:''For other uses of the name Vishnu, see Vishnu (disambiguation).''
Vishnu (Hindi: (विष्णु) is a form of God, to whom Hindus pray. For Vaishnavism, He is the only Ultimate Reality or God, as is Shiva for Shaivites. In Trimurti belief, He is the second aspect of God in the Trimurti (also called the Hindu Trinity), along with Brahma and Shiva.
Known as the ''Preserver'', He is most famously identified with His avatars, or incarnations of God, most especially Krishna and Rama. Additionally, another important name for Vishnu is Narayana.
* 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 Ultimate Reality (i.e., Brahman) exclusively. A Smarta, on the other hand, would consider Vishnu and Shiva to be different aspects of the same Supreme Being. See Ishta-Deva for greater discussion.
* Unlike Shaivism, Vaishnavism, the other denomination of Hinduism, believes that Vishnu incarnates periodically for the establishment and protection of righteousness, good dharma and destruction of evil adharma; see avatar for more information.
* Smartas who follow Advaita philosophy, believe that aspects of God such as Vishnu or Shiva are personal attributes of the impersonal (without attributes) Brahman. Other Hindus, however, believe that Vishnu is not limited to personal characteristics as typically depicted in the displayed image, is beyond any personal characteristics and can transcend all attributes. (This view is similar to the some views of God in Semitic religions such as Islam or Judaism.) These Hindus believe that God can transcend all personal characteristics yet can also have personal characteristics for the grace of the embodied human devotee. Personal characteristics are considered a way for the devotee to focus on Nirguna Brahman. These same Hindus also believe that if they can hear the voice of God similar to how Judeo-Christian religions believe that God communicates, then it is not neccessarily wrong to view a form of God as long as it is recognized that God is not limited to a particular form. Nonetheless, there are many sects of Hindus, most notably Vadakalai Iyengars, who believe that Vishnu's authentic form is not beyond human comprehension, and that He is just as He is shown in most pictures.
Vaishnavite Hindus also worship Vishnu as an abstract form (i.e., God with vague form) as a saligrama. Use of the saligrama is similar to the use of lingam, a form of Shiva
==Etymology==
The traditional Hindu explanation of the name ''Viṣṇu''
involves the root ''viś'', meaning "to settle, to enter", or also (in the Rigveda) "to pervade", and a suffix ''nu'', translating to approximately "the All-Pervading One". For example Adi Sankara, in Swami Tapasyananda's translation of his commentary on Vishnu Sahasranama (Ramakrishna Math publications) states derivation from this root, with a meaning "presence everywhere" ("As He pervades everything, ''vevesti'', He is called ''Visnu''"). Adi Sankara states (regarding Vishnu Purana, 3.1.45): "The Power of the Supreme Being has entered within the universe. The root ''Viś'' means 'enter into.'"
Regarding the suffix, Manfred Mayrhofer (Indo-Aryan etymological dictionary, 1996, II.566f.) proposes that the nasal is analogous to ''jiṣṇu'' "victorious". Mayrhofer further suggests that the name goes back to an already Indo-Iranian ''*višnu'', and was replaced by ''rašnu'' in Zoroastrian Iran.
The root ''viś'' is also associated with ''viśva'' "all" (possibly by popular etymology, the word is generally believed to derive from Indo-Iranian ''*vi-k'o-'', influenced by ''sarva'' "all", but a minority opinion does, indeed, derive ''viśva'' as from ''vik'-so'', (J. Knobloch (1980)).
Suggestions involving other roots include include vi-ṣṇu "crossing the back", vi-ṣ-ṇu "facing towards all sides" and viṣ-ṇu "active", as well as attempts to explain Vishnu as an amalgate of two unrelated words, or as being derived from a non-Aryan root (see Mayrhofer, ''A Concise Etymological Sanskrit Dictionary'' (1976) III.231f., J. Gonda, ''Aspects of Early Visnuism'' (ISBN 8120810872, reprint 1993) for a collection of references). The name is continued in Prakrit veṇhu, viṇhu.
