Talk:Iyengar/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Robert Lester

Robert Lester's name keeps cropping in relation to this article up but I am struggling to find out much about him or his writings. I know that he was/is an academic and wrote some papers on the subject but he seems rarely to be cited by his peers and so tracking down his stuff is awkward. Can anyone give me a brief bibliography?--2.219.218.79 (talk) 05:57, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Not able to find a bibliography. He is still professor emeritus at Univ of Colorado. He published a lot more work on Buddhism than SriVaishnavism. JSTOR has part of his work. Hope this helps. Some details are here. --Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 15:28, 19 February 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra

OK, thanks. I have JSTOR access but my password is at home. Won't be long now.--2.219.218.79 (talk) 17:10, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Good to know that Sitush. Means you are healing well. Take care. Best wishes. --Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 19:30, 19 February 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra

Provided other sources in the place: same info+ additional data with sources

S.M. Srinivasa Chari is not a neutral party, but an Iyengar, hence there's a possibility of POV content. I've removed the source along with the contributions, and have re-added the same data with some additional info, with the help of other sources that are easily accessible.

• First of all, Kathleen Gough(Cambridge University Press) and Harold F. Schiffman(Routledge publishers) have defined the two sects as northerners and southerners, either as synonyms or in the form of one line definitions. Hence i've put it up that way. Technically "Kalai(Kala in sanskrit)", in this regard, means branch. While there are other translations such as Northern/Southern- school/culture/branch/tradition/sect, synonyms and one line definitions given by these authors(their works published by renowned publishers) would be the most apt.
  
• Secondly, it is important to give a brief description about the two sects, separately, rather than going into the differences right away, so that the viewer gets a brief outline about the two, and thereafter we could go into the differences. Mentioning the differences right from the start might confuse any non-Iyengar viewer/user.
  
• Harold Coward seems to give a clear and precise picture of a principle doctrinal difference, by going a little deeper into the finer aspects, yet keeping it brief, and explains the reason behind the nicknames of the schools, in a better way ie easier to understand than the rest, as you can evidently see. Hence replaced it in the place of King and Eraly srcs, as Coward's work covers both.
  
• On the whole, the same contribs have been retained and put up in a slightly different format, with "some new sources + the existing srcs" along with a few additional details(sourced). Thank you. Hari7478 (talk) 02:50, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

• There are dozens of sources that refer to them as "northern school", "northern culture" etc and the short-form "northerners" is just that, a short form. Whether Chari is an Iyengar or not has little relevance because his book is widely accepted and has been postively reviewed by academic journals
• Schiffman does not mention "ideology".
• Your new paragraph on the Vadalakai makes no sense because it is internally dependent for its explanation. Iyengars are Brahmins and thus that they depend on the Brahmanical traditions, legal system etc - well, d'uh.
• Your stuff about the 18 differences, monkey school etc is much more difficult to understand than was my version - it is garbled and yet also (for example) a partial copyright violation of what Coward says.
• Because of the copyvio, I am reverting you for now.--2.219.218.79 (talk) 04:31, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I have begun to reintroduce your sources etc in a non-copyvio manner and also by mining them for additional information. I have to take a break for health reasons - an hour or so of WP effort is about my limit at the moment - but will develop the section further later today. I'd be grateful if you could avoid huge changes until then, although obviously I cannot stop you from doing whatever you see fit. I've taken the liberty of shortening your heading also because it consumes almost the entire edit summary space. Hope you do not mind.--2.219.218.79 (talk) 06:54, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

