannot think of -- all are Vishnu." Yes, and thanks for editing but I think my original writing was edited by others: This is what I originally wrote: Note that while Vishnu is commonly portrayed with human features, Swami Tapasyananda, in his book, Bhakti Schools of Vedanta, states that Vishnu pervades everything and is not anthropomorphic. Attributing anthrompormorphic characteristics to Vishnu is a common misconception held by non-Hindus. Vishnu has no particular material form but can manifest in any form, and is a center of all force, power, will, auspiciousness, goodness, beauty, grace, responsiveness, etc. I had originally added the comment by a Ramakrishna Mission scholar but it was removed somehow. So I will restore it, in some way. What do you think?

Raj2004 02:17, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Etymology

The etymology of the name is unknown. It is continued in Prakrit veṇhu, viṇhu. Conceivable is a connection with the root vay "pursue". Other proposed analyses include vi-ṣṇu "crossing the back", vi-ṣ-ṇu "facing towards all sides" and viṣ-ṇu "active". Other suggestions attempt to explain it as an amalgate of two unrelated words, or as derived from a non-Aryan root.

Where is the source for this? Why can't these ideas co-exist w modern Hindu definitions of the word? Sam Spade 09:49, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
Mayrhofer's etymological dictionary. You had no business removing this, Raj, so put it back. If you cite "meanings" instead of etymologies, attribute them. Vishnu does not "mean" all-pervading, unless you take your guru's word for it. If it is a notable guru, cite him together with the "meaning", just don't give it as "the truth". This is Wikipedia. dab (ᛏ) 06:25, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Dab, it's absurd to say that the meaning of Vishnu is not the all pervading one and simply the meaning given by one guru. The meanings for Vishnu are found in the Vishnu Purana, an old purana and the most authorative Vaishnavite purana. You call my comments simply wrong without citing anything. You are the one who is simply wrong for not even knowing what the meaning of Vishnu is for Hindus. You are not a Hindu so you don't know. I am trying to be civil but you started name calling. There people who write nonsense in wikipedia without citing support. In fact, you had no business removing the name for Vishnu meaning all pervading. You have the gall to to ignore your own "unclean hands." We had similar discussion about Rudram. Entymology, or the historical development of the word may or may not be known but the meaning is settled. You simply didn't read the link I sent you.

For the etymology of the name, "Vishnu" please see the meanings in this site which explains meaning of Vishnu, the second name in the Vishnu sahasranama. It quotes Vedic and Puranic verses. http://home.comcast.net/~chinnamma/sahasra/ Please click on page 01 in the Links to slokams.

Read the whole link. Many great scholars, such as Sankara have explained what Vishnu means and the conclusion is all pervading. The meanings for Vishnu are found in the Vishnu Purana, an old purana and the most authorative Vaishnavite purana. Sankara, from the cite stated:

yasmAd vishTam idam sarvam tasya SaktyA mahAtmanah | tasmAd vishNuriti khyAto veSer dhAtoh praveSanAt || (Vishnu Purana 3.1.45) "Because the whole world has been pervaded by the energy of the great Self, He is named vishNu, from the root viS - to enter or pervade." vyApte me rodasI pArtha kAntiscApadhikA sthitA | kramaNaccApyaham pArtha! VishNuriti abhisamgj~nita: || (Mahabharata. 350.43) "As I have pervaded the horizons, my glory stands foremost, and as I have measured by my steps the three worlds, O Arjuna! I am named vishNu". Quote from the scholars and summary: "To summarize,

- the nAma vishNu refers to the guNa of bhagavAn in pervading everything He has created, including all sentient and non-sentient objects from a blade of grass to brahma; - His pervasion is because of His Sakti; in other words, He is the power behind everything that exists; an instance of His Sakti is illustrated by His measuring the three worlds with His Foot; - His vyApati is indicative of the inseparable relation between Him and everything else outside Him, in the sense that nothing exists without Him. - His pervasion of everything is of the form of His enveloping and showering everything around Him with His Mercy. It is not just His sausIlya that is indicated by this nAma; all His powers including that of creation, sustenance, His Lordship, etc., are to be understood by this nAma. - It is because of His pervasion of everything in this universe that things (for example the constellations, the planets, etc.)., are in their respective positions without colliding with each other."

The meanings for Vishnu are found in the Vishnu Purana, an old purana and the most authorative Vaishnavite purana. If you want, you may write entymology may be unknown but the meaning is well-settled.