==pre-Puranic Vishnu==
In the Rigveda, Vishnu is mentioned 93 times. He is frequently invoked with other gods, especially with Indra, whom he assists in killing Vritra, and with whom he drinks Soma. His companionship with Indra is still reflected by his later epitheta ''Indrānuja'' and ''Upendra''. His distinguishing characteristic in the Vedas is his association with Light, or even his identification with the Sun. He appears as striding across the heavens in three paces, by Rigvedic commentators explained as denoting the threefold manifestations of light in the form of fire, lightning, and the Sun, or as designating the three daily stations of the Sun in rising, culminating, and setting.
Vishnu as a solar deity appears e.g. in RV 1.22.20:
:''The princes evermore behold / that loftiest place where Visnu is / Laid as it were an eye in heaven.'' (trans. Ralph T.H. Griffith)
Griffith's "princes" are the ''sūri'', either "inciters" or lords of a sacrifice, or priests charged with pressing the Soma. The verse is later quoted as expressing Vishnu's supremacy by Vaishnavites, while in the Rigveda the Sun is not a high-ranking deity, c.f. e.g. RV 2.12.7,
:''He who gave being to the Sun and Morning, who leads the waters, He, O men, is Indra.'' (trans. Griffith)
where Indra appears as senior to the Sun.
In the Vedas, Vishnu appears not yet included in the class of the Adityas (unless it is implied that he is identical with Surya, and included as the eighth Aditya), but in later texts he appears as heading them. In the Brahmanas, he is associated with sacrifice, and on one occasion described as a dwarf.
His rise to supremacy is apparent in the epics (Mahabharata, Ramayana), and from this period he may be considered a manifestation of the Singular God. The division of Hinduism in Vaishnavism and Shaivaism appears only with the Puranas, where Vishnu's descents in ten principal Avatars become his distinguishing characteristic.
==Theological attributes and more==
Vishnu takes form as an all-inclusive deity, known as Purusha or Mahāpurusha, Paramātma [Supreme Soul], Antaryāmi [In-dweller], and He is the Sheshin [Totality] in whom all souls are contained. He is Bhagavat or Bhagavan, which in Sanskrit means "possessing ''bhāga'' (Divine Glory)".
Vishnu possesses six such divine glories, namely,
* Jñāna Omniscient; defined as the power to know about all beings simultaneously;
* Aishvarya Sovereignty, which persist in unchallenged rule over all;
* Shakti Energy, or power, which is the capacity to make the impossible possible;
* Bala Strength, which is the capacity to support everything by His will and without any fatigue;
* Virya Vigour, or valour which indicates the power to retain immateriality as the Supreme Spirit or Being in spite of being the material cause of mutable creations;
* Tèjas Resplendent, or Splendour, which expresses His self-sufficiency and the capacity to overpower everything by His spiritual effulgence.; cited from ''Bhakti Schools of Vedanta'', by Swami Tapasyananda.
However, the actual number of auspicious qualities of Vishnu are countless, with the above-mentioned six qualities being the most important. Other important qualities attributed to God are Gambhirya (inestimatable grandeur), Audarya (generosity), and Karunya (compassion.)
==Relations with other Deities==
Vishnu's consort is Lakshmi, the Goddess of wealth. Maya is the samvit (the primary intelligence) of Vishnu, while the other five attributes emerge from this samvit and hence Maya is his ahamata, activity, or Vishnu's Power. This power of God, Maya, is personified and is called Maya, Vishnumaya, or Mahamaya, and She is said to manifest Herself in, 1) kriyāshakti, (Creative Activity) and 2) bhütishakti (Creation) of Universe. Hence this world cannot part with His creativity i.e., ahamta, which is a feminine form and is called Maya.
His vehicle is Garuda, the eagle; who is a part of His creation. He needs no support for anything He does in and outside this world.