It didn't really happen today, sorry - too tired. Hari, can you perhaps expand on your second point above? We have articles for the two sects and while, sure, they are dreadful, I am not yet convinced that your couple of paragraphs really added anything to this article that is/could not be incorporated into a more general overview of what you call the differences. In fact, much of the stuff is already noted and there is a bit more to come. Basically, I'm not sure how your paragraphs assisted in avoiding confusion "for the non-Iyengar viewer/user": they seemed to me merely to add yet more confusion via linked names and uncommon (to most non-Indian readers, at least) terms. I accept that this is a tricky article when it comes to terminology and there is almost certainly going to be some systemic bias in it regardless of how hard we try.--2.219.218.79 (talk) 00:06, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm trying. Perhaps a little later but i'll do it. Would like to have some time off(atleast from this article). Hari7478 (talk) 20:49, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Removed the data on "all 3 men" being tamilians. According to some other sources, Nathamuni was North Indian - See here:[1], [2]. Here's a source on Ramanuja's father's name, which goes as Keshava Somayaji - [3]. Although the source(on Ramanujua) doesn't say much about his ethnic origins, i doubt if that last name could be a tamil one or even south indian. Removed the controversial data. Hari7478 (talk) 21:19, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Yet again, you have misread your own sources. For example, one of them say he was from a "North Indian family of the Chola country". That is, he was from the Tamil region. Another is not going to trump the decent academic sources already in place. You really do have to stop doing this because I am becoming increasingly concerned regarding your competence in understanding the English language sources that you use.--2.219.218.79 (talk) 21:56, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Pages 65 & 84 of your source do not say anything about them being tamils, while pg.80 is not available for viewing. Could you be a little more specific as to where their "tamil origin" is mentioned? According to this source [4], "Nathamuni, belonging to a domiciled North Indian family of the Chola country....", while this one here [5] says "there were affiliations between south indian shaivism and vaishnavism and the forms of these two sects are practiced in Kashmir and other parts of North. Saints and scholars like Tirumular & Nathamuni belonged to the North". Evidently, Nathamuni had North indian origin but his family was domiciled in the region. However, "Tamils" would mean "people who have ethnic origins in Tamil Nadu". Please do explain. Also, most southern brahmins including "Adi Shankara" composed works in sanskrit. But, mentioning "although he's(shankara is) malayali, his works were in sanskrit" could be misleading. In this case it's about Ramanuja. Hari7478 (talk) 23:08, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I've had enough of this, sorry. Stop or explain what appears to be POV-pushing (although I cannot for the life of me work out why you might be doing it). stop the distortion, stop the original research and synthesis and the pedantry. Ping me on my talk page if you still want page 80 - I'll most likely forget otherwise. You appear to have some sort of obsession with proving a North India/South India basis for something or another to do with the Iyengars and I am at a loss to understand it. I do not dispute that, for example. the Nambudiri Brahmins are though to have their origins in the north but I simply cannot work out what your point is in this instance, other than perhaps to push the Aryan/Brahmin invasion theory. If that is your point, then you need to do better than merely provide bowdlerised references to poor sources etc. This contentiousness between you and Mayasutra is precisely why I initially refused to get involved when the pair of you asked me to do so: I am better than I was but still unwell and I really can do without the aggravation. Hopefully, I've improved this article at least a little bit. There is more in the tank but, well, I'm not sure that I care when faced with this sort of stuff.--2.219.218.79 (talk) 01:29, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Second thoughts: I am prepared to add something to the effect that Nathamuni's family came from the north, using some sort of decent source. And probably as a footnote. I consider it to be trivial given that the primary point is the Tamil base for Sri Vaishnavism but, well, if it will hut you up satisfy you then I can live with it. You are on very thin ice here and if I were you then I would accept the compromise.--2.219.218.79 (talk) 02:05, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

And my third thought would be to just remove the "Tamil" sentence that offends Hari. Honestly, I'm past caring.--2.219.218.79 (talk) 02:22, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Hari asked me for the relevant bit of Carman's page 80. Please note that my ability to view this source is decreasing due to the number of times I've looked at it - I could see more or less the entire thing a few days ago but am now getting "you have reached your viewing limit" messages for some pages. Please also note that the content of the article as discussed above has been superseded. The relevant bit of p. 80 says

While Nammalvar came from a landowning caste in a town near the southern tip of India, Ramanuja was born in a Brahmin family in Sriperumbudur, a small town twenty-six miles west of Madras, made notorious in recent years by the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi at a political rally just outside the town. Later Ramajuna moved to the nearby city of Kanchipuram, which had been a stronghold of Jains and Buddhists as well as worshippers of Siva, Vishnu, and various goddesses. Ramanuja's traditional dates are 1017 to 1137 C.E.

Hari, unless you can find a source saying that any or all of Nammalvar, Nathamuni and Ramanuja were born and lived for more than a brief time in the North, nothing is going to change here. Carman says what he does for a reason. It is not sufficient that their parents were from the North, for example: you would be inferring something in a manner similar to original research because you have no idea whether the parents adopted southern ways or maintained their northern ways (assuming the two are different and assuming that you cannot find a source that says that). Let this be the end of it, please: I'd rather keep what little chance I retain of viewing Carman's stuff for development of the article. He is a Harvard professor of religion, after all.--2.219.218.79 (talk) 05:16, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I've been reviewing this thread in the light of Mayastura's suggestion regarding rephrasing to state "Tamilnadu" as their place of birth. I still think that Hari is synthesising to some degree: their second source is phrased very ambiguously because the word "belonged" is pretty vague in the context of the preceding words and I took it to mean the "Northern school", which Hari has for a long time preferred to call "the North". I realise now that it cannot mean that because the schism had not happened then, but nonetheless the source is very badly phrased. I still think that mentioning the North Indian origins of Nathamuni's family might be ok, if others agree, although I'm not quite sure what the point of it all is apart from some kind of sub-national nationalism/racism (in the non-derogatory sense) type of thing. As I said elsewhere on this talk page a few minutes ago, the principal protagonists in this palaver - who appealed to me for assistance in sorting out their differences - really need to explain why all this matters so much to them.--2.219.218.79 (talk) 17:57, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I've just noticed that the mention of Nathamuni in the second source (V. Raghavan) seems to be the only mention of the guy using that spelling in the entire book and comprises just the single sentence that Hari refers to. There is one other passing mention a couple of pages earlier, where some poor editing has resulted in the alternate spelling of Nāthamuni. There is no mention of his name under either spelling in the (very poor) index. I also spotted a couple of other factual oddities unrelated to this article while skimming random pages. Raghavan and his editor are perfectly decent scholars but the publisher seems a bit unusual and that might account for the poor quality of presentation etc. I don't think that this source really meets our standards, given this peculiar state of affairs and, in particular, the absolutely minimalist reference(s) to Nathamuni. It is throw-away stuff.--2.219.218.79 (talk) 21:41, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

