Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:25, 28 May 2005

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

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

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

Recent changes by Raj2004

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

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

Raj2004 16:26, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

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

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

Changes by Animesh

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

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

Raj2004 02:17, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Etymology

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

Where is the source for this? Why can't these ideas co-exist w modern Hindu definitions of the word? Sam Spade 09:49, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Mayrhofer's etymological dictionary. You had no business removing this, Raj, so put it back. If you cite "meanings" instead of etymologies, attribute them. Vishnu does not "mean" all-pervading, unless you take your guru's word for it. If it is a notable guru, cite him together with the "meaning", just don't give it as "the truth". This is Misplaced Pages. dab (ᛏ) 06:25, 28 May 2005 (UTC)