Also you cite a Western scholar. So-called Western scholars are notoriously anti-Hindu. It's fine if you disagree but you ERASED my work without reading any of the links. Ask any Hindu and Vishnu means all pervading. THat meaning is overwhelmingly the predominant one. Who cares about what an unknown scholar thinks when the overwhelming majority consider Vishnu meaning to be all pervading. (I.e., Vishnu Purana) If you cited Sankara or other giants in Hinduism, that would be authorative. As Animesh said to me once, "if you want a more concrete and old (and reverred, more perfect, more poetic) reference, then you can cite Vishnu Purana, Bhagavat Purana, etc." Why would quote Myerhoffs dictionary, an unknown reference?

Why do you care about meaning in Prakrit or common language that was corrupted from Sanskrit.. We are worried about meaning in Sanksrit.

Read the story of Narasimha which illustrates the Lord's omnipresence.

To satisfy the 1% of you who dispute the meaning of Vishnu, I put in the article, Most Hindus consider Vishnu to mean All-Pervading One but a minority attribute other meanings and even some suggest that the entymology of the name is unknown.

You may it think it' semantic to call Vishnu a Hindu god versus God but how would a Christian feel if someone call Jesus a god instead of God. The same would go with a Muslim. Judging by the conversation with (Oxy2Hydro 2) it appears that you may have offended some.

Furthermore, anything that is Hindu is termed as Hindu mythology by Westerners. Anything that is Biblical is accepted as fact. No one calls storys from the Bible as Christian mythology.

Person's feelings about religion are a sensitive issue and that's what we must strive in wikipedia to tread careful waters.


Thank you.

Raj2004 Raj2004

As suggested by Sam, I have added your minority viewpoint. Raj2004 00:43, 29 May 2005 (UTC)


I agree w Raj, it is important to be respectful regarding deities. Its also fine to point out where Mayrhofer's etymological dictionary disagrees. NPOV is the sum total of verifiable POV's, not any one of them individually. Click here to report admin abuse 21:54, 28 May 2005 (UTC)


Good edit, Raj! Now thats NPOV! Writing for your enemy, as well as the truth as you see it... thats what its all about! :) Click here to report admin abuse 23:32, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

God vs. god

Can we call Vishnu a God in Vaishnavism and a deity outside it? Andries 13:25, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Not sure. would one call another person's God a deity? That would imply a polytheistic notion. Raj2004 17:05, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

the Hindu concept of God appears rather foreign to you, Raj, if you worry about monotheism vs. polytheism. Vishnu is only considered supreme in Vaishnavism. The name appears already in the Vedas, i.e. clearly pre-Vishnavite, and there Vishnu is just a minor god, named among many others. Monier-Williams reports,
Vishnu comes second in the triad he is identified with the supreme deity by his worshippers; in the Vedic period, however, he is not placed in the foremost rank, although he is frequently invoked with other gods, esp. with Indra whom he assists in killing Vrtra and with whom he drinks the Soma juice [1]

This article is about all historical aspects of the god, not just the Vishnavite ones. Monier-Williams is certainly notable, so his account should at least appear as held by him, although it is certainly common knowledge and by no means a view original to MW. dab (ᛏ) 10:49, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Monier-Williams is definitely a well-known respected source. Yes, Religion has evolved. early Biblical views considered Yahweh to be a tribal god, or God of the Israelites before He was considered to be the God of all. Vishnu is also considered to be one of the forms of God in Smartism so Vaishnavite belief is not exclusive to Vaishnavism. Even Shaivites consider Vishnu to be a form of Siva. (See Himalyana Academy, a well-respected Saivite organization, in their definition of Vishnu although they consider Siva to be the Ultimate Godhead. (http://www.himalayanacademy.com/resources/books/dws/lexicon/v.html) and see Smartism, in http://www.himalayanacademy.com/resources/books/dws/lexicon/s.html

To say that the Hindu concept is foreign is insulting. You should be less caustic and nasty and be more diplomatic instead of making spurious comments.

Perhaps I am biased as I am slanted towards Smartism. Raj2004 11:10, 30 May 2005 (UTC)


Also, it's worthy to note that Monier-Williams is anti-Hindu. His goals for study were for the purposes of denigrating Hinduism. The wikipedia article states, " Monier-Williams declared from the outset that the conversion of India to the Christian religion should be one of the aims of orientalist scholarship." Raj2004 11:30, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

