From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Ayyavazhi is mentioned in the demographic section. It is appropriate to mention the University papers which accredit the structure of Ayyavazhi as a religion. I am placing the sources. One from that of Madurai Kamaraj University and another from University of Madras, which are needed here. - 00:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Inclusion of Ayyavazhi was discussed and brought up by this same IP in June 2006. The result of that discussion was not to include it. I think these dicussions are exhausting community's patience. Regards, Ganeshk (talk) 00:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
But then, the University Papers were not cited from which the users form an opinion. But now reserch Papers are cited from two leading Universities in Tamil Nadu. Universities papers are valid sources and that which says Ayyavazhi as a religion and the large presence of Ayyavazhi followers for it's notability here. - 00:43, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
As User:Geneshk says, this discussion about this non-notable (yes this adjective seem to have been ivented to denote Ayyavazhi!) religion has more than its fair share in WP. Look at the hundreds of articles and stubs and the numerous unrelated articles in which somehow this 'religion' find mention. - Parthi talk/contribs 00:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Dear Parthi, I don't understand this, Who "invented" what? The book "Religion and Subaltern Agency" which is a University reserch paper qouted the study as "A Case-study of Ayya Vali". Also "to promote" which? Then, Notability. That too is cited with University papers abouth the spread of Ayyavazhi worship centers across the country. And Ayyavazhi is more notable than Jews and Zorastrians with respect to number of followers in India. Because three districts are declared as a holiday for Ayyavazhi festival in Tamil Nadu. I told all these to you and other user many times earlier, and also cited now in the article. Still going on telling non-notable etc.. Why you are doing all these? Also the pages in which Ayyavazhi mentions its views is appropriate otherwise new Article may want to be started on that same thing, and it is of no use.
For example, Ayyavazhi related article, "Three god-heads" was once started to represent "Trimurthi" and after a series of discussons the users merged it with Trimurthi. So automatically Ayyavazhi needs to be mentioned there in the Trimurthi article, otherwise need another article about thesame thing. All view points are important because this was belief related works. It doesn't mean that, in this sense every individual view points of Tom, sam and Harry may need to be noted. Because Akilam the scripture was written some 170 years back. - Paul 02:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Never heard of Ayya*. Strongly, irrevocably, and definitively against any mention in India article. There's a long waiting list for inclusion and Ayya* is not even remotely close to the top. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:27, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Dear Users Iam repeating the same. Ayyavzhi is cited for as a religion and for its notability from University papers from Leading Universities. Then how it was considered invalid? Every one is telling not heard ect. The fact that you doesn't heard of it doesn't mean that it was not notable. Please see this Three districts in Tamil Nadu have a majority of Ayyavazhi followers. 'Not even remotely closed?' A religion with more than 8000 worship centers across India. I don't understand that. Even University sources are considered invalid what more I can do? Why no is understanding this thing. I am again telling ths, "The source was a university publication and the book was also cited online in the article. As a solid evedence for its existance three districts was announced as a holiday for a festival of this religion. No other temple festival in Tamil Nadu is declared as a holiday for more than a district, But for Ayyavazhi. Why no one is considering all these?" - Paul 03:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Please cite the papers. At the moment we are going strictly by the Census Commission of India figures. =Nichalp «Talk»= 03:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Dear Paul Raj/Vaikunda Raja please cite sources for the (a)the number of Ayaavazhi followers, (b) the number of worship centres 'across India' and (c) that the followers consider thamselves as belonging to Ayyavazhi rather than Hinduism. Thanks Parthi talk/contribs 05:53, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

The book Religion and subaltern Agency is a publication from Department of Christian Sudies, University of Madras. The religious study on Ayyavazhi by this book is based on 33 top known theologians of Ayyavazhi. Since it is a University publication it is valid. Then the number of worship centers (8000) too is from a University book (Madurai Kamaraj University).
Parthi is asking to cite the number of worship centers. Iam asking that Hinduism has over a billoin followers. Can any one exactly count the number of Hindu Temples? And if can't does it mean that there is no such temples in India? That alike in the matter of Ayyavazhi. But the roundly it was counted as 8000 and was cited in the Ayyavazhi article with University papers. Another University book "Sri Vaikunda Swamigal and Struggle for social Equality in South India" (Madurai Kamaraj University) say that a large number in Thousands (of Nizhal Thangals) whole across South India. All these are University papers
Number of followers: I already told that Ayyavazhi since not officially recognised as a seperate religion there is no chance for a independent or official counting of them. That's the reason in the matter of Ayyavazhi. But the festival of Ayyavazhi was announced as a Holiday by the state government for Three districts n Tamil Nadu. No other temple festivals in Tamil Nadu was announced as a Holiday for more than a district. Was the holiday announced for Ayyavazhi for one or two followers in the district? The collective population of these three dists are over 5 million and even 20 percent of the population comfortabily covers over a million, which is much notable than the number of followers of Jews and Zorastrians in India Article.
All theas eis told by me many many times to the same Users. But they are making me repeating again and again nothing but the very same thing. What friends, is the gain for you by making me so? I don't understand.
And in the matter of census, that which is not officially recognised sould not be considered as not present practically. For example in the reservation issue, the govt reserves the seat when they feel that some body is of considerabile number, backward in society etc. That will only be officilly recognised by the govet, and the govt issues follow them then on. But before, if the same thing is reserched and the nature of its inner structure is published by a University paper in India then it become valid souce here in wikipedia Article. That's waht iam telling right from the beggining.
I've also told that, one by one many users are comming with the same issues for a long period of time. I have to make a large time and effort to tell the very same thing to many different users at different times. So waht Iam telling (don't thing that Iam not respecting India constitution) May be Indian official view point occupies a major place in wiki article. But the ultimate view of Indian constitution (other official issues) doesnot form the ultimate view of wikipedia article. It treats every independent sources (except for belief related works) as valid and so in the matter of Ayyavazhi. See also [1]

Also firstly the cited sources are removed from the article and now the mentioning of Ayyavazhi too. One user called this (citing with a University paper) as vandalism. No one is here to ask them. Why? - Paul 09:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

We're still not convinced. We've asked you to cite the university paper: Please use one of the citation styles as given on Wikipedia:Citation templates to quote your source below. I'll comment on the topic after you do so. =Nichalp «Talk»= 12:52, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

That,s what I told earlier. Please see the citations as provided as per the citation styles. Also I shall cite once more.

  • For the Autonomous religious Phenomenon: G.Patrick (2003), Religion and Subaltern Agency, Department of Christian Studies, University of Madras, Sub heading:The Religious Phenomenon of Ayya Vali, Page 120-121.
  • For Thousands of Nizhal Thangals across South India: Dr.R.Ponnu (2000), Sri Vaikunda Swamigal and The Struggle for Socal Equality in South India, Ram Publishers, School of Historical Studies, Madurai Kamaraj University, Page 100-101.
  • For 8000 Worship centers: Tha.Krishna Nathan, (2002) Ayyaa vaikundarin vaazvum sinthanaiyum (Tamil), Chapter - 4, page 83. (This citation was included here from Tamil wikipedia article)
  • Also Iam ready to give the comlete lists of LMS Reports (spaning more than 70 years) for the operational nature of Ayyavazhi and its fast growth from the beggining. The missionary reports should not be hesitated because the LMS acts as a anti-Ayyavazhi element. Even they call Ayya and Ayyavazhi as agents of satan etc, because it stood hard againt the fast growth of Christian Missionaries in Travancore, the most succesful venue of LMS in India.

