Talk:Vaishnavism

More relevant image

I think this Stone carved image of Lord Vishnu at a Vaishanava Temple in Ryali, Andhra Pradesh, India is a more relevant image and fulfills the criterion for main image. It is a stone image at a Vaishnava Temple, which is better than the previous image. Thanks . 07:56, 2 January 2025 (UTC) RogerYg (talk) 07:56, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

In what way would you say it's a better image? I think a clear colour illustration of Vishnu is much more illustrative than a slightly worn stone carving. Dāsānudāsa (talk) 10:42, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Well, an ancient Stone image from a Vaishnava Temple seems more authentic, rather than some painting, which can be a painter's opinion.

Many Wikipedia religion pages, prefer to use such ancient statues .

See Buddhism

Also, the stone image is Wikicommons CC/ free licence image,

while the current painting is copyrighted (or assumed to be copyrighted) and unlicensed. It does not fall into one of the blanket acceptable non-free content categories listed at Wikipedia:Non-free content § Images or Wikipedia:Non-free content § Audio clips, and it is not covered by a more specific non-free content license listed at Category:Wikipedia non-free file copyright templates.

• It needs detailed non-free use rationale for each article the image is used in, which must also declare compliance with the other parts of the non-free content criteria, as well as the source of the work and copyright information.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vishnu_with_an_adorer.jpg

• Since a free CC stone image is available the painting may not comply with fair use.
• The Stone image may be slightly cropped from sides and below to make it better.

Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 09:36, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by reviewer, closed by Narutolovehinata5 talk 12:41, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that Vaishnavism is the largest sect of Hinduism?
  • Reviewed:

Created by Sethulackhmanan S P (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

Sethulackhmanan S P (talk) 06:45, 23 May 2025 (UTC).

• Fails to meet DYK standards: On what basis has this article been nominated as a DYK? No source provided for quote..no recent editing seen...The nominator neither created the page (the page was created by Balajiviswanathan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) in 2006) nor made any contribution to the page. Pretty sure this 2 month old account is another sock of Vinayvinyill (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Seyamar^💬📜 07:31, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 January 2026

In the first paragraph of the "Northern India" portion, under the "Origins" title of the "History" section, the final sentence reads:

"Although Vishnu was a Vedic solar deity,[8] he is mentioned less often than Agni, Indra, and other Vedic deities, thereby suggesting that he had a minor position in the Vedic religion.[33]"

Following the above quoted sentence, a crucial detail from the Rig Veda should be added. This new sentence should read:

"However, in the Rig Veda, Vishnu alone is the only deity referred to as 'paramam-padam'—a term which translates to either "highest goal" or "supreme destination.' This puts into question claims that Vishnu had a minor position in Vedic religion. '"

The source for this sentence's claim is the Rig Veda itself in verses 1.22.20-21 and 1.154.6.

References:

• Rig Veda (Translation and Commentary) by H.H. Wilson. 1866
• https://sri-aurobindo.co.in/workings/matherials/rigveda/01/01-022.htm
• https://sri-aurobindo.co.in/workings/matherials/rigveda/01/01-154.htm

Ponderingpondpony (talk) 20:45, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

 Done Asteramellus (talk) 01:53, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want made. Simply quoting translations of primary religious sources is insufficient and counts as original research. Chariotrider555 (talk) 02:24, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Flood p.114:

"Two deities begin to become the focus of theistic attention, Siva, who in the Rg Beda appeared as Rudra, and Visnu, who both gain in importance and become identified by their devotees as the highest god, the supreme or absolute reality [..] In the Rg Veda Visnu is a benevolent, solar deity.

Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:07, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

The edit reverted simply notes that Vishnu is mentioned in those verses and attributed the translation of paramam padam to Wilson. Can you clarify which part of this you consider OR under WP:PRIMARY? I think the verses provides relevant background details for the section. Asteramellus (talk) 19:11, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

The problem is with the "however" diff: which secondary source rejects Dandikar's thesis, based on these verses? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 21:46, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

yes thanks - makes sense. I can definitely look for secondary sources, but I think moving it before "according to Dandekar" and removing "however" would resolve that concern and give helpful context.

The Rigveda verses 1.22.20-21 and 1.154.6 refers to Vishnu's paramam padam, translated by Wilson as "supreme station".

According to Dandekar..

Also, want to note that adding the Rigveda verse details is only to specify where/how Vishnu is mentioned in RV, which Dandekar also supports indirectly when he says "Rgvedic god Visnu". Also, I see that Dandekar's Bibliography (p. 9501) includes this source that discusses RV paramam padam on page 33. So scholars do acknowledge mention of Vishnu in RV, and the sentence is only to clarify the background - not to challenge Dandekar's thesis.