It is a well known fact that many Western scholars used to have an extremely biased view of Hinduism and that this only gradually and slowly improved. Older Western sources should hence be treated with suspicion. I dunno about Monier-Williams though. Andries 11:33, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
he was a Christian. That is irrelevant. He was an extremely competent scholar of Sanskrit, and you couldn't show his Christian bias from the pages of his scholarly publications. The "denigration" part is a ridiculous ad-hominem charge by the Hindutva. Attack his scholarly views, if you can, not his religion. dab (ᛏ) 11:39, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
It should be irrelavant that he is a Christian and it is irrelevant when he is a good scholar but it is notoriously difficult not to be biased when describing other people's or your own religion. I also wrote this at cult (after reading the description about this phenomonenon as described by Dutch religious scholar Wouter Hanegraaf.) Even scholars show bias when describing religions. Andries 11:53, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

No. It is relevant but his biased view mars his credibility. Raj2004 11:43, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

I disagree, but fine. Why should he care (biased as he was, for argument's sake) if the name was derived from this or that root? It would have been all the same to him, except for scholarly (and encyclopedic) interest. dab (ᛏ) 12:00, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Not true, Dab you're ignoring your own precedent. We had a similar discussion about verses in Rudram. You had argued that a Vedantist would interpret certain lines in Rudram to indicate that Vishnu and Shiva are one and the same while other scholars would interpret śipiviṣṭāya differently. So one can't argue that educated scholars can't be biased. With religion, one could always interpret lines to support one's particular point of view. Does the Bible support slavery or would God support slavery? I don't think so. In the nineteenth century, American slaveowners interpret certain lines in the Old Testtament to support slavery.

Who says people or scholars aren't biased. It's all a matter of interpretation. Raj2004 18:36, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

look, Raj, I apologize again for the "simply wrong" comment. I did correct mistakes, but I should have been more polite. Now the reason for my impatience was precisely the Rudram "precedent" where you kept arguing for ages until it transpired that you were not familiar with the original text, but basing your opinion on a rather dubitable translation. Monier-Williams, at least, was working with the original texts. When he talks about shipivishta [2], he knows he is talking about shipivishta, and his comments are those of an impartial philologist, not those of either a Hindu or a Christian. Who says anything indeed? Encyclopedicity is determined by notability and verifiability. In matters of Sanskrit, there is simply no way around Monier-Williams and, for etymological questions, Mayrhofer. Note that I didn't touch any exegetical portions of the article. dab (ᛏ) 13:44, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

I accept your apology. Yes, I also should have been more open to other interpretations of the meaning of Vishnu even though Hindus overwhelmingly interpret it to mean all pervading. The classic story of Narasimha was to illustrate His all-pervasiveness. I was wrong for that short-sightnedness. About calling it a dubitable translations, that shipvasta comment was from a Vedantist scholar, Swami Amitrananda of the Ramakrishna Mission, a well respected group. Ramakrishna Mission swamis are well-known for bringing forth excellent translations of well-known commentaries from Sayana in the Vedas and Rudram and other scholars such as Adi Sankara so they don't produce dubitable translations. I believe it was Sayana who interpreted shipvasta to mean Vishnu. As you said yourself, shipvishta can be interpreted different ways. With regard to Vishnu, monier-williams is not the only one source even though he is an excellent scholary relatively contemporary source, but you have to include giants like Adi Sankara as well in interpretation of the meaning of the name Vishnu. Raj2004 23:15, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

re god vs. God, we need a historical approach. We need a section on Vedic Vishnu, and one on Puranic Vishnu. In the Rigveda, he was a deva, a solar god, I believe an aditya. In the Purana's, he is God. Same name, different concept: there is no problem. dab (ᛏ) 13:44, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

That's correct. I agree with you on that point; distinction between Vedic Vishnu and Puranic Vishnu. Excellent edit! Yes, we had heated discussions but we shouldn't be yelling at each other. The new entymology looks great. Thank you for that edit and distinctions between pre-puranic Vishnu and vedic vishnu. Analogous to Bible development. Yahweh God of the Jews before becoming God of all. Raj2004 23:15, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Dab, in your pre-puranic Vishnu discussion, Vishnu is described as a dwarf in the Brahmanas. I am thinking that the description of Him as a dwarf may be an allusion to the Vamana avatar where he appeared as a dwarf. But I don't have any scholarly treatise to back my assertion. Do you have one? Raj2004 01:29, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

you are right, we are getting somewhere. Thanks, Raj, this is a gratifying experience (I've had too many encounters with editors who refused to listen, lately). The dwarf story is certanily connected with the Vamana avatar, it's just that the avatar thing appears only later, i.e. in the Puranas, while the dwarf is already in the Brahmanas, so I assume it would be a first step in the development of the notion of the ten Avatars. I just got this from MW, btw, and I don't know where the dwarf thing occurs. regards, dab (ᛏ) 07:25, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

ok, Dab It seems development of Vishnu is analogous to development of Yaweh in the Bible. Yahweh in the Old testament seems different from Him in the New Testament. Raj2004 09:48, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

the same holds for every Ggod. God may be eternal, but the way he is perceived by humanity has a history and is changeable. dab (ᛏ) 10:25, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you completely. Best regards, Raj2004 22:53, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Apparently, an anomymous editor has refuted many of Dab's assertions.