==Depiction==
* Vishnu is usually depicted as a four-armed male-form with new-cloud-like-blue skin, standing on a nelumbo nucifera flower, and holding four attributes: (i) a sharp-spinning weapon called chakra, the "Sudarshan", (ii) a conch shell, the "Panchajanya", (iii) a nelumbo nucifera flower, and (iv) a mace. According to various Purana, He is the ultimate omnipresent reality, is shapeless, and is present in omnipresence form called Hari. Apart from the standing appearance, His abode is "Kshira Sagar" (Milk Ocean) and He lies on a bed of a serpent with thousand mouth called Shesha Naga. He has a mark of sage Bhrigu's feet on chest and has a garland of flowers around His neck. He is accompanied by Lakshmi and has a mark shrivatsa on His heart depicting Her presence.
* Note that even though Vishnu is portrayed with human features, the Puranas 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. This description of the Lord was again emphasized by a Ramakrishna Mission scholar, Swami Tapasyananda, in his book, ''Bhakti Schools of Vedanta''. An illustration of the Lord's omnipresence is illustrated in His incarnation as Narasimha. In short, whatever we can think of, and whatever we cannot think of -- all are Vishnu. However this is not understood by many Hindus, including the Vadakalai Iyengars.
The Rigveda says: Vishnu can travel in three strides. The first stride is the Earth. The second stride is the visible sky. The third stride cannot be seen by men and is the heaven where the gods and the righteous dead live. (This feature of three strides also appears in the story of his avatar Vamana called Trivikrama.) The Sanskrit for "to stride" is the root (linguistics) ''kram''; its reduplicationperfect tense is ''chakram'' (guna grade) or ''chakra'' (zero-grade), and in the Rigveda He is called by epithets such as ''vi-chakra-māņas'' = "he who has made 3 strides". The Sanskrit word ''chakra'' also mans "wheel". That may have suggested the idea of Vishnu carrying a chakra.
The Bhagavata Purana describes the various lilas of twenty-five avatara of Vishnu[http://www.krishna.com/e-books/Srimad-Bhagavatam_Canto_01.pdf].
1) Catursana
2) Narada Muni
3) Varaha
4) Matsya
5) Yajna
6) Nara Narayana
7) Kapila
8) Dattatreya
9) Hayasirsa
10) Hamsa
11) Prsnigarbha
12) Rsabha
13) Prthu
14) Nrsimha
15) Kurma
16) Dhanvantari
17) Mohini
18) Vamanadeva
19) Parasurama
20) Raghavendra
21) Vyasa
22) Balarama
23) Krishna
24) Buddha
25) Kalki
==Worship==
* Vishnu is accepted as the Supreme God in Vaishnavism, or Vishnu monotheism. Followers of Vishnu believe that He is the Supreme Being and distinguish Him from Devas, or demigods, who are celestial beings similar to angels as discussed in Judeo-Christian traditions.
* It is considered that He manifested Himself as a living being in ten avatars. He is also worshiped in the form of these avatars.
It is not clearly known when or how the worship of Vishnu began. In the Vedas, and the information on Aryan beliefs, Vishnu is associated with Indra. However, Shukavak N. Dasa, a Vaishnavite scholar, in reference [http://www.sanskrit.org/Ramanuja/Ramanuja&vaishna.html at this link] has commentated that Srivaishnavites would note that:
* The praise of Indra and other devas in the Vedas are not intended for the particular deity, but for the Supreme Being, Brahman, who is the inner soul of devas and all other beings.
* The various deities addressed in the hymns are simply different forms of this one Supreme Being.
* Vaishnavas cite Rigveda 1.22.20, for the supremacy of Vishnu, "As the blazing sun pervades the entire sky like an eye fixed in the heavens, so the divine seers eternally perceive that supreme abode of Vishnu."
* The foreword of P. Sankaranarayan's translation of Vishnu sahasranama, Bhavan's Book University, cites Rig Veda V.I.15b.3, for the importance of chanting Vishnu's name, "O ye who wish to gain realization of the supreme truth, utter the name of Vishnu at least once in the steadfast faith that it will lead you to such realization."
Nevertheless, it was only later in Hindu history that Vishnu became a member of the Trimurti and hence is one of the most important forms of God in contemporary Hinduism.
* Om Namo Narayana, a mantra
* Purusha Sukta, a Vedic hymn said to describe Vishnu.
* Vishnu sahasranama, a hymn describing the 1000 names of Vishnu.
