Talk:Ramanuja

Who said it?

Against the Advaita contention that perception cannot make known distinctness but only homogeneous being since distinctness cannot be defined, well, sorry, perception makes known generic characters (cowhood and the like) that differentiate things. If what you Advaitins say were true, why should not a person looking for a horse be satisfied with a buffalo? Remembering could not be distinguished from perceiving, because there would be only the one object (being). And no one would be deaf or blind. Furthermore, Brahman would be an object of perception and the other sources (prameya).

---

Just one thing, are these lines said by Ramanuja? If it is not, it should be purged for Wikipedia is not a place of discussion. If it is, there is nothing in the para that signifies it is what he said. If it is based on what he said, the lines should be made more NPOV, especially the question marks and the words "you Advaitins"

Complaint moved from Talk:Main Page

There is an article on Wikipedia which says Sri Ramanuja (1017-1137 AD) was a Visishtadvaita Saint ,philosopher and that he was also known as Yetiraja , Udeyavar etc.,

"YetirAja" should be spelt as Yatiraja "Udeyavar" should be spelt as Udayavar .

Sri Ramanuja authored the nine gems of Visishtadvaita philosophy also known as " Navarathnas" , Viz. Gadyatrayam ( 3 gadyas), Vedanta Saaram ,Vedartha Sangraham,Vedanta Deepam ,Sri Bhashyam ,Gita Bhashyam (The commentary for the "Bhagavad Gita" ) and the Nithya Grantham ,totalling 9 works in all may be appended to the Wikipedia article which mentions about only 7 of Ramanuja's works .

Below is the Wikipedia version of Ramanuja's works

Ramanuja's most famous work is known as the Sri Bhasya. It is a commentary on the Brahma Sutras.

Gadhya Thrayam (three compositions) - Vaikunta, Sriranga and Saranagati Gadhyam are great works in Vaishnava philosophy.

His other works are:

Vedanta Sara (essence of Vedanta) Vedanta Sangraha (a resume of Vedanta) Vedanta Deepa (the light of Vedanta). --The preceeding was originally posted by mistake on Talk:Main Page by User:Krishvasu 06:55, 20 August 2006 UTC --

Comment moved from article

I moved the following from the article:

"History shows that the followers of Sankara are answerless till date to the strong arguments of Ramanuja (in his sri bhashya) and his followers(satadushani of desika,...). In a bid to escape strong objections raised by Ramanuja and his successors, most advaitins take a disguised route of neo vedantism, where they argue that vaishnavism is one another path to realise brahman."

The above observation is baseless and dubious.Sanakara's exposition stands brilliantly against the position taken by Ramanuja.The post enstenien postulates establish that there is interconnectedness and at the end it is only the 'imperishable energy that alone existed and can exist' The analogy that the matter also is related to soul if taken, also has to accept that matter is perishable.What 'perishes'with time cannot be GOD /Brahman or divine.Science establishes that the entire univers itself will perish one day.The most unfoirtunate twist in history that followers of Ramanuja indulged in mindless rebuke of advaitha, engaged in a hate attitude towards any one who conceived God in all forms.The practice of prosyletisation in India is restricted to the semetic approach of non acceptance of other paths by the Ramanuja followers.If Vishnu is omnipresent He is present in all form , say Shiva,Brahma or any forms that one may liketo perceive.Non acceptance of this basic principle of oneness is defied by the followers of Ramanuja.More than love He preached, they became slaves to the vested interests in promoting anti Shiva attitude, which non of our scriptures allow.In Kaivalya Upanisha it is clearly stated

"Mayyeva skalam jatham, Mayi sarvam prathishtitham, Mayi sarvam layam yaathi, thathbrahmadvayamasmyaham" Ramanuja came at a time our practical religeon needed a boost.It has to be lowered from the high point of vedantha to commonman's comprehension of divinity and Bhakthi was the universal emotion which could ignite souls.Infact the best of sthithras praising vishnu has come from Sankara, such as Mohamudgara(Bhaja Govindam),Bhashya for Vishnusahasranama,besides scores of sthuthis.Sankara also advovcated Bhakthi, when he states in his work "Viveka Choodamani" thus: 'Mokshasadhana samagryam bhakthireva gariyasi'

S.Padmanabhan,Chennai e-mail: padyiyer@yahoo.com —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.144.21.104 (talk • contribs) .