New sources on Genetics - Seeking approval/consensus for its inclusion in the main article

Due to the heated discussions concerning genetics, my edits have been reverted. In this case it's a clear circumstance and the data could be easily verified. I'm hereby posting the data along with the sources in the form of links. See below:

A 2007 study on genomic affinities among 43 global populations revealed that Iyengars and European-Americans were grouped into a separate cluster, based on allele frequencies.[6](Pg.5, Fig.2-Unrooted Neighbor Joining Tree of 43 Global Populations, A Genetic Structure of the Early Immigrants) Among the nine caste populations of Tamil Nadu that were tested, Iyengars along with Iyers formed a separate cluster.[7](Pg.4, Results: Genomic Affinities among Populations, and Fig.1 Unrooted Neighbor Joining Tree - Nine caste Populations of Tamil Nadu, A Genetic Structure of the Early Immigrants).

The texts within the brackets(pg numbers, and source description) are not to be included in the main article. Thank you. Hari7478 (talk) 23:21, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Reversion was 100% correct, because the section you added said nothing. The fact that there are 43 clusters or whatever is useless information. The fact that the Iyengars and Iyers are in a cluster means nothing. How is this information relevant? How does it tell anything at all about the Iyengars? This is why I asserted a long time ago that genetic studies are almost always useless for cultural articles: they either aren't reliable because they have too small or unrepresentative a sample size, or, like here, they produce results that simply aren't meaningful. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:03, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, info on genetics are usually added like this, across wiki pages. None of them tell us who started where or whether one is descended from the other. The studies simply show similarities and distances between groups, based on a few factors. But it's still information and there are people working on WP:Genetics. Yes, Iyengars & European-americans are in a cluster. This is what most sources on genetics tell you. There's nothing more than that. So, are we supposed to turn them all down? That being the case there would be no Wikiproject on genetics. Hari7478 (talk) 01:18, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Sitush, for the record (in case this helps you decide), here is what the paper says (please read the abstract before reading anything that Hari7478 says). The Neighbour joining tree (Pg.5, Fig 2) just indicates population relationship (it shows the given samples of Iyengar and European-American are more closely related to Indian Christian than the samples from China; and Indian Christians are in turn more closely related to Ambalakarar than Alaskan natives). To put short, the NJ tree just shows a statistically derived distance matrix tree to show how close or far the samples in the study are related (and ofcourse it often shows all are related someway or the other). The Fig 3 plot shows how much gene inflow each received and as you can see Kallar, Maravar, Agamudayar and Pallar received the least inflow. But from experience on blogs and forums, i find iyers and iyengars are not capable of accepting gene inflow. Anyways, am not opposed to including results of genetic studies in any article (as said earlier). In the Iyer talk page, had discussed this paper previously. There too it seemed to me some editors were opposed to including affinities with other castes (typically). Anyways i persisted and changed the sentences. Please see this. I feel it is OK to include the following sentences:

A 2007 study revealed that Iyers and Iyengars formed a separate cluster along with the high-ranking non-Brahmin communities of Tamil Nadu such as the Veerakodi Vellalars. A 2008 study found that the most recent migrants of Iyers and Iyengars showed close similarities with Bengali Brahmins, Mahishya and Bagdi than the early migrants into Tamil Nadu.

--Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 01:48, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra

No. What is a "separate cluster"? How closely related? Does this necessarily mean something about descent? Does it tell us the direction of relationship? When they say they are a cluster, does it mean that they are inherently related, or does it simply mean that they are more related to each other than they are the other groups in the study? And even if all of this could be answered, it would not rise past WP:PRIMARY. Find a secondary source that reviews a number of different findings and draws a useful conclusion from them.

And Hari, don't bring up bullshit like "Then why does WikiProject Genetics exist? You know why they exist, it's the first sentence of the page: "This project aims to organize improvement and maintenance of genetics articles on Wikipedia". This article does not fall under it's domain. Just because genetics is a legitimate scientific endeavor, and a topic for coverage in Wikipedia, doesn't mean we should automatically start including genetics information on any article we can find something somewhat related.

