Talk:Ramanuja

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sources for Ramanuja and the overall structure of this particular article.[edit]

I have identified plenty of sources for Ramanuja many written in English. They all are reputed authors, referenced and published and freely available on archives/ forgotten books or other sites for download and studying.

With this I propose to alter the structure for this article to reflect what various biographies and commentators have recorded about his life since his lifetime and subsequently as well. This would include the key events in his life during his education and his interaction with various gurus, Move to Sri Rangam from Kanchi, His travels to obtain the commentary of Bhodayana Vridhi to write his Sri Bhashyam, his struggles his flight to Melkote and establishment of Vaishnava temples there and subsequent return to Sri Rangam, His principle disciples and their composition on Ramanuja. His Successors.

There are contentious topics right from the authorship to philosophy. Such topics can be discussed under the same relevant heading after recording the accepted version of his Life. That way this article will do a full justice to the subject.

BTW also managed to find a book on Iconography which describes the usual posture for Ramanuja. (This was deleted for want of proper source of reference).

Fellow editors / Contributors a couple of questions for you all

a) Do you want me to record the name of the book or you want me to include the link as well. (you good google it up)

b) If you have anything else to add to the approach described above let me know.

Padmavasantha (talk) 12:00, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If the sources meet WP:RS guidelines, they would be welcome. Expect WP:SPS, WP:QUESTIONABLE and similar non-reliable sources, such as hagiographies published by monasteries linked to him to get challenged. This applies to both Tenkalai or Vadakalai sub-traditions. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:15, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Have uploaded the possible sources which I am going to use for this article in this link. All of them are in English. Have not included the regional language ones. All are freely available on the web. https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0B3Pnee_VmVf7VU42bDhKT1ZCcG8.

All of the them adequately fulfill the purpose of source material. Any mismatch with wiki source requirement may be highlighted.

Padmavasantha (talk) 15:59, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also when I go through the biography section I find some misleading and false information based on some book published in 2012. They are Yamunachariar miraculously rose after seeing Ramanuja. It is never there in any source. All it is stated is that the three fingers were folded as if he was holding something. Eventhough Ramanuja had never met him in person he recognised this anamoly and questioned if there were any last wishes expressed by the Acharya. The disciples spoke of three important unfulfilled wishes Yamuncharya had openly expressed. Right there Sri Ramnuja swore to fulfill them. On hearing his promise the three fingers straightened. Other than that no interaction.

My point is can you put up a scanned copy of this sources somewhere as also the one that claims Gadya Trayam was not written by him. It is not possible to even see what is written in the source. And how can we take all of this as true value for the article. When there is so much material available to contradict it.

This is why I raised the POV issue here in the first place. Sources which are trying to portray Ramanuja in a poor light seems to be taken as the main source of referece.

Padmavasantha (talk) 16:08, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are very old sources, some ~100 years old. Please see WP:HISTRS and avoid rewinding scholarship clock back to the colonial era. Please consider using more recent reviews and peer-reviewed second sources. My response may appear discouraging, that is not my intent. We need to respect wikipedia community agreed content policies and guidelines. On POV allegations, just because you disagree with a WP:RS published in 2012, or you allege "no text states so", does not make you more reliable than the WP:RS and the professor who wrote what you disagree with. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:20, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Have read the guidelines on historical references. And it doesnt disqualify the materials over hundred years to be used as a reference.

There is a reason for using them. Because all of them have studied the original literatures and commentaries. They have offered the translations and the interpretations and accepted the same. Most of the subsequent material are drawn of the references and act as a crtique on them rather than actually providing the recorded history. It is very important to have the critical response. But what are these critical responses attacking or analyzing is lost. This is not a Geographical or Science content where we have new technology developments everyday. So the public have to know the base content, Who is Ramanuja, Who were his perceptors (he had many and their roles), Who were his disciples, What are the works attributed to him, What are the primary content of those, The primary philosophical principle of those, Commentators of his works, Importance of Melkote where tradtions established by the Acharya continues unlike Sri Rangam which suffered disturbances and Conjeevaram which had a setback.

There are other books for which pdfs not available online, but publishers name and reference can be provided (in english not even involving the vernacular literature here).

The second part of the article will include the modern crtiques of the same. and any rebuttals that are available in the published books.

The guiding factor for any historian is to get as close to reality or truth. That means not burying the known facts and informations.

So I will be going ahead with the editing and we will sort out issues as we go.

Padmavasantha (talk) 01:01, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reverts[edit]

I've reverted all but one edit by KaustubhHareKrishna as being unconstructive, but let's go through them one by one:

  • diff: removal of sourced info; adding a reference at top of the page
  • diff: changed Modern scholarship [...] Scholars into Non-hindu or western scholarship [...] such scholars, edit-summary I specified the type of scholar which has shown disbelief in Ramanuja miracles; unacceptable pov-pushing
  • diff: idem
  • diff: removal of sourced info
  • diff: removal of sourced info
  • diff: removal of sourced info; offensive edit-summary:

Anti-hindu blasphemous content removed. Ramanuja can't be compared to any mortal of the mlecchas (non-Indian, barbarian) societies. He is a transcendental being messenger of Lord Vishnu and not some meat eating, wine drinking Christian "free thinker".

