Talk:Iyengar

Edit request from 65.219.4.7, 5 August 2011

To begin with, putting Kamal hasan in iyengar page is such a shame. He is a known atheist with anti-brahmin sentiments.

This page is heavily biased and seems to contain anti-iyengar views. Bashes both vadakalai and thenkalai. For example, it is quoted that there is genetic difference between Vadakalai and Thenkalai. The references cited are not reliable. For example, one such reference considers vadama and vadagalai to be of same group (Vadamas are Iyers not Iyengars). It is the main-stream view of all iyengars that the split came very late (probably in 16th century). Any other notion would imply that one group didn't belong to Ramanuja Sampradaya (iyengar). It seems to me that the author implies that the Vadagalai group does not belong to Ramanuja sampradaya (iyengar). The "Kashmiri origin" mentions is also a random reference with absolutely no connection to the main stream iyengars in Tamilnadu. I can provide 100 references that the split came recently and there is no racial connection. Indeed Ramanuja did convert some people and brought it into Vaishnava fold. But they are present in both sects.

Caste Distinctions. It seems to me that the author is a Vadama when he proudly claims that "It is noteworthy that Ramanuja, the founder of Srivaishnavism, was born a Vadama.[28][29]" Why is it noteworthy. Anything in wikipedia is noteworthy. Seems to have a personal agenda. The same author didn't find it noteworthy that most of the alwars came from very low castes.

Active and Passive voice Shri Vedanta Desika, the Vaishnavite Acharya and philosopher, founded the Vadakalai sampradaya[24] based on the Sanskritic tradition. The Thenkalai sect was founded by Pillailokacharya,[33] while Manavala Mamuni is considered the sect's most important and famous leader.[34]

No "Sri" for Manavala Mani or Pillailokarcharya

Ref [35] and [37] talk about people in Andhra that converted to thenkalai. They do not even 0.5% iyengars. Making it as

I would request the admins to find neutral editors and contributors to take forward this page. Simply citing a lot of random references do not justify what is written.

65.219.4.7 (talk) 21:21, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Edit requests are handled by admins who are not involved with this page, so they need to be as precise as possible: "Change the following text, '.....', in the third paragraph to '....'." Something like that. Complaints that parts of the text are inaccurate or biased, whether justified or not, are not particular enough for someone unfamiliar with the subject to make a change. --RL0919 (talk) 22:46, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

heavily biased article

To begin with, putting Kamal hasan in iyengar page is such a shame. He is a known atheist with anti-brahmin sentiments. This page is heavily biased and seems to contain anti-iyengar views. Bashes both vadakalai and thenkalai. For example, it is quoted that there is genetic difference between Vadakalai and Thenkalai. The references cited are not reliable. For example, one such reference considers vadama and vadagalai to be of same group (Vadamas are Iyers not Iyengars). It is the main-stream view of all iyengars that the split came very late (probably in 16th century). Any other notion would imply that one group didn't belong to Ramanuja Sampradaya (iyengar). It seems to me that the author implies that the Vadagalai group does not belong to Ramanuja sampradaya (iyengar). The "Kashmiri origin" mentions is also a random reference with absolutely no connection to the main stream iyengars in Tamilnadu. I can provide 100 references that the split came recently and there is no racial connection. Indeed Ramanuja did convert some people and brought it into Vaishnava fold. But they are present in both sects. Caste Distinctions. It seems to me that the author is a Vadama when he proudly claims that "It is noteworthy that Ramanuja, the founder of Srivaishnavism, was born a Vadama.[28][29]" Why is it noteworthy. Anything in wikipedia is noteworthy. Seems to have a personal agenda. The same author didn't find it noteworthy that most of the alwars came from very low castes. Active and Passive voice Shri Vedanta Desika, the Vaishnavite Acharya and philosopher, founded the Vadakalai sampradaya[24] based on the Sanskritic tradition. The Thenkalai sect was founded by Pillailokacharya,[33] while Manavala Mamuni is considered the sect's most important and famous leader.[34] No "Sri" for Manavala Mani or Pillailokarcharya Ref [35] and [37] talk about people in Andhra that converted to thenkalai. They do not even 0.5% iyengars. Making it as I would request the admins to find neutral editors and contributors to take forward this page. Simply citing a lot of random references do not justify what is written. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.219.4.7 (talk) 21:22, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

About the recent edits on autosomal DNA

A user "Able562" had added info' on autosomal dna of tamil brahmins. The sub-section added by "Able562" along with it's source, does not say a word about iyengar brahmins. It simply concerns "tests run on tamil brahmins in general" and belongs to the "Tamil Brahmin" wiki' page, not here. No proof of tests run on Iyengars(srivaishnava brahmins) in specific. The 14 genetic samples could be from any tamil brahmin caste, and might not even involve one iyengar brahmin sample. Removed the irrelevant addition made by that user. Just thought of leaving a note about it here. Thank You. Hari7478 (talk) 12:42, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Malicious content removed

I removed some malicious content that seemed to insinuate that vadakalai iyengars are Brahmins and thenkalai iyengars are not. Since this is far from truth, making such negative statements in a public place such as wikipedia is not acceptable. Hence I removed it. I will continue to watch this page for any such attempt to spread contempt and ill-will. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Varadhanskm (talk • contribs) 03:05, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

(Sorry removed content posted by mistake. Still learning wiki editing. Apologize).

