Talk:Vishnu/Archive 2

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

NPOV in lead

So, you have objection to me pasting the whole passage but when the User : Redtigerxyz pastes a whole passage ... you consider that fine ... that is double standards.

Removed from "Vedas" section

"The Bala Kanda of Ramayana declares that the river Ganges was born at the feet of Vishnu and thus was sacred. When the river Ganges came to earth, in order to ensure that humans do not become immortal by coming into contact with the sacred and divine water, Shiva took the river Ganges on his head with great devotion towards Vishnu, the Supreme God. Thus, the water of river Ganges lost its ability to make people immortal but continues to be considered sacred in its ability to wash away sins."

AS UNDUE to Ganga.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 13:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Removal of Buddha fronm Dashavatar list

This issue is already discussed many times. See Talk:Avatar#Buddha_as_the_Ninth_Avatar Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Hinduism/Vaishnavism#Template:VishnuAvatars. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 13:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Second sentence

The second sentence doesn't make any sense grammatically, but I can't figure out what it's trying to say. The sentence should end after 'God'—or the sentence should begin with 'Vishnu', eliminating 'In other traditions of Hinduism'. Or? ~ priyanath talk 04:04, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Well it is talking about the Smarta/Advaita view of Vishnu so perhaps God should be replace with Saguna Brahman? Vishnu is one of the Shanmata or Panchayatana, five or six of the main Hindu deities which Shankaracharya chose to unite all Hindus at the time. GizzaDiscuss © 06:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Hello dear friend Gizza, I am an American non-Hindu interested in all schools of Vedanta and Yoga philosophy. Please check out the following links which I found particularly interesting in educating myself about Hinduism:
http://gopalkeerty.wordpress.com/2008/02/22/shankaracarya-siva-mayavada-philosophy-truth-revealed/
http://gopalkeerty.wordpress.com/2008/03/07/the-actual-secret-of-lord-siva-mayavada-advaita-sankhya/
I can understand your imaginations about Shankara trying to unite Hindus. But with a little more in-depth study, you will see that Vaishnavism is inclusive monotheism as supposed to free-for-all Hinduism, or actually Buddhism + soft-polytheism, as proposed by Shankara. In fact, Advaita divides Hindus into 5 sects, plus one more of his own - Smartism. Something to think about! That said, from your profile it seems as if you are a Hindu. It makes me wonder why you'd mock Vishnu as "four-armed god" all over the place - that's a jihadist approach. Secondly, what you call here as deities (divine forms of God), you edit them as "devas" (as demigods, angels, etc.) elsewhere which is also surprising. Just my 2 cents - be well and edit with NPOV. ADvaitaFan (talk) 06:46, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi, what makes you think that I mock Vishnu as a "four-armed god"? I am neither a Smarta nor a Vaishnava but as you said correctly, a Hindu. I also don't quite get what you are trying to say In any case, those blogs links you provided above have no authority on Wikipedia, since they are not reliable sources. No blog links. So adding information from these blogs onto Wikipedia will do you no good. They will be reverted on sight. GizzaDiscuss © 07:51, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Please Do Not Bring Emotions in the way of Scholarship

The article written on the Hindu Diety Vishnu is asscociated with certain inconsistancies with the scriptural evidence. First of all, the vedic scriptures viz. Vedas, 11 Upanishads and vedanta sutras, even Bhagawat Gita doesn't acknowledge of the supremacy of Vishnu. It is the Brahman who is accepted as the supreme in Purva and Uttara Mimamsas and all the 11 principal Upanishads consider the formless inexpressible conscious supreme to be Brahman. Auhority as great as Brihadaranyaka Upanishad has established the supremacy of Brahman.

Erroneous statement to say the least. Bhagavad Gita infact clearly admits supremacy of Vishnu alias Krishna. Krishna clearly says He is Purushottama and all other gods are inferior to Him. Upanishads and Vedas use the words Brahman etc. to refer to Narayana alias Vishnu. Narayana Sukta clearly says Sa Brahma, Sa Indra etc. Visvakarma Sukta says only ONE GOd possesses the names of all gods. So Brahman infact refers to Vishnu alias Narayana.

Dieties are considered inferior to Brahman, they are more or less like angels in the semetic religions. In Rig Veda Indra is considered to be the supreme diety. And diety Vishnu was first identified in vedic literature to be the Sun God.

Indra is in fact no where near supreme deity. Neither is Rudra. This is clear from the following mantra. NOTICE carefully that the following verse does NOT mention Vishnu anywhere at all, but mentions your Indra, Rudra etc. Could it be that Vishnu is infact referred as Savitar, Purusha, Visvakarma etc. in Rig Veda.

http://flaez.ch/cgi-bin/rv.pl?nr=229&txt=shppgr

ná yásyéndro váruNo ná mitró vratám aryamaá ná minánti rudráH naáraatayas tám idáM svastí huvé deváM savitaáraM námobhiH

Him whose high law not Varuna nor Indra, not Mitra, Aryaman, nor Rudra breaketh, Nor evil-hearted fiends, here for my welfare him I invoke, God Savitar, with worship.(Rig Veda 2.038.09)

http://www.srivaishnava.org/scripts/veda/rv/rvbook2.htm

I invite to this place, with reverential salutations, for my good, that divine Savita, whose functions neither Indra, nor Varun.a, nor Mitra nor Aryaman nor Rudra nor the enemies (of the gods), impede. (Rig Veda 2.038.09)

Vishnu is more than merely some Sun god of Vedas. Rid Veda is quite explicit about this.

