Talk:Iyengar

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

Religious observances

[edit]

A lot of details are missing in this section. I tried to make changes and provided citations for all. But the page has been reverted to old version

As a complete outsider I have to say the section on weddings was absolutely non-informative: a string of content-free words akin to "The Montillation of Traxoline"... DaveRusin (talk) 14:16, 14 December 2015 (UTC)DaveRusin[reply]

Common Origins Section

[edit]

Why is a fraud like Abraham Eraly bing quoted on Iyengars or Brahmins? He knows neither Iyengar customs, genetics info or Hindu religion.Converts/ missinoaries/ leftist nuts need to stop interfering in Brahmin affairs. This is not their expertise and they ned to lay off. If this continues even Kumarai Kandam and other Dravidian fraud myths will be presented as scientific fact in Wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.206.127.212 (talk) 11:59, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sitush, please consider changing the sentence "All three men were Tamils, although Ramanuja documented his thoughts in Sanskrit" to "All three men were born in Tamilnadu. Ramanuja documented his thoughts in Sanskrit". --Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 18:26, 20 February 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra[reply]

Why?--2.219.218.79 (talk) 18:35, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Because it is perhaps more accurate to say they were born in Tamilnadu? Just a suggestion though. Thanks.--Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 19:55, 20 February 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra[reply]
Hm. I think "Tamilnadu" could cause problems because of confusion with the modern state of the same name but different geographical scope. Tamilnadu was not a formal region as far as I am aware but was recognised to include bits of what is now Kerala - the word means something like "place where the Tamils live". Do we have an article for the old region? I'm working off my general knowledge here from wide reading here, not specific sources. Is this yet another seemingly rather pointless issue that really relates to the ethnic squabbles between you and Hari? Is someone worried that "Tamils" will be construed as "people of Tamil ethnicity"? I wish I could understand why it is you both lay so much stress on that issue, which is a completely nebulous subject at the best of times. It comes across as POV pushing of some sort but precisely why and what underlies the POVs is beyond me, I'm afraid. People have been topic banned for less and if I cannot understand it then I'm pretty sure most people without a specific interest in Indic subjects will not.

I think that perhaps you and Hari need both to lay your cards on the table regarding whatever the underlying dispute may be.--2.219.218.79 (talk) 17:24, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, if all three birthplaces are in modern TN then we could say "... were born in the present-day state of Tamil Nadu". As I said when I added the footnote listing the various places, I've not been able to locate one of them.--2.219.218.79 (talk) 17:35, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It was just a suggestion Sitush. In terms of accuracy perhaps "...present-day state of Tamil Nadu" would be better. However, it can get confusing if we attempt to relate it to previous centuries. Southern Andhra at one point formed part of Tamilakam; though later it was a separate kingdom of Andhrapatha / Vadugavalli. The 3 men in question were not born in the classical age of Sangam period so we cannot use the term Tamilakam. Then the region was divided into territories or kingdoms of Pandya, Chola, Chera, Pallava, Ganga, etc. I agree its difficult to co-relate present day state borders to old day kingdoms or cultural divisions. Thanks. --Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 23:57, 21 February 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra[reply]
I had no such thing as 'ethnicity' in my mind while speaking of this Sitush. Thanks. --Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 23:59, 21 February 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra[reply]
Ouch! It is getting still more complex. One of Hari's sources does refer to "Chola country" but whether it is one-sided or not, there is a subtext here. I'd say that is pretty obvious even if obscure in its detail. Perhaps you know what it is but probably it is more wise to allow Hari to respond.--2.219.218.79 (talk) 00:20, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reply-to Sitush
Perhaps "...were born in what is today known as Tamil Nadu" would meliorate the sentence. My source says "Nathamuni was from a domiciled North Indian family of the chola country". If at all mentioning their birth places serves the purpose, i don't see anything wrong about mentioning what my source says. It doesn't contradict the contents of your source anyway. See below for the list of corrections to be made -
  • The section's title "Common Origin" is pretty vague while its contents speak of philosophical origins. The subsects haven't been formally introduced yet, and the section describes the laying of foundation by the saints. Changing it to "Philosophical Origins" would be apt coz the current title is likely to be mistaken for something else, by hasty readers. I know how the viewers from India would interpret this, hence..........
  • Ramanuja was a brahmin and hence documented his thoughts in sanskrit, which is part of brahmanical tradition. The sentence "...however he documented his thoughts in sanskrit" could be misleading. Sriperumbudur being Ramanuja's birth place is not an indicator of a tamil background. You've made a lot of assumptions in that area. Making it as "Ramanuja documented his works in sanskrit (without however)" would be better.
  • The terminology "Brahmin Tamil" is applicable to both the Iyengar and Iyer dialects. The Iyer variant alone is not brahmin tamil by default. None of them are sourced anyway. According to the brahmin tamil wiki pg, both SriV & smartha variants have been listed. "Brahmin Tamil" is just a vague & loose term that is applicable to all brahmin dialects of Tamil Nadu, and not just the iyer/smartha variant. Subject knowledge is very essential to resolve these minor inconsistencies, otherwise the part "...almost identical to brahmin tamil" is likely to be mistaken for something else. Thank you. Hari7478 (talk) 08:27, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To Sitush, I am opposed to the sub-heading Philosophical Origins. It should remain Common Origins; because that is what it is. Vadakalai and Thenkalai were a common community during the time of Ranamuja. They split into 2 sects only after Ramanuja's time. It appears Hari7478 wants to push the ethnic difference as his edit summary shows. Thanks. --Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 23:51, 23 February 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra[reply]
To Sitush, Have a doubt wrt the sentence "Nathamuni was from a domiciled North Indian family of the chola country". North-Indian means Northern part of Tamil land? Or current Northern India viz., the other side of Vindhyas? If latter, why don't we have the name of the kingdom? Please refer to Chola Country It is the Trichy-Tanjore area. This area is northern part of Tamilakam. So the sentence may simply mean an indian from the northern part of Tamil region i.e., the Chola country. But cannot be sure. I request Hari7478 to find us a source from the Srivaishnava hagiography (perhaps this is detailed in Tamil) which states the name of the northern indian kingdom / territory. Thanks.--Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 00:06, 24 February 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra[reply]
I will respond to all the recent messages more fully tomorrow but, yes, it has been a concern of mine for some time regarding what "north" means and, yes, it has struck me that it may possibly mean the northern Tamil region rather than north India. However, I did see one source that mentioned one of the three spent some time in North India on travels and it did name some of the regions. I'd need to find that again and assess whether the source went any further in terms of linking "North India" to the more usual description of "Northists", "Northern culture", "Northern school" etc. To be honest, this issue is not helped by the poor quality of writing in many of the India-originated sources, which mirror Raghavan's very awkward "X belonged to ..." phrase I mention somewhere above. Indian English is different, sure, but the quality even of academic sources from that country seems to be particularly poor in relation to this subject. - Sitush (talk) 01:52, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Mayasutra, the source says "North Indian", and not "north tamilian/north tamilakam". That's the most stupid assumption i've ever come across. Are you trying to say that India means tamil land?
Since the section speaks of philosophical origins, there's nothing wrong in changing it to a more appropriate title. I'm wondering why you're bringing up the vadakalai thenkalai controversy. The section has mentions on the castes of the 3 saints(incl' nammalvar). A hasty reader is likely to misconstrue it, and we have to make it clear that it's not about ethnic origins. It has nothing to do with the subsects. duh! And the edit summary shows nothing, except i had changed the title to philosophical origins. If you're going to continue making wrong accusations, i may have to report it elsewhere. Hari7478 (talk) 12:40, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am not going to have time today to reply as I promised above, but I will do. Can you verify that they existed as a community using the Iyengar name prior to the advent of Sri V.? - Sitush (talk) 21:58, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, by the way, I do think the source has to be taken at face value in the "domiciled North Indian family" case, although it would be good to have another source that confirms it and so far I've not found one. - Sitush (talk) 22:02, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sitush, so far I have not found one either. If no other source available, I too think these things have to be taken at face value. But i suspect these things are well documented in Srivaishnava hagiography in Tamil. If available, will a Tamil source be acceptable for wiki? WRT your previous post, its not clear since when the term Iyengar was used. As far as Lester's paper (on Sattada SriVaishnavas) goes, the term Iyengar was used by Sattada SriVaishnavas too. So seems SriVaishnava brahmins were not the only people using it. However, not much info is available on this, So we will have to work within what is available to us. Now to Hari. Hari, read my msg again. No case for assumption, instead am expecting Sitush to consider why we do not have the name of the northern indian kingdom; and what else the sentence may mean. It is sheer stupidity to assume stupid assumptions. Your edit summary clearly shows your ethnic expectations. The origins of Vadakalai and Thenkalai are common and that is what Sitush has written with proper references. No need to assume a reader is going to be hasty or misconstrue it. --Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 03:02, 25 February 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra[reply]
To Mayasutra - A common pattern followed across wiki pages is that "Origin" is usually taken for ethnic origins unless otherwise mentioned. Since the section speaks of philosophical origins it rightfully deserves an appropriate heading. Also, there's no formal introduction of the subsects yet(before the common origins section). Please read Wikipedia:Article titles, and it doesn't matter what you and I think.
If the chola region was his ancestral town, they wouldn't have been specific about his north indian origin. However, "North Indian" can only have one meaning unless the author has mentioned north tamilian or whatever. India cannot be the same as tamil land. That being the case i wonder how north indian could be interpreted as north tamilian. As Sitush said, the source has to be taken at face value. I'm looking for another src though.
Reply to Sitush - I'm trying. I need some more time; a day or two(from now). Hari7478 (talk) 12:02, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hari7478, No idea how or what you assume about all wiki pages. Anyways, Vadakalai and Thenkalai were a common group before splitting; so no question of different ethnic origins for these two groups. I expect Sitush to deal with your profound competence with regard to this particular issue (of "ethnic origins") any further. Now coming to the other issue -- of the Chola country. Was only discussing (and agreeing) with Sitush what north may mean; because the term is very subjective and time-based. You say India cannot be the same as tamil land; but the 'country' we call 'India' today did not even exist in the past. If a Pandya writer in 600 BC located in the capital Korkai were to describe someone living in the Chola country (which was located to the north of Pandya Nadu (Pandya country)), he would still use the word 'north'. While Southern Andhra was ruled by Cholas or by feudatories, the case was not so with present day northern Andhra and Kalinga (present day Orissa). Northern Andhra and Kalinga were considered 'north' and is mentioned as such in quite a few books wrt to Tamil expeditions up 'north'. A person of domiciled north 'indian' family could have very well come from NorthernAndhra-Kalinga region to settle in the Chola region of Trichy-Tanjore. So if some other source is available to clarify location (i.e., kingdom of origin) for Nathamuni, it would greatly help. However, as said to Sitush earlier if no other source is available these things have to be taken at face value (and so yes I would accept it as such, though accuracy may be compromised). --Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 14:42, 25 February 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra[reply]
Again, this section is not about ethnic origins. When it speaks of philosophical origins, the title should be appropriate, as per Wikipedia:Article titles. Hari7478 (talk) 01:08, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Philosophical differences cropped up after the time of Ramanuja; leading to the schism and creation of 2 sects, Vadakalai and Thenkalai. So no question of a different philosophical orgin (whatever it means) for these two sects. Sitush has given a correct title of Common Origins. --Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 16:40, 26 February 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra[reply]
Fully agreed, a birthplace does not define your ethnicity. Temporary 1010 (talk) 10:47, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, "all three men were Tamils" is a statement that's assumed. You could just say they were born in modern day Tamil Nadu. Branding a "Tamil" label on historic figures is subjective. Temporary 1010 (talk) 10:51, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not here to argue with you or to win. The section speaks of philosophical origins, not ethnic. As per Wikipedia:Article titles, the section rightfully deserves an appropriate title. Your point may not be understood by a non-iyengar. A stranger to this subject would expect an appropriate title, and may wonder "common to who", especially when there's no formal introduction of the subsects yet. Regardless of how others see it, the section needs to have a title that best describes the section, without bringing in other issues/facts, per Wikipedia:Article titles. That's all that matters here. Hari7478 (talk) 20:37, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If either of you refer to the other as "stupid", query each other's competence or similar again then I'll be looking for an admin to step in. This is becoming extremely tiresome. As far as Tamil etc sources go, your guide is the usual WP:RS plus WP:NOENG. I'd much rather avoid them if possible because there is enough antagonism and linguistic debate going on here in the English language without the pair of you battling it out in some other tongue. - Sitush (talk) 20:55, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Got it. But your sources do not say they're tamils. They were just born in Tamil Nadu. And what about the title(common...) & dialect(language)? Is it possible for me to take this issue, along with that of including sources on genetics, to the ANI page? Hari7478 (talk) 21:44, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We are discussing what to call it, since "Tamil born" and similar causes problems. I'd very much like to see a constructive suggestion from you regarding this. As for the section title, well, I contributed it and I think it is correct and will become more so as the section is expanded, which is my intent. I've no idea what you mean by "dialect (language)": there have been so many words typed here and at numerous other pages by yourself and Mayasutra that it is difficult to keep track, especially when it involves filtering out personal attacks, repetition and similar things. You'll have to dig out a diff for me, sorry.