==Names==
Vishnu has a number of names, collected in the Vishnu sahasranama ("Vishnu's thousand names"), which occurs in the Mahabharata. In Vishnu Sahasranama Vishnu is praised as the Supreme God.
The names are generally derived from the ''anantakalyanaguna''s (infinite auspicious attributes) of the Lord. Some names are:
*Acyutah (infallible)
*Ananta (endless, eternal, infinite)
*Kesava (slayer of Keshi, having long or much or handsome hair, from Atharvaveda viii , 6 , 23)
*Narayana (said to mean "He who is the abode of ''nār'' (= ether)", i.e., the whole world's shelter. There are two more meanings of Narayana found in a stuti of child-Krishna by Brahma).
*Madhava (relating to the season of spring)
*Govinda (leader of cowherds: a name of Krishna)
*Vishnu
*Madhusudana (He who destroyed the demon called Madhu)
*Trivikrama (He who strides out three times)
*Vamana (dwarfish, small or short in stature, a dwarf: a name of one of his avatars)
*Aridhara
*Hrsikesha (lord of the senses)
*Padmanabha (lotus-naveled one, from whose navel sprang the lotus which contained Brahma, who created the universe)
*Damodara (having a rope (dama) around his belly (udara): a name of Krishna)
* Krishna (born during the third epoch or yuga, His deeds range from cow protection (go rakshya) to absolving the earth of load of sins)
* Rama (born during the second epoch of yuga, His deeds primarily established the ideal living principles of a man)
Other names:
*Gopala (cow protector: ref. Krishna)
*Janardana (one who excites or agitates men)
*Vasudeva (son of Vasudeva: a name of Krishna)
*Anantasayana (sleeping or reclining on Shesha Naga. Shesha Naga is often referred to as Ananta)
*Sriman (the pride of Shri or Lakshmi); Often Sriman is combined with the name, Narayana , to form a compound word,Sriman Narayana, as the name Ramakrishna.
*Srinivasa (the abode of Shri) (also specifically referring to His form in the temple at Tirupati). Also the form of Vishnu at Tirupati is well-known as Venkateswara.
==Theological beliefs and philosophy==
Major branches of Vaishnavism include:-
* Srivaishnavism (espoused by Ramanuja who advocated Vishishtadvaita),
* Dvaita (espoused by Madhvacharya or Madhva)
* Gaudiya Vaishnavism (espoused by Shri Caitanya Mahaprabhu.)
* The Hare Krishna movement or ISKCON adheres to Gaudiya Vaishnavism.
* See also the article on Vaishnavism.
== External links ==
General:
* http://www.vaishnava.com/aboutvaishnavism.htm
* http://www.rudraksha-ratna.com/hindu_trinity.php
Madhva:
* [http://www.dvaita.org/docs/srv_faq.html Who is Vishnu? and the Nature of Him and other facts.]
* http://www.dvaita.org/shaastra/gita/gita_sara/gs-007.html (only one God in Hinduism, #56 and see Shri Krishna is the supreme God; #57.)
Ramanuja:
* http://www.srivaishnavan.com/srivaishnavan/servlet/section
* http://www.prapatti.com/index.html
Gaudiya (ISKCON):
* [http://www.krishna.com/ Krishna.com] All about Krishna. Info, books, MP3s, images, radio. . .
* http://www.veda.harekrsna.cz/
* http://www.harekrishna.com/~ara/col/books/BG/tsem1.html
Hindu godsTriune GodsSolar godsnds:Wischnusimple:Vishnu
Vishnu
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. --User: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? User:Quadell – User:Quadell(User_talk:Quadell) (User:Quadell/Request for assistance) 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.
User: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.
User:Raj2004 18:09, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
--User: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?
User: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? ''User: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 Wikipedia. User:DbachmannUser_talk:Dbachmann 06:25, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
Dab, it's absurd to say that the meaning of Vishnu is not the all pervading one and simply the meaning given by one guru. The meanings for Vishnu are found in the Vishnu Purana, an old purana and the most authorative Vaishnavite purana. You call my comments simply wrong without citing anything. You are the one who is simply wrong for not even knowing what the meaning of Vishnu is for Hindus. You are not a Hindu so you don't know. I am trying to be civil but you started name calling. There people who write nonsense in wikipedia without citing support. In fact, you had no business removing the name for Vishnu meaning all pervading. You have the gall to to ignore your own "unclean hands." We had similar discussion about Rudram.