Him whose three places that are filled with sweetness, imperishable, joy as it may list them, Who verily alone upholds the threefold, the earth, the heaven, and all living creatures.(Rigveda 1:154:4)[1]

He who presents (offering) to Viṣṇu, the ancient, the creator, the recent, the self-born; he who celebrates the great birth of that mighty one; he verily possessed of abundance, attains (the station) that is to be sought (by all). (Rigveda 1:156:2) (page 98) [2]

No being that is or that has been born, divine Viṣṇu, has attained the utmost limit of thy magnitude, by which thou hast upheld the vast and beautiful heaven, and sustained the eastern horizon of Earth.(Rigveda 7:99:2) (page 196) [3]

In Srimad Bhagawat Gita, chapter 10--Krishna says " I am Vishnu amongst the 12 adityas,this means Vishnu is the best amongst 12 Suns. This shows that even Gita too acknowledges that Vishnu is a Sun God.

This does NOT bring down the status of Vishnu in any way, just as Krishna taking avatara among humans does NOT make Him mere human being.

Since no where in vedic literature Sun God is held supreme so supremacy of Vishnu cannot cited as a Vedic scriptural evidence. A particular sect called Vaishnava of Hinduism accepts Vishnu to be the supreme, so the the encyclopedia entry should be rewritten as "Vishnu is the supreme diety of Vaishnava sect of Hinduism" and not Hinduism as a whole.

Your claims are proven false from Rig Veda verses only.

No being that is or that has been born, divine Viṣṇu, has attained the utmost limit of thy magnitude, by which thou hast upheld the vast and beautiful heaven, and sustained the eastern horizon of Earth.(Rigveda 7:99:2) (page 196) [4]

Vishnu is mentioned as Padmanava in puranas and not in Vedic scripture, Padmanava refers to Vishwakarma. Puranas were written about 2000 years later to the vedic scriptures. Show me in any principal Upanishad, Vedas or Vedanta sutras Vishnu to be padmanava.

Irresponsible remarks by some of the users, on Wikipedia organization is unfortunate and shows the lack of scholarship on the subject. Articles should be written by Scholars of the respective field. Sevenseas (talk) 13:39, 21 October 2008 (UTC)Sevenseas

Vishvakarma is indeed Vishnu is proven from Purushna Sukta, which clearly mentions Purusha, who is referred as Vishvakarman, who in turn is referred as

"hreeshca te lakshmeeshca patnyau" (hreeshca) Hree and (lakshmishca) Laskhmi are (patnyau) wives (te) to you. (Taittiriya Aranyaka (3:13:2)) Sevenseas, Vishnu is already described in the article as the supreme God in Vaishnavism so I don't understand your comment.

Raj2004 (talk) 18:42, 22 October 2008 (UTC) 

Brihadaranyakopanishad embellished the Brahman with the term like Aja,Abhayam etc.Now see

the Viswakarma suktha [10-82-6]ajasya nābhā vadhyeka marpitaṃ yasmin viśvāni bhuvanāni tasthuḥ || Ajasyanabha[It rested set upon the Unborn's navel, from where all the cosmos existing.] It is a beautiful poetic expression or a Mystic language [Samadhi bhasha]to represent the cosmic creation. The imagery of padma and kamala in Padmanabha must have been introduced due to viswakarmas similarity with soorya narayana who is the abode of brahma,vishnu Siva. Any way in the 2nd phase of the vedic period the War god had to accept the supremacy of Creator god who in later puranic period got his status diminished. A close reading in between these lines will reveal the degradation of creative working class of India. Durgaviswakarman (talk) 12:41, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Spelling

Is there any reason the spelling are not phonetic? It is not dasavatar but dashavatar, similarly it is not Shankara but Shankar. You cannot take the same alphabet and write it anyhow. There is a tendency in some Sanskrit scholars to use spellings which reflect their regional pronounciations and it is not correct. By all means say Tamil is Thamil (if you lie) but leave Sanskrit words alone.

114.143.66.119 (talk) 17:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Upanishad dates

The section "in the upanishads" seems to state that the Upanishads were composed in 5000 BC. This contradicts the Upanishad article, and every other dating I have ever seen for the Upanishads. While I would be happy to learn that the Upanishads are of such a grand antiquity, I am quite dubious of the claim. Citations needed! 216.158.161.32 (talk) 14:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Viswakarma Suktha (Rig 10-81,82)is singing about Viswakarma as Padmanabha, not Vishnu. This misconception had been propogated by Vaishnavites from the second revivalism of Hinduism. The same concept, that is Viswakarma as Padmanabha can be seen in 2nd anuvaka of purusha suktha. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.196.140.85 (talk) 15:27, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


Viswakarma is indeed Vishnu is proven by your own claim. Since Purusha Sukta, second anuvaka clearly refers to Vishvakarma and Purusha Sukta (second anuvaka) in Taittiriya Aranyaka (3:13:2) refers to this Visvakarma as

"hreeshca te lakshmeeshca patnyau" (hreeshca) Hree and (lakshmishca) Laskhmi are (patnyau) wives (te) to you.

your argument infact proves the Vaishnava point, that both Purusha Sukta and Visvakarma Sukta in fact refers only to Vishnu. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.126.241.207 (talk) 09:38, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Nowhere in Veda one can see Lakshmy as the consort of Vishnu. Whereas the sound HREE stands for Sakthy who is the wife of Siva. Had the Vedic Rsi included the concepts of Purusha suktha and Viswakarma sukta in the five hymns[vedic] dedicated to vishnu ,the vaishnavapuranics whould not face this much of mental struggle . The story like Palazhy mandhan[milk sea churning, which describing vishnu's marriage with lakshmy] was sucessfuly created a false impression among hindus, ie, purusha is visnu.The concept like Brahma emerging from the navel of vishnu does not have any vedic status and is a later puranic imagery influenced from the hymns like 

aja asya nabha madyekamarpitham yasmin - viswakarma suktham
tasya tvostha vidhatha roopameth that purushasya visvam- purusha sukthm

If Vishu is Purusha he should have perform sarvamedha instead of asking brahma to do this.These are all the problem of interpreting vedas on basis of puranas with vested interests. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.99.9.119 (talk) 21:22, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Slight modification to first paragraph

The paragraph is slightly biased in its tone. While it's the view of vaisnavas to translate gita and taittiriya samhita as exalting vishnu, it is not clear (nor are there citations) that rigveda also suggest similarly. Also, too many citations for the same translation of taittiriya samhita; but none of others (gita, rgveda). leaflord (talk) 13:49, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Tirumala Venkateswara Temple

You are invited to join the discussion at [[Talk:Tirumala Venkateswara Temple]]. Pavan 04:53, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Please participate in the RFC discussion of whether Thondaiman has built the Tirumala Temple. Pavan 04:53, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


/* In the Brahmanas */

Do not remove this. I have given references.