"Some points missed by the author:

1. Purusha Sukta of Taittiriya Aranyaka(3.13.2) also refers master of Hri and Lakshmi(Visnu) as Purusha, the Supreme GOD.

2. Visvakarma Sukta of Rig Veda(10.82) refers to Visnu indirectly as the Supreme GOD.

10.082.06 The waters verily first retained the embryo in which all the gods were aggregated, single deposited on the navel of the unborn (creator), in which all beings abide.

3. Aitareya Brahmana: 1:1:1 mentions Visnu as Supreme.

Agni is the lowest among devatas and Visnu is the highest, all other Devatas(anya devatas except Lord Visnu and Agni Deva) occupy positions inbetween. So the author's conclusion that Visnu was inferior Deity in Vedas is unfounded."

I have added the line, "A similar view of Agni as the youngest diety and Vishnu as the oldest deity, in one interpretation, is even expressed in the Chamakam, the last lines in the famous Saivite Vedic hymn, Shri Rudram."

This interpretation comes from Swami Amritananda's translation of Sri Rudram and Purushasuktam, a Ramakrishna Mission publication.

Raj2004 18:48, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

etymology

sorry for my belligerence earlier. "All-pervader" is ok as one possible etymology, my "simply wrong" comment was pointing at the vishva connection. It is even the wrong type of sibilant for that. If you want to refer to vishva, you'll have to state exactly who holds such an opinion. The discussion of the meaning of the name is too controversial to handle in the intro. Hence the etymology section. dab (ᛏ) 10:49, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

You should be. All-Pervading is the overwhelmingly predominant meaning. The meaning is from the Vishnu Purana and the persons who have given such meanings is Adi Sankara, among several others. Raj2004 11:12, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

one word, popular etymology. by all means, cite people who argue this. the Vishnu Purana would be in Sanskrit, though, so it will hardly translate the name. Does it associate the name with the root? Where? Seriously, I believe it does, it would just be your job to provide the exact reference, I cannot do all the work, can I :) dab (ᛏ) 11:27, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

I have given an overview of the etymological discussion, with sources. It is fine to report the traditional Hindu explanation first, even if it is by popular etymology, but you should provide better attribution than "traditional", I'll leave that up to you. As for the other references, I hope we'll agree that unless you have a good etymological dictionary in front of you, or at least Gonda's Aspects of Visnuism, it is futile to pursue this discussion. In any case, it will not do to suggest "minorities" or spurious suggestions based purely on your gusto. I have found a suggestion that vishva may in fact be connected with vish "settle" (Knobloch, 1980), which would have been your job to provide), however, based on conparison with the Balto-Slavic this is considered unlikely. dab (ᛏ) 11:24, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

It's worthy to note that you didn't give your sources until I told you as well. Raj2004 11:39, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

yes, this is how Wikipedia is built. Quote lazily until challenged. If challenged, walk away, or get busy. I followed up with references immediately, because I took the information straight from them, this isn't "my opinion" at all, I'm reporting. dab (ᛏ) 11:42, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

You didn't cite Meyerhoof initially. Admit it! At least I do. Raj2004 11:45, 30 May 2005 (UTC) I just did, saying "yes". Stop picking on me. dab (ᛏ)


Fine I will stop. but you started picking on me instead of being civil. For example, instead of stating simply wrong. you should have stated please cite source. That's what Sam spade and others have done.

Raj2004 12:07, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Lets be as nice as we can, it's pretty clear that different people have different opinions about the etymology. I personally tend to favor Shankara due to his standing, but the best thing we can do for the reader is to provide them with all verifiable POV's (as we have done, much to both of your credit :) One thing I'd like worded a bit differently is :
"The name is continued in Prakrit veṇhu, viṇhu."
I must admit, I don't entirely understand that, could it be worded a bit differently? Sam Spade 23:17, 31 May 2005 (UTC)


The Prakrit thing is not important, just a factoid I found along the way. Traditional Hindu interpretation and linguistic communis opinio agree on the root, vish, being from PIE vik' . The vishva diuscussion is tangential to this, i.e. most people agree vishnu is from vish, but not everybody is so sure about vishva. The problem is that in "All-Pervading", either "All" is translating vish (association with vishva), or "Pervading" is translating vish (from "to enter"), but vish cannot mean "all" and "pervading" at the same time (unless you want to argue the root here means "to all-pervade"). A more literal translation based on this etymology would be "the Pervader" (i.e. originally applied to the Sun who traverses the whole firmament). dab (ᛏ) 07:23, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Problem with "God"

The word "God" for most English readers (Christian or otherwise) has biblical associations. In particular, the Wikipedia entry for "God" clearly postulates it as the Supreme Being for monotheistic religions.