Entymology, or the historical development of the word may or may not be known but the meaning is settled.
You simply didn't read the link I sent you.
For the etymology of the name, "Vishnu" please see the meanings in this site which explains meaning of Vishnu, the second name in the Vishnu sahasranama. It quotes Vedic and Puranic verses. http://home.comcast.net/~chinnamma/sahasra/ Please click on page 01 in the Links to slokams.
Read the whole link. Many great scholars, such as Sankara have explained what Vishnu means and the conclusion is all pervading.
The meanings for Vishnu are found in the Vishnu Purana, an old purana and the most authorative Vaishnavite purana.
Sankara, from the cite stated:
yasmAd vishTam idam sarvam tasya SaktyA mahAtmanah |
tasmAd vishNuriti khyAto veSer dhAtoh praveSanAt || (Vishnu Purana 3.1.45)
"Because the whole world has been pervaded by the energy of the great Self,
He is named vishNu, from the root viS - to enter or pervade.\"
vyApte me rodasI pArtha kAntiscApadhikA sthitA |
kramaNaccApyaham pArtha! VishNuriti abhisamgj~nita: || (Mahabharata. 350.43)
"As I have pervaded the horizons, my glory stands foremost, and as I have measured by my steps the three worlds, O Arjuna! I am named vishNu".
Quote from the scholars and summary:
"To summarize,
- the nAma vishNu refers to the guNa of bhagavAn in pervading everything He has created, including all sentient and non-sentient objects from a blade of grass to brahma; - His pervasion is because of His Sakti; in other words, He is the power behind everything that exists; an instance of His Sakti is illustrated by His measuring the three worlds with His Foot; - His vyApati is indicative of the inseparable relation between Him and everything else outside Him, in the sense that nothing exists without Him. - His pervasion of everything is of the form of His enveloping and showering everything around Him with His Mercy. It is not just His sausIlya that is indicated by this nAma; all His powers including that of creation, sustenance, His Lordship, etc., are to be understood by this nAma. - It is because of His pervasion of everything in this universe that things (for example the constellations, the planets, etc.)., are in their respective positions without colliding with each other."
The meanings for Vishnu are found in the Vishnu Purana, an old purana and the most authorative Vaishnavite purana.
If you want, you may write entymology may be unknown but the meaning is well-settled.
Also you cite a Western scholar. So-called Western scholars are notoriously anti-Hindu. It's fine if you disagree but you ERASED my work without reading any of the links. Ask any Hindu and Vishnu means all pervading. THat meaning is overwhelmingly the predominant one. Who cares about what an unknown scholar thinks when the overwhelming majority consider Vishnu meaning to be all pervading. (I.e., Vishnu Purana) If you cited Sankara or other giants in Hinduism, that would be authorative.
As Animesh said to me once, "if you want
a more concrete and old (and reverred, more perfect, more poetic) reference, then you can cite Vishnu Purana, Bhagavat Purana, etc."
Why would quote Myerhoffs dictionary, an unknown reference?
Why do you care about meaning in Prakrit or common language that was corrupted from Sanskrit.. We are worried about meaning in Sanksrit.
Read the story of Narasimha which illustrates the Lord's omnipresence.
To satisfy the 1% of you who dispute the meaning of Vishnu, I put in the article, Most Hindus consider Vishnu to mean All-Pervading One but a minority attribute other meanings and even some suggest that the entymology of the name is unknown.
'''You may it think it' semantic to call Vishnu a Hindu god versus God but how would a Christian feel if someone call Jesus a god instead of God. The same would go with a Muslim. Judging by the conversation with (Oxy2Hydro 2) it appears that you may have offended some.'''
Furthermore, anything that is Hindu is termed as Hindu mythology by Westerners. Anything that is Biblical is accepted as fact. No one calls storys from the Bible as Christian mythology.