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:37, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote this there. Did you read?

Blasphemous content undermining the hindu faith removed. It is obvious that a holy prophet's miracles are discredited by modern science. Thus why mention that they are unbelievable. As if though Christ's exorcisms and Mohammed's flying to the moon on horseback need be mentioned as being discredited by scientists and emphiric or modern scholars. So why mention it at all in the context of a holy prophet of a religion. It is but obvious that any empiricist will disagree with an account of a prophet's "miracles".

 :KaustubhHareKrishna (talk) 09:35, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is an encyclopedia, not a faith-manual. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:56, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Another Discussion[edit]

Regarding sudden change in Birth date after this revision, Pinging, Hi, I noticed that you reverted my edits. Anyway, I wants to discuss this here as most of the sources supports the Traditional Date of Birth , i.e 1017 ce. As far as my consent, there are 3 proposed dates, 1.)c.1016-1100(?)ce- [1] 2.) c.1177-1157 ce-[2] which is changed ago some days. 3=Traditional dates=c.1017-1137ce [3],[4], [5], [6] - this is the most attributed DOB which is followed including the textbooks and many Encyclopedia like [this encyclopedia uses]. So, The Date of Birth should not have changed without big consensus. Hence, I'm rechanging the original dates. Please check other Library too.

References

  1. ^ Diane Collinson, Kathryn Plant, Robert Wilkinson (2013). Fifty Eastern Thinkers. Routledge. ISBN 9781134631513.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  2. ^ Ramanuja and Schleiermacher: Toward a Constructive Comparative Theology. 2012. p. 20. ISBN 9780227900352.
  3. ^ The Life of Râmânujâchârya: The Exponent of the Viśistâdvaita Philosophy. Harvard University. 2008. pp. =last worked page of the book.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link)
  4. ^ https://doi.org/10.1163%2F9789004432802_010
  5. ^ https://books.google.com/books?id=9SpTAQAAQBAJ
  6. ^ https://books.google.co.in/books?id=ZP_f9icf2roC&pg=PA904&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4064:2b81:e060:4518:b8a9:c74:7c4e (talk) 13:22, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @ChandlerMinh, I believe you're the one who made the changes [1]? Also maybe @Reo kwon — DaxServer (t · c) 20:38, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The traditional sources give 1017 CE as the birth year, but based on modern research scholars place him from 1077 CE. You can refer to the sources which were already cited on the page. The sources you gave are based on traditional accounts and have not looked at the dating of his life in a critical fashion. Reo kwon (talk) 23:09, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tamil vs. Indian[edit]

The article mentions that Ramanuja was an 'Indian' Hindu philosopher, but this term 'Indian' is largely used to refer to nationals of the state of India. Ramanuja was a pre-modern philosopher.

This characterization is misleading also takes away from his Tamil identity, which is a term he would have identified with. Bangarukodipetta (talk) 17:12, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If the sources say he's an "Indian philosopher", we write it as "Indian philosopher". If the sources say he's a "Tamil philosopher", we write it as "Tamil philosopher". Have you read what the inline citations say? Also, Indian Hindu philosopher sounds more natural in encyclopedia. --WikiLinuz {talk} 19:38, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your first few points. But something sounding more 'natural' does not give it more credence. Bangarukodipetta (talk) 05:19, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
By your logic, we would be unable to call him a Hindu as well. For the purposes of an encyclopedia, I believe these terms are appropriate, especially since the rest of the article makes it quite clear that he was born before 1947. Chronikhiles (talk) 01:19, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
'Hindu' is valid here since it is a category of traditions, whereas 'Indian' is ultimately a term used to denote nationality.
Would we call Porus 'Pakistani' for the sole reason that his kingdom lies in what is now Pakistan? Bangarukodipetta (talk) 05:24, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wiktionary defines Indian as, "Of or relating to India or its people". It is commonly used to refer to citizens of the Republic of India, yes, but this definition is by no way exclusive. Chronikhiles (talk) 06:40, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But in modern usage, it is. Bangarukodipetta (talk) 01:57, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think Tamil-Indian philospher stands better at the usage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.230.162.93 (talk) 02:39, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The edits and this discussion were started by a long term disruptive sock engaging in bad faith derailment. I have struck these comments. Gotitbro (talk) 08:38, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Birthdate[edit]

i have replaced the Birth and death dates with the one that aligns with modern Scholars. There is no reason to trust traditional dated over this. SKAG123 (talk) 04:24, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ramanuja&oldid=1211122795"