Does everyone agree that God is context-free, religion-free label for a Supreme Being?

Even so, from a Dharmic perspective, the label "God" does not signify Nirguna Brahman. Therefore, Vishnu cannot be a form of "God". Best then to describe Vishnu in terms found in Vedas & Puranas and as stated by Vaishnavas and Smartas.

I am now closely studying entries for God, Brahman, Nirguna Brahman, Saguna Brahman as well as the pauranik references to ensure accuracy. Help appreciated.

--Savyasaachi, 20051127

Vishnu is conceived as both Nirguna Brahman which is a broader concept than God and as well as a personal God.

So it's both.

Raj2004 10:29, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Raj2004 - I make two points: One of which is that some consider Vishnu as the Ultimate Brahman, while others as Ishwar. However, the second is about the use of the label "God". It is therefore erroneous to state Vishnu as being a form of "God". To summarize, you & me perhaps can say this: For some Vishnu is a God, for others Vishnu is God, while for yet others Vishnu is more than God.

But for many, God equals Jehovah. Hence the need to rewrite carefully.


-- Savyasaachi, 20051129

I respectfully disagree.

In my opinion, for Smartas, Vishnu is a form of God, as they believe Saguna Brahman has many forms. For Vaisnavites, He is a personal God.(monotheistic version) But at the same times, Smartas who follow Advaita believe that he is more than God while Vaishnavites state that he is both Nirguna and Saguna.

    • I think we agree on this statement -- Savyasaachi, 20051201.

God is Jehovah only in Western tradition. Vishnu is God im Vaishnvaite tradition,

    • Yes. But is that clear to everyone? God has so much historical context. Savyasaachi, 20051201

Raj2004 02:47, 30 November 2005 (UTC)


Savyasaachi-

Before going for a complete re-write- how about getting some concenus?

    • Even before consensus, some discussion - hence this talk. --Savyasaachi, 20051201.

It is not our job to try to guess the pre-concieved notionns of a possible certain audience! Our job to present ideas so that anyone can understand them.

    • Agreed. Hence clarification for the uninitiated, does not hurt. -- Savyasaachi, 20051201

In English God can reffer to Ishwara (like Jehovah) or a Nirguana Brahman conception (like Christian Science, the transcendentalists, the Quakers, to name a few).

And, English speaking people coming to a page about Hinduism are probably aware that Hindus have a different notion of Divinity!

    • If/Since that notion is different, shouldn't Dharmic people versatile in English+Sanskrit use appropriate terms? --Savyasaachi, 20051201

If you want to confuse the readers, by all means, use a lot of puranic terms which they have never heard of. If you want to help the reader understand Hinduism, explain to them that depeninding on what sect you belong to, there are radically different notions of "God": a Diety, a Formless Perfection, a mix of the two, etc.

That first sentence " Vishnu as being a form of "God" " is inacurate, so let's just work on that.

    • Agreed. Yes - that was my biggest sticking point - and I only intended to change that originally. Hence the discussion. --Savyasaachi, 20051201

Sethie 07:21, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Raj2004 & Sethie -

Just to stress, I am not saying we need a complete rewrite. Just some careful selection of words. IN particular, Sethie has expressed clearly that there is something subtly different in the Dharmic framework. Representing this thought accurately is something we need to do. And as such, knowing the audience, connecting with it and if necessary explaining these distinctions without diluting them is important.

--Savyasaachi, 20051201

Finally got around to doing these edits. The Vishnu Sahasranaman (arguably from the Vaishnava tradition) has a great opening verse which helped. Also used Bhagavad Gita chapter 10, 11, 12 and 18 for overall context. Finally, listened to Bhaja Govindam composed by Adi Shankara himself. Upon dwelling on all these for a few months, I have written what i think is an intro to satisfy the Dharmic as well as the curious/secular/interested folks from other traditions. Savyasaachi 06:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Almost a year to the day... The new improved intro looks pretty solid now. I appreciate it's difficult to satisfy all viewpoints, nicely done. Ys, GourangaUK 15:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Devanagari/pronunciation

