|WikiProject India / Tamil Nadu||(Rated B-class, Low-importance)|
|WikiProject Tamil civilization||(Rated B-class, Low-importance)|
|The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them.
Please supply full citations when adding information, and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
- 1 Migration timelines
- 2 Comments by Vyaghradhataki
- 3 Rahul Dravid and Vadama
- 4 Migration Dates
- 5 New Information
- 6 Some edits by Voltiguer related to dravida brahmins=
- 7 Reverse Immigration?
- 8 Vaduga
- 9 Kanchipuram and Vadamas
- 11 Vadama Iyers are unique...
- 12 Pending changes
- 13 A message to user:Ravichandar - for false allegations on hari7478
The article does not cite references to the claim that the migration happened in the 16th centuries. One of the groups of Iyers (including the Vadama subsect) had already migrated from their new found homelands in Tanjore to Palakkad in the late 15th century. The evidences and timeline for the latter migration to Kerala is available.
Comments by Vyaghradhataki
I have moved these comments made by User:Vyaghradhataki from the main article to the talkpage:
A belief that is held within the community itself is that its members arrived at various points of time in the far south of the Indian Peninsula, and proceeded to get assimilated into the Vadama on the basis of similarity in beliefs and practices. It is this stage-wise migration that is believed to have given rise to the sub-divisions within the group. For instance, one group is called the Vadadesa Vadama, which means the 'Vadama of the North', while another group is called the Choladesa Vadama, meaning the 'Vadama of the South'. According some the first known "immigration" from north by "vadamas" occured during krita yuagam when sreeman narayanan(mahavishnu) descended upon earth as vamanan and tamed and blessed king mahabali. The brahmin retinue that accompanied vamanan is held to have been "first vadamas". The second known immigration was co-ordinated by lord narayanan in treta yugam when he came down as parasuraman and fought with corrupt kings. He is known to have visited have worshipped lord sivan near villupuram and then presented 36 veli of land to temple while appointing personnel to conduct yaagams. The brahmins appointed by him are held to have been " second wave of vadamas". The third such migration occured during the same treta yugam when lord raman was on his way to lanka. He worshipped lord haran near salem and presented the temple with gold and personnel for services. These people are held to have been "third wave of vadamas". The fourth wave of vadama immigration occured during dwapara age when pandava arjuna came down on piligrimage. he built a temple of sivan near coimbatore and appointed personnel for services. They are held to have been vadamas. The last known immigartaion occurred toards the end of dwpara age when a descendant of pandavas called janamejayan after having completed the snake sacrifice came to absolve himself at chidambaram.he is known to have created a temple for lord siva outside chidambaram and also created colonies for serving personnel. This is known to have been fifth wave of vadamas.No matter how many great royal races come and go in bloody catastrophic battles "vadamas" continue to flourish without losing a hair from their body right to the end of kali age. This is greatest wonder of world.
PS:- IF ANY ONE BELIEVES IN THE ABOVE ASSERTION THEY WILL ALSO BELIEVE THAT FOX IS A HUMAN BEING.
This grup is probably an ofshhot of sramanas(buddists and jains) of previous milleniums.
- Point No 2: If at all, the scriptures from the Vijayanagar period do not mention the term Vadama but use only "Iyer" and "Iyengar", then they do not mention "Vathima","Brahacharnam","Ashtasahasram","Sozhiyar" and "Sivacharya" as well. Besides, the term Vadama is ambiguous and only means "Northerner". How can it be considered to mean "one from North India". Bsdies, as you have already stated there is one sect of Vadama called "Choladesa Vadama". Drawing out a dubious etymological relationship between "Vadama" and "Vaduga" is pure original research.
- Point No 3: The Vadamas speak Iyer Tamil much like other Iyers.