Person's feelings about religion are a sensitive issue and that's what we must strive in wikipedia to tread careful waters.
Thank you.
Raj2004Raj2004
As suggested by Sam, I have added your minority viewpoint.
User:Raj2004 00:43, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
I agree w Raj, it is important to be respectful regarding deities. Its also fine to point out where Mayrhofer's etymological dictionary disagrees. NPOV is the sum total of verifiable POV's, not any one of them individually. ''User:Sam Spade/Report rogue admin'' 21:54, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
:Good edit, Raj! Now thats NPOV! Writing for your enemy, as well as the truth as you see it... thats what its all about! :) ''User:Sam Spade/Report rogue admin'' 23:32, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
==God vs. god==
Can we call Vishnu a God in Vaishnavism and a deity outside it? User:Andries 13:25, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
Not sure. would one call another person's God a deity? That would imply a polytheistic notion.
User:Raj2004 17:05, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
:the Hindu concept of God appears rather foreign to you, Raj, if you worry about monotheism vs. polytheism. Vishnu is only considered supreme in Vaishnavism. The name appears already in the Vedas, i.e. clearly pre-Vishnavite, and there Vishnu is just a minor god, named among many others. Monier-Williams reports,
:''Vishnu comes second in the triad he is identified with the supreme deity by his worshippers; in the Vedic period, however, he is not placed in the foremost rank, although he is frequently invoked with other gods, esp. with Indra whom he assists in killing Vrtra and with whom he drinks the Soma juice'' [http://flaez.ch/cgi-bin/mw.pl?query=viSNu]
This article is about all historical aspects of the god, not just the Vishnavite ones. Monier-Williams is certainly notable, so his account should at least appear as held by him, although it is certainly common knowledge and by no means a view original to MW. User:DbachmannUser_talk:Dbachmann 10:49, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
Monier-Williams is definitely a well-known respected source. Yes, Religion has evolved. early Biblical views considered Yahweh to be a tribal god, or God of the Israelites before He was considered to be the God of all. Vishnu is also considered to be one of the forms of God in Smartism so Vaishnavite belief is not exclusive to Vaishnavism. Even Shaivites consider Vishnu to be a form of Siva. (See Himalyana Academy, a well-respected Saivite organization, in their definition of Vishnu although they consider Siva to be the Ultimate Godhead. (http://www.himalayanacademy.com/resources/books/dws/lexicon/v.html)
and see Smartism, in http://www.himalayanacademy.com/resources/books/dws/lexicon/s.html
To say that the Hindu concept is foreign is insulting. You should be less caustic and nasty and be more diplomatic instead of making spurious comments.
Perhaps I am biased as I am slanted towards Smartism.
User:Raj2004 11:10, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
Also, it's worthy to note that Monier-Williams is anti-Hindu. His goals for study were for the purposes of denigrating Hinduism.
The wikipedia article states, " Monier-Williams declared from the outset that the conversion of India to the Christian religion should be one of the aims of orientalist scholarship."
User:Raj2004 11:30, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
:It is a well known fact that many Western scholars used to have an extremely biased view of Hinduism and that this only gradually and slowly improved. Older Western sources should hence be treated with suspicion. I dunno about Monier-Williams though. User:Andries 11:33, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
::he was a Christian. That is irrelevant. He was an extremely competent scholar of Sanskrit, and you couldn't show his Christian bias from the pages of his scholarly publications. The "denigration" part is a ridiculous ad-hominem charge by the Hindutva. Attack his scholarly views, if you can, not his religion. User:DbachmannUser_talk:Dbachmann 11:39, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
:::It should be irrelavant that he is a Christian and it is irrelevant when he is a good scholar but it is notoriously difficult not to be biased when describing other people's or your own religion. I also wrote this at cult (after reading the description about this phenomonenon as described by Dutch religious scholar Wouter Hanegraaf.) Even scholars show bias when describing religions. User:Andries 11:53, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
No. It is relevant but his biased view mars his credibility.