However this notion is not completely correct as per the following verses, which shows Rig Veda does recognize one or more gods being subject to other god(s).

Him whose high law not Varuna nor Indra, not Mitra, Aryaman, nor Rudra breaketh, Nor evil-hearted fiends, here for my welfare him I invoke, God Savitar, with worship.(Rigveda 2.038.09) [5][6]

I invite to this place, with reverential salutations, for my good, that divine Savita, whose functions neither Indra, nor Varun.a, nor Mitra nor Aryaman nor Rudra nor the enemies (of the gods), impede. (Rigveda 2.038.09)[7][8]

The following verse suggests Rudra gaining his strength from worship of Viṣṇu.

With offerings I propitiate the branches of this swift-moving God, the bounteous Visnu. Hence Rudra gained his Rudra-strength: O Asvins, ye sought the house that hath celestial viands.(Rigveda 7.040.05)[9][10] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.230.19.43 (talk) 06:45, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Weird Sanskrit phrase

The article says:

An early commentator on the Vedas, Yaska, in his Nirukta, defines Vishnu as vishnu vishateh "one who enters everywhere", and yad vishito bhavati taddjwojopwjepq, "that which is free from fetters and bondages is Vishnu".[citation needed]

The last word, "taddjwojopwjepq", is clearly not Sanskrit. It seems to be gibberish, possibly from an unknown auto-Sanskrit-translator thingy. Or it might be vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.48.41.161 (talk) 22:47, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. Looks like vandalism.TheRingess (talk) 04:21, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Incomplete phrase in the Avatar paragraph

The "Krishna" avatar line is clearly incomplete, and I don't know enough of the subject to edit it. Please try to finish the sentence. 151.64.33.180 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:54, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Lead sentence of the article

The lead sentence of the article currently reads: "Vishnu is the true Supreme Being in Hinduism and He is acurately portrayed as God in Vaishnavism...". Vishnu is not the only "Supreme God" in Hinduism. Shaivas consider Lord Shiva as the Supreme Being and Shaktas consider Shakti as the Supreme Being. This first sentence is a statement of sale. It goes against Wikipedia policy. Vishnu is a popular Hindu deity like many others such as Shiva, Shakti, Ganesha, Surya and Kartikeya. I am modifying the lead sentence to correctly represent this. Samenewguy (talk) 02:48, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Please do not cite from Iskcon, which is a minority and one of sects of Hinduism not the religion itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.212.201.98 (talk) 02:08, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Non-existent Rig Veda verse in the article

http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/rigveda/rv08089.htm

"Step forth with wider stride, my comrade Visnu; make room, Dyaus, for the leaping of the lightning.Let us slay Vrtra, let us free the rivers let them flow loosed at the command of Indra" (Rigveda 8:89:12)


The article lists the above verse from sacred-texts website. Allegedly this translation is provided by Griffith according to sacred-texts website.

I prove that Rigveda 8:89:12 is NON-EXISTENT and a modern forgery of unscrupulous elements.

1 Sacred-texts Sanskrit verses
If we check the actual Sanskrit verses in the same website (http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/rvsan/rv08089.htm), the corresponding Mandala and 89th chapter contains ONLY SEVEN SANSKRIT VERSES.

2 Griffith's translation from flaez.ch
So I cross checked with other websites. The following website gives Griffith's translation of the same verses.

http://flaez.ch/cgi-bin/rv.pl?txt=shppgr&trl=iso&buch=8&hymnus=89

As you can see Rigveda 8:89 lists ONLY SEVEN verses.

3 Wilson's translation
In addition, Wilson translation is also available online. The link is provided below. See pages 169,170, and 171.

http://www.wilbourhall.org/pdfs/Vedas/RgVedaWilson/RgVedaWilson_VOL_V.pdf

The above document clearly shows ONLY SEVEN verses.


This is a clear case of forgery. I request the admin and/or mods to remove the forged verse or provide proper reference if such a verse does exist.


This is very old, but just to clear this up, the numbering in the later parts of Book 8 is wrong in Griffith's translation. He has removed the semi-canonical Vālakhilya hymns (8.49 to 8.59) and then renumbered all the other hymns rather than keeping the original numbering, which is very annoying. So Griffith's 8.89 is actually 8.100 in the proper order. Which, just to stir the pot, is suspected of being a later interpolation... Megalophias (talk) 19:43, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Vishnu/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

this Vishnu page is appearing,when searching Sridhar. ofcourse, Sridhar is one of thousands of Vishnu names. Vishnu is popular by Vishnu name only. I was searching foor ditector Sridhar and came to this page. please make necessary technical changes.203.199.178.160 (talk) 13:58, 27 June 2009 (UTC)vinaysince57
I replced the redirect with a disabmiguation page. See Sridhar. Astronaut (talk) 11:30, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Last edited at 11:30, 28 June 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 20:58, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Removal of images

  • Vishnu,Chola dynasty, 12th-13th century,Tanjore, Tamil Nadu,India - Removed broken/incomplete img; attributes like chakra, gada missing; the older Coimbatore img is from the same school (see in the second image)
    Vishnu,Chola dynasty, 12th-13th century,Tanjore, Tamil Nadu,India - Removed broken/incomplete img; attributes like chakra, gada missing; the older Coimbatore img is from the same school (see in the second image)
  • Coimbatore image
    Coimbatore image
  • Why should we images of two Tamil temples. Ranganatha is enough.
    Why should we images of two Tamil temples. Ranganatha is enough.
  • Why have a panorama of Ranganatha, why the temple can be represented by a normal image? There is no panoramas of temples on other deity articles.
    Why have a panorama of Ranganatha, why the temple can be represented by a normal image? There is no panoramas of temples on other deity articles.

