Talk:Ramanuja

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- 2.) c.1177-1157 ce- which is changed ago some days. 3=Traditional dates=c.1017-1137ce ,, , - 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

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

'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)

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)

But in modern usage, it is. Bangarukodipetta (talk) 01:57, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

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)

The edits and this discussion were started by a long term disruptive sock engaging in bad faith derailment. I have struck these comments. Gotitbro (talk) 08:38, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Birthdate

i have replaced the Birth and death dates with the one that aligns with modern Scholars. There is no reason to trust traditional dated over this. SKAG123 (talk) 04:24, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Ramanuja image

This picture is worse old idol, not showed good attributes, therefore i added new image of Ramanuja.

This is better image of Ramanuja which shows with all attributes with names

File:Cover of Ramanujacharya.jpg

@Chronikhiles Mettriyal (talk) 08:49, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

What's wrong with the murti? I thought you liked statues? Dāsānudāsa (talk) 09:48, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

saffron dress cover with all, very wosre image, it seems like child baby, really, if you disagree with me, atleast add another prominet images of Ramanuja in wiki commons in yours account. Search in commons

And add it.

@Dāsānudāsa Mettriyal (talk) 09:53, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

its very painful to eye to see our ramanuja, very bad image.

Change image

@Dāsānudāsa Mettriyal (talk) 10:01, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I suggest this better images with suitable license rather than small closed idol. @Dāsānudāsa

@Chronikhiles

Mettriyal (talk) 10:08, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

The statue is awkward. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 10:11, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

if statue is awkward, atleast add image name, because current image is very worse old idol seems like child

This img is perfect suitable for Ramanuja

File:Cover of Ramanujacharya.jpg

@Joshua Jonathan Mettriyal (talk) 10:12, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Not really. Ramanuja didn't have 20 arms, for a start. Dāsānudāsa (talk) 11:44, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

its depiction of Ramanuja, his followers considersed him to avatar of Shesha

@Dāsānudāsa Mettriyal (talk) 12:17, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Ramanuja was a human being. His infobox image should reflect that. The current murti is much more faithful in this regard than the Shesha avatar image. Chronikhiles ^(talk) 17:03, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Birthdate, again

Regarding this revert diff, edit-summary

not at all religious pov, it's mentioned often in scholarly texts yu will see these dates more grounded and attributed than the later

There are no sources given for such a statement; in contrast, the scholarly dating of "c. 1077" has three sources. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 02:18, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

What I am saying is true, just see pg .20 a scholar mentioning Carman's view and then again at page 21 or 22 Ramanuja (1017-1137)....

Britannica uses the same dating ..

Again from the source used in Wiki article K.V. Cybil, Introduction to "Biopolitics and Healing in a Mass Milieu" when comparing with Thomas Aquinas .

Even you can see many other where though they mentioned Carman's view they also headed gave importance to 1017-1137 dating because of the reason stated. You can find many sources for the dating. 2409:40E4:11ED:9548:D106:D010:19C3:EECB (talk) 08:57, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

More info, Carman wasn't an indologist but Christian scholar rather..though at the same point his view has been discussed too. 2409:40E4:11ED:9548:D106:D010:19C3:EECB (talk) 09:18, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

• P.20-22 of which source?
• Carman (1974), The Theology of Rāmānuja: An essay in interreligious understanding, Yale University Press, pp. 27: "The traditional dates for Ramanuja correspond to AD 1017-1137 [...] the date of Ramanuja's death may well be 20 years later and his date of birth between 20 and 60 years later."
• EB, Rmanajua: "Ramanuja (born c. 1017, Shriperumbudur, India—died 1137, Shrirangam)" - indeed; not the best sourve, then.
• Cybil refers to Ganeri, but incomplete, as Ganeri explicitly states that 1017-1137 are the traditional dates.
• Regarding Even you can see many other where though they mentioned Carman's view they also headed gave importance to 1017-1137 dating because of the reason stated [it's mentioned often in scholarly texts]. You can find many sources for the dating. - well, we might add the traditional dates as well.

Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 10:18, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

This source,[https://books.google.co.in/books?id=aIviDwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

Ramanuja and Schleiermacher: Toward a Constructive Comparative Theology

Jon Paul Sydnor]

Yes, the traditional dates are much important, in Buddha's case Witzel even pushed his date much back, Syndor here is completely right when he says even though the reconstruction seems logical it is unverified still, lack ultimate conclusion. Nowadays, Modern schlarship is something like this rationality=Push dates back moctly to eastern philosphy. 2409:40E4:11ED:9548:E03C:9648:D587:1CBE (talk) 10:31, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Also,

[https://www.google.co.in/books/edition/Williams_on_South_Asian_Religions_and_Im/lpxADwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Ramanuja+1077+%E2%80%93+1157+1017-1137&pg=PT72&printsec=frontcover Williams on South Asian Religions and Immigration

Collected Works] in similar way. Some have accepted his date while others seems to refer traditional date , at the same time suggesting Carman's view. 2409:40E4:11ED:9548:E03C:9648:D587:1CBE (talk) 10:39, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

@2409:40E4:1:A007:EC07:A636:935B:D1A: this is not cool; you're edit-warring against consensus; sure way to get blocked. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 18:31, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Dont think he is the part of consensus at all..and I am not here to look cool but to get the word done in a proper way and factual thing..Syntax thing is for whome we have correct age not just guesses..Its not proper to discover or attribute the age out of nowhere..Just mentioning the scholarly date in this info if you want will suffice.

In the first line mentioning both date is untidy bit. 2409:40E4:14:1187:D5AC:B227:CC88:154C (talk) 08:38, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

For now, I have removed syntax for technical obvious reason but also replaced which is visibly synonymous. 2409:40E4:10:B9A8:440E:4C55:E103:3BB6 (talk) 09:48, 21 July 2025 (UTC)