And Iam once again telling, all these citations are not new. They were all cited earlier in Ayyavazhi and its related articles - Paul 14:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I do not doubt that Ayyavazhi is a religion. I do not doubt that it differs from other Hindu sects in some significant ways. However, I have difficulty seeing how the difference between Ayyavazhi and other sects is greater than the difference between Hindu sects. Should the India article mention every sect? --BostonMA talk 14:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. So why aren't the Ayyavazhis recognised as a separate religions by the Census Commission of India? =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Simple. For the same reason why Census does not differentiate between Shia and Sunny Muslims (or Leppai and Pattani) and Catholics and Protestants. Just because Census does not differentiate between Shia and Sunny, does it mean that they are one and the same  Doctor Bruno  00:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Shia, Sunni = Islam =Nichalp «Talk»= 03:00, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes. My question was different. Census does not differentiate between Sunni and Shia, Pattani and Leppai, Catholics and Protestants etc. Now just because census does not differentiate between catholics and protestants, can we say that there is no entity called Catholics or Protestants. A reply for this question will help clear my doubts. And I am asking this question from a general point of view and not supporting Ayyavazhi  Doctor Bruno  03:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

For the reason for the lack of official recognition please see the following. This is for only who is keen for knowing the reason for this situation of Ayyavazhi and for nothing else.

The following was the message once I wrote to one of the wiki user.

Ayyavazhi commoners[edit]

Recognition for Ayyavazhi

The main reason for that Ayyavazhi hasn't declared as a seperate religion is mainly illiterecy and the low standard of living of it's followers.

The below reply is not related to Ayyavazhi contents in wiki and for your personal question, Please be patient to read this. Ok?

My district is Kanyakumari and I think Kanyakumari district hold the second rank in literecy rate in Tamil Nadu (More than 90%) But, as far as I've seen it is rare to find a degree holder from Ayyavazhi religion. Also very few children continue the education after tenth Standard in Ayyavazhi society. When compared to the others these ratio will be much, much low. So they were unaware of their religion, holy books etc. Backing this we can't say that they are Hindus. Because all of them is strict in worshipping only Vaikundar or Vaikundar as the supreme power.
(i.e) Even an illiterate man from Ayyavazhi who have not even went to school will definitely say that Vaikundar is supreme. But he did not know to tell Vaikundar's relation with the Trimurthis, Narayana etc... He do not know what Hinduism is or not even what a religion is. But if any one ask him about Hinduism or its Gods, (Siva Brahma etc..) he will definitly answer in the next moment that, "After the comming of Ayya (Vaikundar) all were gone awry and they all should not be followed". But he did not know to tell about the mythical or theological background for this (that is, why they have gone awry?) he will not be able to answer. But we may able to see him deep in his faith, worshiping no gods other than Vaikundar. He don't know to read Akilam or any other Ayyavazhi books.
The only things he holds is,
  • Deep faith only on Ayya
  • Heared some theological speeches of Ayyavazhi scholors during some religious festivals.
More over he don't know deviation of his religion from Hinduism or what relation his religion maintaines with the so called Mainstream Hinduism.
But religiously, he is considered a high qualified Ayyavazhi follower, because he deeply roots in the faith that Vaikundar is the one and only supreme power than any concepts or God-heads as per Ayyavazhi theology.
This is the situation of nearly about 80% percent of Ayyavazhi commoners.
Another minor group Worship some lower level gods (the god-heads which are found in Akilam) but still says that Ayya is the supreme and say that these gods are of lesser level. They use to argue that they are worshipping them because Ayya told about them in Akilam. Even these people says Akilam and Arul Nool only as their scripture.
Simply telling,
These people know a little about Akilam and if they found name of any godheads in Akilam they took that mere mentioning as a accrediton to worship that God, but not as important to Vaikundar. They don't know that these God-heads are mentioned for the mythical narration (to describe the continiation of history). They also don't know that the theology underlying within the myth prohibit the worship of other gods.

Even in this category, they don't go to worship these gods in Hindu temples. But instead perform panividais (poojas) for these god-heads in Nizal Thangals. Basically the worship centers are diffferent. Ayyavazhi people don't use other Hindu temples.

These people,
  • Worship Ayya as supreme and worship other lesser gods which were mentioned only in Akilam.
  • Accept Akilam and Arul Nool only as scriptures.
Apart from these,
Only a hand ful of scholors are there in Ayyavazhi who were knowledgeble enough to go through Ayyavazhi matters with research mindedness. Though they are of different views, they all sense that Ayyavazhi is different from Hinduism in one way or other. They also sense the theological, philosophical, mythical, deviations of Ayyavazhi from Hinduism.
The all above mentioned range of people will be considered only as Ayyavazhi. Because they all, in one sense or other had caught the central points of Ayyavazhi beleif,
(1)As God - Vaikundar is supreme;
(2)As Scripture - Follow only Akilam.
But because of their lack of awareness towards their religion, and because of the illiteracy they are hard to be identified. But exists within the society.
Though there are many University papers published on Ayyavazi the book "Religion and Subaltern Agency" by the Christian department from University of Madras had given a detailed study. It was publised from details collected from interviews from thirty-three top known persons who were popular theologians, commentators, orators, and editors of journals on this religious phenomenon.
This book says that Ayya vazhi is a seperate religion (not officially but religiously).
Another reason for the unawareness is because of their low standard of Living (economically) in the society. Because Tamil Nadu is one among the developed states, there may not be any body below the poverty line but more than 90 % of them will be just above the poverty line.
They worship Ayya only and accept Akilam only. They don't know any thing beyond that. They don't know to undergo a deep philosophical study over their religion and fing what to do and what not to.
This same is the situations of Nizhal Thangals. The priests (poojaries) of Thangals worship only Vaikundar as Supreme and consider Akilam only as Sacred. Still to count there are more than 8000 through ot India. See Phenemenology section in Ayyavazhi article.
The head quarters is taking several steps (recently) to bring the awareness. But I respectfully say that the result is seen positive but very slow. More over more and more University researchs are commming on Ayyavazhi related subjects only in last 10 years. So I hope there may be result soon in the matter of Official recognition.
But we can't say that only tha official recognition says the presence of a religion. Recognition may be yet to come. But it exists strongly. It was cited with valid sources.
(i.e) That is if I say that I am following 'XXXX' religion and say that I don't care that wheather a govt recognise my religion or not, I will be it's follower. And there is valid source (from University) to state the presence of that 'XXXX' religion and a large number of followers.
Does it mean that this religion 'XXXX' does not exist?
Briefly telling, The Very Poor religious and social Infrastructure led to the non-notability of Ayyavazhi and it's followers in the society. Presently the situation is, Ayyavazhi exists factually which should not be seen with an eye of Official procedures. We can't say that wikipedia can't place unofficial matters. If something is factual but is unofficial, generally factual existance should be highlighed. In other words, The lack of Official recognition doesn't meant that it does not exist.


Also, as asked by User:BostonMA, Why Ayyavazhi is a religion rather than a Hindu Sect?

Generally among Hindu scriptures Shruthi (Vedas etc...) are considered Primary and Smirithi (Puranas etc...) as secondary. Among the Hindu denominations, may be one denomination is of one view on Vedas and another dinomination have other view. That is same in the matter of God-heads. The different denominations have different views on same god-heads. That is, Vaishnavites considered Maha Vishnu as supreme while Sivites consider Parasiva, and some others consider Brahman to be the supreme. This and a cluster of ritual variations are the difference between Hindu denominations.

But viewing Ayyavazhi, the scripture Akilam doesn't output any different views. It accepts that Hinduism (Akilam doesn't mention it(Hinduism) with the name "Hinduism") is true till the Birth of Kaliyuga. But by the advent of Kali, all agamas Veads, Sastras Puranas all lost their substances since Kaliyan bought them as boons. Also, Kaliyan had destroyed the original Vedas(Messages of God) and had performed several additions and removed some thing and changed them for his comfort. This was the reason that new scriptures are given to mankind, and that is Akilam from the view of Ayyavazhi.

