Talk:Vishnu

All you want to know about Talk:Vishnu

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Vishnu article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
WikiProject Vaishnavism This article is within the scope of WikiProject Vaishnavism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Vaishnavism. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
WikiProject_Hindu_Mythology This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hindu mythology, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Hindu mythology. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
Wikiproject_Hinduism This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Hinduism. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as Top-importance for this Project's importance scale.
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Version 0.7
 This article has been selected for Version 0.7 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
Archive
Archives
1


Contents

Leading image

Does anyone know of any copyright free paintings of Vishnu which we can use within the introduction? The current one is too low-res for the infobox and has a dubious copyright notice in the commons. Maybe an old painting exists somewhere? Regards, Gouranga(UK) 13:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I am searching for a free image. This image is temporary.--Redtigerxyz 13:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I've uploaded an image. It's title is: Image:LVishnu.jpg. The picture exists on many websites and has no known author (just search Standing Visnu on google to see what I mean). No copyright info nor license info is given on any of the websites. To be safe, I'm not going to use it yet, but can someone tell me whether or not it's safe to use for the leading picture? Armyrifle 23:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Though the image is beautiful, it soon may be deleted. Can Armyrifle ask the website author about the copyright status of the image. I also suggest other users that they upload the image in wiki commons so that even if the image is not included in the article, people can view it. Aslo free, PD old images are prefered.--Redtigerxyz 12:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

The first image looked better it shows the current images of Vishnu.Paintings look a little abstract while images look good.Donrub 08:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)Donrub

I've changed the copyright info and the summary to fit the situation. I've based it off the info of a Hanuman image that has the same copyright case (impossible to determine copyright and licence, used by many people). Hopefully, this is satisfactory. Just to be safe, is it ok to use this image (Image:LVishnu.jpg) as the leading image? Armyrifle 04:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I still feel free, PD-art images will be prefered as they represent the iconography more accurately then images like Image:LVishnu.jpg but since it is of higher resolution, i am temporarily putting it as the lead image.--Redtigerxyz 06:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Consider using a more reliable image. If this image has been selected solely for its "beautiful looks", this is opposed to many ancient statues where the depiction is natural. Protozoan (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 18:35, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Merge Articles

NO MERGE. Thirumal is one of forms in which Vishnu is worshipped like Vitthala in Maharashtra, Shri Nath ji in Rajasthan, where Vishnu takes on local characteristics and mythology into His folds, though that does not mean that they should all be merged into a single article, infact it is their very separate nature that makes the Hindu iconogarphy so interesting, and worth preserving serarately, it is polytheist monotheism afterall.

Also one form of Vishnu, would hardly known in another region, except through its connection with the central Vishnu icon, so AVOID. For example the Thirumal form of Vishnu is virtually unknown in most of North India, so it would only create confusion, and added layers. (Ekabhishek (talk) 05:43, 31 May 2008 (UTC))

Vishnu and Thirumal, refer to the same deity. Former is the Sanskrit Name, While the Latter is the Tamil name. They are not seperate deities, any one in Tamil Nadu will tell that. Hence I Strongly Suggest, to Merge these two Articles Vinodh.vinodh (talk) 07:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Support: Many books[1] identify Vishnu and Thirumal, Perumal. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 11:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment: The current contents of the Thirumal article are describing the history of Thirumal as if He was originally a seperate deity. If this is the case I would vote to keep the articles as they are. If this is not the case, and the reference is giving a very unorthodox view, then yes, I agree it re-direct here, and we can merge what little information may be relevant. From what you have said above it sounds like the latter is far more likely. Best wishes, Gouranga(UK) (talk) 11:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Morecambe1 (talk) 10:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Gouranga. Instead of merging at present we should mark Thirumal as unreferenced and search for some supporting references. If none are found after a few weeks and the article content turns out to be a hoax, then we can attempt a merge. Note that we have separate articles on Rudra and Shiva and; Ganesha and Vinayakas because of the same reason. Abecedare (talk) 16:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