ANI is not the place to take content disputes. You would need to pursue dispute resolution as you have previously said you would. - Sitush (talk) 21:50, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The section Languages & Dialects - The terminology "Brahmin Tamil" is applicable to both the Iyengar and Iyer dialects. The Iyer variant alone is not brahmin tamil by default. None of them are sourced anyway. According to the brahmin tamil wiki pg, both SriV & smartha variants have been listed. "Brahmin Tamil" is just a vague & loose term that is applicable to all brahmin dialects of Tamil Nadu, and not just the iyer/smartha variant. Subject knowledge is very essential to resolve these minor inconsistencies, otherwise the part "...almost identical to brahmin tamil" is likely to be mistaken for something else. Also, when the section is about philosophical origins, how's the title "common origins" helpful? Do you think a non-iyengar, who has no idea of the subject, will be able to understand? Per Wikipedia:Article titles, "Philosophical Origins" could be the appropriate title. By the way, i'll come up with a constructive suggestion regarding tamil etc, soon. Hari7478 (talk) 22:00, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take a look at the language stuff - that it was unsourced was already known to me but I wasn;t aware that it had been discussed here. With regard to the section naming, please read WP:TE - you are just repeating yourself interminably. You have had responses and seem now to be in the "I didn't hear that" state, which is almost certainly not going to help your cause in dispute resolution.

