Kranditri Wiki:IFLA Library Reference Model

if

(isA) entity PERSON “ ” isA AGENT

then

(LRM-R5 through R11) entities WORKs, EXPRESSIONs, MANIFESTATIONs, and ITEMs may be created, manufactured, distributed, owned, and/or modified by “PERSON who isA AGENT:” “;” (R14) PA may assign NOMEN; (R30) PA may be a member of COLLECTIVE AGENT

so

PERSON  his self now chooses to be AGENT “” and then as such assign the NOMEN “ ” to what he is now identifying as being his own self

then

(LRM-R1) entities: PERSON , AGENT , and NOMEN are inter-associative

will use language that ordinary PERSONs use, but also while learning the language of this IFLA Library Reference Model

Agni’s initial Vaiṣṇavism
Entity as AGENT, playing by some of the bibliographic rules given by the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA), further assigns the NOMEN “” to his (my) self with a motive toward becoming a stronger winner in an intra-Solar though trans-(intra-)Earthly game many call “Veda,” which is Sanskrit for “wisdom.” Being some type of Agni, I will then proceed to correct my own bibliographic relativity, a type of affair which I think derives its type of strength distinguishably by the blessings of Earth itself, inward as it is of the adjacent though almost as strong Venus, a noble planet which gives us the alternative likes of Vaiṣṇavism, legislation, and education to work with in our universe building games. “Who is Agni?” here on Earth was a question I believe was quickly enough put to Jesus two thousand years ago, but late-Piscean America is a different playing field, and the very mild (low first level) identity of Agni is something like drowned in the context of the power wielded by (upper second level) Vaiṣṇavism, which is the prominent simplicity in a more second-level world than Jesus’ was.

In his time, Jesus had a type of adjacency comforting his wisdom (think Mary Magdalene / Svāhā), such that he could play further with the notion of regal identity than the surviving human might today. Not as far, maybe, as did his Akhenaten a thousand years before him, nor with furtherations such as were motivated as Brahmā a thousand years after, but his own relationship with God above was a luxury to neglect in those days compared to what keeps a soul alive in our present level of conflict. If I think myself to be Agni here and now, I had gosh dern better know very, very well how Paraśurāma brought me up here to where I could slowly begin to “merely” worship my Lord Viṣṇu in his manifestation as Vāmana. The important point for me in this is that where Brahmā’s life was elevated in a more heavenly fashion, Akhenaten’s relatively Śaivite existence being a somewhat vertical intermediary between Brahmā-“ness” and Agni-“ness,” where Jesus his self could finally step down from the enthroned life and walk amongst the humble as their truely mere Agni, our own modern Agni now, that a wannabe human would have to give such a significant level of his own livelihood if to try to be, would be so mild as to be more necessarily and directly protected by Viṣṇu from above.

I'm calling the Happy Human a sort of Agni-Viṣṇu character, but in truth Viṣṇu is much stronger compared to what the mildness is whose identity he is protecting. Agni could barely maintain life standing on his own two feet as Jesus two thousand years ago; what could he do in this day and age without his dear Lord Viṣṇu? So the immediacy of bibliographic reparation with the entity  is, if to be a surviving interest, partnered with the notice of Vaiṣṇava qualification. This means genuine devotion to whom Viṣṇu is, in equal measure to one’s own Āgneyist life.

My defense is still such a tight operation that I will easily enough (by Viṣṇu’s grace only) identify myself to any audience, if I need to, as “being” the contending Viṣṇu, but this context is coming from now almost fifty years of studious and practical endeavor to work within truest truth. I can have a conversation discussing aspects of theism and theurgy, and some of the basic how-tos of role-playing gaming; I've put a great deal of surrounding knowledge together into a life that is showing the signs of winning at least its type of “argument (if need be).” However, I am slowly gaining the sense of safety whereby I can be more of whom and what merely Agni (though here an especially Vaiṣṇava Agni) is, and it is my preference to do so wherever I find such opportunity.