No merge these are two subjects about two deities, they are related, but each have attributes that are different enough to merit its own article. In Tamil, Thirumal is identified to as Kannan. I have cited a reference below. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 19:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Here is a reference, [2] please see page 177; PERUMAL, V. (1982). Glimpses of Tamil Culture. University of Michigan.  Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 19:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
ref provided by Ism schism says: "Lord Vishnu is popularly known as Thirumal (kannan) in Tamil." Doesn't that mean Thirumal is Vishnu. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 05:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

A passage from the Krishnaism page, under construction reads: According to Hardy's impressive study of the various connections between records and traditions there is evidence of early "southern Krishnaism",[1] even there is a tendency to allocate this tradition to the Northern traditions. There is a narrative context in which the early writings in Dravidian culture such as Manimekalai and the Cilappatikaram present Krishna, his brother, and favorite female companions in the similar terms.[2]

South Indian texts illustrate close connections and provide undeniable parallels to the Sanskrit traditions of Krishna and his gopi companions, so ubiquitous in later North Indian text and imagery.[2]

While some refer to devotion to idigineus Mal (Tirumal) as early forms of Krishnaism, since Mal appears as a divine figure, largely like Krishna with some elements of Vishnu.[3] It has been suggested by Hardy that the term "Mayonism" should be used instead of "Krishnaism" when referring to Mal or Mayon.[1] On the other hand another prominent early evidence gathered from the poetry of Alvars, whose name can be translated "sages" or "saints", is that they were devotees of Mal. In their poems there comes a pronounced orientation to the Vaishnava and often Krishna side of Mal. Its is however important to note that they do not make the distinction between Krishna and Vishnu on the basis of the concept or theory of the avataras.[3]

  1. ^ a b HARDY, Friedhelm M.: Viraha-Bhakti. The early history of Krsna devotion in South India. Oxford India Paperbacks 2001.
  2. ^ a b MONIUS, Anne E.: Dance Before Doom. Krishna In The Non-Hindu Literature of Early Medieval South India. In: Beck, Guy L., ed. Alternative Krishnas. Regional and Vernacular Variations on a Hindu Deity. Albany: State University of New York Press 2005; Ch. 8. pp. 139-149.
  3. ^ a b "Devotion to Mal (Mayon)". philtar.ucsm.ac.uk. Retrieved on 2008-05-22.

maybe it can be seen from this perspective, as a separate deity? Wikidās-ॐ 07:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Definitely no merger - in this way you will merge all in Vishnu. Moreover article points out to the evidence that Perumal worship, as seen today has been a product of syncretism of an indigenous deity with Vishnu.Thus no, just as no, as there are different perspectives on this particular deity, not everyone agrees to =Vishnu. Its a later development. As article states that was associated with Krishna the dark or black deity of Yadava cow-herders in North India, eventually to be identified with Vishnu when Krishna was accepted as an avatar of Vishnu.Wikidās-ॐ 19:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
DO NOT MERGE, It seems to be an Aryan / Dravidian tussle. But, more evidence is required for Tirumal as a separate entityProtozoan (talk) 18:29, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Do not merge. If this is to merge, why not merge it with Venkateswara instead of Vishnu?

Yogacharya (talk) 11:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

No Merging - I don't think that the two of these articles should be merged together, for all of the reasons listed by Wikidas, Protozoan, etc. AparnaBlackPearl14 15:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

NPOV in lead

"Vishnu (IAST viṣṇu, Devanagari विष्णु), (honorific: Bhagavan Vishnu), is the supreme God, as declared in the the oldest sacred texts of Hinduism that are the Yajurveda (Verse 1 of the fifth prapathaka (chapter) of the Taittiriya Samhita of the Krishna Yajurveda of the Yajurveda), the Rigveda (Shakala shakha: Verse 1 of the Aitareya Brahmana) and the Bhagavad Gita (Verse 7 of the chapter 7), considered to be the revered scripture by almost all Hindus today."