Raj, I know this misconception is incredibly widespread, so I don't think I'll ever finish pointing this out, but the language is called Sanskrit (no matter whether or how it is written), the predominant script used for Sanskrit in India today is Devanagari. For this reason, it is wrong to say "viṣṇu, Sanskrit: विष्णु" since both are equally Sanskrit. I also see no reason to heap various transcriptions on each other. IAST is the most widely used in the West. Why add Devanagari, which only leads to rendering problems. And if Devanagari, why not also Sharada, Kharosthi, ITRANS, and a dozen others? I'll not even comment on the "pronunciation" hint. What is it supposed to be? Not IPA, surely? What then? dab (ᛏ) 20:23, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand the fascination Devanagari seems to exert on some people. It's a medieval abugida script, impractical, a nightmare for computers, it gives not a scrap of information over IAST, it renders as a ?????? on some platfoms I use, and it brings the ugly {{IndicText}} on all platforms; But if we must have it, let's do it the way it is now: calling it Devanagari, and giving it as an alternative to the IAST. dab (ᛏ) 12:59, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
I see various reasons to "heap various transcriptions on each other". Its because westerners might be interested to see how its written in India, besides, this article is for indians who regularly handle sanskrit, too right? Why add devanagari? the same reason you add "日本" in 'Japan' and something like "กรุงเทพมหานคร อมรรัตนโกสินทร์ มหินทรายุธยามหาดิลก ภพนพรัตน์ ราชธานีบุรีรมย์ อุดมราชนิเวศน์ มหาสถาน อมรพิมาน อวตารสถิต สักกะทัตติยะ วิษณุกรรมประสิทธิ์" in 'Bangkok'. You must remember that these articles are not just for western scolars but also for sanskrit pandits, not to mention for normal users interested in religion (who are indian or otherwise) or just india, etc; many of whom can already read devanagari and many others who are interested (if not for learning, atleast for merely looking at what "vishnu" looks like in devanagari, etc). If it gives rendering problems in your system, upgrade it, this is no reason not to give devanagari at all. It works fine on my system. "Why not also Sharada, Kharosthi, ITRANS, and a dozen others?" Because they are not used anymore for writing sanskrit, while devanagari is and widely so. "I don't understand the fascination Devanagari seems to exert on some people." Well you'd better start ..and soon. Its the script used for writing hindi and marathi and many other modern indian languages. "It's a medieval" and so is latin. you want us to write using tengwar or klingon? "abugida script" some people like them better than alphabets. Its is phonetic and regular, unlike the english alphabet. it is just that indian languages themselves contain a lot of individual sounds and they are all separately represented. but overall its just as complex as english: english has bizzare spelling and devanagari, half-letters. "impractical" if its more than just your opinion: go on, cite a source or something. else: its very practical, elegant as well as usable. in its default form, it is just as slow as writing english in block letters or book script. when you use a handwriting, it is just as fast as english. "a nightmare for computers," Oh, and chinese/japanese isnt! go ahead and tell them to use pinyin/romaji only. its just that thy ancient systems have been designed to handle latin characters only. however, this scene is changing fast thanks to unicode. you want us to take advantage of it, or not? "it gives not a scrap of information over IAST," big deal. also "IAST gives not a scrap of information over devanagari" "hanzi gives not a scrap of information over pinyin" "hirigana/kanji gives not a scrap of information over romaji" and "thai gives not a scrap of information over romanised thai" wanna make something of it? "it renders as a ?????? on some platfoms I use" aint my fault you havent setup your system to handle indic scripts. on the other hand, if it CANT render it: woow! i'm amazed you still use it. "and it brings the ugly {{IndicText}} on all platforms" i love 'em. makes me feel as if indic scripts are finally going places. However, I agree with everything else that you said. (incase you're wondering, it your proposal)
Sorry, but one good rant deserves another and besides, i couldnt just stand by and watch some narrow minded person insult my script in this blatant fashion.

ÁΖÓ

[u]sri[/u] vishnu

This article is missing the devanagari with sri. I will add it. --Shell 02:55, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

10 Incarnations

Shouldn't there be mention of the 10 incarnations of Vishnu? Thiseye 04:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

The first picture in the article on Vishnu shows the Universal Form. That is not Vishnu, that is the Lord's Universal Form. Vishnu is four-armed. I humbly suggest a four armed picture, preferable from Shrimad Bhagavatam be given either added before or as a replacement to ensure accuracy. Thank you.

We have no independent Dasavatara article (at the moment a redirect). Maybe there should be a separate Dasavatara article, and this should then be linked prominently. dab (ᛏ) 16:01, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

11 Adding an Extra Link

Guys: I am a volunteer for a neat ad-free website named www.stutimandal.com

It would be great if we can link the poems related to Vishnu at your Wiki Page. Another volunteer tried it yesterday night, but the mods reverted his edit. Is there some peaceful solution to get this job done?