Briefly telling, Ayyavazhi says that "That which is seen today, is not true Hinduism and it was geniune till the beginning of Kali Yuga and from then it has changed its color. In other words till the first of Kali Yuga, the so called, Agamas, Puranas, Vedas, Sastras are all true and to be followed, and from then onwards lost their originality and so only God inorder to reveal his true message decided to incarnate in the world as incarnate as Vaikundar.

Also as told earlier, since Kaliyan bought all vedas, power of God -heads, etc as boons God cannot incarnate in the world as per the privious times and as per the existing rules and regulations. So a total universal transformation (the power relation of god-heads, the rule of vedas, the dharmas etc) took place. The all old-scriptures (which were bought as boons by Kaliyan) gone awry. God incarnated with new set of rules and with unique importance. Since the Kaliyan is most seriouse to be destroyed, for first time the most supreme, 'Ekam' (similar to Nirguna Brahman) incarnated in the world as Vaikundar.

All the other schools in Hinduism though differ from each others in beliefs or thoughts, they don't say that others were lost or not to be followed. But in Ayyavazhi mostly all the saivite Vashnavite and other scriptures were mentioned but said as lost presently. If you accept Ayyavazhi inside Hinduism you may have to see with equal value the Akilattirattu Ammanai with other scriptures of Hinduism and if so have to accept that all the others had lost their substance and instead have to accept whole-heartedly Akilattirattu as the supreme ond only scripture.

Apart from these there is also a lot of ideological variations between Ayyavazhi and Hinduism. More over, they have seperate holy places (which were historically associted with the activities of Vaikundar), Worship centers (built and maintained as per the instructions in Akilam and Arul Nool), Scriptures Akilam and Arul Nool,(given by Vaikundar), mythology (as found in Akilam), etc...

Ayyavazhi doesn't part Hinduism in to different denominations. But see the whole Hinduism as one. It treats the Vedas, Agamas, Sastras, Puranas, all as divine. it doesn,t even varriates them with Primary or secondary status. But Akilam after mentioning all these in the first half and says that "all are gone awry" in the second half, the part which is associated with the Incarnation and Incarnational activities of Vaikundar. - Paul 18:36, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Paul, my response will be rather short, as I was not able to follow much of your writing. In my opinion, showing that something is a religion does not demonstrate that it is not also a sect. Let us please drop the discussion of whether Ayyavazhi is a religion, as we agree on that.
You write:
"All the other schools in Hinduism though differ from each others in beliefs or thoughts, they don't say that others were lost or not to be followed."
I am afraid I disagree. Some Vaishnava schools teach that those who worship anyone but Vishnu are in tamas guna. Similarly for some Shaivite schools. I remain unconvinced that the differences between Ayyavazhi and other Hindu sects is greater than the differences between Hindu sects. Sincerely, --BostonMA talk 22:04, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Sorry very much for my imperfect English. I humbly request, if you quote that which part you can't understand, then I will explain clearly.
Then it(Vaishnavism) seems a bit exclusivistic. Generally dharmic religions are inclusive and here it is exclusive and may be more.
Again one thing I forgot to tell. The religious relation of Ayyavazhi with Hinduism seems similar to that of Christianity and Judaism. As them, (the relation between Christianity - Bible - Judaism) the first quarter of the Ayyavazhi scripture (Akilam) contains the elements that are already found in Hinduism (Hindu Scriptures) with Minor changes and is classified in another order unlike in Hinduism. That is, in the eight yugas circle of Ayyavazhi, many of the events are from various Hindu Puranas etc. In the second quarter, it says about the situation of the world (after the birth of Kaliyan), and the reasons for the incarnation of Vaikundar. The second half of the scripture is related with the incarnatiopnal preperation and Incarnation of Vaikundar.
As in Judaism and Christiany, the Old testament (the books of Judaism) says about the period before Christ, and in New testament, says about the Christ. The Old Testament is taken from Judaism and the New is unique to Christianity. Christians too accept old testament, but consider the New as the reformed teaching, and they follow strictly the New testament much more than the Old. But Jews don't Accept all these. That is in the case of Ayyavazhi and Hinduism. Ayyavazhi accepts the Hinduism (not like the exclusivistic view as you mentioned) as a whole. But only until the birth of Kali Yuga, and it say that what now seen is not original Hinduism and original scriptures.
As you told, though Vasnavites are exclusivistic they and Sivites both accept the Vedas. So vedas become common to both. But Ayyavazhi doesn't treat Vedas or other Hindu scriptures as divine. If you ask that "what are common to Ayyavazhi and Hinduism?", the reply is Nothing but some philosophical concepts such as Dharma, Karma etc., and that too with different views. It seems that This is not in the case of other Hindu Denominations. It also seems that mostly all denominations accepts Vedas, but very few exceptions like Ligayatists. But in their case they accepts Agamas, which are part of hindu scriptures.
Hindus can't accept that Vaikundar is supreme to all, even to Nirguna Brahman. But Ayyavazhi in the path of Akilam belive so. But some Ayyavazhi's are also in the View that Vaikundar is the tenth avatar of Vishnu. How ever it is controversial as per Akilam to find solution for this. There are far and against quotes there.
Then, Sect is a part of a religion. So if some thing is demonstrated as a religion it automatically disqualifies as a sect. Sect is a section of people with in a religion, with different view on some particular matters. But in the matter of Ayyavazhi and Hinduism nothing is there except some God-heads and myths shared between, but even that with different views.
By the way is there more such exclusivistic view with in Hinduism?
Also once again sorry for tiring wiki users with my bad english. Thanks - Paul 20:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Paul Raj, your English is fine, and I do not have difficulty understanding your English. You write:
Then it(Vaishnavism) seems a bit exclusivistic. Generally dharmic religions are inclusive and here it is exclusive and may be more.
First of all, not all Vaishnava sects exclude other forms of worship. However, I was trying to make the point that the belief that others (non-Ayyavazhi) are lost and in ignorance and that only Ayyavazhi represents the pure truth, is not something that distinguishes Ayyavazhi from other Hindu sects, because similar beliefs are found in other Hindu sects. In my opinion, you haven't really addressed that point. Sincerely, --BostonMA talk 15:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Also, acceptance of the Vedas as authority is not a distinguishing feature of Hinduism. Veerashaivism is certainly Hindu, yet they do not accept authority of Vedas. --BostonMA talk 15:24, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
But, Veerasaivaites accepts Saivite Agamas which are part of Hindu scriptures. Again telling, the exclusivism found in Ayyavazhi is different from that between other sects. Ayyavazhi doesn't form a view on certain concepts or God-heads one among the other Hindus. But says about Agamas, Vedas, Puranas, Sastras, and all. But says that now they aren't worthy. I think perhaps Akilam is the only scripture in Hinduism (When Akilam is treated as Hindu scripture) mentioning the scriptures (Agamas, Vedas, Puranas, Sastras etc...)of all different denominations in Hinduism.
Within hinduism, different denominations are of different opinions on treating the scriptures. They differ from each other with small variations (i.e) as Primary secondary ect. But Akilam doesn't treats so. It doesn't says some of them as primary and some as secondary. It doesn't address Hinduism with any denonimational varriations. It does not call with the name Hinduism. It call Hinduism (collectively all denominations) as a whole as "Path of Vedas". (Veda in Tamil means divine words or word of God)
Explining it, Assume: Right now, If some one decided to reorganise a religion collecting elements from all scriptures and Hindu denominations, to the best what he will do? Exactly that is seen in Akilam. It seems, that it doesn't mention any of them as representatives(i.e no denominations are mentioned there as saivites, Vishnavites etc..) But contain elements from all most all denominations of Hinduism. Also it contain elements related to Christian and few muslim terms such as allah, Nabi etc. What seen in Akilam is some sort of reorganisation of Hinduism and on the other hand, high and supreme focus towards Vaikundar. The theology and the meta narrative mythography of Akilam revolves around those things.
But says since the Vedas, the words of God is destroyed by Kaliyan at the birth of Kali yuga the divine system, the "Path of Vedas" which is based on Vedas have to divert its path unless it will travel in the path of "False vedas" (since true elements destroyed by Kaliyan). The diverting point is the incarnation of Vaikundar. The diverted path is Ayyavazhi. And hence Ayyavazhi is the divine system based on "Path of Vedas" or "Path of God".
Briefly telling, Akilam present a view on hinduism purely from outside Hinduism. And as per, What seen now is not pure or true Hinduism (Path of Vedas). - Paul 19:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


