On Internet, I came across this text today(highlighted portion).
In case the picture is not loading, here is the text which is written in the image
The Vedas declare that God is fully present in His Name itself. He has put all His powers in His Name. So, He is present in the same form in His Name as He is in Vrindavan!
Can someone kindly provide some scriptural references? I would be thankful.
Sri Krishna says in the Gita chapter 10 verse 25 (Swami Nikhilananda translator):
Of the great rishis I am Bhrigu, and of words I am the monosyllable "Om." Of sacrifices I am the sacrifice of japa; of immovable things I am the Himalaya.
The Katha Upanishad I.ii.15-17 says (Swami Gambhirananda translator):
I tell you briefly of that goal which all the Vedas with one voice propound, which all the austerities speak of, and wishing for which people practice Brahmacharya. It is this, viz Om.
This letter (Om), indeed, is the (inferior) Brahman (Hiranyagarbha); and this letter is, indeed, the supreme Brahman. Anybody, who, (while) meditating on this letter, wants any of the two, to him comes that.
This medium is the best; this medium is the supreme (and the inferior) Brahman. Meditating on this medium, one becomes adorable in the world of Brahman.
And Patanjali says in his Yoga Sutras I.27-28 (Swami Vivekananda translator):
His manifesting word is Om.
The repetition of this (Om) and meditating on the meaning (is the way).
Well, it is very obvious that the sentence is from an ISKCON website. The language and wording is so typical of them.
If you're looking for scriptural references for those words exactly, you may not find any.
But there are equivalent statements praising the name as a way of meditating on the deity.
Examples:
Rig Veda 10.5.2c:
ऋतस्य पदं कवयो नि पान्ति गुहा नामानि दधिरे पराणि
The sages protect the state of the Truth, they carry the highest secret names.
Rig Veda 4.58.2a:
वयं नाम प्र ब्रवामा घृतस्यास्मिन्यज्ञे धारयामा नमोभिः
We say the name of the Ghrtam, we worship (or meditate on) it with obeisances.
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.
chrome-extension://oemmndcbldboiebfnladdacbdfmadadm/https://www.swami-krishnananda.org/chhand/Chhandogya_Upanishad.pdf
