This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hinduism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Buddhism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Buddhism. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page for more details on the projects.
Text and/or other creative content from Sri Adhinathar was copied or moved into Vishnu with [permanent diff this edit]. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter page exists. The former page's talk page can be accessed at Talk:Sri Adhinathar.
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.
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. 18.104.22.168 (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 22.214.171.124 (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." ). 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)
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)
Sudarshan chakra was the most accurate weapon.. not the most powerful... BramahaAstra was the most powerful weapon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 20:07, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
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...
@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)
@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)