The lead does not acknowledge that other branches like Shaktism, Shaiva, Ganapatya does not consider this as true. Thus, it is necessary, to add the word Vaishnavism. Also details like verse are not needed in lead and can be added afterwards. So changed it.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 12:08, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

"The cows performed that Sattra, being hornless, with the desire, 'May horns be born to us.' For ten months they performed it, and then horns were born, and they ceased (the rite), (saying), 'We have obtained (our desire).' Then those whose horns were not born ceased (the rite) after making up the year, (saying), 'We have obtained (our desire).' Both those which obtained horns and those which did not ceased, (saying),'We have obtained (our desire).' The year is the cows' Sattra [1], and those who knowing thus perform the year (sacrifice) are prosperous. Therefore a hornless cow has pleasure during the two months of the rainy season, for that is won for it by the Sattra. Therefore whatever is done in the house of one who performs for a year (a Sattra), that is done completely, successfully, and adequately. Those who perform the year (Sattra) are swimming on the ocean. He who does not see the further bank of the ocean cannot get out from it. The ocean is the year [2]. Its further banks are the two Atiratras. Those who knowing thus perform the year (Sattra) reach the end without injury. The former Atiratra is this (earth), the latter is yonder (sky); the former is mind, the latter speech; the former expiration, the latter inspiration; the former the commencement, the latter the end. The Atiratra is a Jyotistoma, of Vaiçvanara; verily they put light before them, to reveal the world of heaven. There is a fore offering, accompanied by the Caturvinça Stoma. The year has twenty-four half-months [3]; verily as they go on they find support in the year. There are three hundred and sixty Stotriyas; so many are the nights of the year; verily they attain both forms of the year. They perform (the rites of) the next days for rest, for safety. There are six-day periods. The year has six seasons; verily they find support in the seasons, the year. The Go and the Ayus (Stomas) are the Stomas in the middle; verily they place a pair in the middle of the year [4] for procreation. On either side there is the Jyotistoma. It is the releasing; verily the metres are released; verily also they go to the world of heaven with the six-day (rite) which has a Jyotistoma on either side. The theologians say, 'They sit; by what path do they go?' One should reply,' By the path that leads to the gods. The path that leads to the gods is the metres, the Gayatri, Tristubh, and Jagati. The Gayatri is the Jyotistoma, the Tristubh, the Gostoma, the Jagati the Ayustoma. In that there are these Stomas, so do they go by the path that leads to the gods [5]. There is used the same Saman. The Saman is the world of the gods; verily they leave not the world of the gods. There are used various verses. The verses are the world of man; verily they keep mounting one world of gods after another from the world of men. There is the Brahman's Saman as the Abhivarta to win the world of heaven. There is the Abhijit (day) for the gaining of the world of heaven. There is the Viçvajit (day) for the gaining of all. Month by month they perform the Prsthas, month by month the Atigrahyas are drawn; verily in each month they place strength, for the support of the months. They perform the Prsthas in the latter part of the month. Therefore it is on the top that the plants bear fruit."

No mention of Vishnu, forget him being supreme????????? --Redtigerxyz (talk) 12:23, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

User : Redtigerxyz has hurt religious sentiments in his remarks against Lord Vishnu

Wikipedia is not the property of the User : Redtigerxyz nor is he the authority on Hinduism. Secondly, the User : Redtigerxyz is dis-respectful of Lord Vishnu. All users are equal before Wikipeida which is impartial and just. I as a user have full faith on the integrity of Wikipedia and also hope that Wikipedia respects me as a valuable contributer in enriching its content. In reply to the above long passage given by the User : Redtigerxyz, my reply below:

ref provided stated "A. Berridale Keith, The Yajur Veda - Taittiriya Sanhita 1914, full text, (online at sacred-texts.com)". (Verse 1 of the fifth prapathaka (chapter) of the 5th Kanda of the Taittiriya Samhita of the Krishna Yajurveda of the Yajurveda). The verse says:

"All the deities are Agni; the sacrifice is Visnu; verily he lays hold of the deities and the sacrifice; Agni is the lowest of the deities, Visnu the highest"

User:Vaishnava

Please keep it to the topic of actual editing of this article. You are not proposing putting all of the text of Yajurveda here, if you do? Maybe use WikiELSE for that, not Wikipedia. Redtiger may not be the best possible contributor, but then who is? You seems to think that you are 'better'; to earn respect as a valuable contributor, you need to show some good work (Something Redtiger did on a few occasions), and that means working with people you do not agree with. Being dis-respectful to Lord Vishnu has nothing to do with it per se.... one needs to be respectful to each other first, and that means no major cut and pastes for the talk pages for example, that will be symptomatic of respecting Vishnu who is in everyones heart. Wikidās ॐ wrote it on 21:18, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
O it was the Fifth Kanda, I didn't know that as it was not given. I looked up in Kanda 7.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 13:10, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

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.