Finally, since you have yet again raised the issue of Mayasutra's behaviour in this thread, I am going to find that admin. I've had enough of this. - Sitush (talk) 22:23, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was a little frustrated about Mayasutra posting a diff of my edit summary, earlier. I apologize. I'm really sorry. Will come up with more suggestions regarding the issue ie being discussed. Hari7478 (talk) 23:28, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sitush, like you said earlier I give up. Hari7478 first said i made the most stupid assumption he came across and i thot it was sheer stupidity to assume stupid assumptions. I don't think either of us are complaining about that though. Its the content we are complaining about. We've been stuck with that one sentence; and i seriously do not care for accuracy anymore. So please go ahead and decide what you want to do with the sentence and the rest of the content here. My experience with Hari7478 is all forms of talking or reasoning out, out on talk page fail. If he wants to do POV pushing, so be it. But i will keep a watch out if he misquotes sources. That's the only thing i can do. Seriously, its sad to see what indians are coming to. Everywhere its the same story with certain classes --- they are so casteist it makes them hell bent on seeing themselves genetically different from the rest. How much more genetic studies are going to be abused by such people i don't know. It seems, even linguists do not like to be involved when it comes to indian castes. --Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 23:46, 26 February 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra[reply]
I guess i already apologized. Playing victim isn't going to do any good. Again, you're accusing me of things i didn't do. The whole thing started with a new source that i was trying to include. Hope you understand. Thank you. Hari7478 (talk) 23:58, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And you are accusing me of things i did not do -- stop alleging me of playing victim -- your baseless assumptions are getting dumber. New source or old source, its always about (somehow) bringing in the issue of northindian, european and aryan. And i thot i saw only one wannabe-european desperado on familytreedna forum (needless to say he was a 'brahmin'). --Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 00:59, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra[reply]
I guess your comments are beyond reasonable allowance for speculation, while they don't pertain to the discussion. I don't think I discredited your views often, while you've evidently discredited mine & constantly questioned my competence. I can prove my point, but i don't want to, and i've apologized for what happened today. Despite that you're being openly offensive(in my opinion). Even though i was willing to cooperate, your response(in your talk page, sometime back) was evident of your unwillingness. And, yahoo is the only public forum where i enter a group discussion on various topics, and currently i don't live in India. So, you better watch it before alleging me to be someone offwiki. I'm totally flabbergasted by this ungrounded assumption of yours. Hari7478 (talk) 02:09, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Am sorry there is some misunderstanding here -- there was absolutely no intention to allege you of being someone off wiki. I was just lamenting about something i had come across -- WRT this particular point of misunderstanding, i apologize profusely -- am very sorry. --Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 03:20, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra[reply]
There are baseline genetic differences though. Literally every person interested in south asian genetics knows that Brahmins are a genetic outlier to the native populations (except north west India). A simple google search would be enough to educate you on that, without even having to go into the free-to-use genealogy websites.
Other communities may claim whatever, but Brahmins have backing of genetics for their claims due to practices like endogamy for hundreds of years.
I don't know what denying the obvious leaves for you to gain? Temporary 1010 (talk) 10:58, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Getting back to the topic, Sitush asked for a constructive suggestion on "Tamil born", etc. "All three men were born in present day's Tamil Nadu" could be a better alternative. For instance, C. Rajagopalachari(Rajaji) was born in Thorapalli, Madras presidency(present day's TN). The region has had many official names in the past. Either of "present day's TN" or "what's today known as TN" would be right. And, i couldn't find an additional source for "domiciled north indian family". "Anthology on Sanskrit Literature" is the only src, as of now. Hari7478 (talk) 21:15, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that form of wording was suggested as a possible solution earlier. Since even you have been unable to find another source for the North Indian bit, we need to ascertain the reliability of the single source that we have and then, if it is ok, somehow shoehorn the point into the article. I still think it is pretty much irrelevant without some context (why is it significant?), so it might be difficult to do that. - Sitush (talk) 21:59, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[1] - although it doesn't say anything about "domiciled....of the chola region", it says something like "belonged to the north", which follows the sentence "...Kashmir and other parts of north". It says he's from North itself. So, i guess we have to go with that single source(Anthology...). But it helps. Just like how mentioning their birthplaces(present day's tamil nadu) helps a viewer understand "where it was established, and how the prabandhic part was incorporated", Nathamuni's ancestry helps in understanding "the sanskritic tradition of brahmins in general, and the brahmanical form of vaishnavism" which is widespread in North. Hari7478 (talk) 22:19, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've no idea where all your quotes come from and at least one of the - "he's from the North itself" - is clearly ambiguous along the lines we have recently discussed (ie: North of what?). You will have to let me know who you are quoting and what pages numbers. Off the top of my head, I am not convinced but I am prepared to be persuaded. I've already commented on Raghavan and, basically, he has exactly the same problem as you, ie: there is no context and it is a passing mention. - Sitush (talk) 22:33, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't exactly say "he's from North itself", but something like that. See here:[2] - Pg.8, 25th line - It says "there were affiliations between south indian shaivism and vaishnavism and the forms of these two sects are practiced in Kashmir and other parts of North. Saints and scholars like Tirumular & Nathamuni belonged to the North". Hari7478 (talk) 22:56, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, all of those last "quotes" of yours were paraphrases of Raghavan. Well, we are in agreement then: Raghavan is useless for our immediate purposes because the word "belonged" is ambiguous and vaishnavism is not Sri Vaishnavism. So, we are back with the one "domiciled North Indian family" comment. How are you wanting to see that in the article, please, bearing in mind that we should not infer things because that would be weaseling. - Sitush (talk) 07:08, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Probably after the section's opening sentence "...who lived around 900 CE". "He belonged to a domiciled North Indian family of the chola region" would be appropriate. The last line could be changed to "All 3 men were born in present day's Tamil Nadu", followed by "Ramanuja documented his thoughts in sanskrit " without "although". Ramanuja was a brahmin and hence documented his works in sanskrit, which is part of brahmanical tradition. There's no need to add "although". And, please take a look at the "language & dialect" stuff. Thank you. Hari7478 (talk) 19:36, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your proposal re: the single-sourced North Indian connection is technically a violation of copyright but this is one of those instances where I think it would be difficult not to violate. You still have not explained why this might be relevant. And your assessment of Ramanuja vs Sanskrit is original research - there are even people who claim Brahmins were of Dravidian origin, for example. The "although" is significant because the movement was Tamil-based and, in so far as I am aware, is still principally a south Indian belief system. I agree that it is a clumsy phrase but if ever I am given the time to expand the section further then it might make more sense, albeit drifting even further away from what should be the focus of this article. And I think that you know this to be the case, sorry.

I'm not interested in the language and dialect stuff right now: it is obvious to me and to others that there is some sort of underlying POV here, on one or more sides. Until that is resolved, I see no point in moving on to other issues that may well relate to the similar positions being taken. Linguistics are not really my thing anyway, so my proposal would be to delete the section unless it is reliably sourced. - Sitush (talk) 01:28, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