So what type of entity is Viṣṇu?
I can work with my as being a PERSON and with  as being an AGENT, though now I've made them associative RES. Where can I go from here, and how do I best reference Viṣṇu? If “being an agent requires having, or having had, the potential of intentional relationships with instances of entities of bibliographic interest (works, expressions, manifestations, items), whether that specific agent has ever done so or not;” and “human beings are directly or indirectly the motive force behind all such actions taken by all agents,” then how do I classify Viṣṇu?

Definition of the word agent
IFLA LRM defines agent as “an entity capable of deliberate actions, of being granted rights, and of being held accountable for its actions.” Wiktionary’s etymology of the word gives that it is: “from Latin agēns, present active participle of agere (‘to drive, lead, conduct, manage, perform, do’), from Proto-Italic *agō, from Proto-Indo-European *h₂éǵeti, thematic root verb of the root *h₂eǵ-, ‘to drive.’” Summarily: intention, deliberation, force, and drive are the words I'm associating with what role the entity of agent plays.

In my own way I can easily see how Viṣṇu as God has seemed to be like what an agent might be, but in the context of better standards of judgment I should make sure I know what that more exactly means. I have not met a such a man named Viṣṇu in what many think of as being the ordinary sense. I've read books, worshiped temple deities, enjoyed drug-related perceptions, stared at the Sun while thinking I was seeing God, etc., but if I am to improve my bibliographic strength, I ought to use some intellect to address possible audience.

Relation to WORK
IFLA gives logical discussion to the relationships of work, expression, manifestation, and the ownership and modification of item by agent. LRM says that “a work is an abstract entity that permits the grouping of expressions that are considered functional equivalents or near equivalents. A work is a conceptual object, no single material object can be identified as the work.” An expression, then, is described as being a still “abstract entity distinct from the carriers used to record it:” its manifestations. In the table immediately above, I show my opinion that works are slightly subtler than exist within visible space, and that their expressions begin to approach the crossing of abstract boundaries into the place where manifestation develops. The manifestation entity is called “an abstract entity which is a set,” where concreteness is found in the item’s attribute of location. The beginnings of concreteness maybe are found in the manifestation being attributed the category of carrier (through space and time-span, I would imagine), but place and item do both share the standardized option of attribute location.

“The relationships between works, expressions, manifestations, and items are the core of the (IFLA LRM) model. Implementing other relationships is encouraged, since they enable exploration and discovery and are very important for end-users.” The forward process of creation, distribution, modification, etc. seems to be a significant emphasis, but abstraction is mentioned as a valid consideration, by which to trace the causative entities within the relativity.

In my own relationship with Viṣṇu and with Vaiṣṇavism, I have interacted with many agents, and the items they were distributing from their manifestations of expression. The name (NOMEN if we like) Viṣṇu (विष्णु) is, “according to the traditional explanation a derivation from the root विवेष्टि (√viṣ, ‘to pervade’), thus originally meaning ‘All-pervader’ or ‘Worker.’” √viṣ is defined by Monier-Williams: “to be active, act, do, work, perform; to be quick, speed, run, flow (as water); to work as a servant, serve; to have done with i.e. overcome, subdue, rule; to be contained in,” and so we can see that the NOMEN, at least,  “works” very well with the abstraction of causation even in a bibliographical consideration of our universe and its possible God. If ITEM  is owned by PERSON  who isA AGENT  who has assigned NOMEN  to his own, and then PERSONalist AGENT  begins to read his  with an abstractive interest, he might eventually trace a certain manufacturing and distribution process all the way back to the NOMEN <Viṣṇu>, even while maintaining this own sense of already developed theism.

Sanctification of NOMEN
The holy names of Viṣṇu are very important to a practicing Vaiṣṇava. The relations between AGENT and WORK are important within a certain bibliographical motivation, but the development of temporal harmony and purity of devotion to the holiness or sanctity of divine nomenclature becomes justifiable once personalism allows the person to judge for his or her own self the relative values of the working aspect of Vaiṣṇavism and its respect for names. If PERSONalist AGENT <Agni>, having been reading his ITEM <Bhagavad-Gītā As It Is>, develops an interest in knowing what type of PERSON <Viṣṇu> his self would be, <Agni> even agreeing with some of the preachings of the associative PERSONalist Vaiṣṇava AGENTs who distribute MANIFESTATION <Prabhupada’s books>, then after years of submission (servitude is the more correct term) <Agni> might review the statement, “implementing other relationships is encouraged, since they enable exploration and discovery and are very important for end-users,” and make up his own mind to try this processing another way.