Article Absolutely Neutral

The article is Absolutely Neutral and it is not a "point of view" but absolute facts and references have been cited.User:Vaishnava

What a travesty the lead of this article has become - one of the more important Hinduism articles deserves better. And Vishnu deserves better. Shame, shame. ~ priyanath talk 23:03, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Like you username suggests, only Vaishnavas consider him to be the Supreme God, not the whole world. If we allow such bias on this article, why can't Shaivas, Muslims and Christians write the same thing on the Shiva, Allah and Jesus Christ pages? Please read Wiki's policy pages WP:NPOV, WP:OR and WP:RS to understand why. Thanks GizzaDiscuss © 00:28, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

User: Vaishnava on the Article: Vishnu

Hi Ma'am, I really appreciate your politeness in addressing my edits and also explaining to me kindly about the issue. I now understand it. However, I would like to submit that the sacred texts like the Yajurveda, Rigveda and the Bhagavad Gita are accepted as authoritative texts on the Hindu religion by a majority of the Hindus. These three texts, namely, the Yajurveda, the Rigveda and the Bhagavad Gita are a part of Hinduism and not just Vaishnavism. To describe my edits as purely a "Vaishnavite" point of view means that the sacred texts like the Yajurveda, the Rigveda and the Bhagavad Gita are not a part of Hinduism. The language used by me only state the facts of Hindu Religion and not a "POINT of View" of Vaishnavism. For Example, the Quran declares Allah as the Supreme God. Now if this is mentioned, it is not a point of view but a fact that the Quran describes Allah in that manner. talk —Preceding undated comment was added at 04:11, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Firstly just to let you know, I'm not a girl, lol. If you thought I was female because my username ends in "a" then FYI your username also end in "a". Now you may be a girl, I don't know, but it is unlikely because 90% of Wikipedians are male.
Going back to the main topic of discussion, your references that claim Rigveda and Yajurveda say Vishnu is the Supreme God are unfortunately unreliable. Please click on the unreliable link as well as these -> WP:OR, WP:V, to understand which kind of sources are allowed on Wikipedia. Now I imagine there will be lots of reliable sources that will state that the Bhagavad Gita is a Vaishnava text and can be interpreted as to show that Vishnu is the Supreme God. But of course, every text had different interpretations. In this case a Supreme Vishun is a notable interpretation and can be added to the article so long as you don't fill the article up with this one view. And this isn't a straighfoward fact because Gaudiya Vaishnavas believe Krishna is Supreme and back this claim up with the Bhagavad Gita just as Smartas would say that the Krishna presented in the Gita in just one of the many forms of Brahman.
Also if you the current Quran article, it doesn't say anywhere from my knowledge so explicitly that Allah is the Supreme God, and especially in the lead. Thanks GizzaDiscuss © 08:18, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
I can confirm very frankly, that Vishnu is the Supreme god in all Vaishnava lines, He is also Parā Brahman and Krishna is no other person then Vishnu (how he is no-other is different according to different lines). There is no conflict as to stating that Vishnu is supreme God. The only point that Gaudiyas Vallabhas Vishnuswamis Radhavallabhis etc make, is that form of Krishna is superior in worship, but that does not mean that Vishnu is not the supreme God, he is for vast majority of Hindus (even for smartas, however they interpret him as a sa-guna, where as Vashnavas maintain that he is nirguna). As far as sources, primary sources IF QUOTED in secondary sources are as good as secondary sources, it is as good as a translation of the Koran - its a reliable source (not on its own but as part of the secondary source). Wikidās ॐ 11:25, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Curse