The demographics statistics for the India page will be taken from the census commission of India, the only official organisation authorised for mass official census taking. Ayyavazhi as a religion/sect will not be added as it is not mentioned in the census reports. Thanks! =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

The mere mention of Ayyavazhi in the article, doesn't claim any official or statistical figures. It just says the presence of Ayyavazhi population in India. The citations for both notability, the seperate religious structure and the presence of so called population(Ayyavazhi) are all cited from University Papers.
As told earlier, the census commission's report may be the most valuably treated official document by the Indian Govet. But it doesn't control Wikipedia. It also doesn't form the only valuable source here. To wiki, all independent sources are valid. And so here, the sources are from publications from two leading Universities. So it is definitly notable here. - Paul 18:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Did the people conducting census go through a house to house survey of 100+ million to determine who is an Ayyavazhi? Those figures are not official, sorry. =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Three districts are declared a holiday for an Ayyavazhi festival. Even 20% of those districts collectively goes over a million. That is what I told it is notable. easpecially in the India article it is definetely more notable than zorastrians and Jews.
Also, one university paper says that "thousands of Worship centers" another one University reserch says this as "8000 worship centres". It was valid because they are university papers which are valid and third party publication which are considered more valid in wikipedia.
Then I cited other University papers for the independent, autonomous and single structure of Ayyavazhi religion mythically, ideologically, philosophically, regarding seperate worship centers, scriptures, and holy places.
One new thing I got. The temple entry agitation in which the so called 'low castes' commonly participated in Travancore and other parts of tamil Nadu during 19th century was untouched by the followers of Ayyavazhi. Iam ready to cite this from university book. This shows the autonomous infrastucture of Ayyavazhi even in the mid ninteenth century. - Paul 09:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
What is meant by the phrase the autonomous infrastucture of Ayyavazhi? Is it not true that there are many "autonomous infrastuctures" in Hinduism? --BostonMA talk 15:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Please see the previous discussion for this autonomous nature. I said about the religious such as scriptures, unique theology, mythology etc... Though other Hindus have idelogical differences the scriptures are common with slight variations among them in accrediting them as primary secondary etc.. philosophical concepts god-heads all are common with slight varriations. But in Ayyavazhi the scripture says that they are true once (till the advent of Kaliyuga) but now all Previous(Hindu) sciptures and ideology had gone awry and hence Trinity keeping Hindu Trinity within it, incarnated as Vaikundar. And hence since Kali Yuga Vaikundar is supreme to all even Ekam (akain Brahman).
This is the thing makes Ayyavazhi a seperate religion. That is, "Since the Birth of Kali Yugam Hinduism is dead" and none of it should be followed. And so God give new scriptures, and based on it new worship centers, new Holy Places, new ideology, new myth all gets developed. Can Hindus accept all these? So Ayyavazhi forms or gains a place outside Hinduism.
But it doesn't hate Hinduism. In it's (Ayyavazhi's) view Ayyavazhi is the original Hinduism.
And I said only this and not about the social infrastucture such as religious head quarters, official status worship centers etc. - Paul 16:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
You haven't answered my question. I would also like to see independent reports from the Indian media declaring them to be a religion. =Nichalp «Talk»= 03:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Are you saying that universities (Madras University and Madurai Kamaraj University) are dependent to Ayyavazhi? I cited them as sources and they are those says Ayyavazhi as seperate religion and about the presence of "large numbers of worship centers" respectively. Paul 17:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm not commenting on the university reports. I'm asking you to cite media reports if they are as notable as you claim. =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
The University papers are those which reserched Ayyavazhi and say it as a seperatee religion. See how the study is made in the next section here - Paul 09:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Paul, you're still beating around the bush. Please stop flashing us with those university papers over and over again when we ask you to cite alternate sources. Please show some independent media sources to support your claim. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:50, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Iam not beating around the bu..... Ayyavazhi was recognised as an independent religion by University papers. See the text here This is the media. Unfortunately I was made to repeat the same as told by me earlier.
Aren't university publications considered as a source here in wikipedia? or Are you telling University of Madras is dependent to Ayyavazhi? Unfortunately it was unavailable online, and so it was cited offline and if neaded iam ready to scan the page of text. - Paul 20:21, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Forget the issue of the credibility of university papers for now. If the religion was as notable as you say, articles surely would have been picked up by the Times of India, Indian Express and so on. What you seek to add to the page is something new, maybe controversial, so we need maximum references to support your claim. Google news [2] does not pick up anything on the term, and now this raises credibility fears. So for the last time please do cite media reports to back your claim. The university sources might well be dubious. =Nichalp «Talk»= 02:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately I had to reproduce the same thing told by me earlier briefly in detail once again. How the University papers are considered dubious than News papers? See here how the study on Ayyavazhi is made.
This book "Religion and Sub-altern Agency" is perhaps the best informative research study on Ayyavazhi. It was based on, collecting elements from written commentaries, good number of issues of Ayyavazhi journals, some books from Department of History - University of Kerala, LMS reports from 1819 to 1900, interviews with 33 top known thoelogians, commentators, orators, editors of journals, of Ayyavazhi, and also personal observations to Ayyavazhi festivals and rituals. And so it forecast the ultimate view of the essence of Ayyavazhi structure. And you can belive that this book form the view of majority of Ayyavazhi people even of a well educated or of an illiterate.
And how the study of university papers is considered comparitively unimportant to News papers especially on unofficial (in India) matters. News papers usually produce news and a few reserch. But an University journal highly focus to original reserch. More over this book is mentioned as Religion and Subaltern Subaltern Agency - 'A Case-Study of Ayya Vali' The reserch on Ayyavazhi by this book is not a section on the way of reserching Hinduism, but in turn whole on Ayyavazhi. So socially and based on beliefs the book focus to every minds of Ayyavazhi people and not to a few people. But the news paper you told, may varry as per POVs than such deeply reserched University papers.
Also the Book is published by 'Department of Christian Studies' the department which is dedicated to Study mostly the view of Christians (studies) whose missionalries mostly hated Ayya and called Ayyavazhi as satanic agents. On the other hand it was from A leading University of Tamil Nadu.
And in the so called news papers, if an editior decided, it is easy to provide POVs than in University papers. Also the newspapers from India is bounded to restrictions to indian constitution than the publications from Universities, because University papers is based on a study from a large grounded facts than that of a single editor of a news paper. But wiki is not bounded to Indian constitution but on valid sources. Then in what ground News papers's view become acute than University papers especially here in wikipedia? University paper citation will be the maximum valid in this matter.
Still, (I don't do so, but) if you consider news papers, I am ready to scan report from the news paper 'Daily Thanthi' the news paper supposed to be have the largest reader-ship in India, which calles Ayyavazhi as a religion and not a sect, on reporting the news of Holiday declaration. - Paul 07:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[edit]

Paul Raj, please take a look at this website. Do you think that most followers of Ayyavazhi would regard this website as providing an accurate description of Ayyavazhi? --BostonMA talk 19:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