User:Eshwar.om, please justify inclusion of the particular images. --Redtigerxyz Talk 07:42, 23 July 2014 (UTC)


Word

Actually what is Spaaace is there any english word like that-Brahmadutta (talk) 17:05, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Sources

Is there some reason why so many sources are incomplete? For example this lead rewrite cites "Flood (1996) p. 17" for the footnotes for the first time which remain today? Who is Flood and what was the book written in 1996? There's a number of hyperlinked footnotes that go nowhere. Just putting down an author and a year is not sufficient. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:40, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

"Flood (1996)" is almost surely Gavin Flood's An Introduction to Hinduism. That's a reliable source in general, but worth checking that it actually supports what is being used to cite. Abecedare (talk) 05:57, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
How in the world did you know that? I spent almost a half hour going over diff and I found that one random edit that throws that source out there without any context. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:02, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Have used that and other Flood references before on other Hinduism pages.
Btw, the bibliographic information for Vitter 2010; Jones, 2004, and Mittal 2005 can be found in the Reference section of Sri Ranganathaswamy Temple, Srirangam article. Again haven't checked if the sources support the accompanying text.
Finally regarding this removal: Wilson is Horace Hayman Wilson, and while his translations of Rigveda and other Sanskrit texts are somewhat freewheeling, they are not fringe. I am fine with your removal though, since the text you deleted was original research/arguments based on primary sources, and such an interpretation would need secondary sources in order to be included. Abecedare (talk) 06:10, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
And for completeness, "Zimmer 1972" = Zimmer, Heinrich Robert. Myths and Symbols in Indian Art and Civilization. Princeton University Press. ISBN 9780691017785. Abecedare (talk) 06:17, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Ok, removing Wilson is at least appropriate provided it's not just WP:SYNTHESIS of sources. Looking over Vitter, Jones and Mittal, the only usage was about the size of the temple which seems unnecessary. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:32, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Sudarshan Chakra, Conch shell (Paanchajanya), Garuda, and the Mantra do not belong to Vishnu, they are all Krishna's

Blunder in the box provided with all the info. The mantra 'Om Namo Bhagavate Vaasudevaya' does not invoke Vishnu, it invokes Krishna ('Vaasudeva' means 'son of Vasudeva', in other words, Krishna). Similarly, the controller of the Sudarshan Chakra, Garuda, and the shell (Paanchjanya) is not Vishnu, but Krishna. When Rama can be considered distinct from Vishnu (despite being a human incarnation), then why not Krishna? Krishna is at a level much higher than Vishnu. Unlike the other incarnations, when Krishna disappeared from the mortal world, He remained and returned in His original form to His abode, and DID NOT go back to Vishnu. For those who don't know, Goloka (heavenly abode of Krishna) is transcendently at a much superior level to Vaikunth (Vishnu's abode). When the avatar of Rama ended, he went to Vaikunth in his original Vishnu form. But not Krishna. So stop exchanging identities between Gods. What is Krishna's is Krishna's. No way does it belong to Vishnu. 59.184.179.53 (talk) 13:38, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I think one can not dictate Gods ways with rational arguments. From my side I understand that Krishna is Vishnu's Avatar and I have no issues with whether an avatar 'goes back' or not. The controller of Sudarshan Chakra, Garuda and Panchajanya is Vishnu as per my understanding and therefore saying that these are not Vishnu's makes no sense irrespective of whether Krishna controls as eventually Krishna is an Avatar of Vishnu. How Goloka is much superior Vaikuntha beats me but I am really ok with anything.Thisthat2011 (talk) 21:20, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Mythologically, there is no difference between Vishnu and Krishna. Sudarshan Chakra, Conch shell (Paanchajanya), Garuda, and the Mantra, all of these belong to Vishnu as well as Krishna. In Dhyan Mantra of Shree Vishnu : "Aum dhyeyah sada Sabitrimandalamadhyavarti Narayanah sarasijasana-sannibishtah| keyuravan kanakakundalavan kiritihari hiranmayavapudhrita shankhachakrah||" So this evidence clearly proves that Shankha and chakra is associated with Lord Vishnu and Vishnu & Narayana are identical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rigved.bharadwaj (talk • contribs) 11:38, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

NARAYANA AND VISHNU Narayana is a post vedic concept. Manusmrithi identified him as Hiranyagharbha .Sri suktham is a later addition to rig veda .However Lakshmy mentioned once in the rig veda as the one who resides in Vac.[rg 10-71-4] whereas Pritvi/Bhudevi is the consort of Dyove .According to yajurveda creation myth Viswakarma prajapathy incarnated as cosmic Boar to elevate her from the abbys of water[Krishna y veda 7-1-5].Interestingly the last stanza of Narayana suktham itself revealing that he is the aboard of Brahma,Vishnu,Siva,Indra,and Akshara.Hence Vishnu is different from Narayana. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.184.117.109 (talk) 19:06, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Rigved Bharadwaj and Thisthat2011. The person who has mentioned about the blunder has not provided any citation to prove their claims. Here are 3 simple examples to say that Krishna and Vishnu are one and the same: 1. I have observed in Mahabharata that Krishna is many a time identified with Vishnu or his previous avatars. When Bheeshma is lying on the bed of arrows, he tells Yudhishthira that Vishnu is the supreme God, and Krishna does not disagree. In fact, Krishna listens to the complete Divyasahastranamastotra. 2. Swami A.C Bhaktivedanta of ISKCON, who in all his works mentioned Krishna as the supreme God, also called Vishnu as the supreme God. ("In the Rig Veda (1.22.20) the mantra is om tad vishnoh paramam padam sada pashyanti surayah ("The demigods are always looking to that supreme abode of Vishnu"). The whole Vedic process, therefore, is to understand Lord Vishnu, and any scripture is directly or indirectly chanting the glories of the Supreme Lord, Vishnu." [11]). 3. Shree Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, whose teachings form the core beliefs of the followers of ISKCON, himself identified Krishna with Ranganatha (Vishnu), an older deity. He was so full of happiness when he saw Ranganatha in Shreerangam that he fainted in ecstasy (you can verify this by looking for ISKCON's online magazine's article on Srirangam). According to ISKCON, Vishnu, Rama, etc. are forms taken by Krishna. About Rama being identified as an entity separate from Vishnu - Rama is known from Ramayana, which identifies him as Vishnu himself. What more evidence do we need? Raghav Sharman (talk) 15:00, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

