Vishnu Shashranama Bhisma Uvaccha 19th sloka
yāni nāmāni gauṇāni vikhyātāni mahātmanaḥ |
ṛṣibhiḥ parigītāni tāni vakṣyāmi bhūtaye || 19 ||
Those famous names of the Great Soul which bring out His manifold qualities celebrated by rishs (seers) I shall declare for the good (of all).
with the above we infer that Names describes Gods qualities or Gunas. Now Chandyogya upanishad says
Lords Guna and Swarroopa(form of Lord)are not different.
With this we can say for sure that Lords Name -> Lords Guna -> Swaroopa of Lord
Lords Name = Lord himself By logic one can infer from the above.
Sanatkumara reply to Narada
Sa yo nama brahmeti upaste yavan-namno gatam, tatrasya yatha kamacaro bhavati yo nama brahmetyupaste’sti, bhagavah, namno bhuya iti; namno vava bhuyo’stiti, tan-me bhagavan bravitviti.
Whoever contemplates ‘name’ as Brahman, which means to say, whoever regards the object of meditation as absolute, gains whatever that object includes within its gamut. The principle of meditation is this: whatever the object of your meditation be, that has to be taken as absolute. There should not be anything external to it, because if the mind conceives something higher than that particular object, then that higher thing becomes the object of meditation. The point is that the object that you have chosen for your meditation should be the last point of the reach of your mind, beyond which it cannot go. Then it becomes the absolute. So this absolute is only a name that we give to the best possible reach of the mind in any level or degree of experience. ‘Name is Brahman’—this means name is the absolute, inasmuch as we are in a realm of names only. Why should we not take the higher degree as the absolute, and not the lower one? Because the higher one cannot be the content of the mind in its present state. Suppose we are asked to meditate on the heavenly regions. We cannot, because we do not know what it means. The heavenly regions are beyond the reach of the mind. We will only superimpose physical pictures of our imagination on paradise, Brahma-loka, etc. This is not what is intended. We must limit ourselves to the extent of our knowledge, and complete the meditation regarding that particular object as absolute in itself. So, Narada was asked to take ‘name’ as the absolute. The result of this meditation on name is that to the extent name goes—to the extent of the reach of the mind theoretically, conceptually—to that extent, the meditator will be free.