- Point No 4: Marathis who migrated during Maratha rule in Thanjavur from the 17th to the 19th century AD could understand Marathi. Similarly, Tamil Brahmins of Telugu origin who migrated during and after the Vijayanagar period have retained a knowledge and basic understanding of Telugu.Do have a look at this article about the Bhagavatha Melas of Melattur:. However, apart from the Telugu-speaking Vadamas who are a minority, most Vadamas are not known to have knowledge of any language other than Tamil thereby indicating that if at all there was any migration, then it must have taken place even prior to the Vijayanagar era.-RavichandarMy coffee shop 15:43, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Ravichander. I have provided strong arguments based on real facts and not on family legends. The tamil brahmins ever since their association with the British have grown very imaginative and take liberties in expanding family legends by adding a bit of their very own theories creating grand stories of migration, which cannot withstand logic. All of Ravichander's point are very valid. I would also like to draw attention to Sivananda's article on tamil brahmins in which he actually states that vadama were among the ealiest immigrants of tamil nadu. This may not be true, but this indicates that even as early as 1950 there were other family legends. I will further draw attention to the fact that there are a number of family preserved stories which indicate the intense debates between brahacharanam and vadama during the post sankaran period - the debate was in the context of shankracharya's philosophy. All this happened much before tamil region stabilized into smartha and vaishnava sects which happened much before iyer or iyengar separation happened. I dont know how Kerala vadamas can pop up in kerala without coming to tamil nadu. All these 19 th century stories come into place because of perceieved notions of some people( in this case some kerala vadama) that they are somehow not associated with the dravidian land.If one educated person in the family spreads his theory. All his grandchildren and their friends starting lapping up to the stories if it suits thier fancies. I am not aware of any vadama in kerala who does not speak some version of tamil or another! The problem is the community is filled up with people with such imagination of converting theories into family legends, that now they have started appearing in encyclopaedias. My God! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harishpsubramanian (talk • contribs) 08:46, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- Let me say something. Indian history is, for the most part, speculative and many incidents which are believed to have occurred are pending proof. From what I feel, there is a definite chance that most Tamil Brahmins have migrated from other parts of India. However, the "Tamil origins" of most Tamil communities are highly dubious. The Gounders might have migrated from Karnataka; the Naickers, Reddys and other communities of Telugu origin have all migrated at a very recent period. This being the case, it is pretty much confusing as to which Tamil community is purely Tamil in origin. A look at the Wikipedia pages on Thevars and Nadars would reveal that both these communities claim descent from the Pandyas; both Vanniyars and Pallars claim descent from the Pallavas; the Wikipedia article on Gounders claimed that Sekkizhar was a Gounder while the article on Iyer claims that he was a Tamil Brahmin. It has become a habit amongst people to claim descent from a powerful ruling family of the medieval age. Vyaghradhataki's claims are quite similar to that. He indulges in vandalism only in order to claim descent for the Sholiyars exclusively, from the Brahmins of the golden age of the Chola Empire. He is of the view that this would put Sholiyars above other Tamil Brahmins.
- Meanwhile, I am providing a link to a book written half a century after Ziegenbalg's arrival in India. Here's the link:. This book, written in 1781, mentions that Tamil Brahmins were of three sects: Saivites, Vaishnavites and Smarthas. It doesn't mention anything about Vadugas. Not even a passing reference to the foreign origin of the Vadamas have been made.-RavichandarMy coffee shop 17:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Initially I was the first to Introduce the term vadama refers to people of northern country. But as I read and heard more though this is probable this is not certain. I have removed that, a detail explanation of etymology is anyway provided. The next thing here is when did vadama first come and when did they come last. Neither of the two is clear, but luckily because of the great vaishnava trait of recording history exhaustively, we know that ramanujacharya a vadama lived in 10-11 century ad tamil nadu. What about the fact that some people claim that their ancestors were from deccan. The confusion is resolved if we accept that place of origin is correct but time of origin is not. But even family traditions cannot be taken as history if we dont have concrete materials to prove it. Take the case of St. Thomas christians.
Now second aspect to this is how were the vadamas treated when they emmigrated to andhra and maharashtra, There were called dravids- I have provided an example of Dravid's biography which indicates this. Dravid was a vadadesha vadama and a direct descendant of Sri Appaya Deekshitar. My suspicions were confirmed when I recently read a 18 century british gazette of Satara's history on the net though unfortunately not able to locate it- a clear indication of how little bits of history can disappear and a false history can later be popularized through the wikipedia. In this gazette, it mentions that tamil brahmins migrated to Satara be;longing to bharadwaja and koushika gotr. They called themselves dravids and others regarded them as purest brahmins.This coupled with Rahul Dravid's ancestory indicates that vadama when in maharashtra called themselves dravids. The same thing holds true in case of andhra where they are called thummagunta dravidlu.