Animesh

Animesh, I added the poetry link. Since there were spelling errors on the link, someone may thought that the creator was trying to add garbage on the Vishnu article. I think it's fine now.

Raj2004 08:48, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

thanks raj

Ashutosh


Raj: Thanks, Raj! Do you mind if we ask for help in putting links from stutimandal on the Shiv, lakshmi, ganesh, hanuman, devi (Parvati, goddess), krishna, and Rama page? We have separate poem lists for all of them. We have about 105 devotional poems on our website now.

Best regards, Animesh

Animesh, I have reverted all links to your changes except for devi and parvati articles in which I didn't find an external stuti link. Cambridge Bay weather has probably seen lot of garbage and spam on the sites of Vishnu, etc. so he was over cautious. I explained my changes. It should be fine now.

Best regards

Raj2004 22:56, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Raj: Thanks a lot buddy for helping through the changes. I am very happy with your kind help in this matter. I added a link to Devi Parvati page. I hope that is okay with you. I have also made the titles more uniform "devotional hymns and eulogies on X" where X is the deity. I hope that minor change is acceptable.

Thanks once again, Animesh

Usually when an editor (anon or registered) who has not made any other edits starts adding multiple links to one website it usually turns out to be spam. A visit to the site showed that it wan't a commerical site but it could still be an attempt to spam Wikipeida. I run my own website and I can think of several articles that I could possibly fit it into but I don't even though it's not a commerical site. However, when another editor (User:Raj2004) who has been around for a while and made multiple edits to the articles that are getting the links then I would leave them in. However, a note on my talk page would have been a good idea as I almost took them all out again without checking through the history. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 08:56, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


No problem, guys. CambridgeBay weather has seen a lot of garbage posted on these articles so he was naturally suspicious of changes. I appreciate his dilligence.

Raj2004 10:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

12 Insulting Point

The part in Dash Avtaar says "The order of the dashavatara has often, with no scientific basis, been linked to Darwin's theory of evolution".

Scientific basis? The whole point of religon is faith. There is no Scientific evidence for anything. How about I goto Christians and say there is no "Scientific Evidence" for Jesus's Virgin birth? Hindus have believed in evolution, with some Hindu Philsophers like Sri Aurobindo making it a central point.

If you think Hinduism is a crap, unscientific religon, you are free to air your views. But using Wikipedia to attack Hinduism is a pretty cheap trick. If this line isnt removed, I'll have to raise a Neutraility Issue. -Interested Person

Need a pic

We need a picture of Vishnu himself, not of his avatars. The best would be when he rests on Sheshanag. Having Krishna displayed as the main picture is indirectly ISKON POV. GizzaChat © 12:49, 18 August 2006 (UTC)]

Also the picture selected should be region neutal. The current picture of Satyanarayana is Telugu-centric. Similarly, Venkatajalapathy, Guruvayurappan and Ranganathar pics should be put in the article interior and for the main pic we must select some Vishnu picture that is not copyrighted (we have to remove the copyrighted ISKCON works, unless they give us the pics in GFDL, as Vishnu might someday get in FA and in the CD) and that is acceptable to all faiths and regions.

Balajiviswanathan 18:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Problem with the introduction

The introduction has not even a single world Hindu or Hindu religion or Hindu Mythology. Is this some kind of an assumption that any body in the world can directly and unambiguosly understand that Vishnu is a form of Hindu god (or God, whatever)? Right in the first paragraph it directly goes into Vaishnavas, and I'm not sure how many non-Hindus can grasp this. I would suggest the introduction be modified to first introduce Vishnu as a form of Hindu god and a popularly worshipped one, and then in the next paragraph go on to say its importance to Vaishnavas. Vishnu is a common god for all Hindus, and it should not mean that only a particular sect of hindus recognize that. Balajiviswanathan 18:50, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

The intro was crafted to talk about Vishnu as He is described, meditated upon and revered. It was specifically to address the problems and ambiguities with "god", "God", "Hindu god", "Hindu God", "Monotheistic God", etc. The intention was for a reader, to make their own interpretation based on the factual intro. Thus, we retain NPOV about the nature of the Supreme Being/Reality (such as it is).
  • Each of the terms Vaishnavas, Smartas has their own link for the uninitiated or the curious.
  • Popularity is hard to gauge, and is of no use in actually understanding. It is an attribute that is discussed in the "Worship" section
  • The intro ends by reinforcing that Vishnu is worshipped in all Sanatana Dharma traditions.