North of India obviously. Not everything revolves around only Tamil Country. No one is going to make a distinction between the north and south of the same Kingdom, when it wasn't comparatively that big. North and South India distinction remains because India is a huge country divided by the Vindhya range. Tamil Country was not divided in any way to make the North and South of it ethnically, culturally, linguistically different (apart from the development languages like Telugu, Malayalam etc but all these descend from proto dravidian, just like Tamil, regardless). Temporary 1010 (talk) 11:06, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[3], [4], [5] - According to these sources, it seems vadakalais accept sanskrit vedas while thenkalais compiled a veda of their own(4000 prabhandas). Well, i don't know what to say. By the way, the popular belief is that the movement was visishtadvaita(qualified non-dualism) based, as opposed to advaita. Some believe in "vaishnava centrism as opposed to shaivism/smarthism". I don't think it's tamil based. While the philosophical origin is traced back to Nathamuni, Ramanuja is the most revered saint/scholar who hasn't composed any literaric work in tamil. It was Ramanuja(founder of visishtadvaita, and the main proponent of srivaishnavism) who initiated the movement. It's just the guruparampara(formal salute) that starts with Nathamuni. And, Nathamuni's north indian origin helps understand "brahmanical vaishnavism" which(before his time) was widespread in North, while it "was either unknown or had a relatively negligible presence/following" in south. I guess this calls for more discussions. Hari7478 (talk) 02:15, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sitush, It is totally wrong to say Thenkalais compiled a Veda of their own. Nathamuni (the first acharya for both Vadakalai and Thenkalai) compiled the Prabandhams. Both Vadakalais and Thenkalais recite the mesmerizing prabandhams. See this talk (Vadakalai priests talking on Prabandhams / releasing a CD on it). Whatever is 'Sanskritic' stuff appears merely to refer to acceptance of caste system by Vadakalai and rejection by Thenkalai. So manner of adherence to Sanskrit dharmashastras is the only point of difference; since Thenkalais also perform homams (fire sacrifices) in Sanskrit. The Acharya Parampara (lineage of gurus) for both Vadakalai and Thenkalai is the same upto Ramanuja. After Ramanuja onwards it bifurcates. The Vadakalai acharya thaniyan pays obeisance to Vedanta Desikan and the Thenkalai pay their respects to Manavala muni. This is just one of the numerous posts mentioning the acharya paramparai (lineage of gurus) on the internet (list starts with Sriman Narayana and is upto Ramanuja, please see Nathamuni and NammAzhwAr mentioned in it). If someone does not know this, it is doubtful he is an Iyengar at all, let alone the european clamor for Vadakalai. The above post appears to be a deliberate mischief to mislead anyone unaware of these things. There are many versions and forms of Vaishnavism; including Krishnaism. The Ramanuja Sampradaya of Sri Vaishnavism is unknown in north india. Not just Ramanuja but all teachers of the Ramanuja sampradaya were born, remained and flourished in South India; though some went to north india on pilgrimage, exploration or to collect manuscripts, and returned to south. I suggest crosschecking the sources of Hari7478 since some pages are not available for viewing. --Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 03:55, 2 March 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra[reply]
Sitush, just for info sake please see this for Acharya Parampara after Ramanuja. As for claims of brahmanical vaishnavism it should be noted we are talking here, of Sri Vaishnava Sampradaya only (which mainly follows Pancharatra Agamas and Bhagavatism) Not about other forms of Vaishnavism. Pancharatra Agamas (for that matter all idol worshiping sampradayas) were non-vedic in origin. So was Bhagavatism. But merging with the vedic religion happened. So did merging of Pancharatra and Bhagavatism. Relevant info on Pancharatra, Bhagavatism, Sri Sampradaya and various forms of Vaishnavism, should go into their relevant page with all debatable content on them in their respective talk page. Any debate on Nathamuni should go into that article's talk page. I think we should stop being stuck on this here, and move on to adding content to the section on Religious Observances. Though sources are numerous, am still trying to find the most authoritative sources for that section. --Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 05:59, 2 March 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra[reply]
  • First of all, these sources(on Srivaishnavism) of historical writing have not cited or looked into eyewitness documents from the 14th century(manuscripts, memoirs/diaries, autobiographies and interviews conducted on the witnesses) because there are none. The historians atleast need a summary of an eyewitness report that has survived. In other cases, the author must be a direct witness. They are, more or less, sources(likely to be primary) based on hearsays & methodological assumptions/deductive reasoning. That being the case, one cannot argue about one set of sources being true and the other being false. Out of these three [6], [7], [8] one of them is from the famous Monier Williams, and another from a foreign author & a co-author, while the third is a tertiary source.
  • The other user's sources are SriV sites. Even i can provide videos of Velukudi Krishnan and other thenkalai scholars praising desika(the vadakalai acharya), and point out thenkalais who recite desika's hymns. That doesn't mean they follow/worship Desika. In the same way, Vadakalai scholars speaking of prabhandam needn't mean anything at all.
  • The term Srivaishnavism was coined during/after Ramanuja's time while Nathamuni's life ended before Ramanuja was born. During Nathamuni's lifetime, it was still Vaishnavism(most likely). There was no Ramanuja sampradaya during Nathamuni's days. And yes, Nathamuni's north indian origin helps understand "brahmanical vaishnavism" which(before his time) was widespread in North, while it "was either unknown or had a relatively negligible presence/following" in south. I don't see anything wrong in mentioning Nathamuni's north indian background.
  • Sitush, the popular belief is that the movement was visishtadvaita(qualified non-dualism) based, as opposed to advaita. Some believe in "vaishnava centrism as opposed to shaivism/smarthism". I don't think it's tamil based. While the philosophical origin is traced back to Nathamuni, Ramanuja is the most revered saint/scholar who hasn't composed any literaric work in tamil. It was Ramanuja(founder of visishtadvaita, and the main proponent of srivaishnavism) who initiated the movement. It's just the guruparampara(formal salute) that starts with Nathamuni. I'm reposting these three sources, again - [9], [10], [11].
  • By the way, I guess we could delete the section on languages & dialect, as you mentioned before.
Sitush, please respond. Thank you. Hari7478 (talk) 20:51, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hari, I am under no obligation to respond within minutes or even days of you posting a message here. I have a real life and (like many people) some considerable awkwardness in it. Every time I take a couple of days or more away from Wikipedia, it takes me several hours just to catch up and maintain the 1500 or so items on my watchlist, let alone try to develop something else here or elsewhere. There is no need to keep adding talkbacks to this page or to ask for a response: you'll get one, and you can usually expect it to be reasonably prompt. Equally, Mayasutra, if you want to do something with the section on beliefs then just go do it rather than repeating yourself here. If you anticipate that something you might want to say could be controversial then by all means raise it on this page first.