So I'm standing by the above point: find secondary sources that give context to multiple studies and the broad picture, or this should not be included. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:59, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Sitush, Sorry there was an edit conflict while posting. Just read the posts here. Just stated some views. Am not keen on being involved in the consensus though. Best wishes. --Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 02:07, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra

The part on veerakodi whatever was a discussion and not the result itself. It was based on relative similarities/distances among the 9 castes tested. But the closest was obtained with "european-americans" as seen in fig.2. Fig.1 shows clustering with iyers, and that was the result(under--Results:Genomic affinities among populations, pg.4). Your data was a copy paste of the discussion that followed and it was based on a relative similarity(something ie closer among the other 8 castes of TN that were tested). I'm not an idiot. I read them all. Just because it has been put up like that in the Iyer page doesn't mean it's right. I hope you remember Sitush's comments on the Iyer article, sometime back. Hari7478 (talk) 02:18, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Qwyrxian, very valid questions. Just sharing my thots coz not sure if the questions are directed to me. WRT the paper in question, the primary task the study undertook was to analyze the extent of genetic diversity in the Thevar group using 8 polymorphic autosomal DNA loci (based on samples they had). Then they also compared with 6 other groups for which data was available. The term "separate cluster" is just an output / result of statistical analysis which indicates closer affinity between some samples than the others. No it does not give direction of the relationship. Such studies depend on known ethno-historical affinities between castes so that researchers can correlate results, from their studies, with existing population history. Put roughly, if Iyer and Iyengar show affinity with Bengali Brahmin, it would be like say, 'expected'; based on a known history of migration. If they show affinity with Mahishya and Bagdi (both low on social scale in the caste/varna hierarchy), an explanation for it is not going to be available, as it would be 'not expected'. However, the tribe-caste continuum is known; so IMO as these studies proceed we will know with which tribes, are certain classes related. Personally, am not surprised with the Mahishya and Bagdi connection. Am just waiting if a study is going to compare affinities with other samples, like the Asur (or other austro-asiatic speaking tribes), as well as, Indo-European (IE) speaking tribes such as the Bhil, Lambada, Gujjar. Certain folks never realize once upon a time there was no such thing as a brahmin 'caste'; there were only IE speaking tribes; and culture always evolved. So much for the clamor on Indo-European really...Regards.--Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 02:52, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra

Hari7478, You said " I'm not an idiot. I read them all". I can only say, "I hope so". And i choose not to get into an argument on this. All i will say is you are wrong (each figure is the result of a different method and/or sample sets; Fig 1 took 9 castes into account and Fig 2 took 43 global populations into account). Good luck. --Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 03:05, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra

I realize that. But i'm not wrong. I didn't merge the two into one sentence. I've placed a stop after the 1st & have provided separate inline citations of the same source, for each sentence. The only thing i was wrong about was the year of study(2007), which was actually the year of the work's publication. Also, Fig.2 - 43 global populations(Stoneking et.al 1997, Kidd et.al 1998, Majumder et.al 1999, Basu et.al 2003) is a cognate of four different studies. Data from Fig.1(Basu et.al 2003) has been used in Fig.2, along with three other studies. W.r.t the 9 castes of TN, fig.2 made use of the same sample set for TN castes(only) as in fig.1 + used three other studies(stoneking, kidd, majumder) for the sample sets of other global populations. I've understood it, perfectly. Hari7478 (talk) 21:45, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

This blame game needs to stop. None of it is relevant because the material is not going in the article. - Sitush (talk) 21:54, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Sitush, i accept what you say. I truly realize now why you said results of these studies should not be allowed in wiki articles. I now accept your stance. I think some people have no idea of high school genetics but make grand conclusions. I reckon the prob is bcoz genetics was not taught to us when we were kids in middle / high school (at the level it is taught now); we picked up stuff only from graduation level onwards. I have made mistakes wrt such studies in the past, but eagerness to learn and be corrected by others willing to teach never stopped happening. Its tough to reason out if notions are preconceived and there is a hopeless desperation to seek a particular identity or ethnicity. I hope we can stop this nonsense of genetic studies; or being stuck with one or two sentences; and move to the sampradaya itself. This is a community representing a beautiful ethereal culture; a commingling of several layers of cultural phases and deep mystical thoughts. Just my thots. Best wishes. --Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 23:06, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra

Ghurye and etymology

I've just reverted a statement relating to etymology because it seems to be a pair of copyright violations. It is short enough that it could be quoted but the two parts are presented in reverse order in the source, which makes that exercise tricky. We'll either have to attribute it to the book's author and say that that person is giving Ghurye's opinion or we'll need to take a look at the Ghurye book itself.In any event, I'd very much like to see some of that original book if anyone has it: Ghurye was a sociologist of note but not to my knowledge a linguist, philologist or similar.

