Redtigerxyz (talk | contribs) →Removal of images: new section |
→Removal of images: moved all article.user edits on Hinduism is showing WP:STEWARDSHIP in Hindu related article. |
||
Line 93: | Line 93: | ||
Please do not cite from Iskcon, which is a minority and one of sects of Hinduism not the religion itself. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/210.212.201.98|210.212.201.98]] ([[User talk:210.212.201.98|talk]]) 02:08, 13 November 2013 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
Please do not cite from Iskcon, which is a minority and one of sects of Hinduism not the religion itself. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/210.212.201.98|210.212.201.98]] ([[User talk:210.212.201.98|talk]]) 02:08, 13 November 2013 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
||
== Removal of images == |
|||
<gallery> |
|||
File:Vishnu, India, Tanjore, Tamil Nadu, Chola dynasty, 12th-13th century, bronze, HAA.JPG|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) |
|||
File:Chola periodVishnu 10th-11th century.jpg|Coimbatore image |
|||
File:AzhagarKovil Madurai.JPG|Why should we images of two Tamil temples. Ranganatha is enough. |
|||
File:Panorama Temple Ranganatha-Swami.jpg|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. |
|||
</gallery> |
|||
[[User:Eshwar.om]], please justify inclusion of the particular images. --[[User:Redtigerxyz|<font color = "red" >Redtigerxyz</font>]] <sup> [[User talk:Redtigerxyz|Talk]] </sup> 07:42, 23 July 2014 (UTC) |
Revision as of 08:03, 23 July 2014
![]() | This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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.
Non-existent Rig Veda verse in the article
"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)
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." [1]). 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)
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)