Both of you, much of your recent comments simply go over my head: they seem to be mixing various sources with personal knowledge and povs etc. I am working only off reliable sources: I started working on this article with no knowledge at all and I am reading extensively rather than searching for particular terms, which can often distort results. I am not saying that I have got it right but I most certainly am reflecting the sources that I have read, a fair few of which were either already in the article, are cited by works already here or have been mentioned by one or both of you. If any of the ones that you have mentioned over this weekend are available to me then I'll add them to my reading list. There is no deadline. - Sitush (talk) 21:19, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. BUT, i have to ask you whether you are in accord with the Wikipedia:Ownership of articles guideline regarding this topic. Your response "I contributed the title and i think its right and is likely to be more so in future" doesn't seem right. I've explained my stand in this regard. Even if making a new contrib might take some time, removing existing data on "all three men being tamil" should've been swift, until the matter is resolved. None of the sources say it anyway. Despite my explanation as to why Nathamuni's northern background is important, you keep saying that i haven't explained why, yet. Now, there are a new set of sources that say "4000 was compiled by thenkalais, while vadakalais adhere to the sanskritic part" authored by famous names too. And, i've explained why the movement isn't necessarily tamil based. When you rightfully reverted my recent edit, with the edit summary "first reinstate the sources", i guess the same is applicable to you(of all), w.r.t the title and tamils. I'm sorry. Hari7478 (talk) 21:37, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WRT this point made by Hari7478 -"And yes, Nathamuni's north indian origin helps understand brahmanical vaishnavism which(before his time) was widespread in North, while it was either unknown or had a relatively negligible presence/following in south". There is most certainly evidence the Pancharatra Agamas were being followed in pre-Ramanuja days in South India. The Pancharatra Agamas remained the core basis for both post-Ramanuja sects, the Vadakalais and the Thenkalais. So Hari7478 needs to clarify what is this "brahmanical vaishnavism" which Nathamuni was following. And what does the term "brahmanical vaishnavism" mean; and in which kingdom of northern indian regions was it being followed (with time period). And thanks Sitush, i will start adding content on Religious Observances in a couple of days.--Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 22:28, 3 March 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra[reply]
Sitush, Two of Hari7478's sources are not visible to me. Only one, the Monier Williams source, is visible -- it says Thenkalai have compiled a veda of their own (viz., the 4000 prabandhams) and it is older than the Sanskrit Veda. It is apparent Monier Williams is wrong. Nathamuni compiled the 4000 prabandhams, not the Thenkalais. During Nathamuni's time there was no such thing as Thenkalai and Vadakalai. Nathamuni predates even Ramanuja. Sources of SV hagiography themselves says Nathamuni compiled the 4000 prabandhams. Moreover, Monier Williams says the 4000 prabandhams are older than the Sanskrit Veda; for which there is no evidence whatsoever. The 4000 prabandhams were collected by Nathamuni as was available during his lifetime. --Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 22:47, 3 March 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra[reply]
Monier William's source says "thenkalais held it to be older than vedas, but they are actually based on their upanishad portions". That was the thenkalai opinion(as he says), not williams's, and he opposes their position. Read through the lines. The other two are only available for snippet viewing, but the necessary part that matters can be viewed. Hari7478 (talk) 23:05, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hari, you have yet again committed errors of original research in your responses subsequent to my last message here. I am also, yet again, bewildered by one of your assertions, namely "Despite my explanation as to why Nathamuni's northern background is important ...". I cannot for the life of me spot where you explained this amongst the reams of text on this page. Given that you are also consistently pursuing a very peculiar position elsewhere in relation to this article - eg: at User talk:Qwyrxian - despite the opinions expressed by three other contributors, well, you either move this issue onwards as you have previously said you would on more than one occasion, or you back off, or you end up being sanctioned. We have reached the end of this particular line as far as I am concerned. There is something odd going on: perhaps it makes perfect sense to you but you are not communicating well whatever message it is you wish to promote. And I use the word "promote" advisedly because it really does seem to be some sort of POV even though I cannot work out what it may be. - Sitush (talk) 00:23, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The one in qwyrxian's talk page was another issue. Here, what i wanted to know was "why does a line, ie not supported by your sources, still exist in the main article in the name of 'ongoing discussions in talk page'"? Secondly, your explanation on keeping the title. And mayasutra providing SriV sources to support his claims was the one i was talking about in reply to his message. And, finally, the contradicting sources authored by some famous names. None of these sources(both yours & mine) have made use of eyewitness documents from those years(11th to 14th century). That being the case, mayasutra rejecting those sources(based on "i don't know what grounds") and describing the prabandhams to be "mesmerizing" was POVy to me. I'm sorry ab't this talk, but wasn't this POV obvious to you? And how do you establish the connectivity amongst the issues that i'm raising that you're suspecting some sort of POV "you don't know what"? And please read my comments before this one(the one expressed under 5 different points). You'll understand what i was trying to say. Hari7478 (talk) 01:16, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sitush, This is absolutely ridiculous. I said both Vadakalai and Thenkalai recite the mesmerizing prabandhams because Hari7478 claimed "vadakalais accept sanskrit vedas while thenkalais compiled a veda of their own(4000 prabhandas)". I did not ask for the term "mesmerizing" to be included in the article (it being my own POV) unlike Hari7478 who is hell bent on pushing his peculiar POVs in the article. It is clear both Vadakalai and Thenkalai recite both, the Sanskrit Vedas and the Tamil Prabandhams. It is apparent Hari7478 is pushing a POV such that Thenkalais are associated only with Tamil and Vadakalai with Sanskrit, and by doing so, somehow wants to portray an ethnic difference. Which is why he is so hell bent on removing the word Tamil and the word although from the sentences he is disputing. Enough of this nonsense. More than high time you took a final call on this Sitush. --Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 04:17, 4 March 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra[reply]
Mayasutra, i guess this is it. Atleast, i didn't provide SriV sources like you did. I've provided three Neutral sources that say vadakalais are for sanskrit while thenkalais adhere to tamil - [12], [13], [14]. Since you're talking about me, i see no problem in pointing out your mistakes. What makes you think these sources are unreliable? They are equally reliable as the ones mentioned in the main article. That being the case, on what basis did you conclude "thenkalais compiling their own vedas/prabandham to be wrong?" By the way, Monier William's source says "thenkalais held it to be older than vedas, but they are actually based on their upanishad portions". That was the thenkalai opinion(as he says), not williams's, and he opposes their position. Read through the lines. The other two are only available for snippet viewing, but the necessary part that matters can be viewed. I'm sure you knew it before raising those two questions in your previous comment. Please take note that by doing so, you're leaving me with diff evidence. And, why are you so hell bent in dissociating any north indian origins despite an available source? By the way, ofcourse you didn't ask for including "mesmerizing" in the main article. But, even in talk pages, your comments could reflect neutrality and not be bent towards one specific thing(especially when "Dravidian-linguistics & castes" seem to be your area of work in wiki, mostly). And when did i try to portray ethnic difference? Yet again, you're assuming things i never said. So, once again, let me remind you that you are leaving me with diff evidence.
To-Sitush: Just because i didn't explain them properly with links doesn't mean there was original research. I'm busy and i'm finding it hard to provide reasons. I'm often forgetting things that i plan on mentioning. According to the above mentioned sources, it seems it is one of the groups who compiled the tamil prabhandams. Even many of those sources that speak of nathamuni's hand in prabandhams, refer to vadakalai & thenkalai as sanskrit & tamil schools respectively. I do have some sources according to which the reformatory movement was visishtadvaita & vaishnavism based , as opposed to shankara's advaita & shaivism/smarthism. To avoid confusion arising out of these long walls of texts, allow me to post it in your talk page, sometime later/whenever you say. Thank you. Hari7478 (talk) 04:37, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hari7478, So you are saying Nathamuni did not compile the 4000 prabandhams, the Thenkalais did. And Monier Williams said so. Williams merely translated Sanskrit into English. He did not research into Prabandhams. Not just SV hagiography, but several authors, including Lester, have mentioned Nathamuni compiled the Prabandhams (and set them to music and got them to be used in temple sevais). According to you (and not according to Monier Williams), the Vadakalis have nothing to do with the Prabandhams. So, prove that Vadakalai do not recite the 4000 tamil prabandhams. Plus you think Vadakalais deal with Sanskrit Vedas alone. So, prove that Vadakalais are not following Pancharatra agamas. Explain what is "brahmanical vaishnavism" which you said (so far) that Nathamuni was following. Added to it you are keen on portraying as if Thenkalais deal with Tamil prabandhams alone. So, prove that Thenkalais do not perform homams in Sanskrit. Basically with all this drama and circumventing existing content on main article, what you are driving at it Vadakalai should be associated with Sanskrit alone, and Thenkalai with Tamil alone. Hence, they are ethnically diff, right? Of course you are hell bent on the ethnic point. That's exactly what you have been driving at since quite a number of years on this article. Your desperation to link Vadakali with Sanskrit alone and Thenkalais with Tamil alone is enough evidence of your intent. And cut the useless talk on that one word "mesmerizing". This is a talk page and i am entitled to state my opinions (am not asking them to be mentioned in main article). Don't try to justify your baseless POV pushing in the main article. --Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 07:48, 4 March 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra[reply]
Mayasutra, although i haven't mentioned a word on ethnic differences, you're repeatedly making false allegations knowing where it'll lead you here What do you mean by "according to you and not monier williams"? Indeed according to Monier Williams and other sources here [15], [16], [17], [18], [19] Vadakalais accept the vedas while thenkalais compiled a veda(4000 prabandhams) of their own. That was williams's published work and not just a translation of somebody else's work. How could you argue that one set of sources(that support your standpoint) are right while the others are wrong? And stop asking me to prove things like vadakalais don't recite prabandhams in real life. Stick to the sources. Even many of those sources that speak of nathamuni's hand in prabandhams, refer to vadakalai & thenkalai as sanskrit & tamil schools respectively.
To-Sitush: With these long walls of texts i guess you might skip my previous message, and so i'm responding to your query again. again. I'm often forgetting things that i plan on mentioning. I do have some sources according to which the reformatory movement was visishtadvaita & vaishnavism based , as opposed to shankara's advaita & shaivism/smarthism. To avoid confusion arising out of these long walls of texts, allow me to post it in your talk page, sometime later/whenever you say. I'm really annoyed by Mayasutra's wrong allegations. Sorry if i've offended you. Hari7478 (talk) 12:22, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Only this Monier Williams source is visible to me. The rest are not. So I can comment only on this source. Hari7478 said "Monier William's source says thenkalais held it to be older than vedas, but they are actually based on their upanishad portion. That was the thenkalai opinion(as he says), not williams's, and he opposes their position. Read through the lines". So Monier Williams is mentioning the Thenkalai opinion, not his own. Hence, if Thenkalais claim they compiled the 4000 prabandhams or that prabandhams are older than vedas, of course its not true. Its merely the Thenkalai POV. So on what basis should your sources (which merely mention Thenkalai POV) be considered correct? That Nathamuni (the first acharya of both vadakalai and thenkalai) compiled the 4000 prabandhams is a fact from numerous sources. Though ofcourse now you claim its not about ethnic diff, you do not realize, how annoying and offensive your frequent circumventing is, merely to accommodate your POV pushing of Vadakalai=Sanskrit-Only and Thenkalai=Tamil-Only (the underlying basis of which is obvious). Am not asking you to prove stuff in real life. Am asking you to provide written proof, ie., sources which mention (a) that Vadakalais do not recite the 4000 tamil Prabandhams, (b) that Vadakalais do not follow Pancharatra agamas (c) that Thenkalais do not perform homams in Sanskrit, and finally (d) explain "brahmanical vaishnavism" which you said (so far) that Nathamuni was following. --Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 19:18, 4 March 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra[reply]
Mayasutra, please don't try to dupe me. You're simply twisting it. "Compiling the prabandhams" is not the thenkalai claim, it's the author's information. The "older than vedas part" is the thenkalai claim, which the author rejects. No one is going to mention that in the main article. I'm not blind. And, according to sources, Kashmir is the source of pancharatra agamas - [20], [21]. When the time comes(pretty soon), i'm sure Sitush will look into these sources. Currently, i'm discussing another matter with him. For your information, we mention what they(brahmin subsects) do/practice(with the help of sources), and not what they don't. Hari7478 (talk) 20:57, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Vadakalais and Thenkalais are genetically the same stock, closely related with all Pancha Dravid Brahmans, along with the greater Brahmin family in general.
The differences are in philosophies, which are much more recent in origin and are loosely defined.
Thenkalais have always performed and revered the Sanskrit side of the Vedic tradition while ALSO respecting the works of the 12 alwars. That doesn't mean they reject anything, and place anything above anything else. Same applies to Vadakalais. Temporary 1010 (talk) 11:16, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So you get to decide which portion of the sentence is the author's information and which portion is Thenkalais' claim. What you claim and what Monier Williams supposedly says cannot serve as a ground to discredit Nathamuni, from the effort of collecting prabandhams, to which he dedicated his lifetime; especially in the presence of several other sources which credit Nathamuni with the effort. Monier Williams did no research whatsoever into prabandhams. As for Pancharatra, there are 2 views of origin, one is south india and another kashmir. Pancharatra is a compilation of more than 200 texts. The content will go into Pancharatra article. And btw, just because some texts originated in Kashmir does not automatically mean Vadakalais are European, Aryan, Northindian. Please reply to points a,b,c and d. --Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 22:17, 4 March 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra[reply]
Again, you're twisting it. I haven't mentioned a word on ethnicity or Aryan. You're unnecessarily linking unrelated stuff to this discussion. Two of the five sources(including Monier williams & subodh kapoor) are available for full viewing, while the rest are only visible in a snippet window, however the parts that matter are visible through the snippet window. I've even posted all of it in the ANI pg. It's a direct copy-paste from the sources. So, there's no way you can use the word "supposedly" in this case. I'm sure we'll go by a "step by step" process, and all sources 'll be considered and hopefully sorted out, by Sitush, very soon. By the way, your comments "Nathamuni...dedicated his lifetime, etc" sounds a lot POV-y to me(in my opinion). And, as mentioned before, we include data on what the members of the subgroups do, and not on what they don't. Also, there's no need for hasty replies and decisions, here. Hari7478 (talk) 23:02, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sitush, please take a call on this. Hari7478 claims Nathamuni did not compile the 4000 prabandhams, the Thenkalais did. His sources are Monier Williams, Subodh Kapoor and few others. Except Monier Williams' book, am not able to view other sources -- no idea why. Previously WRT the 4 issues too he give specific sentences, without the whole context, whilst also misquoting sources. Also kindly note he has not answered to points a,b,c and d. Alternatively Sitush, would you suggest WP:DR since this article is not moving past Hari7478's 3 main issues -- european, aryan, northindian. And btw Hari7478, that Nathamuni dedicated his lifetime is not my POV. Both Thenkalai and Vadakalai accept Nathamuni collected / compiled Prabandhams, set them to music and instituted them in temple services over the years. Its been detailed in SV hagiography -- some details are here (p.95-97). --Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 00:16, 5 March 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra[reply]
I am trying to catch up on developments that occurred across hundreds of articles during my recent absence. Simultaneously, I am trying to do whatever is required for new issues. There is a gap in this method, which is issues that arose during my absence and which are ongoing. Of those, this one is by far the most awkward and I'm barely keeping track of who says what and when, let alone looking into the points raised. Hopefully, time will soon be available to address it. I do need to check an ever-growing list of sources. We need to bear in mind that if reliable sources have different opinions then we are supposed to show all of those opinions. Assessing reliability is going to be a key issue and, with no offence intended, another issue is likely to be the clarity of sources based in India, which sometimes appear vague or ambiguous perhaps due to cultural differences in the nuances of the language. It really is rather messy and it obviously means quite a lot to both of you, so I really need to try not to jump to conclusions. I am wondering if it might be best for both of you to desist from adding further to this thread for a few days until I've caught up. You can keep lists of points/sources that you want to raise on your own computers or even old-fashioned paper, and then weigh in when I gone through the voluminous contents of this thread and posted notes & queries. This last is just a suggestion: I cannot insist on it but right now the situation seems to be akin to trying to hit a moving target. And I am not a good shot. - Sitush (talk) 00:35, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Who said "european, aryan" or anything? You really are twisting his words. Kashmiris are not European, they are very much South Asian.
And all Brahmins are Aryan by culture, they follow Brahmanism, and the Vedic culture which was an Indo-Aryan settlement in Northwest India.
Regardless of adopted local customs like the Prabandams, the general practices of a Brahmin are followed by both sects of Iyengars. Gotras, recitation of Vedas, Abhivadaye, Upanayana, Sandhyavandana, fire sacrifices (havan), ancestor worship etc.
Genetically, "aryan" is very controversial, however most people agree that the so called "aryans" are synonymous with the pastoralists who came from the Steppes of Central Asia, who brought with them the Indo-Aryan languages to India. Most Indians do not have much of this component in their DNA while Brahmins and certain other tribes do have a significant portion of their ancestry associated with these people. They are definitely different to the local Tamils. Migration isn't a ruled out option at all. In fact there are documentations of Kashmiri Brahmins relocating to Tirunelveli and integrating with the Tamil Brahmin community there.
So what is your point? Temporary 1010 (talk) 11:24, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Summarized point wise