Could we perhaps say something like "S. Devadas Pillai notes that the sociologist G. S. Ghurye considered Iyengar or Ayyangaru to be "the honorific plural of Ayya", which he explains is "an eroded version of Arya"? It seems a bit clumsy and it introduces uncertainty about whether the quotes are Pillai's or Ghurye's - anyone got a better suggestion? - Sitush (talk) 17:37, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

As far as i know, the ayya/arya and the Ayyangaru/Iyengar parts are cited from two different works of Ghurye. By the way the other theory(citing mandyam Narayana Iyengar) seems to be lacking additional refs(which might be necessary for a src as old as that one - 1898), and the author is an Iyengar himself. Hari7478 (talk) 18:07, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Here's the one w.r.t Ayya/Arya - Pg.34, Two Brahmanical institutions: gotra and charana - [8] Hari7478 (talk) 18:27, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

The link you provide above is, unfortunately, only visible in snippet view where I am. As such, it is no use to me. I thought Pillai was citing pages 34 and 40 of the same book? If there is any doubt about this then maybe we really do have a problem! We should deal with the other etymology provided in a separate section: I am finding it very difficult to handle the way each of the sections above grows to include all sorts of items that were not originally a part of the titled subject matter. - Sitush (talk) 18:41, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I think this is the other book - [9]. But it seems pg.40 can't be viewed, not even in snippet window. Hari7478 (talk) 20:20, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Hm. I don't think so: the first citation for the etymology of Ayya is (Gotra, p34), whilst the second is (ibid, p40), followed by a note saying Rel entr. Agastya. The ibid should refer to the immediately preceding source - ie: Gotra - and the "Re. entr." is Pillai's own note informing the reader that the Agastya entry in his own book which we are reading is in some way related to this Ayya entry. - Sitush (talk) 20:30, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, now I get it. Thanks. How do we proceed with it? Hari7478 (talk) 23:08, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I am really not sure. This is an awkward one in terms of the copyright issue. We might just get away with WP:FUR on the grounds that "some things just cannot be paraphrased", but that is pretty dodgy territory. A lot of the problems could be resolved if we had access to the Ghurye book because then we could presumably paraphrase him rather than - effectively - relying on a terse paraphrase from a go-between. So, another possibility is for us to ask at WP:RX for a copy of, say, pages 30 - 45 of Ghurye's Gotra book, which should enable us to read whatever it is he has to say with a decent amount of context. I think that is worth a go. What do you think? - Sitush (talk) 00:08, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it's worth a shot. But i'm not very thorough with the resource exchange process. Can you make the request when you have time? Hari7478 (talk) 21:55, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Sure. I'll try to find the full publication details first (publisher, original year, oclc number etc) and then put in a request. - Sitush (talk) 22:19, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Language/dialect

I've been considering the purchase of Singer & Cohn's Structure and Change in Indian Society (reprinted isbn is 9780202369334) but it has gone down my list for various reasons. It is, however, clearly a good source and around pages 460-462 it discusses the various dialects etc. It is a collection of papers, so I'll see if I can find the relevant paper at JSTOR - if anyone actually has access to the book then it would at least partially resolve one of the many problems recently raised. - Sitush (talk) 00:51, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Origin of Iyengars prior to Srivaishnavism, Vadakalai & Thenkalai, Pancharatra & Vaikhanasa.

Although some of these points were previously discussed under unrelated topics, i'm posting them again so that those comments which were overlooked due to terribly formatted posts and massive walls of texts could now be understood by editors.

Iyengar community prior to Srivaishnavism:
[10] - "The Northerners (Vadagalais) as opposed to the Southerners(Thenkalais, earlier settled)...". The paragraph starts with a brief description on "occupation of South by people from the North possessing or professing Aryan culture...".
Vadakalai - [11] - "The Vadama & Vadakalai who belong to different sects but have northern origin in common as indicated by the tamil prefix vada...". Vadamas are a subsect of Iyer brahmins.
Thenkalai - I don't think all Thenkalais have common ancestors, or share a common origin. According to these sources - [12], [13], "certain southern school brahmins(Tengalai Srivaishnavas) can be identified as former sudras from their manners and customs". So, it's not like the non-brahmins form a separate faction within "Tenkalai-vaishnavism" but rather "got converted to/became Tenkalai Brahmins".

Vedas & Prabhandams:
According to these sources [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [[19]] Vadakalais accept the sanskrit vedas while thenkalais compiled a veda(4000 prabandhams) of their own. So, i'm not sure if the whole movement was necessarily Prabandham based. According to these sources it was the thenkalais who compiled the prabandhams while there's no mention on Nathamuni's hand in it, or any connection between vadakalais & prabandhams. I suggest that the disputed contents be deleted until consensus is reached. Even the sources in the main article(that are at odds with the sources mentioned here) that speak of nathamuni's hand in prabandhams, refer to vadakalai & thenkalai as sanskrit & tamil schools respectively. Except the Iyengar author "Srinivasachari" and tamilian authors like "Jagadeesan", the others(neutral parties like Schiffman, etc) have not associated the vadakalai subsect with prabandhams.

Pancharatra & Vaikhanasa:
[20], [21] - The Thenkalai vaishnavites follow what are called the vaikhanasa agamas while the Vadakalai base their life and worship on agamas, which they call pancharatra samhitas.

According to these sources [22], [23], [24] Vadakalais and their various monastic orders follow the pancharatra agama.

[25] - Vaikhanasa is a south indian tradition.

[26], [27] - The Pancharatra tradition is of Kashmirian origin.

Other:
I hope you all remember that the sources mentioned under common origins do not say that Ramanuja and Nathamuni were tamils. "All three men were born in present day's Tamil Nadu" could be a better alternative. This one here [28] says "Nathamuni was from a domiciled North Indian family of the chola region". However, as mentioned above, there are a new set of sources that say "4000 was compiled by thenkalais, while vadakalais adhere to the sanskrit vedas". Thank you. Hari7478 (talk) 14:28, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Inputs for Hari7478's new sources

Since most sources mentioned by Hari7478 (and his contentions) were already dealt with earlier, am restricting these inputs to Hari7478's new sources.

1) Hari7478 says:
Iyengar community prior to Srivaishnavism:
[29] - "The Northerners (Vadagalais) as opposed to the Southerners(Thenkalais, earlier settled)...". The paragraph starts with a brief description on "occupation of South by people from the North possessing or professing Aryan culture...".

My input:
Hari7478 has selectively picked sentences. The source mentions "Those from the north (Badaganadu).." which Hari7478 has omitted. So for clarity, am reproducing the whole sentence from the book:
"The three thousand of Thillai (Thillai muvayarathar), The Six Thousand Niyogis (Aruvela Niyogis) of the East Coast; The Eight Thousand (Ashtasahasram) of the extreme south; The Northerners (Vadamas) as opposed to Southerners, i.e., those already settled; The Northern Northerners (Vada Desa Vadamal) as opposed to Northerners of the South, i.e., Northerners long settled in the southern country; The Northerners (Vadagalais) as opposed to the Southerners (Thenkalais, earlier settlers); Those from the north (Badaganadu) as opposed to those from the western country; The Desathas, and many other similar brahmanical divisions and subdivisions, all resident at present in southern India, indicate the very quiet manner in which the south has from time immemorial been occupied by Brahman settlers from the north or north-west".

Kindly note the book leaves in doubt "north" and "north-west" is north of which kingdoms in respect to each one's kingdom of origin, but indicates "those from the north (Badaganadu)..". The region Badaganadu (land of the Badagas) is "northern areas of former Mysore state" (please note all of the former Mysore state is in present day Karnataka in southern India). So the claim of "north" proves nothing here. The term "badaga" in kannada is "vaduga" in tamil, both of which mean "northerners" but the term "vaduga" is used to indicate telugu speakers as they are from "north" of tamil speaking regions, also bcoz vaduga indicates vadugavali. Back in time, the term "Vaduga" was used in many Bana inscriptions and has been interpreted variously by scholars (example: according to Somasundara Desigar, Vadugas may be either Kakatiyas or Western Chalukyas. According to Mahalingam Vadugas were Kakatiyas.) According to Epigraphica Indica, Vol 42, p.41, the term "Andhra Patah" (Andhratpathah-paschimatah-kshitihi, i.e, the country to the west of the road leading to Andhra) is differently recorded as vaduga-valli-merku and Vadugavaliyim-paduva respectively in the Tamil and Kannada inscriptions). It is therefore clear the term Vaduga-nadu or Badaga-nadu by themselves do not indicate any part of present-day northern India. If people came from Badaganadu, they wud be considered from the "north-west" (if from mysore) and from "north" (if from andhra) in tamil speaking regions.

2) Hari7478 says:
Thenkalai - I don't think all Thenkalais have common ancestors, or share a common origin. According to these sources - [30], [31], "certain southern school brahmins(Tengalai Srivaishnavas) can be identified as former sudras from their manners and customs".
My input:
One source is Rajat Dutta who quotes the said sentence ("..can be identified as former sudras from their manners and customs") straight out of two books, one by Burton Stein and another edited by Silverberg. The other source is Vijaya Ramaswamy; who either states the sentence verbatim from Stein or Silverberg's work; or cite her own opinion, the basis of which she has not mentioned or elaborated in her book. Since the original source is Stein and Silverburg, we will need to look up Stein and Silverburg's books. I shall do so soon and put in my inputs here.

