Talk:Mahavishnu

	Hinduism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hinduism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HinduismWikipedia:WikiProject HinduismTemplate:WikiProject HinduismHinduism articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

India Low‑importance

	India portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Concluding Bhakti is superior to Yoga looks exaggerated[edit]

So bhakti (loving devotion) goes to Bhagavan, Krishna or Rama for instance (avatars or incarnations of Vishnu, Narayana). In this way, bhakti surpasses even yoga, which is aimed at the Supersoul, Paramatma.

The conclusion looks exaggerated and isn't obvious. It looks more like a propaganda view point.--Nckalyan (talk) 13:42, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

From what I have read of Bhaktis and Yogis, I always had the impression that Bhaktis were somewhat more powerful than Yogis. Is there a good source to read about the distinctions between the two? 50.72.32.218 (talk) 13:14, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

About reverted.[edit]

@Dāsānudāsa

Im devotee of vishnu, i know the truth, are you read Bhagavata purana, read first Bhagavatam before reverted, This statement belongs to (iskcon), gaudiya vaishnavism philoshopy, not in orginal bhagavatam, i already added deleted content in gaudiya vaishnavism sub article, I kindly request to plz dont again reverted, i never again edit wiki by sectarian bias. This is last. 2409:4071:D41:5B96:396B:22D3:4F57:8288 (talk) 12:13, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Im [sic] devotee of vishnu" is not a reliable source, unfortunately. Do you have any other arguments for why we should be removing sourced information from this article? Dāsānudāsa (talk) 13:45, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dāsānudāsa

This statement belongs to Gaudiya Vaishnavaism (iskcon) , not found in literature in Bhagavatam, add this statement in Gaudiya Vaishnavaism sub article, Very sad see to this in literature.plz add, Here is proof link check it 👇

https://bekrsnaconscious.blogspot.com/2018/10/lord-krishnas-expansions-and.html 2409:4071:D41:5B96:7130:A76D:4F8:D0BF (talk) 04:55, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A blogspot link is not a WP:reliable source. Dāsānudāsa (talk) 12:48, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dāsānudāsa

What need reliable source, just understand concept, Mahavishnu is aspect of Vishnu behind human comprehension, beyond him there is no truth, sage vyasa also confirm this in Bhagavatam literature, Srimad Bhagavatam clearly mentioned that Krishna is Avatar of Vishnu only not vice versa, is Vaishnava traditions only Gaudiya Vaishnavaism which means iskcon says that Krishna is not Avatar, he is himself avatari he is supreme being from his expansion balaram first expansion from balram comes sankarshan, this is most ridiculous philosophy which iskcon belief, even as per this article Mahavishnu is beyond human comprehension then how he comes from expansion, by unknowninlgly someone add in literature , but this philosophy only belongs to Gaudiya Vaishnavaism not in mainstream, beleive me, or discuss you another by consensus, I kindly request you to plz add this statement to Gaudiya Vaishnavaism sub article, plz beleive truth,

This statement didn't found in entity Srimad Bhagavatam, this philosophy is iskcon philosophy,why you can't accept the truth? I never use Wiki once again, once you add this,belive.

So many reliable source found in as per this statement add by it,

Just plz add in Gaudiya Vaishnavaism article 2409:4071:D80:9BFB:C417:5F8D:B684:8FB6 (talk) 01:09, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It needs a reliable secondary source, otherwise it's just your original research, which isn't allowed. Please familiarise yourself with WP:SOURCE. Dāsānudāsa (talk) 11:46, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]