No, this was a cite from a Hindu webmaster. See here, the site begins as vaishnavite. This is a site maintained by a Hindu inclusivistic who also followes Ayyavazhi. Hindu inclusivism highly rule this site.
One good example, As per Akilam the primary scripture of Ayyavazhi, Yugas are eight and not four as in Hinduism. They are not of circular conception but linear. But see here The term 'Kalanemi' found there is not mentioned anywhere in Akilam. Also see there four yugas are noted there. Also seehere Akilam doesn't mention any thing about the tupes of Avatar etc. Also Srimad Bhagavatham is not even mentioned in Akilam. They tried to mingle Hindu and Ayyavazhi ideas. See the previous discussion about the same issue
This site was just mentioned in the Ayyavazhi article to say some thing realed to the article about Vaikundar and Ayyavazhi. - Paul 20:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
OK, the site is run by a Vaishnavite inclusivistic who follows Ayyavazhi. Please try to understand my question, I am not asking whether you agree that the site is accurate. I am asking whether most followers of Ayyavazhi would agree that the site is accurate. Although you identify the webmaster as Hindu and Vaishnavite, you also identify him as a follower of Ayyavazhi. So clearly some followers of Ayyavazhi have views similar to this website. My question is whether most followers of Ayyavazhi have similar views to this website. Sincerely, --BostonMA talk 20:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
No, the yugas taken here(and click the link Ayya's Later years in the left, and scroll down to find a link Kalanemi and click it) are that of Hindu scriptures which are told by Akilam as gone awry. Also about the accptance of followers the followers regard only Vaikundar and treat only Akilam and Arul Nool and no other scriptures. Hence the view from that site is not of that of Ayyavazhi followers. See also about the Ayyavazhi followers from the earlier discussions above. Thanks - Paul 20:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Let me try again. You may have valid arguments for why Ayyavazhi scriptures are in conflict with the views of the website. However, the fact that a view may be faulty is not really evidence that it is not widely held. So, I would prefer to set aside the question of whether Ayyavazhi scriptures are in conflict with the website, and leave that question unanswered. I am really more interested in whether you believe the majority would disagree with that website based upon some expression of that majority. For example, if you were to list all those followers of Ayyavazhi who have written on the relationship between Ayyavazhi and Hinduism, how many of those would be found to have written that they do not regard Ayyavazhi as a variety of Hinduism? --BostonMA talk 21:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
This book "Religion and Sub-altern Agency" is perhaps the best informative research study on Ayyavazhi. It was based on, collecting elements from written commentaries, good number of issues of Ayyavazhi journals, some books from Department of History - University of Kerala, LMS reports from 1819 to 1900, interviews with 33 top known thoelogians, commentators, orators, editors of journals, of Ayyavazhi, and also personal observations to Ayyavazhi festivals and rituals. And so it forecast the ultimate view of the essence of Ayyavazhi structure. And you can belive that this book form the view of majority of Ayyavazhi people even of a well educated or of an illiterate.
Also, this book is considered secondary in belief related matters when it overlaps with the contents of Akilam, especially when the quotes are directly cited from the scripture. - Paul 09:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[edit]

This website claims to be the "Official site of Ayya Vaikundar and devotees" (see the title bar in web browser, or title tag in raw html). It states that Ayya Vaikundar "revolutionized the Hindu religion". It states regarding Ayya Vaikundar that "His miracles proved that He is the incarnation of Lord Vishnu". Do you think that the majority of followers of Ayyavazhi would agree with the contents of this website? --BostonMA talk 20:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Mind that Ayyavazhi is not an organised religion. Even Swamithoppe Pathi the religious head-quarters is only accepted as the headquarters only religiously(based on the religious importance this pathi obtains from the activities of Vaikundar) and not officially. Then how this site can clim it be the official site of Ayyavazhi?
Questioning it, I tried to mail or contact the site master. But the feed back page is not found in the web. See here
Also this site see Vaikundar more reformer than an incarnation, from the line you quoted. But even it is true Vaikundar "revolutionized the Hindu religion", other Hindus can't accept the revolutionized Hindu religion as per Akilam as I told in the above discussions. Then he was the incarnation of Vishnu; that was noted even in the Ayya Vaikundar (as one among the trinity )article.
The view mentioned in the article is more accurate in beleif related matters. Because it is based on the book Religion and Subaltern Agency which's study is based on the research and interviews with 33 top-known theologians of Ayyavazhi. So the view now in the Ayyavazhi article is more accurate than those sites in the external links.
See the third external link, The view is clearly on Vaikundar as a saint. These sites in the external link areas are some among very few sources which says some thing related to Vaikundar. So these sites are mentioned there.
Even that book should become secondary when one thing(term or concept) is cited with quotes from Akilam,(the scriptures) in beleif related matters. - Thnaks once again Paul 21:25, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Here is one of the problems. Wikipedia articles should be based upon WP:Reliable Sources. I have presented to you two websites that claim to be expressing the viewpoints of Ayyavazhi. You state that they do so inaccurately. However, your views that there is a conflict between these websites and Ayyavazhi scriptures, seems to be Original Research. Your criticism of these websites may be valid. However, Wikipedia is interested in what has been published. Is there any literature, either on the web or off, by followers of Ayyavazhi, that would tend to show that these views are not widely accepted among those who identify themselves as followers of Ayyavazhi? --BostonMA talk 21:59, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
No original reaserch. It was based on religious and University books. see the bottom of the previous section. - Paul 10:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[edit]

You mention this site in the previous section. However, this site also states:

"Ayya kept the continuity of Sanathana Dharma"

Yet Sanatana Dharma is what "Hindus" identify as their religion. --BostonMA talk 22:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Reports by Christian Missionaries[edit]

Christian missionaries have been cited in support of the assertion that Ayyavazhi is a religion. However, Christian missionaries may also be sited in support of the assertion that Ayyavazhi is a sect.

London Mission Society, 1838:

"About seventy families of this sect..." (emphasis added)

Nagercoil Mission District, 1864:

"a modern sect, greatly on the increase" (emphasis added)

--BostonMA talk 22:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

The LMS reports says Ayyavazhi as a sect only officially and not religiously. The Travancore government don't recognise Ayyavazhi as a seperate religion but only as a faster growing (anti-governmental) reform movement. The reports of LMS was read-out only in Nagercoil . So it focus only the view of govt. But regarding religious views the LMS output a view that Ayyavazhi is autonomous "this singular people", "new and singular" etc. Even in that case Vaishnavism, Folk worship and Saivism is dominant in Travancore. The LMS doesn't call them with those terms they use to refer Ayyavazhi. Also the article "Ayyavazhi reports in Christian Missionaries" is incomplete and there is a lot of work there, which may be enough to understand Ayyavazhi's independent nature. They give such a stress on Ayyavazhi while don't care or consider about Hinduism.
Could you provide a quote to support:
The LMS reports says Ayyavazhi as a sect only officially and not religiously.
Thanks, --BostonMA talk 14:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
This itself is a good proof that they called Ayyavazhi with the name Muthukuttyism and call all others comonly as Hindus, and not as saivism, Vaishnavism etc...
Also note it, they mentioned Ayyavazhi as "this singular people", "new and singular" etc. , says about their independency in social stucture. Thay call no other Hindu denominations so. But instead don't call them with different names as Saivite Vaishnavite etc.. But commonly as Hinduism - Paul 10:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

"other Hindus can't accept the revolutionized Hindu religion as per Akilam"[edit] seems to be a counterexample. --BostonMA talk 22:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I've already explined the reason for the inaccuracy of this and the other sites including the newsletter in - Paul 10:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Religion and Subaltern Agency[edit]

Unfortunately, I do not have this book. Ayyavazhi article states:

"Ayyavazhi has not as yet received official recognition as an independent religion from the Indian government, but its followers consider it an autonomous religion." (referenced to G.Patrick's Religion and Subaltern Agency, Chapter 5, Page 120,121.)