Asteramellus (talk) 22:16, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Move of Bhandarkar details in notes

@Joshua Jonathan I see some details I had added were moved to notes. Seems these details are important for the section and other scholars' views are discussed in similar detail, how do you see this as keeping the section NPOV? Asteramellus (talk) 16:47, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

I added more info from Bhandakar, to expain it better, but the piece of info then became quite long. The essence is that Vishnu is a minor god in the Vedas, and rose to prominence in post-Vedic times, and that's mentioned in the body. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 04:33, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

yes thanks - I saw the additional details added from Bhandarkar in the notes and those can stay there - they do help clarify his position. But "According to Bhandarkar, Vaishnavism formed in the Purnaic period through the identification of Vishnu with Narayana and with Vasudeva-Krishna, following his elevation as the "Supreme Spirit". He suggests that this elevation appears linked to reverence for Vishnu's "third step" or for his "highest place" (paramam pada), described in the Rg Veda as being "seen by the wise" and later reinterpreted in Katha Upanishad as the soul's final goal." is not particularly long and directly explains how Vishnu's elevation occurred according to Bhandarkar (not just the outcome/essence that Vishnu rose to prominence). Asteramellus (talk) 01:16, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

But is that an explanation, or a description? NB: there's a longer description (...) of this at Vishnu#Vedas. I'll take another look at Bhandakar; it's actually a relevant question: why Vishnu? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 04:19, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

I've copied info from Vaishnavism, but there's someting odd about the soirces: Macdonnell is from 1898, Bhandarkar from 1913, and Gonda from 1954. What do more recent sorces say about this? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 08:41, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Ah, yes: Gonda p.2 rejects the importance of Vishnu's 'highest place'... Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 08:51, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks Joshua - don't want to spend too much time discussing this, but Gonda engaging with those details seems to show the importance of Bhandarkar's interpretation? And Gonda's views can also be added along with Bhandarkar's. - we already have extensive details from other scholars, and this detail seems relevant in this section's body. Asteramellus (talk) 00:13, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

Gonda concludes that Vishnu may have been more important to Aryan and non-Aryan 'masses' of the early Vedic times, implying (I suppose; would have to read it again) that this better explains the rise of Vishnu. So, yes, with that info added to it it becomes more due. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:53, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

Image update

I would humbly state that we have better options for the main image, as there are genuine ancient sculptures of Vishnu at several renowned Museums as below: 1. English: The Hindu God Vishnu in his Emanation as Narayana at Los Angeles County Museum of Art. His consorts are at his side, Lakshmi (beneath the elephant) and Sarasvati (holding the Eka-tantri vina). Info from museum: The Hindu God Vishnu in his Emanation as Narayana, Bangladesh, circa 1000 Sculpture 2. Hindu God Vishnu with Consorts on Mount Garuda 3. Hindu God Vishnu Sculpture from India, Tamil Nadu, 13th century in LA Museum of Art

Please discuss, if needed. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 09:22, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

We can place the previous image in some appropriate section in the article

Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 09:38, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm personally not a fan of the new image; a statue is generally less illustrative than an artistic representation (it gives no sense of Vishnu's colour, for one thing). It's also mislabelled in the caption -- 13th century AD, not 10 AD! Dāsānudāsa (talk) 20:39, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Well, we can discuss the new image and look for a reasonable replacement if we find a better one. Generally, Statues or Sculptures are more widely used as Wikipedia's main image on many similar religious articles, as they are more objective. An artist's representation is highly subjective and often debatable as the main image on Wikipedia, which aims to have objective encyclopedic content, unless the artist is highly regarded and there is wide agreement among Wiki editors.

We can discuss any of the 3 statues presented above, or a very well-regarded artist's image. The previous artist's image that was replaced was highly debatable and did not represent Vishnu in a fair or objective manner. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 03:15, 11 March 2026 (UTC)\

Also, "Vishnu's color" may be a debatable aspect, too, though I am happy to consider a good painting. RogerYg (talk) 03:26, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Well, I can agree to bring the artist's representation, "vishnu and lakshmi" from "Vishnuism and Krishnaism" section up as the main image, as I think it is a fair and agreeable representation.

I would also like you to consider Mount Garuda sculpture

Let me know which one you prefer as the main image, the "Vishnu and Lakshmi" representation or the Mount Garuda sculpture. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 03:33, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

I think we can agree on this reasonabley good "Vishnu and Lakshmi" artist representation, instead of the Sculpture. I have made the replacement accordingly. Ofcourse, we can discuss further if needed. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 04:04, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

No concensus reverted last version which related to img further img already in sub pages now present img traditional refers to vaishnavism where devotee pray vishnu. ~2026-15590-82 (talk) 17:26, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

I think an iconographic sculpture of Vishnu or "Vishnu and Lakshmi" image suggested by RogerYg (which is already on the page, and can be moved up) might be a better representation. Asteramellus (talk) 22:19, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi Asteramellus (talk), I agree with you that iconographic sculpture of Vishnu is better representation. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 02:15, 12 March 2026 (UTC)