  1. ^ http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/rigveda/rv01154.htm
  2. ^ http://www.wilbourhall.org/pdfs/Vedas/RgVedaWilson/RgVedaWilson_VOL_II.pdf
  3. ^ http://www.wilbourhall.org/pdfs/Vedas/RgVedaWilson/RgVedaWilson_VOL_IV.pdf
  4. ^ http://www.wilbourhall.org/pdfs/Vedas/RgVedaWilson/RgVedaWilson_VOL_IV.pdf
  5. ^ http://flaez.ch/cgi-bin/rv.pl?nr=229&txt=shppgr
  6. ^ http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/rigveda/rv02038.htm
  7. ^ http://www.srivaishnava.org/scripts/veda/rv/rvbook2.htm
  8. ^ http://www.wilbourhall.org/pdfs/Vedas/RgVedaWilson/RgVedaWilson_VOL_II.pdf (page 308)
  9. ^ http://flaez.ch/cgi-bin/rv.pl?txt=shppgr&trl=iso&buch=7&hymnus=40
  10. ^ http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/rigveda/rv07040.htm
  11. ^ http://www.hansadutta.com/ART_WSP/mantra.html
Yes, it is primarily a Gaudiya tradition to talk of Krishna as the main deity but this always seemed like a misunderstanding. The teaching is generally that Krishna is the most perfect embodiment of Godhead (Narayana/Vishnu) and hence worshiped over Vishnu. This is where they choose the translation 'all attractive' instead of 'dark blue/black'. That occasionally gets extrapolated so that ISKCON monks have told me that Krishna isn't an avatar of Vishnu, but that Vishnu emanates from Krishna. It's actually pretty easy to get that impression from reading the Bhagavad-gita which does not (to my recollection) mention Vishnu at all when describing Krishna in his terrifying universal form (or at anywhere else?). Looking at vaishnav tattva system Tattvas_in_Gaudiya_Vaishnavism also gives the impression of Krishna as the source of Vishnu, though we all know that puranic systems like this often have a sectarian bias. Either way, conch and discus are Vishnu's. Even Sesha's supposed incarnation as Patañjali is described sankacakrasi (with a conch and discus) is the Shankara poem.
My question becomes this: Should the article describe Vishnu as the svayam bhagavan of Vaishnavism when there are clearly many Vaishnav groups who identify Krishna alone as Svayam Bhagavan and do not in any way revere Vishnu/Narayana with the title of svayam bhagavan. This is also true (I believe) among some Ramanandis, but obviously with Rama instead of Vishnu (although they might use the term iṣṭa devatā instead of svayam. Would it be safer to just say "Vishnu and his avatars are svayam bhagavans to various vaishnav sects." or just to remove the svayam bhagavan part of the statement entirely? Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 08:00, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

stop messing with our history

Sudarshan chakra was the most accurate weapon.. not the most powerful... BramahaAstra was the most powerful weapon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.225.104.80 (talk) 20:07, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Comparison to Egyptian Horus

@Capitals00: With this edit, you added the claim "Similarities between Vishnu and Ancient Egyptian God Horus have been noted by James Freeman Clarke", with page 247 by Clarke as support. Here is page 247, and I wonder which sentence you are interpreting as supporting your summary? That page is simply stating, "Egyptians had a triad of deities just like the Hindus and the Persians", isn't it? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:38, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Largest and wealthiest

I've removed this 'mine is bigger than yours' rubbish, which was added by Anup Ramakrishnan with accusations of vandalism toward User:Ms Sarah Welch and threats of reporting to ANI:

  • The Angkor Wat, dedicated to Vishnu, is the largest existing Temple in the world; it is the largest religious structure ever built anywhere in recorded history; and with 6 million to 10 million blocks of sandstone, each weighing 1.5 tons on average, it is by far the largest stone structure ever built anywhere in recorded history
  • The Padmanabhaswamy dedicated to Vishnu. The temple dates back to before the Sangam period and is believed to be the wealthiest place of worship in the world, with assets of gold and precious stones potentially estimated to be worth trillions of dollars.
  • ad 1: The source says "The complex was built to honor the Hindu god Vishnu, but 14th-century leaders converted the site into a Buddhist temple." So, it's not dedicated (anymore) to Vishnu. Nor does it say that it is the largest existing temple etc.
  • ad 2: "millions, may be billions of rupees worth of jewels and gold inside." 1,000,000,000 rupees is 15,000 dollar.
  • ad 3: "Padmanabhaswamy was the tutelary deity of the Ay kings (whose ancestry goes back to the Tamil Sangam age)". I won't bother to look-up the rest of the sources...