--since it wasn't appropriate for the article space, being a violation of WP:NPOV, but perhaps it was meant for this page. Antandrus (talk) 03:32, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

POV

I have tried to remove POV from this artilce. sentenses such as : History shows that the followers of Sankara are answerless till date to the strong arguments of Ramanuja (in his sri bhashya) and his followers(satadushani of desika,...). In a bid to escape strong objections raised by Ramanuja and his successors, most advaitins take a disguised route of neo vedantism, where they argue that vaishnavism is one another path to realise brahman. are blatently POV. Someone with more knowledge of the subject needs to rewrite this article from a neutral point of view. - Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 02:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for working on that. It's been a long-standing problem, though be aware that I'm working on a complete revision of the article (which, as of now, is almost entirely unreferenced), and those entire sections are probably going to be removed shortly—as in, after I finish finals in a few weeks. --Xiaopo (Talk) 20:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, I added the Sanskrit template again, because while Ramanuja was undoubtedly Tamil, his name is Sanskrit: it refers to Lakshmana, and it's a translation of his Tamil name. --Xiaopo (Talk) 20:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Devanagari transliteration for all sankrit-based names

• • - I think having Devanagari for all sankrit-based names (both personal & place names) is not a good idea. Should the article on Karunanidhi have this ?

• • - It is better to have the person's mothertongue or/ the language of the land the person mostly lived on - for this purpose.

Iyengar brahmins revere both Sanskrit and Tamil and have a strong tradition in both. All the acharyas were Vedic scholars. Sanskrit is as appropriate as Tamil in this post. Tamil script is not suited for Sanskrit names. Tamil Brahmins used a special script called Grantha for Sanskrit. They have mostly switched over to Devanagari for Sanskrit given official apathy to the Grantham script.

• • - Otherwise we will need to have Devanagari for people like Megawati Sukarnoputri (an Indonesian), Wickramasinghe, Premadasa etc

• • - Same for placenames like Narayanganj in Bangladesh, Anuradhapura in Srilanka or even Singapore.

• • - Ofcourse, Ramanuja was a sanskrit scholor- But not all articles on Latin/Greek scholors have their names written in Greek or Latin. Ex. George L. Hart

• • - Neither all Hinduism related personalities can have Devanagari transliteration. For, ex. Appar, a similar religious figure doesnot/neednot have skt/nagari. Same for Nakkeerar.

• • - His contribution to Sanskrit literature ? - Offlate, a lot of technicians contribute towards Bollywood Hindi films - Should articles on ARRahman, Priyadarshan, Maniratnam have Devanagari names ?

• • - This kind of finding connections - can go on and on without an end. So we need to have a well-defined criteria as to where a person/place/concept belong.

• • - So I feel, the use of devanagari script on wikipedia should be restricted to the following articles:

       1- related to Hindi/Marathi/Nepal linguistic area 
       2- related to Sanskrit literature
       3- related to basic concepts of Dharmic religions.

• • - Shall NOT be used for the following articles:

       1- Just for 'any' personality with Sanskrit-based names.
       2- Just for 'anything' related to Hinduism. 

(Popular hinduism is considered to have multiple origins - other than sanskritic roots)

       3- Just for 'anything' Indian. 

Best case in point is the controversial template for Indian personalities with just English & Hindi (as in Mahatma_Gandhi , P_V_Narasimha_Rao etc)

• • - Would like to hear your thoughts on these points.

thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SIbot (talk • contribs) 06:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC).

Ramanuja is considered to be Adhi Sesha - not an incarnation of Sukracharya

There is an unsubstantiated mention in the article on Sri Ramanuja that says "Several accounts suggest that Ramanuja was possibly an incarnation of asura preceptor sukracharya." It is not cited, nor is it generally considered so among the people who revere Him.

Sri Ramanuja is considered to be "Adhi Sesha". Also it goes that his parent prayed to Lord Parthasarathy of Thiruvallikkeni (Triplicane) for a child and so Sri Ramanuja is considered an incarnation of Lord Parthasarathy Himself.

Rsus (talk) 05:13, 8 December 2008 (UTC) Rsus Dec 08 2008

Is it wax replica or original body, preserved inside the shrine? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.16.180.5 (talk) 12:53, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Ramanujacharya.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Ramanujacharya.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 29 August 2011 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) 10:30, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

"Birth" and "death"

Note: It is an offense to treat the great Vaishnava gurus or acharyas as ordinary mortals, and thus assign processes like birth and death to them, as is done to ordinary humans. They are considered to be the messengers and confidential associates of the Supreme Lord (Vishnu or Krishna), and hence they are not considered to be under the control of nature like ordinary human beings, although their "birth" and "death" may be apparently ordinary to the eyes of ordinary mortals. Hence the words "appearance" for birth, and "disappearance" for death are most appropriate. This is supported by all current serious followers of Vaishnavism. -59.95.7.139 (talk) 18:22, 14 April 2013 (UTC)