Could you please provide a quote from those pages to support the claim that its followers consider it an autonomous religion. Thank you. Sincerely, --BostonMA talk 23:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I have moved comments which you added to this section to a new heading. In this heading, please only respond to the request that is made here for a quote from G. Patrick's Religion and Subaltern Agency. Thanks. --BostonMA talk 13:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
The contents from the book Religion and Subaltern Agency.
" From the foregoing descriptive account, it may be concluded that, it may be concluded that AV emerged as a 'new and singular' religious phenomenon in that context. The sanskritic Hinduism, the newly introduced Christianity, the not-so-prominent Islam, and the ubiquitous folk forms of worship - admist these traditions, AV was developing as a distinctive alternative religio-cultural form.
This fact had been recognised by the followers of AV. They addressed their religion with a new nomenclature as "Ayya Vali" (The path or way of Ayya) and thereby confirmed its new identity. They considered it, on the one hand, as 'ghee churned out of the existing religious traditions', and, on the other, as a new phenomenon that came to replace the old traditions. They believe, on the one hand, that Vaikuntacami had 'unified' all the existing deities unto himself, and, on the other, that 'the essence of the old traditions had gone awry with the advent of Vaikundacami. They placed their religion within the existing traditions and yet perceived it to be different.
The distinguishing aspect of AV needs to be seen against the background of the sanskritic tradition whose pre-eminence was upheld by the state. That AV had emerged differently against this religious tradition is a pointer to its distinct singularity. As in the words of Mr. Narayanadhas, a devotee of AV, "its uniqueness needs to be recognised and this new religion should not be buried within Hinduism." The emergence of AV needs to be seen also against the presence of the British in the country. Mr. R. Ponnu noted this point in the following words: "Reform movements in general had the patronisation of the British in the nineteenth century Tiruvitankur. But AV was not patronised by the british. It arose and stabilised without the support of the British. In one sense, it was anti-established. "


  • AV - Ayyavazhi
  • Vaikundacami - Ayya Vaikundar

- Paul 13:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


Even the University books i cited says Ayyavazhi as an independent religion only religiously and not officially. Because officially they could only view Ayyavazhi as the Govt view it. Because the universities are runned as per the indian constitutional policies inside India. The reaserch states that it was autonomous by belief. But wiki is not so. Here the independent source are important. And the view of the article was cited from independent third party sources.

Also i presented no original reserch here. It was all cited from the appropriate University papers and from religious publications for beleif related matters. And so here is no place for original reserch. See the large number of citation found in the Ayyavazhi and it's related works.

Also the websites I told the reasons for the inaccuracies seperately. The as mentioned in the article view Vaikundar clearly as a saint. It were all cited here to give some thing from net to make a picture about Vaikundar related things for readers. that's all.

Temple Entry Movement[edit]

Also one thing i like to say once again. The ayyavazhi followers untouched the 'Temple Entry Agitation', which was participated by all Hindus (other than caste Hindus) despite the sect differences.(I was ready to cite it with university papers) While the so called Vaishnavism, Saivism all participate by Ayyavazhi's remain untouched. This show the basic social varriation of Ayyavazhi from Hinduism, even from the mid-ninteenth century, the time at which the teachings of Akilam is not so focused in Ayyavazhi society - Paul 07:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Brahmos, like Ayyavazhis, also do not have murti worship. So, during Temple Entry Agitation, they also did not leave their own places of worship to enter temples with murthis. --BostonMA talk 13:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
But if I read correctly, the brahmos don't belive in scriptures, holy places, worship centers etc... So there in no need for them to enetr the temple. But Ayyavazhi beleives in All these. So they need worship centers. But Ayyavazhi don't believe in Hindu ideas and so they made seperate worship centers etc.. of their own. - Paul 10:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Ayyavazhi removed[edit]

After citing with university papers i added Ayyavazhi see here and then without discussion it was reverted after eleven days without discussion by user Fowler&Fowler see here by using the word 'trolling' in edit summary, though it was cited with University papers and discussed. - Paul 16:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Ayyavazhi - December 2006[edit]

Paul, the Ayyavazhi article says that it is not recognised as a separate religion in India. The sentence on the demographics deals with the reports published by the Census Commisssion of India. We'll leave it as that. If you want to author more, you can do so in Religion in India] and mark it up as a recognised sect/unrecognised religion. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

If so, we can add Ayyavazhi near Hindus as
Although 80.5% of Indians report themselves as Hindus (including Ayyavazhi's), India's Muslim population is the world's second largest ...
Since Ayyavazhi identify themselves outside Hinduism and is officially a sect of Hinduism - Paul 18:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Paul, please wait for consensus before you change the article. I have reverted your edit since the article is a summary article, and does not need to mention all the smaller sects. Regards, Ganeshk (talk) 20:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Dear User:Ganeshk,