User:Raj2004 11:43, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
:I disagree, but fine. ''Why'' should he care (biased as he was, for argument's sake) if the name was derived from this or that root? It would have been all the same to him, except for scholarly (and ''encyclopedic'') interest. User:DbachmannUser_talk:Dbachmann 12:00, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
Not true, Dab you're ignoring your own precedent. We had a similar discussion about verses in Rudram.
You had argued that a Vedantist would interpret certain lines in Rudram to indicate that Vishnu and Shiva are one and the same while other scholars would interpret śipiviṣṭāya differently.
So one can't argue that educated scholars can't be biased. With religion, one could always interpret lines to support one's particular point of view. Does the Bible support slavery or would God support slavery? I don't think so. In the nineteenth century, American slaveowners interpret certain lines in the Old Testtament to support slavery.
Who says people or scholars aren't biased. It's all a matter of interpretation.
User:Raj2004 18:36, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
look, Raj, I apologize again for the "simply wrong" comment. I did correct mistakes, but I should have been more polite. Now the reason for my impatience was precisely the Rudram "precedent" where you kept arguing for ages until it transpired that you were not familiar with the original text, but basing your opinion on a rather dubitable translation. Monier-Williams, at least, was working with the original texts. When he talks about shipivishta [http://flaez.ch/cgi-bin/mw.pl?query=zipiviSTa], he knows he is talking about shipivishta, and his comments are those of an impartial philologist, not those of either a Hindu or a Christian. Who says anything indeed? Encyclopedicity is determined by ''notability'' and ''verifiability''. In matters of Sanskrit, there is simply no way around Monier-Williams and, for etymological questions, Mayrhofer. Note that I didn't touch any exegetical portions of the article. User:DbachmannUser_talk:Dbachmann 13:44, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
I accept your apology. Yes, I also should have been more open to other interpretations of the meaning of Vishnu even though Hindus overwhelmingly interpret it to mean all pervading. The classic story of Narasimha was to illustrate His all-pervasiveness. I was wrong for that short-sightnedness. About calling it a dubitable translations, that shipvasta comment was from a Vedantist scholar, Swami Amitrananda of the Ramakrishna Mission, a well respected group. Ramakrishna Mission swamis are well-known for bringing forth excellent translations of well-known commentaries from Sayana in the Vedas and Rudram and other scholars such as Adi Sankara so they don't produce dubitable translations. I believe it was Sayana who interpreted shipvasta to mean Vishnu. As you said yourself, shipvishta can be interpreted different ways. With regard to Vishnu, monier-williams is not the only one source even though he is an excellent scholary relatively contemporary source, but you have to include giants like Adi Sankara as well in interpretation of the meaning of the name Vishnu.
User:Raj2004 23:15, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
re god vs. God, we need a historical approach. We need a section on Vedic Vishnu, and one on Puranic Vishnu. In the Rigveda, he was a deva, a solar god, I believe an aditya. In the Purana's, he is God. Same name, different concept: there is no problem. User:DbachmannUser_talk:Dbachmann 13:44, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
That's correct. I agree with you on that point; distinction between Vedic Vishnu and Puranic Vishnu. Excellent edit! Yes, we had heated discussions but we shouldn't be yelling at each other. The new entymology looks great. Thank you for that edit and distinctions between pre-puranic Vishnu and vedic vishnu.
Analogous to Bible development. Yahweh God of the Jews before becoming God of all.
User:Raj2004 23:15, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
Dab, in your pre-puranic Vishnu discussion, Vishnu is described as a dwarf in the Brahmanas. I am thinking that the description of Him as a dwarf may be an allusion to the Vamana avatar where he appeared as a dwarf. But I don't have any scholarly treatise to back my assertion. Do you have one?
User:Raj2004 01:29, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:you are right, we are getting somewhere. Thanks, Raj, this is a gratifying experience (I've had too many encounters with editors who refused to listen, lately). The dwarf story is certanily ''connected'' with the Vamana avatar, it's just that the avatar thing appears only ''later'', i.e. in the Puranas, while the dwarf is already in the Brahmanas, so I assume it would be a first step in the development of the notion of the ten Avatars. I just got this from MW, btw, and I don't know ''where'' the dwarf thing occurs. regards, User:DbachmannUser_talk:Dbachmann 07:25, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
ok, Dab It seems development of Vishnu is analogous to development of Yaweh in the Bible. Yahweh in the Old testament seems different from Him in the New Testament.