Third on Kerala aspect, this is such an unproven claim that only a strong record can be used to make an entry of it. But I dont want to hurt other's research so have not removed it but clearly mentioned that its a notion held by some —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harishpsubramanian (talk • contribs) 17:51, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
I may have said certain things in my article which I am not able to provide a reference. But there are lot more which is based on mere speculation and falsification. Tomorrow I will be reading that my ancestors are greeks. If my opinion is not to be included ,then I am removeingf all unproven statements too —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harishpsubramanian (talk • contribs) 18:02, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Rahul Dravid and Vadama
Please read Vedam Jaishankar's Biography on ancestory of Rahul Dravid , that his ancestors were not only from Tamil Nadu, tney were descendants of Appaiah deekshitars. Dravids are well known in maharshtra, it has the same meaning as dravidlu in andhra. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harishpsubramanian (talk • contribs) 18:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Refer to talks page regarding Dravid's ethnicity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Blnguyen/Rahul_Dravid —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harishpsubramanian (talk • contribs) 18:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Once again the date line I have removed. I dont want to get into this date business until we can have something concrete.The opinion of x,y,z is based on opinion of a,b,c . This does not need to be the traditional opinion about the community. We can be sure that dravidlu came from tamilnad. That does not mean anything more than that. The evidence should be not merely based on opinion of one or two websites. In the case of migration from tamilnad, anybody familar with andhra can be certain of it. The other part regarding when, these people came to tamilnadu cannot be merely be based on the statement of this community, this question requires evidence in tamilnadu . Today dravidlu in andhra dont even speak tamil, so how can we rely on some date specified by them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harishpsubramanian (talk • contribs) 15:26, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
However, the date has been provided from a source, which in turn refers to an even older, published source and not a web-page. The fact that they provide a date needs to be taken cognisance of.
While the Dravidlu of Andhra may not speak Tamil today, migration studies show that it takes only three generations for the mother tongue to be supplanted by the local language. Thus, since at least ten to twelve generations have passed since their migration into Andhra, their lack of language cannot be held a reason for considering their opinion of their origins incorrect.
If we were to restrict ourselves to Tamil Nadu in getting dates, it would be quite impossible to find conclusive and clinching evidence, since the question is one of migration, where both origins and destinations, as well as stop-overs matter. Voltigeur (talk) 16:43, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
I have taken note of voltiguer's views of 13 century. I have made some edits which clearly specify that 13 century cannot be discounted. But it cannot be taken for a certainity, until we have a real historical record, not theories and not grandpa grandma tales to quote from. Websites and book is alright, but what do they contain. Do they have a palm leaf in a library or a writing on the walls of a temple or do they have the proto vadama or the kins of vadama in the place of origin located at the time under consideration? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harishpsubramanian (talk • contribs) 02:58, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
The Book quoted in the website belongs to 1935, which is one another reason,why I am very concerned that the entire notion has come in the british times, when rewriting of Indian history had started happening on a massive scale. I have no objection to dates, if concrete dates can be given based on real records —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harishpsubramanian (talk • contribs) 03:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Thoough some people find it hard to accept that vadama have been in South India,even as early as 750 AD and certainly even before as Indicated in samngam literature, I am just surprised that there are new evidences which keep propping up! When I quote vaishnava literature, some people play with language, using words such as "appears". When Sangam records are examined, people try to claim that vadama is not vadama in that context. If history is looked at in suvh a sense, anybody can twist history to anything they like. This is not done. The date of vadamas is prior to date of inscription , that much is logical:) --Harishpsubramanian (talk) 04:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
The words used by Voltiguer leads an unassuming reader to believe that All/Most Dravid Brahmins of andhra have been believing in the 13 century date of migration. The website he quotes references a book published in 1935. Does that book claim that all Dravid Brahmins strongly believe in such a date and if so does the book really provide an evidence in the existence of a widespread belief atleast? Then again, we cannot use a community's self perception to use the words " appears" , "can be deduced" etc. You can only state that such a self perception , if indeed common( which itself remains to be proven),increases the possibility that such a migration could have occured. Then again I would like to know if the book he quotes does indeed provide evidence for the 13 century date. I strongly object to such manipulation of language to give the reader a feeling of the existence of overwhelming evidence. For 13 century date of migration, no land records or inscriptions or any form of historical material have been found. On the contrary we have inscriptions and other historical material to support the view that vadama existed prior to 13 century ad in tamil nadu. I would like Voltiguer to quote from the book, to make it clear to us all that his wordings are the most appropriate, in this context. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harishpsubramanian (talk • contribs) 22:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
In response to the allegation made above, I quote the following from the website provided as a reference:
There are two major divisions among Brahmins of Andhra Pradesh: Niyogi and Vaidiki, and the Vaidiki Brahmin division is further divided into several groups, one of which is Dravida Brahmin group that arrived in Andhra via Tamil or Dravida (draaviDa) country.
