Jump to content

Talk:Akshobhya Tirtha

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

Untitled

[edit]

False information is given on akshobhya thirtha defeating vidyaranya. Wikipedia should check facts before some one edits with vested interest — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.79.206.101 (talk) 16:28, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Content discussion

[edit]

It has been claimed that Sri Vidyaranya was defeated in a debate by Akshobhya Tirtha. The books published from Madhwa mutts also describe that this debate was conducted in the presence of Sri Vedanta Deshika, a follower of Sri Ramanuja. It is claimed that the debate was regarding the Mahavakya 'Tattvamasi' and that Sri Vedanta Deshika declared Akshobhya Tirtha as the winner. Poorna pragna explains this Mahavakya as 'a-tattvamasi' whereas bagavathpada shri Shankara and Sri bagavad Ramanuja explain the same as 'Tattvamasi'. Assuming that Sri Vedanta Deshika, a great scholar and an ardent devotee of Sri Ramanuja, would accept views opposing those of his own Guru is foolish. Sri Vidyaranya, the architect of Hindu Samrajya in south India preached unity among Hindus and was instrumental in resisting Muslim invasions. In those times, when the Indian culture was being torn apart by Muslims, would Sri Vidyaranya spend time in dry debates abusing other paths and views? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4071:E8F:A8C3:8CE6:27A8:4BE7:5FAF (talk) 06:12, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure you understand that this is an "encyclopedia" and not a blog. I am not saying anything. I am quoting from a few peer reviewed sources. This is not my original research. As to what or why someone did something in the past, I cannot answer (and frankly, neither can you). Historians have put forward an interpretation and I have written it. If you bring up a source on the topic which disputes the ones I have referenced, I am willing to include that. Prabhanjan Mutalik (talk) 12:51, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Protected edit request on 6 January 2021

[edit]

Thank you for protecting it. Can you please restore the article to state before the vandalism/deletions? Prabhanjan Mutalik (talk) 12:48, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done this page is protected due to a content dispute. A discussion on the specific content to be changed while the page is protected must occur here for edits to override the protection. If there is pure vandalism, please identify the exact text that contains the vandalism and re-request an edit here. — xaosflux Talk 20:21, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]