[edit]

Sitush, just summarizing points of current dispute, in case this is going to WP:DR:

  • Hari7478 says Nathamuni did not compile 4000 prabandhams, the Thenkalais did. His sources are (copy-pasted from above) -- [22], [23], [24], [25], [26]. Verification of sources is required.
  • Hari7478 says Vadakalais accept the vedas while thenkalais compiled a veda(4000 prabandhams) of their own. Fact is, Vadakalai acharya parampara (linage of gurus) is also derived from Nammalvar (one of the alvars who sang the prabandhams). Hence, Vadakalais priests also recite prabandhams as part of temple services. For both Vadakalai and Thenkalai the acharya parampara is the same until Ramanuja (and it includes Nathamuni and Nammalvar). This source details the Acharya Parampara but is in Tamil. In English, this may help. Additionally, Hari7478 has not provided sources proving Thenkalais do not perform fire sacrifices in Sanskrit. Hence, I contend the association of Sanskrit-Vedas with Vadakalai-only and Tamil-prabandhams with Thenkalais-only is ill-founded.

Not sure if the below have already been reconciled, yet summarizing:

  • Hari7478 wants to include the point Nathamuni belonged to "a domiciled North Indian family of the chola region". This point is unclear and vague. A country called India did not exist in the past. The source does not tell us "north" is north of which kingdom.
  • Hari7478 says Nathamuni's ancestry helps in understanding "the sanskritic tradition of brahmins in general, and the brahmanical form of vaishnavism" which is widespread in North. However, he refuses to explain what is "brahmanical vaishnavism"; considering both, Thenkalais and Vadakalais follow Pancharatra Agamas.
  • Hari7478 wants you to remove the word "although" from the sentence "..although Ramanuja documented his thoughts in Sanskrit".
  • Hari7478 wants to take this Kanthimathi paper on genetics to ANI.

--Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 17:34, 5 March 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra[reply]

There are more differences of opinion than you have listed. This "summary" looks more like another attempt to reiterate your own position and is far from being neutral in its wording. Doubtless, Hari would say things differently and so I'll likely be ignoring it. - Sitush (talk) 22:18, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like I missed 2 more points.
  • Language (dialect)-- Hari7478 wants the wording of this sentence to be changed "...almost identical to brahmin tamil".
  • Title -- Hari7478 wants the title Common Origins changed to Philosophical Origins.
Summarized the above not with the intention to reiterate own position (since have already very well discussed them here). Just made the issues point wise in case we are going to WP:DR. WRT neutrality if you say the wording is not right i'll accept it. I trust your judgement. In case, we are going to DR, then will help to know where the wording is not right. If not, its OK, we can leave it. Thanks. --Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 23:38, 5 March 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra[reply]
I am still trawling through sources, sorry. In particular, I am trying to find any reference to the Iyengar community prior to the emergence of acharyas. No luck so far: it really seems that Iyengar is a community formed as a consequence of/originating in self-identification with Sri Vaishnaivism, although we cannot say that either without a source. Although I am reading generally, I am also keen to find support for Hari's emphasis on the "north" connections - no luck there, either. - Sitush (talk) 16:11, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oops sorry, had stopped checking this page and missed your post. Yes, I too agree the community traces its origins from the time of its acharyas. However, they are priests following Pancharatra. So, it seems before the emergence of their acharyas (and before the emergence of Vishistadvaita), they were just pancharatra priests. But yet to find a source on it. Am not able to find sources for the north connection either. As for "Iyengar dialect" I found this snippet sentence on google books from the source you mentioned below Structure and Change in Indian Society: "The Tengalai Iyengar dialect is a well-marked Brahman dialect, distinctly recognized as such by the Tengalai Iyengars themselves and by other castes in the speech community". Though i have no access to the pages you mention, the book seems to recognizes Iyengar dialect as brahmin dialect. So i agree with Hari7478 that the Language (dialect) sentence should be changed --- to reflect that Iyengar dialect is a brahmin dialect. Thanks. --Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 02:26, 26 March 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra[reply]
Iyengar community prior to Srivaishnavism:
[27] - "The Northerners (Vadagalais) as opposed to the Southerners(Thenkalais, earlier settled)...". The paragraph starts with a brief description on "occupation of South by people from the North possessing or professing Aryan culture...".
Vadakalai - [28] - "The Vadama & Vadakalai who belong to different sects but have northern origin in common as indicated by the tamil prefix vada...". Vadamas are a subsect of Iyer brahmins.
Thenkalai - I don't think all Thenkalais have common ancestors, or share a common origin. According to these sources - [29], [30], "certain southern school brahmins(Tengalai Srivaishnavas) can be identified as former sudras from their manners and customs". So, it's not like the non-brahmins form a separate faction within "Tenkalai-vaishnavism" but rather "got converted to/became Tenkalai Brahmins".
Although not much, I suppose these sources could be put to use. Hari7478 (talk) 23:31, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've just glanced at the recent posts but have run out of time. I'll try to respond tomorrow. Sorry about this. - Sitush (talk) 00:50, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Was able to find sources on Pancharatra and vaikhanasa traditions, but i'll discuss them here once we're done with the information posted above. Regarding Ghurye, any luck with the Resource exchange process? Hari7478 (talk) 18:52, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Iyengar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:02, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Iyengar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:15, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

status column for telaga caste

[edit]

Someone kindly take a minute to add useful and interesting content to Telaga caste, Kapu caste, balija caste pages

