Talk:Vishnu

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.

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)

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 89^th 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.

/* 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)

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)

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) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.230.19.43 (talk) 06:45, 25 January 2011 (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 Vishnus 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)

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)