That is what i explined through various contexts (includuing university papers) in this discussion. Ayyavazhi is not a sect. Ayyavazhi is mentioned (only here) inside the brackets because User:Nichalp opinins that, this particular section of demographics deals with official issues from India. As per Indian Govt Ayyavazhi is a sect of Hinduism. But Ayyavazhi's don't call themselves Hindus and do the Ayyavazhi ideology. hence Ayyavazhi need a mention as "(including Ayyavazhi)" with Hinduism. I too cited all with university papers. - Paul 21:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Paul, you state that "Ayyavazhi's don't call themselves Hindus". This hinges on the definition of an Ayyavazhi. There are individuals who identify themselves as followers of Ayyavazhi and who call themselves as Hindus. However, you choose not to recognize them as Ayyavazhis. There are other sects which also claim to have transcended Hinduism in one manner or another. However, an overview article on India cannot mention all of these sects. --BostonMA talk 21:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Followers of Ayyavazhi who claim it is not a sect of Hinduism doesn't make it true. ISKCON (The Hare Krishnas) believe they are not a sect of Hinduism, but they are still regarded as such because of what they do, not what they say. Ayyavazhi revolves very much around Smartism and Advaita Vedanta philosophy. If you can state some major differences between Ayyavazhi and Smartism/Advaita (supported with reliable sources), I will be convinced that it is a different religion. Otherwise, it is a South Indian sect IMHO. GizzaChat © 22:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
A minor point. Ayyavazhi has much in common with Brahmo Samaj. It is perhaps closer to Brahmo Samaj than either to Smartism or Advaita. This doesn't alter your fundamental argument. However, as you stated it, I think Paul could meet your challenge. --BostonMA talk 22:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Here, the fact that not only, Ayyavazhi call themselves not as Hindus, but also Ayyavazhi ideology based on scriptures deviates from Hinduism. Any one who go through the previous discussions could understand that. Also most importantly, university reaserch too recognise that deviation which makes much notable in wiki article.
And now here, I added "Hindus (including Ayyavazhi)" because originally as per the valid citations Ayyavazhi did not fall under Hinduism. But here in this demographic section (as per User:Nichalp) since it seems that the article had to follow Indian govt's view, Ayyavazhi is to be added as Hindu sect (as per indian official view over Ayyavazhi) but on the other hand should be specially mentioned because it does not fall under Hinduism unlike other denominations of Hinduism. Ayyavazhi is notable because the demographics of India include Ayyavazhi's. But may be with govts views. On the other hand follow the path of citations from research papers. - Paul 22:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
(i.e)The refernce --> "Hindus +(including Ayyavazhi)" ==> Ayyavazhi is a hindu sect (officially) + Ayyavazhi is independent (religiously) - Paul 22:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Ayyavazhi is related to Advaita and Smartism in very few theology. Ayyavazhi says about oneness (so related to Advaita) Says also Trimurthi (so related to Smartism). It seems, nothing more than that. And i don't understand how Ayyavazhi is similar to Brahmo Samaj. The only thing makes them closer is 'oneness of God'. If so, then all monotheistic or monistic religions (beliefs) should be merged together and should be considered as one. - Paul 22:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
For those who are interested, there is a viewpoint which differs from that of Paul Raj at (Note the name of the site). From the first paragraph on the main page of that site:
"...He revolutionized Hindu religion. He foretold a variety of events many of which have been realized. He established the cult of Ayyavazhi."
--BostonMA talk 22:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
How would an unorganised religion have official site? For example Could any one form a website and call it as official site of Hinduism?
see also the feed back section it's completely out of order So we can't even contact that web master who claims his as the official site of Ayyavazhi. Also see previous discussions here about this issue. - Paul 22:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
On the other hand how a website created by a single (unapproachable) webmaster become valid than a publication from a leading university in India.
See how the study of that book is made
This book "Religion and Sub-altern Agency" is perhaps the best informative research study on Ayyavazhi. It was based on, collecting elements from written commentaries, good number of issues of Ayyavazhi journals, some books from Department of History - University of Kerala, LMS reports from 1819 to 1900, interviews with 33 top known thoelogians, commentators, orators, editors of journals, of Ayyavazhi, and also personal observations to Ayyavazhi festivals and rituals. And so it forecast the ultimate view of the essence of Ayyavazhi structure. And you can belive that this book form the view of majority of Ayyavazhi people even of a well educated or of an illiterate.
See the conclusion made by the study read the italicised text. - Paul 22:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I have read the Ayyavazhi article and fail to recognise it as a separate religion. It sounds like a Hindu reform movement to me. The only major difference I see is that they believe in a devil-like figure called Kroni. Everything else is an integration of Hindu beliefs. It believes in Sivam and Sakthi (ie. Shiva and [[Shakti), a Tantric and Shaivite notion. Much of it is decptive because the holy language here is Tamil, not Sanskrit so many words that have identical Hindu meanings but don't are written differently. eg. Yukam which is cognate with Yuga. The fact that there are 8 Yukams in Ayyavazhi is minor. Many Hindu acharyas and gurus differ from the mainstream Hindu idea of four Yugas. Sri Auruobindo believes reversals of Yugas are possible. It believes in Dharma, Karma and reincarnation, but many Dharmic religions do, so that is a weak point. The founder of the sect considers himself to be the final avatar of the Supreme Being, which is ver common in these Hindu movements. 1008 is regarded as an auspicious number (just as in Hindu superstitions in addition to 108). It condemns the caste system, which is also condemned by all modern Hindu organisations, apart from Hindutva. Pathis are close enough to temples and ashrams. I don't see anything which contrasts with mainstream Hinduism apart from Kroni. GizzaChat © 23:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Ayyavazhi is not a reform movement. As per it's own beleif, Ayyavazhi is true Hinduism see here. Ideologically Ayyavazhi varries very much from Hinduism - Paul 23:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Arya Samaj and Sai Baba claim what they believe is "true Hinduism" and other Hindus follow a disintergrated form. How does it vary apart from Kroni? Please answer that question. GizzaChat © 23:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Ayyavazhi don't simply tell itself to be the true Hinduism. The word Hinduism is not even mentioned in Ayyavazhi scriptures. But Ayyavazhi scriptures contains many elements almost from every denominations.Also Arya Samaj is historically a reform movement, but Ayyavazhi is a religion or faith based on Beleifs. Then Kroni, that is the central theme in ideological deviation. As per Ayyavazhi kroni is sliced to six and it manifests in the succesive six yugas. Also the yugas are linear and not circular as per Hinduism. Read this this patiently.
The scripture divide the universe as Before Vaikundar and After Vaikundar. And Akilam says the situations and universal conditions before Vaikundar is in one way (similar to the present day Hindu beleifs, i.e what hindus believe today. on other words What hindus beleive today is to be belived as per Ayyavazhi scriptures before Kaliyuga and before incarnation of Vaikundar). But after the incarnation of Vaikundar universal change took place and the total transformation of all god-heads, power-relations, qualities of God-heads all changes. New scriptures, new worshp centers, new ideology, new theology all was given by god.
As per Ayyavazhi scriptures, Hindu ideas changes from incarnation of Vaikundar because all the god-heads, divine beings etc.. all changes their nature from the incarnation of Vaikundar. Hindus can't accept this. If Hindus follow this they had to reject all other Hindu scriptures and follow only Akilam. - Paul 23:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry Paul but I read most of the stuff above (it got boring after a while) and I share my views with BostonMA and Nichalp. It is amazing that Category:Ayyavazhi is filled with subcats and articles when, even if it is a religion, it is very small compared with others. A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, founder of ISKCON expresses similar ideas to the notion of all Shastras being divine but have lost their meaning at the start of Kali Yuga. They regard Chaitanya Mahaprabhu as the golden eleventh avatar, who will eventually convert all "lost Hindus" to Hare Krishnas, just like Vaikuntar will make all lost Hindus into Ayyavazhi.
Regarding worships centers, each denomination and sect varies on this again. Advaitists regard the four Mathas as holy. Mother Goddess devotees regard Vaishno Devi as holy. Rama and Krishna bhakts will go to their respective birth places. There are 12 holy Lingam sites in India for Shaivites. The only common holy place which may not be the case in Ayyavazhi is Varanasi and perhaps other cities on the Ganges River. GizzaChat © 23:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, May be because of my imperfect english, I think you don't understand the deviation. No common worshippers within the denominations of Hinduism varry as Ayyavazhi do. See here the basic structure of Akilam based beleif and Hindu based beleif are different. Also see here All the so called denominations took part in temple entry agitation. But ayyavazhi followers remain untouched it.
All above are not citations for differentiating Ayyavazhi. But see this book Religon ANd Subaltern Agency, published from University of Madras, which undergo a religious study on Ayyavazhi and conclude as this(read the italicised text. - Paul 00:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Again one thing, not only A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, even the Vedas says that its substance will be destroyed from the beggining of Kali Yukam. Ayyavazhi says also this but in addition, it says new scritpres are given by God in Alternative to that. And it was Akilam. Ayyavazhi don't output views as others, as those are destroyed, but it is belived as theology. Tt was not belived in Ayyavazhi as a view of a leader or of some literates. But the alternative scripture Akilam as theology by God. It (Ayyavazhi) is a beleif system and not to be mistaken as a reform movement considering the recent time of the origin of the religion. - Paul 00:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The only way I might change my views is if I read the Akilam, except I don't know Tamil! Is there an online English translation? GizzaChat © 00:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes you are right. It'll be very usefull to refer Akilam and thereby understand the deviation. But unfortunately no translations are available so far. It is found only in Tamil. But many authors've made commentaries on Akilam. But available only offline. It's really pity. Sorry.
But here in wikipedia since independent sources are valid, the university papers from leading universities which reaserched Ayyavazhi and assert it as independent is good enough to understand and proceed. Once again, please read the conclusion of the book [3]. - Paul 18:18, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Valid Third-party citations[edit]

I've cited that Ayyavazhi is a religion , and also it's notability by presenting the large presence of the religion across the country with university papers. Since no figures are mentioned it is not a problem that 'as what Ayyavazhi is considered by Indian govt.

I had waited for more than 96 hrs for further discussions and till untouched the article. So as usual, please don't revert the edits before a presenting a concrete proof against the valid sources cited. All are university papers.

Once again I am repeating

  • Ayyavazhi is a seperate religion
  • It contains more than 8000 worship centers across the country.

Those are cited with university papers. Universities are the most valid, third-party sources which are considered more valid in WP.