Savyasaachi 20:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


I've noticed this, also in all the other articles. Except that they are biased in the direction of Smartism. Someone needs to fix this. Armyrifle 21:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I tend to disagree. The Vishnu, Shiva and Krishna articles all thoroughly discuss their respective sects in great detail, often a bit too much. The Shiva article for instance has a strong Shaiva POV, saying boldly that Shiva is the Supreme throughout the article and not even mentioning that this is the opinion of one sect. GizzaChat © 22:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
The current introduction reads as an all-round balanced viewpoint to me. I'll have a look at the Shiva article. Ys, Gouranga(UK) 07:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Evidently this intro was not written by someone from India. I am a Shaiva, but still worship Vishnu. Where is my category covered in the intro? In general, all Hindus worship Vishnu in some form and at some level. Vishnu should be defined as a Hindu God, supreme for Vaishnavas.

Please see points above, regarding worship within all Sanatana Dharma traditions, as well as the nomenclature and discussion regarding the term "God". Savyasaachi 18:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

pic

Not feeling the pic. It's ugly. Something in blue would be better.--D-Boy 07:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean blue skin? Vishnu is not always depicted with blue skin. The blue skin (ie. Vaikunta form, where he lies on Shesha) is seen more in Gaudiya Vaishnava places like ISKON because of its connection with Krishna. However, worship of Vishnu in the form of Sat Narayan where he has fair skin is still very common. I believe it is the best opening picture because except for minor servants, there are no other devas, devis or other creatures in the picture. He is alone, not with Lakshmi or Shesha and it is a non-avatar form of him. GizzaChat © 10:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, the Satyanarayana form is a very popular form worshipped by Hindus and is not depicted with blue skin.

Raj2004 10:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

There are some nice pictures in non-english Wikipedia's, white and blue:
Om Vishnave namah! Ys, Gouranga(UK) 13:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Kurma avatar

Kurma avatar was translated as tortoise while it should have been turtle. Turtles are amphibious while tortoises are solely terrestrial. Kurma avatara took place during "Ksheerasagara Madhana" so the avatar should actually be translated as a "turtle" and not "tortoise"--Khammam 22:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

Please {help me} some one is vandalizing this article badly. Hope someone prevents this from happening--Khammam 09:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Formatting

Formatting looks very poor right now. Can anyone take a stab at fixing this up?

--1000Faces 04:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Link to Main Avatars

The link to main avatars is absolute out of context. The current article is specific to Visnue and the main avatars discusses at length avatars of various personalities. Hence it is inappropriate to provide a link to the main avatars from this page. Jbarot 01:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The Avatar article describes Vishnu's avatars (amongst others) in more detail than any other article so it makes sense to me that the main link in the avatar section diverts to there. What do other people think? Regards, Gouranga(UK) 11:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I see what you are saying. If somebody feels that internal link to main article be provided, please explicitly mention that the more details coul be found under the seciton of 'Visnu Avtars' on the main article. For a person who is not familiar with the subject matter, it may seem that Main article is only about Visnu Avtars, untill he browses the whole article and discovers that it is not true. Jbarot 15:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello Jbarot, - Following what you have said above I have amended the link to go directly to the Vishnu Avatars section on the Avatar page. Hopefully this will make things clearer for the reader. Many thanks, ys Gouranga(UK) 09:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

the thousand names of vishnu

User:Dj thegreat, I noticed that the formatting of the text of the 1000 names of Vishnu looks remarkably similar to the formatting of the text at http://www.salagram.net/names1000v.html. Did you get the text from that website? --Iamunknown 03:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


Amalgate?

Is amalgate a word having something to do with Vishnu, or is amalgamate the word actually intended in the article? I'm asking because the question arose on the Wiktionary. Cryptonymius 08:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Amalgamate is probably the correct word.Bakaman 01:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Advertisements for krishna.com

I just noticed a couple of pictures on the page that include advertising credits for krishna.com. I removed one of them, as I don't think it is appropriate to push a particular web site in this way. What do other editors think regarding this? Buddhipriya 05:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The images were added long-ago when no decent quality free images were available. I see no reason to keep them in this article now that we have a number of copyright free images. The krishna.com watermarks could not be removed from the pictures without breaching the original copyrights. Regards, Gouranga(UK) 15:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Makes sense that as more images become available the free ones be given priority, so I removed the other one that had the watermark for krishna.com. Buddhipriya 01:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Krishna = 'all attractive'?

The avatars section adds english meanings to Krishna and one of them is all attractive.

As far as I know the sanskrit word Krishna means dark/black. "all attractive" is not an alternate meaning and if someone thinks otherwise, kindly provide a dictionary reference. If not, please remove "all attractive" as it is incorrect.