Edge Rewrite
// HTMLRewriter · presentation

This page was redesigned at the edge.

Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.

// request.cf · coarse context

A page that knows where it met you.

Only coarse request metadata is shown. This demo does not display or persist visitor IP addresses.

Country
US
Cloudflare location
CMH
Connection
HTTP/2
Language
Not provided

Ray ID: a22f65cfcb004bba

Jump to content

Talk:Akshobhya Tirtha

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Add topic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Latest comment: 3 years ago by 106.79.206.101 in topic Untitled

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