A group of Brahmins migrated approximately 600 years ago (~1300-1400 AD) from Saurashtra(2) towards south of Vindhyas and settled on the banks of River Kaveri in Tamilnadu and adopted Tamil language. These Brahmins are related to the Ayyars of Tamilnadu. Later, some of these Brahmins migrated northward towards coastal Andhra to the River Godavari basin and henceforth are called Dravida Brahmins.
It is possible that Dravida Brahmins migrated to Andhra around 400 years ago(3) from Tamilnadu.
The text, as may be seen, does not leave any room for doubt as to whether it is part of the Dravida Brahmins who amuse themselves with such beliefs. It is quite emphatic in stating that some of the Brahmins who migrated where thenceforth called Dravida Brahmins, thus encompassing the entire commmunity. The reference provided quotes the following book: "Aaraamadraavida Vamsacharitra," written (1935) by Anamtapadmanaabham Dvivedula (1888-1947), published by Venkataramarao Dvivedula, Samkhavaram, Andhra Pradesh.
Since the reference I have provided is only to the web-page, I do not see how the book comes into the picture, since it is the reference provided by a reference, and since we are concerned about primary references, we generally do not verify the validity of primary references in the context of secondary references. If a verification of the primary reference is required, I shall not be able to indulge the request, not having the required linguistic mastery of Telugu, which is the language of the secondary reference.
The word appears, as it would appear to anyone with a passing acquaintance with the English tongue gives a mere suggestion, and contains no imputations of fact, which would be given by the far more fundamental and positively correct word is. The word occurs in the context of reading two references together, and since the reasoning involved includes a tenuous link between the two, I have used appears.
I would further state that language has certainly not been manipulated here, since, it appears that Harishpsubramanian has entirely misconceived the focus of the word.
Lets be clear about one thing , the website is itself not confident about the accuracy of the date and it quotes only one single individual for reference- This cannot be taken ton mean that its a common view. What I am speaking about becomes clear from a quotation from the very same website
"Although it is not clear when Dravida Brahmins migrated to Andhra, according to Anamtapadmanaabham Dvivedula (ref 1), about 300 years ago they adopted Telugu language and integrated with Telugu speaking people. If we consider the studies on language adoption in the US, the immigrants (first generation of immigrants) and their offspring (second generation immigrants) continue to speak their native tongue as well as the language of the land. The third generation of immigrants forget their ancestral language or only a small minority in that group maintains bilingualism. Speaking only English is the predominant pattern by the third generation in the US. Thus, by extrapolation, we may assume Dravida Brahmins began migrating to Andhra around 400 years ago, which is, of course, an assumption. It could be 600 years ago! "
We need to handle the information on dravida brahmins very carefully, as not all dravida brahmins in andhra were vadama. In the book "Castes and Tribes of South IndiA",by thuraton has recorded that Puduru Dravida were Brahacharanam, I have heard that Thummagunta Dravida were vadama, but do not have details to support this. At this point all that can be said is that dravida brahmins in andhra include vadama, and in modern times there is no problem with respect to marriage between different dravida brahmins
In light of this new found Information, I have moved Voltiguer's addition to Other Communities. We need proof that aarama dravidlu are indeed vadama, without which we are in a grey area.If its proven that they are not vadama, this should be eliminated