  • Apart from these, Three districts declared holiday for it's festival proves the presence of large mass. Hence Ayyavazhi is definitely notable than Jews and Zorastrians who are less in number than Ayyavazhi's. Iam adding Ayyavazhi. - Paul 18:59, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Please stop undiscussed edits. Iam citing the source once again,


  • For the Autonomous religious Phenomenon: G.Patrick (2003), Religion and Subaltern Agency, Department of Christian Studies, University of Madras, Sub heading:The Religious Phenomenon of Ayya Vali, Page 120-121.
  • For Thousands of Nizhal Thangals across South India: Dr.R.Ponnu (2000), Sri Vaikunda Swamigal and The Struggle for Socal Equality in South India, Ram Publishers, School of Historical Studies, Madurai Kamaraj University, Page 100-101.
  • For 8000 Worship centers: Tha.Krishna Nathan, (2002) Ayyaa vaikundarin vaazvum sinthanaiyum (Tamil), Chapter - 4, page 83. (This citation was included here from Tamil wikipedia article)
  • For the presence of Ayyavazhi worship centres across India, :Dr.C.Poulose(2002), Advaita Philosophy of Brahmasri Chattampi Swamikal, Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit, Page 24.

- Paul 19:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Weight of Evidence[edit]

My dear friend Paul Raj, although you have provided some evidence to support the view that Ayyavazhi is a separate religion, a neutral point of view does not require that we present all evidence as equal, but to evaluate positions and avoid giving undue weight to minority or extreme minority positions. The census of India is another third party source, and in an article on India, carries a great deal of weight. Your third party sources, in my mind, carry little weight. I agree that they are valid. I agree that they are third party. However, whether someone describes something as a religion or as a cult or a sect largely depends upon context. My concern is that if we list Ayyavazhi as a religion, we would need also list ISKCON, Brahmo Samaj, the Shirdi Sai organization, Sathya Sai Baba organization, and countless others. All of these, within appropriate contexts, may be said to be religions. Yet it is not appropriate for an overview article about India to mention the probably thousands of denominations that exist in India. Sincerely, --BostonMA talk 19:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I've answered many times the deviation of Ayyavazhi from Hinduism as a different religion. And see the previous discussions here how Ayyavazhi varry from ISKCON, Araya Smaj and other reform movements. Reform movements are different from religions (religious systems) All above, Ayyavazhi is recognised as a seperate religion by University papers, which are the most important and valid sources to be cited here in wiki.
As you told, census of India is a third party. But it is official. Ayyavazhi is a religion factually. There may be factual things which are unofficial. In other words, if some thing is unofficial we can't say that factually it does not exists. In each of the sub-headings, above I explined one by one how Ayyavazhi is autonomous from Hinduism and how it varry from others (the so called Hindu denomination) respectively.
Further discussions will be of no use as I had to repeat what I told earlier. And I feel tired too often repeat. - Paul 20:17, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Nothing more to tell. The University papers are not cross-word puzzles played by children. But a deep reserch based on factual elements. And such a reserch on Ayyavazhi tell it as an autonomous. It should bnot be trated equall to other POVs. And the reserch study is from University of Madras, a leading University in India.
And that University papers are most valid sources as per WP, and the article have to follow it stricty as per wiki guidelines. I feel really pity and am worried that users don't understand this simple thing. - Paul 20:36, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Undiscussed edits[edit]

I was waiting after my discussion for more than 96 hrs after citing with University papers. No one is there. Then when I proceed as per citations one user reverted twice[4][5] and other user once[6]. They edited with out discussing. And if I edit once more I will be marked as violating 3RR as usual. What is going on here? - Paul 20:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Paul, editors have discussed with you at length. Your position does not have the consensus of the community. Editors tire of hearing the same arguments and simply stop discussing. You should not interpret that as permission to make contentious edits. The fact that your edits are contentious is indicated by the fact that they are reverted by many established editors. --BostonMA talk 20:57, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Should I follow WP guidelines(valid sources) or the so called establised editors? - Paul 21:03, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
You should read WP:NPOV where it says in section WP:NPOV#Undue weight:
"Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all (by example, the article on the Earth only very briefly refers to the Flat Earth theory, a view of a distinct minority). We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view, and views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views."
Then you should read WP:Consensus. --BostonMA talk 21:08, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
No place here for POV. Iam backing with University reaserch papers from leading university and not as per some one's POVs or beleif related things like Flat earth theory. Imagine if some one tell 2+2= 6 and ten out of eleven people agree with, then will you take it as per WP:NPOV#Undue weight? Factual accuraccy is to be considered as more valid. And those university papers are acurate factualy. And they are not POVs- Paul 21:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
It would be nice if Wikipedia only contained accurate factual material. However, different editors will disagree as to what is accurate and factual. Thus, we strive for something less. We strive to represent the published views of experts, and we give weight to those views in accordance with the weight that they have in outside of Wikipedia. You may think this is not the best approach. However, that is Wikipedias approach. --BostonMA talk 21:28, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
One could easily understand the deviation of Ayyavazhi from the above discussions in each sub-heading, section by section. Weather you understand it or not, As per wikipedia guidelines valid third-party, especially university reserch works are considered valid than personal websites, official views, and other theological views. And as long as the guidelines is so, the articles should focus that. And here Ayyavazhi is cited as autonomous with the valid-most sources. And hence as per wiki's approach it's right and Ayyavazhi is autonomous. - Paul 21:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Once again, we need to represent views according to their weight. To answer the question of whether the India article should mention Ayyavazhi as a religion of India, we must look at what experts have written. Who are the experts to answer this question. It is a) demographers b) experts on the religions of India. The overwhelming majority of books and papers by demographers and experts of the religions of India list those which are on the India page. A very, very, small number of papers list Ayyavazhi. --BostonMA talk 23:43, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Friend, Ayyavazhi is not officially recognised as a religion. So the matters on discussions about Ayyavazhi only be seen as that of a Hindu. Also see the govt declaled holiday for three dists where Ayyavazhi followers are densly populated. The govt felt it as a large crowd but as a hindu population beacause of the lack of official recognition. Also the so called newspapers may be get affected by POVs according to writers and editors. But not the University papers. Don't you Know how a reserch is accredited by universities. Ive heared the contents of the books (before publishing) to be recognised by a series of experts related to those topics from various universities, before getting recognised as a doctoral theisis. - Paul 12:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Paul, just because something is published by a university does not mean it is valid (as per your claim above, that "Since it is a University publication it is valid."). There is an entire process of peer review that is conducted in order to substantiate scholarly claims. If 33 Ayyavazhi theologians state that Ayyavazhi is a prominent belief system, then, well, what do you expect? It's like asking the College of Cardinals (not a 'university', by the way) to advise objectively on beliefs like the immaculate conception. Is there any significant Western scholarship on Ayyavazhi that would give your push for its inclusion on the India page more well-rounded support? Sarayuparin 22:17, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Righty asked. But see how the study is made. It was not made only as per the 33 Ayyavazhi theologians. Nearly about 70 years of LMS Reports speaks about Ayyavazhi and it's vast deviation from Hinduism. They called Ayyavazhi as Muthukkutiyism, while call the whole set of Hindu beleifs as Hinduism. ((i.e) they don't differentiate as Saivism, vaishnavism ...)
The LMS (seemingly The first and the largest protestant missionary in the world) viewed the religious ground in Travancore as Triangular, where Hinduism, Christianity and Muthukkuttiyism are the playes. Perhaps the LMS are the first group to identify Ayyavazi as autonomous.
And the book Religion and Subaltern Agency highlight this. That's all. On the other hand the University papers are the most important sources to be cited as per wiki guidelines because they are the independent third-party source. - Paul 22:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, peer-reviewed academic sources are the most important sources. Believe it or not, there are a lot of crack-pots in academic who publish out of their doctorate fields, eg. mechanical engineers writing about native horse culture in the Indus Valley, or physicists claiming to have deciphered the Indus Valley script and tracing it to Brahmi without ever having conducted field research or personally examining archaeological evidence. The key here is peer review. Sarayuparin 22:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
It may be right as you told If the author with a doctorate published that book himself. But in this case the book was published by a credible University in India. - Paul 23:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC)