Jump to content

Talk:Ramanuja

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Glcris (talk | contribs) at 06:04, 12 September 2023. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

OR and Sharma

@BboyYen: Lets discuss your addition per WP:BRD guidelines. Consider the first two...

Your summary: Ramanuja's philosophy was born out of an attempt to harmonize the personal God of theistic religions (centered on Bhakti, i.e. the Vishnu of the Bhagavata Purana and Vaishnavism) with the nondual Absolute of Shankara's Vedanta.
Source quote = Ramanujacharya attempts a harmonious combination of absolutism with personal theism.
Your summary: In traditional Advaita, there is no pure Ishvara, the only reality is Brahman. A person who realizes Brahman is incapable of seeing any other existent, let alone a personal Lord (of the theistic variety). However the existence of an Ishvara is admitted in an "implied" sense. Brahman reflected in maya is Ishvara, the omniscient, omnipotent God of all theistic religions. Since Brahman is the sole reality, it being nondual, attributeless, and complete in-and-of-itself, the existence of a theistic God with a will and intelligence is merely a hypothesis for a Brahman-realized individual. Yet the existence of such a being can be implied, hence Brahman reflected in maya.
Source quote = Brahman is the only Reality. … This Brahman, reflected in or conditioned by Maya, is called Ishvara or God. Ishvara is the personal aspect of the impersonal Brahman. This is the celebrated distinction between God and the Absolute which Shankara, following the Upanisads, makes. … Some critics have missed the significance of Ishvara. They believe that Ishvara in Advaita is unreal and useless. But they are sadly mistaken. Missing the true significance of Maya is at the root of this mistaken believer. Ishvara becomes ‘unreal’ only for him who has realized his oneness with Brahman by rising above speech and mind. For us Ishvara is all in all.

How does the quotes above mean the same as your summaries? The source is stating something quite different, and please note Sharma's views must follow WP:Primary guidelines. Let us take these two first. We can go others later. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:32, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ms Sarah Welch:

From that same source (pages 348–349): The first two points about God are derived from the interpretation of the Upanisads, while this point which is theistic in character is the result of the Bhagavata influence on Ramanuja. Ramanuja tries to fuse the immanent Upanisadic Absolute with the transcendent God of the Pancharatra or Bhagavata theism. … He has His consort Laksmi, … He is called Narayana or Vasudeva.

This is basically what I'm saying on the page. I cannot cite everything as that would be citation hell. Yet what I'm saying is not novel, and does not contradict the source.

Me: In traditional Advaita, there is no pure Ishvara, the only reality is Brahman. Source: Brahman is the only Reality.

Me: However the existence of an Ishvara is admitted in an "implied" sense. Brahman reflected in maya is Ishvara, the omniscient, omnipotent God of all theistic religions. Source: This Brahman, reflected in or conditioned by Maya, is called Ishvara or God. Ishvara is the personal aspect of the impersonal Brahman. This is the celebrated distinction between God and the Absolute which Shankara, following the Upanisads, makes.

Me: Since Brahman is the sole reality, it being nondual, attributeless, and complete in-and-of-itself, the existence of a theistic God with a will and intelligence is merely a hypothesis for a Brahman-realized individual. Yet the existence of such a being can be implied, hence Brahman reflected in maya. Source: Some critics have missed the significance of Ishvara. They believe that Ishvara in Advaita is unreal and useless. But they are sadly mistaken. Missing the true significance of Maya is at the root of this mistaken belief. Ishvara becomes ‘unreal’ only for him who has realized his oneness with Brahman by rising above speech and mind. For us Ishvara is all in all.

How is the source saying something different from what I'm saying? BboyYen (talk) 00:28, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@BboyYen: You are adding a lot of OR. For example, the source is stating "Brahman is the only Reality", but you add "there is no pure Ishvara", whatever you mean by "pure Ishvara". For more examples, your "incapable of seeing" and "the existence of a theistic God with a will and intelligence is merely a hypothesis for a Brahman-realized individual" etc language is your personal interpretation and OR. We should state no more and no less than what the source is. On rest, the article already cites and summarizes the Sharma source several times, and some of what you are adding is already in the article (see Comparison with other Vedānta schools section). The other issue is that you are stating Sharma's view as if it is the mainstream consensus. But Sharma already admits others interpret it differently when he writes, "Some critics have missed the significance of Ishvara. (...) But they are sadly mistaken." See more in chapters 15 and 18 of his. Sharma's views are WP:Primary, and we need to be careful how we use WP:Primary. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:45, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ms Sarah Welch This is not original research. Everything I am saying can be understood if you're able to loosen the rigidity. When I say: "there is no pure Ishvara", this simply means that there is nothing but Brahman (this is Shankara Vedanta), however inside maya, Brahman manifests as Ishvara. Ishvara is not primal, it is merely the personal and theistic reflection of Brahman (which itself is featureless). "Incapable of seeing" simply means that a Brahman-realized individual only sees Brahman as the reality, there is no Ishvara, no maya, and no jiva. Again, this is even gone over in the source text. "The existence of a theistic God with a will and intelligence is merely a hypothesis for a Brahman-realized individual" does not deviate from the source text because if we hypothesize that Brahman is the sole reality (which, Shankara Vedanta does), then we cannot "see" anything else. This is why Shankara Vedanta treats Ishvara as a manifestation of Brahman in maya, but ultimately unreal. The distinction "true", only for a Brahman-realized individual.

I wasn't aware that this article already cites that source.

I believe Sharma, who I am personally unfamiliar with outside of this one book, represents the philosophies he talks about, rather fairly and objectively. From reading the book myself, it clarified a lot and I learned a lot. It also harmonized a lot of apparent contradictions between seemingly contradictory philosophies, at least for me. So I have no real reason to doubt that (or believe that) he is somehow twisting concepts.

In regards to his "Some critics" line, I think he's right when he says that. Again, the Ishvara issue relates to Ramanuja. Ramanuja attempted to unite Ishvara and Brahman. For Sharma, there is no real distinction between Ramanuja's view and Shankara's view. Shankara simply views Ishvara as unreal from the "ultimate" perspective, but Ishvara remains real as a practicality. Ramanuja's entire philosophy simply describes only the practicality, whereas Shankara's view describes both the practical and the "ultimate". That's why I cited the page that said that Ramanuja's view is simply an "earlier stage" of Shankara's view.

I hope that clarifies what I'm trying to say. I have a copy of his book right next to me. BboyYen (talk) 01:59, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@BboyYen: I have a copy too, and many shelves of books on all this. Sharma wrote this book in the 1950s, and it has been reprinted a few times. You may want to read more, a lot more, on Shankara and Ramanuja by others. Relying on a single source can be inappropriate for complicated and disputed subjects, particularly when a lot in it are the primary views of that author. Your request "loosen the rigidity" is unfortunately also an inadvertent license for careless phrasing / misleading OR. For next steps, how about I take another look at chapter 18 of Sharma and your wording, then see how and where we can improve this article while keeping faithfully close to the source and wikipedia content guidelines? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 02:22, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ms Sarah Welch I said that I had a copy of the book next to me because you told me to read chapters 15 and 18 of the very source I was citing, so I had felt insulted. I am aware that the book was written in the 1950s.

"You may want to read more, a lot more, on Shankara and Ramanuja by others." There's no need to be patronizing.

"Relying on a single source can be inappropriate for complicated and disputed subjects, particularly when a lot in it are the primary views of that author. Your request "loosen the rigidity" is unfortunately also an inadvertent license for careless phrasing / misleading OR." I agree, and I agree.

"For next steps, how about I take another look at chapter 18 of Sharma and your wording, then see how and where we can improve this article while keeping faithfully close to the source and wikipedia content guidelines?" I don't care enough to add my changes back into the article. I said what I said because I have some form of experiential realization, and when I read this book I was able to harmonize seemingly disparate viewpoints throughout the book. This got me excited so I attempted to write a summary of Ramanuja's views in plain English so that people who landed on the page would understand it clearly. The article seems dense, and while it is currently cited well, I feel that one can read it and only glean facts from it, not understanding. I don't have shelves and shelves of books, however I don't think any of this stuff is particularly complicated and I don't think all scholars are necessarily authoritative. I was, personally, shocked to find that many of the philosophical dogmas that Sharma summarizes in the book to be accurate, and not just fluff of opinion. Maybe that's my personal bias towards philosophy talking. That's all I have to say. BboyYen (talk) 02:51, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for Ramanuja and the overall structure of this particular article.

I have identified plenty of sources for Ramanuja many written in English. They all are reputed authors, referenced and published and freely available on archives/ forgotten books or other sites for download and studying.

With this I propose to alter the structure for this article to reflect what various biographies and commentators have recorded about his life since his lifetime and subsequently as well. This would include the key events in his life during his education and his interaction with various gurus, Move to Sri Rangam from Kanchi, His travels to obtain the commentary of Bhodayana Vridhi to write his Sri Bhashyam, his struggles his flight to Melkote and establishment of Vaishnava temples there and subsequent return to Sri Rangam, His principle disciples and their composition on Ramanuja. His Successors.

There are contentious topics right from the authorship to philosophy. Such topics can be discussed under the same relevant heading after recording the accepted version of his Life. That way this article will do a full justice to the subject.

BTW also managed to find a book on Iconography which describes the usual posture for Ramanuja. (This was deleted for want of proper source of reference).

Fellow editors / Contributors a couple of questions for you all

a) Do you want me to record the name of the book or you want me to include the link as well. (you good google it up)

b) If you have anything else to add to the approach described above let me know.

Padmavasantha (talk) 12:00, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If the sources meet WP:RS guidelines, they would be welcome. Expect WP:SPS, WP:QUESTIONABLE and similar non-reliable sources, such as hagiographies published by monasteries linked to him to get challenged. This applies to both Tenkalai or Vadakalai sub-traditions. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:15, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Have uploaded the possible sources which I am going to use for this article in this link. All of them are in English. Have not included the regional language ones. All are freely available on the web. https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0B3Pnee_VmVf7VU42bDhKT1ZCcG8.

All of the them adequately fulfill the purpose of source material. Any mismatch with wiki source requirement may be highlighted.

Padmavasantha (talk) 15:59, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also when I go through the biography section I find some misleading and false information based on some book published in 2012. They are Yamunachariar miraculously rose after seeing Ramanuja. It is never there in any source. All it is stated is that the three fingers were folded as if he was holding something. Eventhough Ramanuja had never met him in person he recognised this anamoly and questioned if there were any last wishes expressed by the Acharya. The disciples spoke of three important unfulfilled wishes Yamuncharya had openly expressed. Right there Sri Ramnuja swore to fulfill them. On hearing his promise the three fingers straightened. Other than that no interaction.

My point is can you put up a scanned copy of this sources somewhere as also the one that claims Gadya Trayam was not written by him. It is not possible to even see what is written in the source. And how can we take all of this as true value for the article. When there is so much material available to contradict it.

This is why I raised the POV issue here in the first place. Sources which are trying to portray Ramanuja in a poor light seems to be taken as the main source of referece.

Padmavasantha (talk) 16:08, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are very old sources, some ~100 years old. Please see WP:HISTRS and avoid rewinding scholarship clock back to the colonial era. Please consider using more recent reviews and peer-reviewed second sources. My response may appear discouraging, that is not my intent. We need to respect wikipedia community agreed content policies and guidelines. On POV allegations, just because you disagree with a WP:RS published in 2012, or you allege "no text states so", does not make you more reliable than the WP:RS and the professor who wrote what you disagree with. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:20, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Have read the guidelines on historical references. And it doesnt disqualify the materials over hundred years to be used as a reference.

There is a reason for using them. Because all of them have studied the original literatures and commentaries. They have offered the translations and the interpretations and accepted the same. Most of the subsequent material are drawn of the references and act as a crtique on them rather than actually providing the recorded history. It is very important to have the critical response. But what are these critical responses attacking or analyzing is lost. This is not a Geographical or Science content where we have new technology developments everyday. So the public have to know the base content, Who is Ramanuja, Who were his perceptors (he had many and their roles), Who were his disciples, What are the works attributed to him, What are the primary content of those, The primary philosophical principle of those, Commentators of his works, Importance of Melkote where tradtions established by the Acharya continues unlike Sri Rangam which suffered disturbances and Conjeevaram which had a setback.

There are other books for which pdfs not available online, but publishers name and reference can be provided (in english not even involving the vernacular literature here).

The second part of the article will include the modern crtiques of the same. and any rebuttals that are available in the published books.

The guiding factor for any historian is to get as close to reality or truth. That means not burying the known facts and informations.

So I will be going ahead with the editing and we will sort out issues as we go.

Padmavasantha (talk) 01:01, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reverts

I've reverted all but one edit by KaustubhHareKrishna as being unconstructive, but let's go through them one by one:

  • diff: removal of sourced info; adding a reference at top of the page
  • diff: changed Modern scholarship [...] Scholars into Non-hindu or western scholarship [...] such scholars, edit-summary I specified the type of scholar which has shown disbelief in Ramanuja miracles; unacceptable pov-pushing
  • diff: idem
  • diff: removal of sourced info
  • diff: removal of sourced info
  • diff: removal of sourced info; offensive edit-summary:

Anti-hindu blasphemous content removed. Ramanuja can't be compared to any mortal of the mlecchas (non-Indian, barbarian) societies. He is a transcendental being messenger of Lord Vishnu and not some meat eating, wine drinking Christian "free thinker".

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:37, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote this there. Did you read?

Blasphemous content undermining the hindu faith removed. It is obvious that a holy prophet's miracles are discredited by modern science. Thus why mention that they are unbelievable. As if though Christ's exorcisms and Mohammed's flying to the moon on horseback need be mentioned as being discredited by scientists and emphiric or modern scholars. So why mention it at all in the context of a holy prophet of a religion. It is but obvious that any empiricist will disagree with an account of a prophet's "miracles".

 :KaustubhHareKrishna (talk) 09:35, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is an encyclopedia, not a faith-manual. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:56, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Another Discussion

Regarding sudden change in Birth date after this revision, Pinging, Hi, I noticed that you reverted my edits. Anyway, I wants to discuss this here as most of the sources supports the Traditional Date of Birth , i.e 1017 ce. As far as my consent, there are 3 proposed dates, 1.)c.1016-1100(?)ce- [1] 2.) c.1177-1157 ce-[2] which is changed ago some days. 3=Traditional dates=c.1017-1137ce [3],[4], [5], [6] - this is the most attributed DOB which is followed including the textbooks and many Encyclopedia like [this encyclopedia uses]. So, The Date of Birth should not have changed without big consensus. Hence, I'm rechanging the original dates. Please check other Library too.

References

  1. ^ Diane Collinson, Kathryn Plant, Robert Wilkinson (2013). Fifty Eastern Thinkers. Routledge. ISBN 9781134631513.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  2. ^ Ramanuja and Schleiermacher: Toward a Constructive Comparative Theology. 2012. p. 20. ISBN 9780227900352.
  3. ^ The Life of Râmânujâchârya: The Exponent of the Viśistâdvaita Philosophy. Harvard University. 2008. pp. =last worked page of the book.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link)
  4. ^ https://doi.org/10.1163%2F9789004432802_010
  5. ^ https://books.google.com/books?id=9SpTAQAAQBAJ
  6. ^ https://books.google.co.in/books?id=ZP_f9icf2roC&pg=PA904&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4064:2b81:e060:4518:b8a9:c74:7c4e (talk) 13:22, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @ChandlerMinh, I believe you're the one who made the changes [1]? Also maybe @Reo kwon — DaxServer (t · c) 20:38, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The traditional sources give 1017 CE as the birth year, but based on modern research scholars place him from 1077 CE. You can refer to the sources which were already cited on the page. The sources you gave are based on traditional accounts and have not looked at the dating of his life in a critical fashion. Reo kwon (talk) 23:09, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tamil vs. Indian

The article mentions that Ramanuja was an 'Indian' Hindu philosopher, but this term 'Indian' is largely used to refer to nationals of the state of India. Ramanuja was a pre-modern philosopher.

This characterization is misleading also takes away from his Tamil identity, which is a term he would have identified with. Bangarukodipetta (talk) 17:12, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If the sources say he's an "Indian philosopher", we write it as "Indian philosopher". If the sources say he's a "Tamil philosopher", we write it as "Tamil philosopher". Have you read what the inline citations say? Also, Indian Hindu philosopher sounds more natural in encyclopedia. --WikiLinuz {talk} 19:38, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your first few points. But something sounding more 'natural' does not give it more credence. Bangarukodipetta (talk) 05:19, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
By your logic, we would be unable to call him a Hindu as well. For the purposes of an encyclopedia, I believe these terms are appropriate, especially since the rest of the article makes it quite clear that he was born before 1947. Chronikhiles (talk) 01:19, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
'Hindu' is valid here since it is a category of traditions, whereas 'Indian' is ultimately a term used to denote nationality.
Would we call Porus 'Pakistani' for the sole reason that his kingdom lies in what is now Pakistan? Bangarukodipetta (talk) 05:24, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wiktionary defines Indian as, "Of or relating to India or its people". It is commonly used to refer to citizens of the Republic of India, yes, but this definition is by no way exclusive. Chronikhiles (talk) 06:40, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But in modern usage, it is. Bangarukodipetta (talk) 01:57, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think Tamil-Indian philospher stands better at the usage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.230.162.93 (talk) 02:39, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ramanuja&oldid=1175011228"