Jump to content

Talk:Ramanuja

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

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]

Ramanuja image

[edit]

This picture is worse old idol, not showed good attributes, therefore i added new image of Ramanuja.

This is better image of Ramanuja which shows with all attributes with names

File:Cover of Ramanujacharya.jpg

@Chronikhiles Mettriyal (talk) 08:49, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with the murti? I thought you liked statues? Dāsānudāsa (talk) 09:48, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
saffron dress cover with all, very wosre image, it seems like child baby, really, if you disagree with me, atleast add another prominet images of Ramanuja in wiki commons in yours account. Search in commons
And add it.
@Dāsānudāsa Mettriyal (talk) 09:53, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
its very painful to eye to see our ramanuja, very bad image.
Change image
@Dāsānudāsa Mettriyal (talk) 10:01, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest this better images with suitable license rather than small closed idol. @Dāsānudāsa
@Chronikhiles
Mettriyal (talk) 10:08, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The statue is awkward. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 10:11, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

if statue is awkward, atleast add image name, because current image is very worse old idol seems like child

This img is perfect suitable for Ramanuja

File:Cover of Ramanujacharya.jpg
@Joshua Jonathan Mettriyal (talk) 10:12, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. Ramanuja didn't have 20 arms, for a start. Dāsānudāsa (talk) 11:44, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
its depiction of Ramanuja, his followers considersed him to avatar of Shesha
@Dāsānudāsa Mettriyal (talk) 12:17, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ramanuja was a human being. His infobox image should reflect that. The current murti is much more faithful in this regard than the Shesha avatar image. Chronikhiles (talk) 17:03, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ramanuja&oldid=1246057574"