Varadhanskm (talk) 22:15, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit Request

Hi

 In the vadakalai Iyengar sub-section, the following is stated: 

"It is widely accepted that the Vadakalais share the same origin with Vadama Brahmins.[17][28] It is noteworthy that Ramanuja, the founder of Srivaishnavism, was born a Vadama.[29][30]"

Whereas in the thenkalai iyengar sub-section, the following is stated: "The Thenkalai society has also accepted a significant proportion of the non-Brahmin population into its fold.[36][37][38][39] The Thenkalai sect seems to be liberal in its outlook, and so shapes the doctrine of the system as to make them applicable to non-Brahmin castes"

While most of these statements are indeed true, it presents a skewed perspective of truth. For example, most thenkalai iyengars are also vadama. Taken together, these statements amount to saying that "Vadakalai iyengars are Brahmins whereas thenkalai iyengars are not". This is far from the truth. Both vadakalai and thenkalai iyengars are Brahmins. In addition, there are many non-Brahmins who follow both sects.

The cited references [36][37][38][39] only confirm the fact that thenkalai sect of vaishnavism accepted many non-Brahmins into the fold. Whereas the term "Iyengar" has come to refer a community of Brahmins in general, there also can exist a community of "Sri Vaishnavas" who can be Brahmins or not. There seems to have been a confusion between the terms "Iyengar" and "Sri Vaishnavas". The term "Sri Vaishnavas" has a rather universal definition, containing within it people from all castes. The term "Iyengar" generally refers to Brahmins who follow Sri Ramanuja (as stated in the beginning of the article itself). So stating that thenkalai iyengars accepted non-Brahmins into the community introduces the inconsistency with the beginning of the article. In the beginning, it is stated that iyengars are Brahmins. In the middle it is stated that thenkalais accepted "non-Brahmins" into their fold. Both these cannot be true. Either state that thenkalai iyengars are not Brahmins and simply remove them from the whole discussion (which would be atrocious) or remove the Non-Brahmin comment.

The whole problem is due to improper citation i.e. not stating what the reference states. In other words, stating something that you want to state using some reference that says something tangential but not exactly the same thing. In none of the references cited ([36][37][38][39] ), I am able to find the word "Iyengar".

Hence, I request the the following edit be made to the thenkalai iyengar section: Remove content about Brahminism, especially the lines: "The Thenkalai society has also accepted a significant proportion of the non-Brahmin population into its fold.[36][37][38][39] The Thenkalai sect seems to be liberal in its outlook, and so shapes the doctrine of the system as to make them applicable to non-Brahmin castes."

If that is not acceptable, then, clearly state what the references state: The thenakalai "sri vaishnava society" has accepted Non-Brahmins into its fold.

Varadhanskm (talk) 22:13, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Gandhi Rajagopalachari.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Gandhi Rajagopalachari.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:09, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Inaccuracies and Spam on this page

It appears that this page is being spammed to reflect someone's biases---and this someone seems to have a lot of time on their hands. There are several problems, starting with the very beginning. Perhaps the biggest of them is the insistence on ethnicity being the distinguishing feature between Vadakalais and Thenkalais, while ignoring every philosophical distinction between the two. First, it is unclear if there is an ethnic difference (the study cited would make the proponets of eugenics under Nazis proud---who "proved that aryans were superior"). This is disingenious, and perhaps even legally actionable.

Secondly, iyengars themselves see themselves as proponents of the azhwar-ramanuja tradition with a rich history of philosophy. By harping on a narrow caste perspective to the exclusion of everything else, the author is not writing a balanced article. There are also a lot of historical inaccuracies, as well as history (particularly re: iyengars outside Tamil Nadu) that is deliberately left out. Examples below:

>>the native tongue of the Iyengar Brahmins is Tamil. But nowadays there are Iyengars who speak other languages, mainly Telugu and Kannada. Vaishnavites have been living in the Tamil Nadu state of the India even prior to the time of Ramanuja.[citation needed] However, Iyengars as a community trace their origin from the times of Ramanuja.

"Nowadays" there are iyengars who speak Kannada and Telugu is a ridiculous statement. There have been communities of iyengars speaking kannada and telugu since Ramanuja was chased out of the Chola empire into the Hoysala empire. I am not sure if there is some kind of agenda here, but the statement above would be false.

>>is a caste given to Hindu Brahmins of Tamil origin who follow the Visishtadvaita philosophy propounded by Sri Ramanujacharya.[1] They are found mostly in Tamil Nadu as they are generally native to the Tamil Nadu state of India. But they are also found in large numbers in Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh..

The history of iyengars indicates conflict between being in the caste system and being out of it, as the author himself acknowledges (though in a location no one would see). Rather than show the complexities, the author wants the world to fit in his agenda. Secondly, the thiruman is not a caste mark, it is a mark to show devotion. I think someone wants key phrases to appear here, rather than accuracies.

>> The word "Iyengar" is a relatively new name and was not used in any medieval works or scriptures. The word "Sri Vaishnava" would therefore be the right word to describe them, though all of them could be called as Sri Vaishnava Brahmins.[1] The word Iyengar is derived from Ayya a Prakrit version of the Sanskrit word Arya along with the Telugu honorific plural suffix garu.[7] Some others believe that the word "Iyengar" means one who is characterised by five attributes(Aindu angangal).[8] Lester, Robert C.[9] claims that the word “Ayyangaar” was first used by Kandhaadai Ramanuja Ayyangaar of Tirupathi around 1450 AD.

The second sentence is a logical fallacy. Just because Iyengar is a new word does not make its usage wrong. I suggest the author go to Pakistan and tell them they should actually be called Hindustan since pakistan is a new word.

Secondly, the author implicitly claims that Iyengar=Ayya+garu as the true etymology (since it is asserted without qualifications), and that other etymologies are not yet substantiated. This requires a citation, or else the author should place all theories on an equal footing.

Thirdly, why does only Lester get a citation by name while the others do not? It isn't as if Lester is someone an average person would care to know about, while the others actually seem better known. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.171.61.47 (talk) 22:52, 16 February 2012 (UTC)