Which is migration from south to north and back to south. But my assumption that stay in north would not have been for a long time. Though this is only a theory at present, the liklihood is very high especially in case of vadama who left tamil nadu to settle down in andhra and maharashtra, Why do I say so? 1. That Migration to tamil nadu is not historically recorded in terms of real sources but their existence here is nown for atleast a century. 2. There is evidence of migration of dravid brahmins to north for atleast the last 1000 years, or even more , read the reference to the world famous book - Kalhana's rajatarangini which gives one example. 3 Though I cant quote sources now, I read in one article, by a knowledgeable gentleman, that vadama were actually among the oldest in north tamil nadu( including tanjore, and gurukal are also based there and believe it or not supposedly related to them), after the chozhiar. The other immigrants were merely given names by vadama and allocated only specific villages to settle down.It needs also to be said that only the original brahmins, have had the freedom to dominate a country's religion, this was indeed the case in north tamilnad. It could be true, as evidenced in the case of kerala,where the dominant brahmins are namboothiris .This is one of the reasons ,I do not want to swallow the complete baggage of 13 century date of vadama in the current form. There is more to it then stated. 3. Their role in vijayanagar empire neither proves nor disproves anything. This is because,as pure brahmins they were very much sought, and they are likely to have taken up residence near the capital. Only aarama dravidas are mentioned to have come from north. we dont know about others. If the interval was only brief 150 years or so, then they would never had a problem coming back as long as they maintained caste purity. 4. That history is silent on their prototypes in rest of India. 5. It becomes much easier if we dont look at this as a reverse phenomenon, especially in case of thummagunta dravidas. As Nellore and Tirupati are as much tamil, as north. It just happened that at a later time ,not in the first millenium, this region became invaded by telugu rulers, who did not speak tamil, hence the confusion whether vadadesha vadama spoke tamil or telugu.
The entry for Vaduga in the book Castes and Tribes of Southern India Volume 7, Pg 266-267 by Edgar Thurston and K. Rangachari:
"At the census, 1891, 180,884 individuals were returned as Vadugan, which is described as meaning " a native of the northern or Telugu country, but in ordinary usage it refers to the Balijas. I find, however, that 56,380 Vadugars have returned their sub-division as Kammavar or Kammas, and that the term has been used to denote many Telugu castes. At the census, 1901, the number of people returning themselves as Vadugan dropped to 95,924, and the name is defined by the Census Superintendent as a "linguistic term meaning a Telugu man, wrongly returned as a caste name by Kammas, Kapus and Balijas in the Tamil districts/' In the Salem Manual, Vaduga is noted as including all who speak Telugu in the Tamil districts, e.g., Odde, Bestha, etc.
It is recorded, in the Gazetteer of Malabar, that "of the same social standing as the Kammalans are the Vadugans (northerners), a makkattayam caste of foreigners found in Palghat and the adjoining part of Waluvanad. They are divided into two exogamous classes, one of which is regarded as inferior to the other, and performs purificatory ceremonies for the caste. They cut their hair close all over the head, and have no kudumis (hair knot)."
It is noted by Mr. L. Moore* that "Xavier,writing in 1542 to 1544, makes frequent references to men whom he calls Badages, who are said to have been collectors of royal taxes, and to have grievously oppressed Xavier's converts among the fishermen of Travancore.Dr. Caldwell, alluding to Xavier's letters, says* that these Badages were no doubt Vadages or men from the North, and is of opinion that a Jesuit writer of the time who called them Nayars was mistaken, and that they were really Nayakans from Madura. I believe, however, that the Jesuit rightly called them Nayars, for I find that Father Organtino, writing in 1568, speaks of these Badages as people from Narasinga, a kingdom north of Madura, lying close to Bishnaghur. Bishnaghur is, of course, Vijayanagar, and the kingdom of Narasinga was the name frequently given by the Portuguese to Vijayanagar. There is a considerable amount of evidence to show that the Nayars of Malabar are closely connected by origin with the Nayakans of Vijayanagar." (See Nayar.)