User:Raj2004 09:48, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:the same holds for every Ggod. God may be eternal, but the way he is perceived by humanity has a history and is changeable. User:DbachmannUser_talk:Dbachmann 10:25, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I agree with you completely. Best regards,
User:Raj2004 22:53, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
==etymology==
sorry for my belligerence earlier. "All-pervader" is ok as ''one'' possible etymology, my "simply wrong" comment was pointing at the ''vishva'' connection. It is even the wrong type of sibilant for that. If you want to refer to ''vishva'', you'll have to state ''exactly'' who holds such an opinion. The discussion of the meaning of the name is too controversial to handle in the intro. Hence the etymology section. User:DbachmannUser_talk:Dbachmann 10:49, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
You should be. All-Pervading is the overwhelmingly predominant meaning.
The meaning is from the Vishnu Purana and the persons who have given such meanings is Adi Sankara, among several others.
User:Raj2004 11:12, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
:one word, popular etymology. by all means, cite people who argue this. the Vishnu Purana would be in Sanskrit, though, so it will hardly translate the name. Does it associate the name with the root? Where? Seriously, I believe it does, it would just be your job to provide the exact reference, I cannot do all the work, can I :) User:DbachmannUser_talk:Dbachmann 11:27, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
I have given an overview of the etymological discussion, with sources. It is fine to report the traditional Hindu explanation first, even if it is by popular etymology, but you should provide better attribution than "traditional", I'll leave that up to you. As for the other references, I hope we'll agree that unless you have a good etymological dictionary in front of you, or at least Gonda's ''Aspects of Visnuism'', it is futile to pursue this discussion. In any case, it will not do to suggest "minorities" or spurious suggestions based purely on your gusto. I have found a suggestion that ''vishva'' may in fact be connected with ''vish'' "settle" (Knobloch, 1980), ''which would have been your job to provide''), however, based on conparison with the Balto-Slavic this is considered unlikely. User:DbachmannUser_talk:Dbachmann 11:24, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
It's worthy to note that you didn't give your sources until I told you as well.
User:Raj2004 11:39, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
:yes, this is how Wikipedia is built. Quote lazily until challenged. ''If'' challenged, walk away, or get busy. I followed up with references ''immediately'', because I took the information straight from them, this isn't "my opinion" at all, I'm reporting. User:DbachmannUser_talk:Dbachmann 11:42, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
You didn't cite Meyerhoof initially. Admit it! At least I do.
User:Raj2004 11:45, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
I just did, saying "yes". Stop picking on me. User:DbachmannUser_talk:Dbachmann
Fine I will stop. but you started picking on me instead of being civil.
For example, instead of stating simply wrong. you should have stated please cite source. That's what Sam spade and others have done.
User:Raj2004 12:07, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
:Lets be as nice as we can, it's pretty clear that different people have different opinions about the etymology. I personally tend to favor Shankara due to his standing, but the best thing we can do for the reader is to provide them with all verifiable POV's (as we have done, much to both of your credit :) One thing I'd like worded a bit differently is :
::"The name is continued in Prakrit veṇhu, viṇhu."
:I must admit, I don't entirely understand that, could it be worded a bit differently? User:Sam Spade 23:17, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
The Prakrit thing is not important, just a factoid I found along the way. Traditional Hindu interpretation and linguistic communis opinio ''agree'' on the root, ''vish'', being from PIE ''vik' ''. The ''vishva'' diuscussion is tangential to this, i.e. most people agree ''vishnu'' is from ''vish'', but not everybody is so sure about ''vishva''. The problem is that in "All-Pervading", either "All" is translating ''vish'' (association with vishva), or "Pervading" is translating ''vish'' (from "to enter"), but ''vish'' cannot mean "all" and "pervading" at the same time (unless you want to argue the root here means "to all-pervade"). A more literal translation based on this etymology would be "the Pervader" (i.e. originally applied to the Sun who traverses the whole firmament). User:DbachmannUser_talk:Dbachmann 07:23, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)