Use the link - http://www.kapusangam.com/history.php

Also, Telaga caste is Forward caste. Mention it in the right column — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.147.202.107 (talk) 18:48, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]
A response to User:Drusekoana with citations and a better worded answer than previously.
Clarification on “Tamil people” as a Related Ethnic Group for this Article
A note for consideration of the article's overall accuracy: Re-assessing the inclusion of “Tamil people” in the Related Ethnic Groups field
I’d like to bring up the categorization of Iyengars under the ethnic label “Tamil people.” While Iyengars are Tamil-speaking, the assumption that they are part of a unified “Tamil ethnic group” is highly debatable and, in this case, misleading.
Linguistic ≠ Ethnic Identity
The classification of “Tamil” as an ethnic group is problematic. As noted by leading Dravidian linguist Bhadriraju Krishnamurti, the term “Dravidian”, and by extension “Tamil”, denotes a linguistic family, not a racial or ethnocultural identity:
“It is clear that ‘Aryan’ and ‘Dravidian’ are not racial terms.”
(Krishnamurti 2003, citing Cavalli-Sforza, Chapter 15)
Simply speaking Tamil does not immediately indicate shared ancestry, religion, or cultural identity; especially in the case of Tamil Brahmin groups like the Iyengars, whose customs, rituals, and worldviews are derived from a Sanskritic-Vedic tradition.
Though there is a unified Tamil cultural grouping overall, Brahmins are one group that do not fall into it. I will be expanding on how and why this is the case below.
Brahmin Culture Originated in Indo-Aryan, Not Dravidian, Traditions
Brahmins, including the Iyengars, trace their cultural and ritual lineage to Indo-Aryan traditions, not native Dravidian systems. Krishnamurti observes:
“By the time of Katyayana (300 BC) and Patanjali (100 BC), the first language of the Brahmins was Prakrit, while Sanskrit was confined to ritual purposes.”
(Krishnamurti 2003, Chapter 2)
Iyengars are thus part of a historical Brahminical tradition with deep pan-Indian liturgical roots, linked by sacred texts and rituals that long predate their adoption of Tamil for regional use. Their Vaishnava religious identity and Manipravala literary output (a Sanskrit-Tamil hybrid style) reflect this:
“A new style called Manipravala... a harmonious blend of native language and Sanskrit.”
(Ibid)
Tamil Nationalist Movements Clearly Distinguish Non-Brahmin Tamil Identity
The early 20th-century Tamil purist movement arose explicitly in reaction to Brahmin dominance and the perceived “foreignness” of Sanskrit:
“[The movement] was against the rise of Brahmins and Brahminism with whom the spread of Sanskrit was associated.”
(Ibid, Chapter 15)
This resistance further highlights the cultural distance between Tamil Brahmins and the broader Tamil-speaking population. Iyengars, with their distinct rituals, caste identity, and religious systems, are not seen (historically or culturally) as representative of “Tamil people” in the ethnonational sense.
Pre-Brahmin Tamil Identity and Culture Are Distinct
Tamil culture long predates Brahmin presence, as evidenced by the Tolkappiyam and early Tamil Sangam literature. The distinctiveness of Tamil identity, in art, religion, and social structure, is well documented and notably excludes Brahminical forms:
“Tamil performing arts include Koothu, Bommalattam... religious practices include veneration of village deities and ancient Tamil gods.”
"Dravidian folk religion refers to the presumed indigenous traditions of the Tamils, believed to have been practiced before significant Indo-Aryan cultural influence. These traditions likely included ancestor worship, nature veneration, and village deities, some of which persisted and merged with later Hindu practices."
Quotes directly taken from the official Wikipedia article regarding the topic, cited sources are mentioned there:
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tamils)
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dravidian_folk_religion)
Such practices are not typical among Tamil Brahmins, who adhere to Smarta or Srivaishnava traditions based on pan-Indian texts, culture, and Vedic authority.
In contrast to this, if we look at the origins of the philosophical corpus associated with the Iyengars in question we see a starkly different picture:
The tradition traces its roots to the ancient Vedas and Pancharatra texts, popularised by the Alvars and their canon, the Naalayira Divya Prabandham.
The tradition traces its roots to the primordial start of the world through Vishnu, and to the texts of Vedic era with both Sri and Vishnu found in ancient texts of the 1st millennium BCE particularly to the Puranas, Upanishads, and the Bhagavad Gita.
The historical basis of Sri Vaishnavism is in the syncretism of two developments. The first is Sanskrit traditions found in ancient texts such as the Vedas and the Agama (Pancaratra), and the second is the Tamil traditions found in early medieval texts (Tamil Prabandham)[18] and practices such as the emotional songs and music of Alvars that expressed spiritual ideas, ethics and loving devotion to god Vishnu.[19][8][9] The Sanskrit traditions likely represent the ideas shared in ancient times, from the Ganges river plains of the northern Indian subcontinent, while the Tamil traditions likely have roots in the Kaveri river plains of southern India, particularly what in modern times are the coastal Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka and Tamil Nadu region.[20]
Quotes directly taken from the official Wikipedia article regarding the topic, cited sources are mentioned there:
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sri_Vaishnavism)
So in conclusion, for factual accuracy and consistency with scholarly sources, I recommend the following:
Removing “Tamil people” from the “Related ethnic groups” field.
As a more informative and accurate placement I would recommend replacing it with a descriptor such as “Other Brahmin communities” however the core of my argument was revolving around the misrepresentation rather than potential additions.
This categorization neatly avoids confusion between language-based affiliation (Tamil) and ethno-cultural identity (Brahmin, Iyengar), and philosophical identity (Sri Vaishnavism/Vishishtadvaita) which are not interchangeable.
Iyengars are rightly noted as Tamil-speaking (reflected accurately in the “language” field), but ethnicity, as defined similarly to Western contexts, is problematic, particularly in the Indian context, where it cannot work without inherent bias. In many cases, their community-based, cultural grouping (Iyengar Brahmin) is ignored and lumped under a regional/linguistic label under an “ethnicity” tag which, as established above, is misleading.
To clarify, none of this is politically driven. This is a very important matter to bring up, as the ethnic affiliations that are stated should be correctly representing a group. A user had previously suggested I had only questioned Brahmins and not Tamil Upper Castes. However, Tamil Upper Castes, along with all other non Brahmin groups of Tamil Nadu (excluding certain communities for example Saurashtras whose Tamil language affinity as well as distinctive cultural affinity are both acknowledged simultaneously; which is the exact same case as being brought up by me here for Tamil Brahmins) traditionally partake in the mentioned Tamil ethnic and cultural activities and have historically coexisted with other Tamils. While Tamil Brahmins led isolated lifestyles with distinctive culture shared with Brahmins of other regions, as a much more tightly knit, priestly community, in their own villages outside of the main city.
This is not to isolate or bash Tamil Brahmins at all. This is about representing their identity accurately and completely, instead of diluting it with modern, post-colonial linguistic chauvinism, which is a common but misleading projection as an ethnic marker.
Looking forward to some positive responses and any clarifications from other users.
Thank you.
Temporary 1010 Temporary 1010 (talk) 15:58, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Agraharam, although historically mentioned in much of India (including Kashmir and neighboring areas that some politicized Dravidians today perceive as a preserve of the Aryan race), are clearly a South Indian specificity. Some historians (yes, if you give me a little time, I can find you references for this “some”) even see this as a - small - contributing factor to the regional character of the anti-Brahmin movement in India (found chiefly in the south, in Tamil Nadu and Maharashtra). In northern India, Brahmins live mainly among other communities in the non-dalit village. This is the model of village organization evoked by some anthropoligists (yes, some): caste village and Dalit hamlet in northern India, agraharam, non-Brahmin village and Dalit hamlet in many parts of southern India. Even the concept of agraharam, as you present it, can be questioned in Tamil Nadu, as it is less relevant in the city (ancient cities divided along caste and other community lines, with agraharams nestled among many other caste neighborhoods) than in rural areas (even there, agraharams only exist where Brahmins are numerous, when they are a tiny minority, they tend to live in groups among other people). And I'm not going to dwell on Kathleen Gough and her study of the villages of Tanjore, where she is notably interested in the representation of the village by its inhabitants. While she notes that Brahmins tend to distinguish the agraharam from the main village, the inhabitants of the village - mostly non-Brahmins - tend to present the village as comprising the village and the agraharam (in effect excluding the “cherri”, the Dalit hamlets).
Basing the non-Tamilness of Tamil Brahmins solely on the fact of their settlement in communal neighborhoods and communal cultural practices poses broader problems. After all, Tamil non-Brahmins, including those perceived as the “least Brahminized”, follow the logic of isolation in streets, neighborhoods and even communal villages. The Nattukottai Chettiars and their famous ancestral villages display a similar autarky to the Brahmin agraharams. The Nattukottai Chettiars are renowned for the rich culture specific to their community. So are the Nattukottai Chettiars not Tamils? Even so, their customs and beliefs are quite different from those of other Tamil-speaking populations living in the Chettinad.
The Vellalars traditionally present - among other myths - the genesis of their caste as linked to the Velirs who came from Dvaraka (Dwarka, Gujarat, which is not Dwarasamudra, Karnataka). So the Vellalars are not Tamils, since they relate to a past and geography that is not Tamil?
Perhaps you can now see the limits of your discourse, which by the way, also strongly includes outdated pseudo-scientific concepts, such as Dravidian racialism, a legacy of European colonization and its transmission of racialism in the 19th and 20th centuries, currently rejected or even criminalized in Europe, but popular or even politically plebiscited in certain parts of present-day India.
If Tamil identity is post-colonial linguistic chauvinism, why not apply it to other Tamil communities. Your account's contributions largely revolve around this specific action, specifically targeting articles related to Tamil Brahmins. This is why suspicion is heightened with regard to your contributions. Kongu Vellalars are theorized by some as sharing ancestry with Vokkaligas, have you shown any interest in explicating on their article the senselessness of Tamil identity, when Dravidian race explains everything? No. Similar links exist between certain dominant communities in northern Tamil Nadu and inhabitants of the Andhra region. We don't see you there either. Tamil chauvinism is as “unscientific” and “outdated” concept as the Dravidian chauvinism (disclaimer, different from Dravidian languages speaking people studies). Drusekoana (talk) 10:35, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
User:Drusekoana
Your reply avoids the core issue: whether Tamil Brahmins, such as the Iyengars and Iyers, should be included in an ethnic list of “Tamil people” when they have distinct linguistic, religious, cultural, and historical characteristics that separate them from the Tamil ethnolinguistic identity.
Several of your points misrepresent both the content being debated and Wikipedia's editing standards:
1. Misplaced Comparisons with Other Tamil Castes: Equating Tamil Brahmins with groups like the Chettiars or Vellalars misses the central issue. Tamil Brahmins maintain Indo-Aryan linguistic and ritual traditions, continue Sanskrit-based liturgies, have distinct migration histories, and often identify more closely with pan-Indian Brahmin networks than with a singular Tamil ethnos. These are not minor variations within Tamil society but clear ethnic and cultural distinctions.
2. Irrelevant Theorizing: Discussions of Agraharams, village settlement patterns, or speculative caste sociology are not policy-relevant. Wikipedia articles and lists are governed by what reliable sources say, not by subjective anthropological speculation.
3. Attempt to Discredit Me as an Editor: Your repeated insinuation that I am pushing a "casteist" or “racialist” agenda because of my edit history is a personal attack, not an argument. You claim “suspicion is heightened” due to the focus of my contributions. That is not a valid reason to dismiss edits that follow policy, are supported by sources, and are discussed on talk pages. Editors are free to focus on any topic. Edits are evaluated on their merits, not on imagined motives. See WP:AGF and WP:FOC.
4. Policy-Free Reverts and Accusations: Your edit summaries contain serious accusations like “disruptive caste-led opinions” and “racialism” without citing any actual Wikipedia policy to support the reverts. That is not acceptable. WP:NPA prohibits such attacks, and WP:CONSENSUS requires you to justify your changes with sources, not assumptions about another editor's beliefs.
To be clear, I do not deny the validity of Tamil ethnicity for most Tamil-speaking communities. My edits focus specifically on Tamil Brahmins because their inclusion in an ethnic list is questionable based on reliable sources, linguistic and cultural distinctiveness, and Wikipedia's own list inclusion criteria.
Challenging inclusion is not the same as denying identity elsewhere. The other groups you mentioned, such as Kongu Vellalars or Chettiars, do not display the same historical, linguistic, and cultural divergence from Tamil ethnicity that Tamil Brahmins do. Nor are they part of a broader transregional kinship network. Tamil Brahmins, in contrast, are one of many Brahmin subgroups across India, united by shared Indo-Aryan traditions, Vedic ritualism, and Sanskritic religious frameworks.
Wikipedia encourages content-focused discussion. Editors are not required to address every theoretical inconsistency before raising a valid, source-backed concern. My position is grounded in academic literature and policy; if you have reliable sources supporting your position, feel free to present them. Otherwise, per WP:V, WP:LISTCRIT, and WP:ONUS, my edit should stand until valid counterevidence is provided.
If reverts continue without actual engagement here, I will raise this at WP:DRN or WP:ANI. Wikipedia works by discussion and policy, not personal attacks or gatekeeping.
Let’s stay focused on sources, article scope, and community standards. Anything else is a distraction. Temporary 1010 (talk) 15:46, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]