So, as late as 1909, there is no mention of Vadugas being related to any Brahmin sub-caste. There is no evidence whatsoever of Vadamas being related to Vadugas.-RavichandarMy coffee shop 06:51, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Kanchipuram and Vadamas
P. T. Srinivasa Iyengar, in his book History of the Tamils from the Earliest Times to the Present Day, states that Kanchipuram was the first region of the Tamil country to be Aryanized. He states that this region is not even mentioned in Sangam Tamil texts. but it finds regular mention in Puranas and Sanskrit texts. This region was under the rule of Andhra kings was was the territory originally known as Dravida. This region came under the rule of Tamil kings only in the 6th century AD. Could it be possible that the Vadamas were originally the inhabitants of Kanchipuram who dispersed all over Tamil Nadu when the territory came under the rule of Tamil kings
Hello. Over the past few days there has been a slow edit-war between dynamic IP and myself   . The IP has been replacing sourced information with unsourced POV/soapboxing (my favorite little sentence being PS:- IF ANY ONE BELIEVES IN THE ABOVE ASSERTION THEY WILL ALSO BELIEVE THAT FOX IS A HUMAN BEING.). I just wanted to check to see if anyone thinks any part of these edits can or should be salvaged. Thanks. Apparition11 Complaints/Mistakes 14:24, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
I just went through and saw that this isn't a recent thing. It looks like this dates back quite a while (possibly back to December 2007) and the article has been semi protected several times due to this IP, the most recent being April 26 of this year. Apparition11 Complaints/Mistakes 14:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- He is a determined POV-pusher with an objective. He had earlier been using the profile User:Vyaghradhataki and a number of socks such as User:Sembian valavan, User:Kaadavarkon, etc. I guess he is a member of some political party or organisation -The EnforcerOffice of the secret service 02:07, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
- Gotcha, thanks for the background. As I was going through the history, I saw that I had reverted a nearly identical edit back in August '08, which I had completely forgotten about. The article's now semi-protected for 3 months, so hopefully it won't be a problem for a while. Apparition11 Complaints/Mistakes 05:39, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Vadama Iyers are unique...
Vadama Iyers are unique and are not related to Vadakalai Iyergars. I have read many scholarly articles and did not find any relationship between Vadamas and Vadakalai Iyengars. Svr014 (talk) 14:47, 3 June 2009 (UTC) Chicagoland Illinois, USA.
- Check out the book Castes and Tribes of Southern India, Volume I by Edgar Thurston under "Brahmin".-The EnforcerOffice of the secret service 01:56, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Mr. Thurston clearly admits that there are inaccuracies and errors in the surveys he collected which do not qualify as a solid proof. Read over the book if you want to. Svr014 (talk) 15:08, 23 June 2009 (UTC) Chicago, Illinois, USA.
- Check out this and this. Google Book results which clearly point out that Saint Ramanuja was a Vadama. And please don't revert edits before arriving at a consensus. You seem to suggest that Thurston could be wrong because he has stated that there were inaccuracies and errors in his surveys. Unless you could provide exact sources which state the contrary, Thurston's statement cannot be claimed to be an error.-The EnforcerOffice of the secret service 02:31, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Those article you mentioned as links are flaws. Thurston did NOT complete advanced degrees in anthropology (MA or PhD) from any university. I have spoked with scholars (PhD graduates in Vaishnavism) who have clearly mentioned that Sri Vaishnavas (esp. Vadakalai Iyengars) are the direct decendants of Northern Brahmin communities. They emphasize Sanskrit language and perform almost all prayers and hyms in Sanskrit. Vadakalai Iyengars' gothra are unique and do not match with that of Vadama Iyers'. For example, Srivathsa gothra is mainly present among Vadakalai Iyengars and not among any sect of Iyers or Thenkalai Iyengars. Also, the link you mentioned talks of Sri Ramanujar's philosophy as Vishista Advaita. It is incorrect. The correct name is Vishistadvaita. Please do not write rubbish and nonsensical stuff on WP. If you are a non-Brahmin, your knowledge of Brahmins (in general) will always tend to be miniscule. Learn to collect proper information from credible sources (from experts) and NOT from people like Thurston who knew 0% about South Asian cultures, esp. South Indian cultures. Svr014 (talk) 16:56, 28 June 2009 (UTC) Chicago, Illinois, USA.