I can probably elaborate my sense of the how-to of some of this, but I'm getting the idea that some of Earth’s audience would be getting the idea also that some of the games that even have rulebooks to go with them are actually winnable. So now I have two NOMENs to WORK with in my pursuit of PERSONalism: the NOMEN of self <Agni> and the NOMEN of God <Viṣṇu>. I can proceed with salvation, even as a neophyte devotee of bibliographic standardization.

Where is Vaikuṇṭha?
Initially, Wiktionary defines वैकुण्ठ as “1. (Hinduism) The paradise or heaven, abode of Vishnu.” Monier-Williams helps further: “Viṣṇu’s heaven (variously described as situated in the northern ocean or on the eastern peak of Mount Meru),” and also gives that the word is from vi-kuṇṭha, which is constructed from the prefix vi- (two) and the root √kuṇṭh: “to be lame or mutilated or blunted or dulled; to be lazy or stupid; to cover, conceal (cf. √guṇṭh); (cf. ava-kuṇṭhana).” √guṇṭh means “to enclose or envelop, surround, cover” and in researching these related roots and their derivatives, I'm consistently finding words like: enclosing, enveloping, covering, concealing, veiling; and also pounded and ground. Kuṇṭha, to me, sounds very much like the traditional nature of the material world to which many of us have descended from the likes of the Garden of Eden.

Vaikuṇṭha is that world which is distinguishable from (usually thought of as being above) its neighboring kuṇṭha. Basest level of the universe is often cosmogonically associated with the earthy element (dust), which halfway down into the concealed darkness (dullness) could easily be thought of as broken down (pounded). Levels of godliness are found in many religious literatures, but Viṣṇu seems to specify being close to us. I think of and worship Him as being the (upper-)second or planetary level God, his associative identities Rāma and Sūrya-Nārāyaṇa being a third or Solar level to his identity complex. So much of this exploration of ideas is just theism, but I'm trying to reason through my particular type of interest in some of the principles of bibliographic reality.

The questionable identification of Vaikuṇṭha as an LRM entity PLACE is challenged within the scope notes for the definition of the entity name: “Imaginary, legendary or fictional places are not instances of the place entity,” and “The entity place, as relevant in a bibliographic context, is a cultural construction; it is the human identification of a geographic area or extent of space. Places are usually identified through a physical object (a geographical feature or a man-made object), or due to their relevance with regards to a particular agent (geopolitical entities such as countries, cities), or as the location of an event.” I can progress my own story of interest within said guidelines, but am considering that Vaikuṇṭha may be a place that does exist for the humans (persons) who live there, even though there are limitations on the visual access, from our base level of life, and therewith quality of reference made by persons like me.

As a Vaiṣṇava theist, I may allow for Viṣṇu’s world Vaikuṇṭha to communicate with me if and how it chooses, but for my own purposes of justification and salvation, I'm best honoring the factuality of relevant information as being imaginary or legendary at best. I have at times thought psychonautical exploration was transporting me as a visitor to the realm of Vaikuṇṭha, and I can very easily find persons like myself who are ready to argue the factuality of Viṣṇu’s PERSON and sanctity of his NOMEN.

I can defend my being a PERSON, even at my own level of life, and I can choose any NOMEN I like, whether I get a legal name change or not, so I can bibliograph myself as being the PERSONal AGENT whose self-assigned NOMEN is <Agni>, and I can defend an inter-associative RES relationship with the NOMEN <Viṣṇu>, where I can say my own belief is that he too, in his world, is a PERSON like we are in ours; but I decisively am going to bibliographically include him as a RES entity of utmost significance in my own life, and whose attributes I intend to further research and develop. I can defend a type of identification between myself and <Viṣṇu>, but really, truly, the context is very exactly like that of an actor who is choosing to play with a characterization he looks up to including as being thoroughly distinguishable from the self of the actor. I just have to learn the right language for my classification.