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:27, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

@JJ: Indeed. The old version of this article had "trillions of dollars", which was just amazing OR. FWIW, $ 15,000 ~ INR 1,000,000 (some inadvertent zeros off in @JJ's comment; see this). Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:19, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
@Anup Ramakrishnan: The original claim was a plural, "trillions" of dollars, which remains an amazing OR. The Forbes article is an interesting piece, yet it too includes the admission that the secret vault has not been opened yet. Jim Dobson's title is attention grabbing, but he notes later in his article that the opened vaults are valued at $22 billion. Wikipedia articles attempt to summarize the mainstream estimates, or ranges, not the extremes on either side, for NPOV reasons. We should not be pushing one or the other sensational estimate. The art in the temple's vault is of significant scholarly value and notable, but let us wait for peer reviewed scholarly work to emerge on specifics. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:09, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

discussing the description of Vishnu as "one of the principal deities of hinduism and the supreme being in vaishnava tradition"

Frankly,there are numerous sources to back up this view.If anyone is opposed to this opinion,please provide reliable sources to back up your view,stating the reasons as to why the description should read anything less. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.201.105.139 (talk) 11:45, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

The old version of the article already acknowledged that, so did the infobox. The new lead sentence is fine as well. Updated the cite details, see WP:CITEHOW. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 11:54, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Duplicate lotus-Brahma, Madhva's Vishnu theology

@117.201.99.155: / @117.201.*.*: Please don't edit war or remove reliable sources. The Brahma on lotus from navel is already in the Puranas section, why repeat it? Similarly, why are you generalizing Madhvacharya's theology (see the source), deleting clarification and reliable sources? Please explain. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:39, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

please point out which sources have I been removing.I have simply added stuff,not removed any.please visit the revision history before making a wrong statement.the description that I added,had more than brahma's birth.But ok,if you insist,i will simply add the rest.you could have done the same yourself,instead of deleting the whole passage.As far as edit war is concerned,I haven't interfered in your edits,but you've been disrupting mine.ergo,I haven't been edit warring.
I see you have separately added "moksha" in theology section,that will do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.201.99.155 (talk) 14:21, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
You did remove sourced info. Period. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:29, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

I see what the fuss is about.Yes,when I undid one of ms welch' edits,a portion got removed.The undo was meant to add referenced content,not remove any.peace! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.201.99.155 (talk) 14:56, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

etymology section

The etymology section has been pruned badly and the present content fails to make sense.It simply states that Vishnu enters everywhere.This is vague and suggests merely a timeless space traveler.To improve upon this,I added reference to show he doesn't just enter the universe,in Bhagavad gita,he creates and enters as a life force and the supreme soul.This is central to the vaishnava pov.Ms sarah welch,you again disapproved of this edit and edited it to be a part of a dissolution theory(with proportionately mentioning Shaivate view-a balanced job,no doubt) but again made the etymology almost meaningless.I see you have been working hard on the shiva article,and improved it to reflect that shiva is the creator besides being preserver in the lead itself,although its a sectoral theme-only the shaivates hold it.So I urge you to take an unbiased view and not "weed out" fundamental elements from Vishnu article,and if possible,improve upon it.

One more thing is,editing out portions from the early part of the article and posting it in later parts only ensure that most readers never read it.While detailed discussions are not integral to introduction and etymology,a brief statement is harmless and an improvement.Many of the previous editors have faced issues with your edits and reverts and you have been working with another editor in tandem,who frequently steps in to take you side.this doesn't seem right or helpful.I neither have the time nor energy to debate every edit with you,and you seem to discredit every referenced addition I make. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.201.98.21 (talk) 05:43, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

@117.201.98.21: Etymology is a study of the origin of words and how their meanings have changed over history. Etymology is not definition or description, or assertions such as "X enters everywhere". What you keep adding is generic information, which is not etymology of the word "Vishnu", leave aside the WP:Due, WP:RS and WP:WWIN concerns. Further, please improve your formatting... there should be a gap between a full stop and the next sentence, etc. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 10:59, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

use of term "herculean"

Does anyone find it odd to use a word taken from Greek mythology to describe another religion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.221.27.50 (talk) 15:36, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Shri Vishnu

One of supreme powers Rohan gaonkar (talk) 13:15, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 February 2017

In dashavatar there should be mohni avatar and I dont know wether this is true but ghautham budha is not vishnus avatar Arjun vinod (talk) 16:36, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to wikipedia. Please see WP:V and WP:RS content guidelines, wikipedia is not a blog, wiki content must be verifiable in reliable sources along with meeting other requirements. Your suggestions that identify WP:RS would be welcome. Thank you. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:42, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 March 2017

103.63.107.26 (talk) 02:12, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

can

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. —MRD2014 📞 What I've done 03:09, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

O.V.

I Want Trose. Trose: Agreements Between Foes, Enemies, Rivals Not Unto Fighting Anymore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.114.100.129 (talk) 22:27, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 October 2017

43.242.119.218 (talk) 08:44, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

| consort = Lakshmi and Bhumi/Bhudevi | abode = Vishnuloka/Vaikunta

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Nihlus 13:58, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

typo

In the third paragraph, third word, I believe the word iconography is misspelled. 67.189.115.210 (talk) 17:21, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 December 2017

I am an avatar of Vishnu. I wanted to write more about myself. 2405:204:4003:5240:C45:F26A:1772:2315 (talk) 09:36, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Terra (talk) 09:45, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Vishnu. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 23:43, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Merge

I propose to merge Rishabha (Hinduism) to the Avatar section of this article since it's few lines only. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 11:06, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Oppose: since Rishabha is not identified with Vishnu per se, but considered his avatar, a different individual.--Redtigerxyz Talk 14:06, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

mantra

Please add his chant

Om Vishṇavē Namaha

46.198.82.136 (talk) 03:52, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

There are many, like "Om hariye namaha", "Om Kaeshavaaya namaha", "Om Shreedharaaya namaha" etc. How many can we add to the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.76.56.114 (talk) 16:25, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Dark is associated with black