Look at the introduction part of Thurston's book. He confesses that there were inaccuracies and errors while getting responses from surveys that were used in publishing the book. Svr014 (talk) 17:00, 28 June 2009 (UTC) Chicago, Illinois, USA.
If you have questions about Vadakalai Iyengars, or Iyengars in general please contact this scholar. Name: Dr. Varadachari Sadagopan; Email: firstname.lastname@example.org. He will be more than happy to assist you and clarify some of the misapprehensions you have in your mind about Sri Ramanujar, and Sri Vaishnavas. He is a prolific scholar in both Sri Vaishnavism and Engineering. Svr014 (talk) 17:07, 28 June 2009 (UTC) Chicago, Illinois, USA.
- I don't care who you asked and what you asked. I can never verify your claims. And Wikipedia is not an ecyclopedia written and owned by Brahmins which non-Brahmins are not allowed to edit. I strongly suspect that you are a sockpuppet of a previously blocked user. Now, either you stop editing this article using multiple profiles or I shall have to report you for indulging in sockpuppetry.-The EnforcerOffice of the secret service 13:48, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
- Do you even know who Edgar Thurston is? Have you read the book or are you making your conclusions by examining some of the leaves at random. The book is one of the most comprehensive anthropological studies of the people of South India ever conducted. Thurston follows most of the procedures of organized anthropology like measuring the cephalic index, nasal index, etc. And by the way, what has scholarship in Vaishnavism got to do with anthropology? How can you regard philosophers as better anthropologists? And though I do agree that P. T. Srinivasa Iyengar's book History of the Tamils from Earliest Times to 600AD is a good book, how come do you consider Srinivasa Iyengar a better anthropologist than Edgar Thurston as you seem to indulge in his veneration here. The sources I have provided are fairly reliable. If you feel that the claim is not true, do add your claims along with proper reliable citations from published sources.-The EnforcerOffice of the secret service 13:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
I urge you to respect other WP users and ask you NOT to indulge in incivility. I don't care whether you are non-brahmin or not. I respect all WP users and I am NOT a sockpuppet. I live and work in the USA and am a proud American. You indulged in vandalism by removing citations in the article Vadama. You are just a bud, there are established scholars in all fields. Watch your language and beware not to indulge in incivility. I know many administrators of English WP and they provide strong guidance to me. Svr014 (talk) 14:33, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
You have now added a source for your claim about Vadakalai Iyengars, a group based in India. Please do not try to act smart as there are other people who are smarter than you, esp. in the USA. This is just a friendly comment. Have a nice day. Svr014 (talk) 15:24, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
There were some vaishnavaites who keep denying that they have had any link with any present day smartha brahmins. My comments -It suits fanciful notions of superiority of some people. I have seen two gothrams common atleast in vadakalai and vadama "Naithrupa kashyapa" and " Sri Vathss". Have doubt check the matrimonial columns. One of my own maternal side relations is a sri vatsa. So much for no commonness in gothrams. Tired of this closetmindedness. Appaya dikshithar's grand mother was a sri vaishava following the teachings of vedanta desikar. If vadama were so unrelated to vadakalai would that be possible? Further,edgar thurston notes the ongoing convesion of thummagunta dravida(who were and are vadama) and became full fledged iyengars, some of whom have definately spread their genes several times in the genetic pool of other iyengar. So much for this repeated rejection of an obvious truth —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harishsubramanian (talk • contribs) 03:43, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- Actresses MEENAKSHI SESHADRI & KASTHOORI are VADAMA IYERS but they have been WRONGLY included in the List of Iyengars. I am related to them.GOLDENLION2006 (talk) 14:38, 11 May 2011 (UTC)GOLDENLION2006
- We won't accept your claims. Either you should be a well-established and trusted member of the Wikipedia community in order to add such claims without references; or you find enough, published, neutral sources to add them to the article.-The EnforcerOffice of the secret service 17:42, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
This article is one of a number selected for the early stage of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.