Wikipedia has no respect for God. Wikipedia is full of lies or dangerously evil half truths. Wikipedia has no respect for religion. The following users of Wikipedia, namely: Redtigerxyz, Priyanath, Emperor Genius, Raj2004, Wikidas, Wikiveer and DaGizza have all committed blasphemy and sacrilage. Curse upon you that you will all perish. I curse the following users of Wikipedia, namely: Redtigerxyz, Priyanath, Emperor Genius, Raj2004, Wikidas, Wikiveer and DaGizza that you will all perish. I curse that the Wikipedia will entirely perish. I beg forgiveness from the Supreme God, Lord Vishnu for choosing the blasphemous Wikipedia website to write about the truth. A true devote of the Supreme Lord Vishnu has been hurt and my curse never goes in vain. I will never again edit or read or go to the evil Wikipedia website, forever . Delete my user-id and all edits you evil Wikipedians. Mr. DaGizza, you are a Male Chauvinist Pig and a misogynist to the core and you call yourself an administrator !!! Ridiculous !!! Mr. DaGizza, you are a curse to your existance. A man like you, who cannot respect women is a worthless in his existance. You Wikipedians are useless people. You are a burden to the civilized world. You are not even worth hatred. You Wikipedians must be ignored.

Dear Madam:


Vishnu is my Ishta deva and Guru Narasimha is my Kuludevata. I have substantially improved all of the articles on Vaishnavism , especially Vishnu sahasranama which is 90% of my own. All of the cursed wikipedia users have done the same. Gizza and Wikidas are Vaishnavite wikipedians so they no way would insult Sriman Narayana as well.

Sriman Narayana protects His true devotees.

Raj2004 (talk) 11:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC

Sorrrry Vaishnava for offending you feelings. But could you actually tell me where I insulted women? I think I said I am not a woman and that there are very few women on Wikipedia. And I never the second thing is good, in fact it is terrible. The situation is worse among Indian editors, where female probably account for less than 5% of editors. Jimbo Wales, the founder of Wikipedia, has even commented on this unfortunate trend. It is odd because my ishta-devi is the Mother Goddess, in all her forms. From a Vaishnava angle, you could I believe Vishnu is nothing, without his shakti, Sri Lakshmi.
Seeing as how you insulted six users at once so strongly and with such hatred, I needed to block you as a preventative and not a punitive measure. You are welcome to stay at Wikipedia but please do not get so emotional when somebody disagrees with your editing. Wikipedia has rules and guidlines on which its success is built upon and one of these is WP:OWN. This means no one editor owns any Wikipedia article, the community collectively owns it. To enjoy your experience here by being part and not against the community.
If you understand I (or another admin) can unblock you at any moment. Just add Template:Unblock to your user talk page and say you can edit in accordance with Wiki rules. GizzaDiscuss © 11:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the curse, I know Vishnu will protect all of us for following Wikipedia guidelines. I have removed the verse numbers as such details are not needed in the lead.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 13:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Dear Vaishnava, Please cool down. I believe all of the editors here have deep respect and love for Vishnu, contrary to your understanding of the situation. My own Ishta Devata is a form of Vishnu. Loudly proclaiming that Vishnu is the greatest form of God, according to 'most Hindus', does not make one a better devotee of the Lord. Using His name to curse others surely cannot be very pleasing to the Lord. For your own sake, I suggest retracting your statement, made in the anger and emotion of the moment. ~ priyanath talk 20:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I just don't get it, why did he add me to the list? I do think that you can state that 'Vishnu is supreme God' and that 'most Hindus consider it'. However its encyclopaedia, you have to say it carefully, not foolishly. I still not get it, why did he add my name to the list=:-) Forgive me but according to Google-samhita there is no such a thing as "Vishnus curse" or "Curse of Vishnu" so we are safe I guess. Forgive us anyhow for not understanding you Vaishnava. Wikidās ॐ 20:52, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Infobox img

I think Image:VishnuWat.jpg is not a general representation of Vishnu and only his head is visible, so I think the image is inappropriate as lead image. Other suggestions are welcome. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 12:56, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Vishnu"

No comments have been added.



Your name:

City:

Country:

Your comments:

Security check *
(Please enter the number into adjoining box)

 

  • Ads

           
eXTReMe Tracker