In the last paragraph of the lead, we have, "In Hindu iconography, Vishnu is usually depicted as having a dark, or pale blue complexion and having four arms". I want it changed to, "In Hindu iconography, Vishnu is usually depicted as having a pale or dark blue complexion and having four arms", as it now seems to mean that He has a dark/black complexion which is inaccurate. I am unable to edit it myself as the article is locked for editing and so, I request those who can edit it to do the needful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.76.56.114 (talk) 16:31, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 September 2018

The top of the article, under the heading, has an extra ',' (comma) that is not meant to be there. In the source code, I believe that it is caused by the comma at the end of the line :,

}} Maccaday1 (talk) 16:37, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

 Done Random character sequence (talk) 17:08, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

lead picture

Should replace the lead picture of the title with another,as the lead picture looks like a pencil drawing Jishnusavith (talk) 05:14, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Dashavatara ('10 Avatars')

Is there a scriptural basis for this? The Puranas cited to support this claim (Agni, Garuda, Bhagavata) do not list 10 avatars. This number seems to come from from a commentary on the Garuda Purana. Has anyone verified the citations themselves? Carlduff (talk) 22:34, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 November 2019

श्री विष्णु हिन्दू में सबसे महत्वपूर्ण देवता हैं और भारत में मैं इस पृष्ठ को संपादित करना चाहूंगा ताकि मैं मंदिरों पर जानकारी अपडेट कर सकूं और श्री विष्णु नाम से पहले श्री को जोड़ सकूं। भगवान विष्णु3 (talk) 12:07, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: as you have not requested a specific change in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
More importantly, you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 12:16, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Merge Thirumal into this article. Proposed since March 2019.

  • Oppose: All avatars of Vishnu have their own pages as well as being mentioned on this one. Millandhouse33 (talk) 10:27, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support: As per the citations Thirumal is Tamil Translation of Krishna. And there are no evidences to prove that he is separate god/avatar as per this [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aggi007 (talk • contribs) 07:56, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
I note that Facsix had closed the proposal on one of the pages back in March 2019 with this edit, noting While the later mythologies have gradually merged Tamil gods into Vedic pantheon, when it comes to most of Tamil classics and temples,only Perumal/Thirumaal finds a mention. With that clarified, the Wiki article deserves to stay. Vishnu reference can be added as point somewhere. Given that this has been closed for some time on one page, I'll close it on the other too, without prejudice for re-proposing. Klbrain (talk) 13:45, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 August 2020

(Copy of entire article removed)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gururishi (talk • contribs)

@Gururishi: DO NOT copy and paste the entire article on a talk page, just explain the change you want to make in a "please change X to Y" format. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:28, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Merger Proposal: Vishnu and Mahavishnu

Not merged. They are not the same deities. —usernamekiran (talk) 08:50, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

I would like to know whether the articles Vishnu as well as Mahavishnu denotes the same deity. If yes, I think the articles needs to be merged. Adithyak1997 (talk) 14:06, 11 May 2020 (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.

Merge request

Not merged. Like e comment states below, it is distinct form of Vishnu. —usernamekiran (talk) 13:14, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

Venkateswara should be merged into this since it is about a form of Vishnu. Capankajsmilyo (talk) 10:30, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Oppose Like other forms of Vishnu, Venkateswara has a distinct iconography and mythology. For example, Distinct entry in The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Hinduism (James Lochteld). --Redtigerxyz Talk 14:26, 23 July 2020 (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.

Vishnu Is Absolutely Omnipotent Change My Mind Bruh

Vishnu Is Absolutely Omnipotent Change My Weeabo-kun2198 (talk) 18:30, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum. Chariotrider555 (talk) 19:02, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 December 2020

please change "Vishnu is a Rigvedic deity, but not a prominent one when compared to Indra, Agni and others.[51] Just 5 out of 1028 hymns of the Rigveda are dedicated to Vishnu, although He is mentioned in other hymns.[15] Vishnu is mentioned in the Brahmana layer of text in the Vedas, thereafter his profile rises and over the history of Indian mythology, states Jan Gonda, Vishnu becomes a divinity of the highest rank, one equivalent to the Supreme Being." to "Vishnu along with Rudra are considered as the manifestations of the omnipotent, Saguna Prabrahman, Though the name "Vishnu" occurs only 5 times, it is clear that along with Rudra, Vishnu pervades the hymns of the Vedas as a thread holds the flowers of a garland together." Rig Veda Rpannala (talk) 22:26, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

 Not done Please provide a reliable source that supports the change.--RegentsPark (comment) 23:30, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

The Rig Veda itself is the most reliable source. The references that are cited in the current text are not vedic sanskrit scholars. Verse 1.22.20 - "Vishnu occupies the paramount position. All the other deities look always to His feet." Also refer to verse 10.113.2 and Verse 1.156.2. [1] Rpannala (talk) 01:29, 2 January 2021 (UTC)Rpannala

Not a reliable source. Who translated it? Who published it? Please find an academically published reliable source to support any suggestions. Chariotrider555 (talk) 01:53, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Even shiva can't be said to be a rig Vedic deity the Vedas mainly focuses on agnidev and indradev while vishnu isn't really a minor deity in the Vedas but he's not constantly mentioned like agni or indra 950CMR (talk) 14:26, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://hinduonline.co/DigitalLibrary/SmallBooks/FourVedasEng.pdf
 Not done: Your latest sentence, while mostly understandable, still lacks the WP:RS to change this. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:51, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

By your argument, you should remove the "not a prominent one" and clarify that you are comparing the number of explicit occurrences only because the the manifestations of Vishnu and Rudra are praised to be the foremost amongst all the deities with agni and indra offering their prayers to the two manifestations as Vishnu and Rudra. Otherwise, you are spreading misinformation. Also, calling the original text of RigVeda as "unreliable" is illogical. I hope you can actually understand Vedic Sanskrit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rpannala (talk • contribs) 02:47, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:24, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Thirumal into Vishnu

The following discussion 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.