The following request appears on that page:
|Many of the articles were selected semi-automatically from a list of indefinitely semi-protected articles.
Please confirm that the protection level appears to be still warranted, and consider unprotecting instead, before applying pending changes protection to the article.
Comments on the suitability of theis page for "Pending changes" would be appreciated.
Please update the Queue page as appropriate.
Note that I am not involved in this project any much more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially
Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 00:31, 17 June 2010 (UTC) ONE guy here says that there is no SRIVATSA GOTRA among VADAMAS.This is sheer balderdash. My sister's in-laws & a sister-in- law of mine belong to SRIVATSA GOTRA. Moreover KUMARA TATACHARYA, a VADAKALAI IYENGAR & Rajaguru of NAICKER KINGS,bribed many Vadamas with LANDS & HOUSES in CHOLA COUNTRY (TANJAVR-TIRUCHI region) & converted them to Vadakalai Vaishnavism. This is like Christians converting the Hindus by bribing them. Thenkalai Iyengars have lot of NON-BRAHMIN blood. This is because at the time of Ramanuja, only a few Brahmins were prepared to convert to Vaishnavism.So Ramanuja made VELLALAS, NADARS & WASHERMEN (He called them AER PIDIKKUM THIRUMAENI, AERI IRANGUM THIRUMAENI & VELLAI VELUKKUM THIRUMAENI respectively)Iyengars.Thenkalai Iyengars claim to be descendants of NAMMAZHWAR, a non-Brahmin.GOLDENLION2006 (talk) 20:53, 8 December 2010 (UTC) GOlDENLION2006.
A message to user:Ravichandar - for false allegations on hari7478
The book "Castes & Tribes in Southern India" does not have any free or limited preview in the internet.
No ISBN numbers have been provided in any of the iyengar or iyer wiki pages. The Isbn number ie provided in the edgar thurston page ,specifically for "Volumes 1-a,b" and "volume-2" is ISBN 978-8120602885. Wiki editors claim references for some controversial statements such as "all iyengars were once iyers, who later converted to vaishnavism", etc etc from these volumes.
Actually, the isbn number leads to a complete collection of all seven volumes. As you already know, clicking on the isbn number leads to the "wiki book search result page", which in turn gives many links as to where the book might be available for any "free or limited preview".
But here, there is no such online preview for these volumes(1-a,b & 2) anywhere. Hence the contents are not verifiable by any mean. The only verifiable mean would be to buy the book directly.
The book is written by both Thurston and "K.Rangachari". But here "K.Rangachari" himself is an Iyengar. Such "non-online references" alone, atleast need be written by 3rd parties.
I can cite all the above reasons to delete all claims made from these "non-existent references".
I'm a Vadakalai Iyengar myself & my stand is this :- I hold that the terms "iyer" ,"smartha" ,"vadama" etc were once applicable to all brahmins & not just for the present days' iyers. But today they are only applied to the current iyer community & hence Thurston misinterpreted all iyengars to have come from iyers.
Anyhow, none of the references are valid under any wiki' rule or regulation ,& hence should be deleted as they are used for controversial statements. Now give ur opinion on this.
If someone's going to indicate the "primary source" factor, that they've witnessed the contents of the article, then i suppose they are to provide a valid secondary source for support.
All contoversial claims made from castes & tribes should be deleted.
But u had mentioned i was toying around with the article!!!
... If the allegations made from some non existent reference is called valid , then certainly my changes in the iyer pages were acceptable. Explain ur stand here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hari7478 (talk • contribs) 10:08, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
The only changes i made in the iyer page was that , i had included a statement from kathleen gough's book with reference , that shows that the "iyengars were ranked above iyers" . This was not to show the superiority of iyengars , but rather to imply that this fact contradicts thurston's allegations.
In the vadama page , i had only stated the contoversial claims to be "Thurston & Rangachari's own views" ...but u r callin' it POV pushing?!!
It is sad to see that even some good wiki' editors are partial towards their tradition & allow dubious claims made from non existent sources.