3) Hari7478 says:
Pancharatra & Vaikhanasa:
[32], [33] - The Thenkalai vaishnavites follow what are called the vaikhanasa agamas while the Vadakalai base their life and worship on agamas, which they call pancharatra samhitas.
My input:
Not true. Just google for Vaikhanasa Vadakalai and you will get matrimony hits such as this. It seems, the Vaikhanasas (followers of Vaikhanasa Agama) have within them the Vadakalai and Thenkalai divisions. Just as the followers of Pancharatra do. But the Vaikhanasas are culturally different from the Vadakalai and Thenkalai of the Pancharatra Agama (example, Vaikhanasas do not perform panchasamskaram or samashrayanam which both, the Vadakalai and Thenkalai of Pancharatra do) . Unfortunately, there is very little material in English documenting the Vaikhanasa followers (this may help though). Since Vaikhanasas are located in Andhra, and wear the Vadakalai type of namam (or urdhva pundra), they are, as a whole socially, often mistaken to be Vadakalais. Both sources mentioned by Hari7478 are the "Journal of Dharma, Volume 3". Am not sure how much in depth research the source has done (at least from the initial preview appears not so complete). However, shall leave this to Sitush to handle. --Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 19:24, 23 May 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra

Comment. I am watching this thread but not getting involved right now. I'll let Mayasutra dig up the bits that they want to find and then I may comment properly. However, I cannot help with any discussion regarding translations/meanings of words in Indian languages. I do agree that raising again the sources that were discussed not too long ago seems to be a bit pointless: no-one could clarify them then and nothing seems to have changed on that score. - Sitush (talk) 20:32, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Response:

• I simply left out sentences that were totally irrelevant to this page. I suppose the other user already knows it. It says "The Northerners (Vadamas) as opposed to Southerners, i.e., those already settled; The Northern Northerners (Vada Desa Vadamal) as opposed to Northerners of the South, i.e., Northerners long settled in the southern country; The Northerners (Vadagalais) as opposed to the Southerners (Thenkalais, earlier settlers); Those from the north (Badaganadu) as opposed to those from the western country; The Desathas, and many other similar brahmanical divisions and subdivisions, all resident at present in southern India, indicate the very quiet manner in which the south has from time immemorial been occupied by Brahman settlers from the north or north-west"." As you can see, each set of comparison is disjoint from the other. The sentence that starts with "Badagunadu" has nothing to do with the previous sentences. "Those from Badagunadu as opposed to those from the west" is independent of the previous sentences. Each of them seem to be portraying "differences between two subdivisions". Now, i don't understand why Mayasutra is relating the previous sentences with the one starting with "Badagunadu". Sitush, please go through the source and give your views.

• I find that Mayasutra has often been making this statement whenever the issue of North/South crops up: "North means that which is relatively North to the tamil region and not necessarily North India". I would like Sitush to review all the sources mentioned in my first message under this discussion, and btw none of them were dealt with.
  

• This point is a continuation of the previous: Now, Mayasutra has selectively left out a few important lines from the same page. The paragraph starts with "This rapid summary of the occupation of the south by people from the North possessing or professing Aryan culture, shows its essentially peaceful character". Please look back into Mayasutra's message, especially into the last line that he has mentioned from this page of the source here [34]. Now it continues as "These brahmins, the sole repositories, as i've remarked of what passed for Aryan culture in India doubtless followed their own culture and religious institutions......differentiating them as a class from the resident local racial types - dravidians and pre-dravidians may be stated". Sitush, i would like you to go through the entire page of the mentioned source and i'm sure you would understand what the author has meant.
  

• I don't understand when the sources 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49(as mentioned by me in my previous response) were "dealt with", as Mayasutra says. I don't want to point fingers but i would just like to clarify that these sources were not dealt with and there was no real counter arguement except for some desperate opposition from Mayasutra. The six sources that speak of "Thenkalais being the ones who compiled the 4000 verses" were simply opposed by Mayasutra in the past but no one discussed it. They are equally good sources as the ones that exist in the main article(which are at odds with them). The ones in the main article say "Nathamuni compiled them and that the movement was born out of this", while these ones say "thenkalais compiled them while vadakalais are sanskritic". No one turned them down as "unreliable compared to the ones in the main artilce". It was just Mayasutra who opposed it. If at all i find him trying to play down or suppress "facts supported by these sources" by saying "dealt with earlier" when they weren't really dealt with, i guess this already calls for mediation. See below:
  