Result: Not moved

Tamil name of Vishnu. Though theories suggest he may have been a separate deity, currently treated as a synonym of Vishnu. Similar case like Murugan and Kartikeya, where we now have only 1 article. Redtigerxyz Talk 16:46, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Oppose The article about Thirumal doesn't even mention Vishnu. Lennart97 (talk) 19:41, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
comment: Lennart97 Intentionally not mentioned by some users as Murugan was merged because of it. Read the description of the deity and you will realise that they both are almost the same. However that article can remain separate..💠245CMR💠.•👥📜 14:23, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
@245CMR: Thanks, I now also see that Thirumal is listed as an avatar of Vishnu at Vishnu#Avatars. But yes, let's keep the articles separate, especially as apparently not everyone sees Thirumal as merely an avatar of Vishnu. However, a section at Thirumal about the connection with Vishnu would of course be helpful. I don't think that would automatically lead to a merge, there are plenty of articles about specific avatars of major deities. Lennart97 (talk) 14:31, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Support, the same deity, another one is poorly sourced .💠245CMR💠.•👥📜 14:33, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️ กิ๊ฟ กิ๊ฟ (talk) 23:16, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Oppose Not obvious that Thirumal is identical with Vishnu, and the tradition seems quite different. Many avatars have their own article as well. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 07:30, 2 April 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.

Govinda

I suggest adding Govinda to the "See also" section and perhaps giving the term/name some mention within the article as well.

--99.32.150.12 (talk) 12:10, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

proposed correction

hi there, in the caption of the image showing the ten avatars of Vishnu, the names of the avatars are said as being given in counter-clockwise order starting from the "right-top". Judging from the images in the picture, the names are given in the correct order but only when starting from the top left, not the top right. At the moment, Parashurama, Rama, and Krishna (the 6th, 7th, and 8th avatars respectively) do not come in the right place when the sequence begins at the top right. only starting from the top left yields the correct sequence. small mistake, but one that is easily fixed. I hope this is the right place to suggest edits; I would have edited myself but the page is locked. 88.104.60.248 (talk) 17:51, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:23, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Lead

@Nithinnamboothiripad08. Appreciate that you've provided a source for the info you want to add but the BBC article and it doesn't mention any of that information. For example, you wrote "It is from him that all vedas originated and he is considered the most important and supreme of all Hindu deities, and greatest among Trimurtis, Brahma and Shiva." In the article it's written, "Vishnu's worshippers, usually called Vaishnava, consider him the greatest god. They regard the other gods as lesser or demi gods." What you have written is a misrepresentation of the source and adding material that isn't mentioned in the source is considered original research, see WP:OR. Thanks! Eucalyptusmint (talk) 18:36, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

What's more: the WP:LEAD summarizes the article; we don't put new info to the lead, but to the body of the article. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:11, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
@Nithinnamboothiripad08, I'm curious did you read through the new sources you added because I'm not seeing where the material is mentioned. Additionally, I wouldn't consider the new references 'better research', per WP:RS. This one [2] is WP:USERGENERATED and is therefore a non-reliable source. Also as Joshua Jonathan mentioned above, the WP:LEAD is a summary of the body of the article. If you read the entire article you'll see that it currently doesn't mention any of the info you're adding. Based on that, if you find better sources that can verify the information, then the info should be placed in sections/subsections of the article. As an example, the sentence "Vishnu reaveals his universal form or Vishwaroopa to Arjuna during Krishna avatar before the Kurukshetra war" could be better placed in a subsection in the 'Avatars' section (again, if you find a reliable source that can verify this). Thanks.

The Ismaili community also believe visnu had reincarnated through a living imam known as aga khan the third.

In Ismaili tradition there are recitations of ginans a excerpt from wikipedia about ginans "Ginans are devotional hymns recited by the Nizari Ismaili communities in South Asia. The recitation of ginans is not restricted to just Nizari Ismailis evidenced by the recitation of ginans by many established non-Nizari Ismaili singers such as Abida Parveen who recited the ginan Ya Ali Khub Majalis in the presence of the 49th present and living Imam of the Nizari Ismailis, His Highness Prince Aga Khan IV,[3] the accessibility to view current transcripts and translations of ginans, and the academic literature written on ginans which is made accessible to the larger public."

Under the history tab of the topic you will find that one of the writers of these ginans refer to the imam as a reincarnation of vishnu. 2001:56A:FB87:2A00:B9C2:3AF0:8CD2:9673 (talk) 04:18, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 August 2022

As in this article bhagwan vishnu's gender is mention as a male but according to the bhagwad geta ( I am the universe itself neither I am purush (male) nor a nari (female). 2409:4053:799:BFD5:0:0:31E:A8A5 (talk) 15:07, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:11, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:22, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

About editing

Kamadeva is not son of Lord Vishnu. He is son (or) mind creation from God Brahma, and Devasena , sundaravalli is daughter of Indra . Mangala and Narakasura also not a children of Vishnu. In varaha avatar only he is vishnu son. Mention in varaha avatar and delete wrong information in vishnu wikipedia. Plz edit and change this article. 122.172.85.177 (talk) 14:11, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:08, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Protection of articles of The Hindu Deities

I have a request to the Admin's Of Wikipedia to lock the editing facility of articles for The Hindu Deities like the article of Prophet Muhammad to avoid vandalism and misinformation on the religion so please consider my request. Thank you Indoman365 (talk) 13:41, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

You may request protection at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection.
However, pages are usually only protected when there is presentment vandalism and/or edit warring, especially by IPs. This does not seem to be the case here. SKAG123 (talk) 14:58, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
so u mean that pages can get protection only if there are matters of vandalism but prevention is better than cure before anyone does any vandalism with the pages of Hindu Deities they should be protected by locking the editing facility Indoman365 (talk) 07:08, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
Request an increase in protection at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection if you wish. Requesting protection here won't do you and good. SKAG123 (talk) 16:20, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Vishnu/Archive_2&oldid=1219260378"