• The reason why I'm posting this comment is to prove that this issue was not dealt with and that it's still pending. Otherwise i don't intend to bring up Mayasutra's previous responses here. This is how Mayasutra opposed them - "(1) Monier Williams is visible to me while the rest aren't.............. (2) Monier Williams did not research into prabandhams..... (3) According to you(and not according to Monier Williams) the vadakalais have nothing to do with prabandhams................ (4) Prove that thenkalais do not perform homas in sanskrit at home............. (5) What you claim and what Monier Williams supposedly says cannot serve as a ground to discredit Nathamuni, from the effort of collecting prabandhams, to which he dedicated his lifetime............. (6) As for Pancharatra, there are 2 views of origin, one is south india and another kashmir. Pancharatra is a compilation of more than 200 texts. The content will go into Pancharatra article.......(7) Sitush, please take a call on this. Hari7478 claims Nathamuni did not compile the 4000 prabandhams, the Thenkalais did. His sources are Monier Williams, Subodh Kapoor and few others. Except Monier Williams' book, am not able to view other sources -- no idea why" --------- This was Mayasutra's response to those sources that were supposedly "dealt with". Evident POV comments and no credibe counter-arguement. Sitush, they weren't dealt with, and they're equally reliable as the ones in the main article, that are contradicting them. There was no discussion as to why "these sources should be discredited". So, i'm not going to tolerate such obvious dodgy responses from Mayasutra such as "already been dealt with", and i may have to take it up seriously as mentioned above. If he thinks "users will eventually forget an unresolved issue overtime because the counter-responses were marred by such long walls of texts merely opposing these sources(seems like WP:IDONTLIKEIT), and that it's been quite some time since that discussion so users will forget what really happened", then he's wrong. Sitush please try to go back into that discussion. There was no strong counter-arguement from Mayasutra and the issue was not resolved nor even opposed by reasonable counter-claims.

• The six sources(44-49) are as much reliable as the ones contradicting it in the main article. That being the case, a proper approach would be to delete all contradicting contents(probably the section titled "common origins") until a consensus regarding "which version/set of sources are to be kept" is reached.

• To Sitush: If nothing could be clarified regarding the "3 men were born in present day's Tamil Nadu" vs "All three men were tamils(your version)" issue, then i suggest we remove it till we arrive upon a conclusion. We know that the current version(the 3 being "tamils") is not directly supported by the sources. But i'm not really interested in Nathamuni's North Indian origin as of now because of the six sources(44-49) mentioned above which counters "Nathamuni's compilation of prabandham" theory by the "thenkalais compiled prabandham while vadakalais adhere to sanskrit" theory. I request you to handle the Pancharatra/Vaikhanasa issue as well. Thank you. Hari7478 (talk) 00:05, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Reply

Sitush, I feel it is better if you review the sources, read thru the contested pages and give your views. Otherwise, am pretty sure Hari7478 will not accept. From my part wud like to say this:

* Following so-called Aryan culture does not mean Aryan ethnicity. As for manners and customs (which supposedly indicate one as a shudra), we must take into consideration all groupings of Iyers and Iyengars follow some or the other custom of dravidian speakers; including worship of local grama deities (village gods) and kuladeivams (clan deity). The kuladeivams of iyers and iyengars are located in south india, not north. Since iyers and iyengars present a mixed culture of aryan (brahmanical fire sacrifices) as well as non-vedic agama culture (idol worship), they are culturally representatives of both vedic and non-vedic cultures. Either they are native priests elevated into the indo-aryan cultural fold, Or they are priests of indo-aryan culture who nativized themselves into the local culture of dravidian speakers. There are some indicators of the former (ie, native priests elevated into indo-aryan culture); whilst popular (oral) tradition supposes the latter (ie, priests of indo-aryan culture nativizing into local culture). As a whole, either ways, it is not possible to represent them as people of aryan culture alone.

* Monier Williams indeed did not research into Tamil Divya Prabandhams. The Vadakalai of Pancharatra follow Tamil Prabandhams as much as the Thenkalais. Nammalvar is in the spiritual lineage (guru parampara) of both Vadakalai and Thenkalai. Incidentally, the Tamil prabandhams are recited in Vaikhanasa temples also (including Thirumala). Since Vaikhanasa agama and Pancharatra agama are based on idol worship, it is left to historians in future to research into their claims of being vedic. As far as the Vaikhanasas go, there is very little research on vaikhAnasa-grhyasUtra and vaikhAnasa-dharmasUtra. The latter involves the vaikhAnasa-smArta-sUtra which incidentally was composed after 4th century CE (Ref, p.590). But the Vaikhanasas do have some vedic association, such as references to vikhAnasa seers in rigveda-samhita, tAndya-brAhmana, jaiminIya-brAhmana and taittiriyAranyaka. In the case of Pancharatras, the origin appears to be popular and non-vedic; with the earliest link dating to the Narayaniya of Mahabharat. However, Otto Schrader says the Pancharatra possibly existed before the Narayaniyam of Mahabharat.

In view of the above, imo, it is not appropriate to represent the article (or specifically Vadakalais, as Hari7478 wishes to do) with aryan or indo-aryan culture alone. Since Hari7478 is contesting the role of Nathamuni in compiling the Tamil Prabandhams, I hope you will go thru his sources on that too, and put in your views here. The Tamil prabandhams, as per Srivaishnava tradition were compiled by Nathamuni, and thus existed before the time of Ramanuja; in effect, they existed before the schism in Ramanuja Sampradayam which led to the formation of Vadakalai and Thenkalai communities. --Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 00:25, 24 May 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra