Talk:Sri Ranganathaswamy Temple (Srirangam)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.

This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (add comments)

This article is maintained by the Tamil Nadu workgroup.

[edit] Merge Proposal

It is proposed that the articles for various temples named Sri Ranganathaswamy Temple (with various spellings be merged into this article. If at a later time enough material is avaiable to justify separate articles, they may be reforked. --BostonMA 04:25, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Largest Temple Complex

SS, thank you so much for your contributions to this article. You refer to the Ranganathaswami Temple complex as:

The largest temple complex in India, SRIRANGAM,

I can easily believe that. However, on Wikipedia, we need to support such claims with Verifiable Sources. Do you know of a published document that states that Srirangam is the largest? If so, please let us know, otherwise, the claim may be deleted. --BostonMA 18:05, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I have been able to find online a claim that the Ranganathaswami temple at Srirangam is the largest temple complex in India. However, I have also found a similar claim regarding the Aruncahalewsara temple at Thiruvannamalai [1]. I am inclined to disbelieve this. However, the fact that the claim is made on the internet demonstrates the importance having a reliable source. --BostonMA 18:38, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Introduction

Dear SS, welcome to Wikipedia. I see that you deleted several paragraphs in the article. Is there something in them that you find objectionable? It is usually considered desirable for Wikipedia articles to have introductions to their topic before proceeding to discussion of topics that may not be understood by all who read, for example those from different cultures. The paragraphs that you deleted served as such an introduction, describing basic facts about the temple. Before you make major deletions in an article, it is a good idea to discuss them on the discussion/talk page for that article first. --BostonMA 13:03, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clarifications!

Respected Mr.Boston, At the outset, thankyou for your warm note to begin with.

I would like to inform you that SRIRANGAM RENGANATHASWAMY temple is the largest temple and not Thiruvanamalai Arunachaleshwarar temple.

Thanks for your link but a careful read would have suggested that it was neither a compendium of information or is it official. Anyways I read it completely and found that there was no mention of the temple size but there was a blunt claim of it being the largest temple. Further search clearly indicated that the TIRUVANNAMALAI ARUNACHALESHWARAR Temple is 25 acres in size as compared to SRIRANGAM Temple which is 156 acres (6,31,000 Sqm) with a perimeter of 1,116 Km or 10,710 feet. You can check up with the official website of the teple in case you want any further clarifications.

I extend my apologies for having deleted completely the first portion of the article without any discussion, as i did not know that. the reason was that, the detailed explanation provided by me in the whole text encompasses the little information provided initially. My intention was to avoid repetition.

Any further edits, are welcome subject to discussions.

I also like to inform you that according to the religious details available the SRIRANGAM RENGANATHA temple is an exclusive temple of its kind and in no sense has any connection with other Renganatha temples as mentioned. So, i wish the articles dont get merged.

But I suggest we merge this SRIRANGAM article with the SRIRANGAM RENGANATHASWAMY Temple, as the temple and Srirangam are no distinct from each other. However the Srirangam article needs to be edited.

Thank you again!SS 16:32, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Dear SS, Thank you for your clarification. I appreciate the information you have added to this article. Please do not feel bad about deletions without discussion. You are new and it takes time learn the habits of Wikipedia. You have done nothing wrong.

I agree with you that the claim made about the TIRUVANNAMALAI ARUNACHALESHWARAR Temple is wrong, that it cannot be the largest temple. I did not give the reference to claim that it was the largest temple. I do believe actually that the Srirangam temple is the largest in India, or at least very likely to be. Unfortunately, what the claim made regarding TIRUVANNAMALAI ARUNACHALESHWARAR Temple shows is that people may be mistaken about such things. An example from my own experience is this. Until not long ago, I believed that Jog Falls in Karnataka was the highest falls in India. However, when I researched the matter, I found that according to [2] Dudhsagar has a height of 600 meters, while Gersoppa (Jog) has a height of only 253. I still do not know the truth of that matter, in that it may depend upon how one measures the height of a falls. Is it the longest single drop that is being measured? It is things like these that lead Wikipedia to have a policy of Verifiable Sources. I will not remove the claim that Srirangam is the largest in India, because I believe that this is true. However, another editor may delete that claim, and has the right to do so, unless we can provide convincing sources.

If you do not have objections, I would like to restore the introductory paragraphs. I have read some of your criticisms of the SriRangam article. You are correct that SriRangam article does not accurately describes the dates of construction. My introduction on the other hand said:

Much of the existing temple dates from the 13th to 18th century, however the temple is mentioned in literature as old as the Silapadikaram and Nalayiradivyapirabandam (c.a. 3rd century CE) while in contrast, the rajagopuram (main gopuram) did not reach its current height of 73 m. until 1987.

You can see the old versions by clicking on the history tab, then clicking on the date of the version you wish to see. If you want to compare two versions you can also do that by clicking the radio buttons next to versions, and then the compare button. I need to go now, but I will talk to you again later. Sincerely, your brother, BostonMA 16:40, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that you, instead of restoring the intoductory paragraph, add the details that existed, (i think the height of the raja gopuram is already explained in detail) and for the claim of Silapadikaram and Nalayiram, i would like to suggest that, as mentioned in the Srirangam page, the temple was just renovated during the recent past and has been existing in its present form for eons now. Just for your information, Srirangam temple and The LORD here, find mention in all ancient TAMIL and SANSKRIT works, which include the Vedas, puranas, upanishads and the tamil works of people like Agasthiyar, Avvaiyar and Alwars. I simply mean to say, discussing the age of the temple would help us land only in more contradictions and confusions.

We may still discuss it further. - SS 08:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Dear SS, I have added some of the introductory paragraphs back. It is not important that the height of the rajagopuram be in the introductory paragraphs. However, I do think that it is important in the introductory paragraphs to state that the temple is a Hindu temple, that it is located in Tamil Nadu, and so forth. People may view this article who have no knowledge of the temple at all, and need to be told a few basics at first. We may always discuss and improve -- the article is certainly not in its final state. Sincerely, BostonMA 22:16, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A few observations

Hi, I just stopped by and felt it pertinent to make a few observations. AFAIK, and as pointed above, there is no relation between several temples. The most famous temple among these is undoubtedly the one in Srirangam and it is this temple that people typically recall when they hear the name "Ranganatha Swamy." The one located in Karnataka is also closely behind in terms of recognition. So, either we have a disambiguation page with different links or retain this for Srirangam temple with a disambiguation link at the top for the other two temples. I do not think it is a good idea to merge this with Srirangam because the temple, though an important part of the place, is just a part and only basic details about the temple need be given with a main article link to this article. Also, this article needs lot of copy editing as several words are typed in CAPS ;) which makes it difficult to read the article and nor is it considered proper netiquette. Some peacock terms need to be removed as well. Good to see a well-developed article. --Gurubrahma 16:12, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Thank you for stopping by. With regard to splitting the article into a number of articles, we could do that. The reason why I set it up this way is because there a number of stubs, all with different spellings, i.e. Ranganathaswami, Ranganatha Swami, Ranganatha Swamy, sometimes with Sri, sometimes with temple others with Temple etc. So I decided to collect these and put the various spellings as redirects. However, not all of the temples that were referenced actually referred to the SriRangam temple. That is why there are multiple temples referenced in this article. Perhaps the solution would be Sri Ranganathaswamy Temple (Srirangam) and Sri Ranganathaswamy Temple (Nellore) etc. and have a disambiguation page. I need to run actually, so I cannot do anything at the momement, but please leave your thoughts. --BostonMA 16:48, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

The best thing to do would be to click "what links here" and see if majority are linked to the context of one particular temple. Then the temple with majority would be retained at the current name with "Ranganathaswamy Temple (disambiguation)" as the disambiguation page. If, in the alternate scenario, the links are distributed equally between several temples or if the differences between the links are (statistically) insignificant, "Ranganathaswamy Temple" should be a disambig page and "Sri Ranganathaswamy Temple (Srirangam)" etc. would be the names of pages. If "What links here" is of not much help, a google test should be helpful. I too am running right now. I will drop in later. --Gurubrahma 03:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I have created a disambiguation page, however, I have not created stub articles for the other Temples. I also have not disambiguated the existing links. --BostonMA 03:57, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion!

Dear GuruBrahma

Thanks for your suggestions.

All i said was - the relevance of SRIRANGAM to RENGANATHASWAMY temple here was greater than the RENGANATHA temples in SRIRANGAM and that of Srirangavatna.

I agree with you, Renganatha shrine in Srirangapatna is famous, but when one is thinking of SRIRANGAM, what strikes one is only the temple.

As a resident of Srirangam, i would like to inform that every development of economy and for that matter of fact in any other field, happened only over the last 10-15 years. I mean, the temple is and always was, the LIFELINE of SRIRANGAM.

Therefore, I strongly request the two be merged and further developments incorporated.

Suggestions welcome and thankyou again. SS 16:30, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I understand your concerns well, since, incidentally, I lived for a couple of years in Trichy and felt myself lucky to be near three great temples - Ranganatha, Rockfort and Brihadeeswaralaya in Tanjore. However, what I've proposed is in accordance with the things done in Wikipedia and follows its policies and procedures. If someone is searching for the temple, why take him to an article about the place? If someone is searching for the place, and then wants info about the temple he can anyway get the basic info from the article and click on to the temple article if he feels that he needs more info. --Gurubrahma 16:43, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Well then i suppose we may have a page exclusively for SRIRANGAM RENGANATHASWAMY temple and not mix it up with other Renganathaswamy temples. May be people searching for SRIRANGAM could well land up through that page to the RENGANATHASWAMY temple. SS 08:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, sure, I believe User:BostonMA is working on the same. btw, pls. do not use CAPS in between a sentence like this. It isn't considered to be netiquette unless it is an acronym. TIA, --Gurubrahma 09:04, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Links with no content yet

I have moved the Nellore temple to its own article. However, there are a number of Sri Ranganathaswami Temples that are referenced in Wikipedia, but there is almost no content for them yet.

Koodli
Raichur
Viluppuram
Shivanasamudram
Srirangapatna

I don't know what to do with these yet. --BostonMA 01:13, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Largest Temple or Temple Complex claim

The current article states:

The temple occupies an area of 2.5 square km (156 acres (6,31,000 Sqm) with a perimeter of 1,116 Km or 10,710 feet) making it the largest temple complex in the world.

I am a bit concerned by these claims.

The area is given as both 2.5 square km and 6,31,000 square meters. However 2.5 square km is 25,00,000 square meters I believe, so these areas are not consistant
Similarly the perimeter is given as both 10,710 feet and 1.116 Km. However, 10,710 feet I believe is 3.26 Km.
I am not sure if any of the claims are including the whole island as part of the Temple Complex. I believe that only the area enclosed by the outer wall ought to be. I know someone who lives on the island, but outside the outer temple wall. I would not include his apartment or neighboring apartments as part of the Temple Complex, it is just a residential area.
The claim is made, for example at [3] that Angkor Wat is the largest Temple complex, and gives it dimensions as 850 m by 1000 m. This would give Angkor Wat an area of 8,50,000 square meters, and a perimeter of 3.7 Km I believe.

Because the true situation is not clear to me, I think it would be very important to provide a verifiable source for the claim that Srirangam has the largest temple complex in the world. If we cannot find such a source, I think a more modest claim should be used. --BostonMA 13:28, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Mr.boston, let me take a minute to explain various points you have tried to field. firstly, the statistics i provided were from the official website of Srirangam temple [4] and it quotes:

The temple of Srirangam is situated at 10 degrees 52’N and 78 degrees 42’ E towards the southern tip of India on an Island formed by two arms of the River Cauvery. The temple covers a vast area of about 6,31,000 Sqm. (156 Acres) with a perimeter of 1,116 Km or 10,710 feet.

There can be no factual error in the statement of a Government document, this document is available in temple for any person's verification. The same claim is made in the website and when I had a word with the temple official, they informed me that this was the statistic of the main temple complex only. i will have to inform you and others who have little knowledge of the temple that, apart from this main temple complex, the temple is inclusive of many other sannidhis (shrines) outside the complex which for reasons i donot know are not included in this statistical fact. The temple also has Nandavanams (gardens) which are obviously a part of the temple because these are not open for the public and are exclusively grown for offering flowers to the presiding deities and also Theerthas which dont get counted in this figure unfortunately. so this number is indicative of the main complex only, i repeat.

As far as the 2.5 square m, I just didnot delete it(this point existed even before i edited this piece) in the belief that people might have verified the statistic before they provide it. i find no point in the 2.5 sq.m and hence remove it now. you wanted the introductory passage back in the article and i believed that you would have checked this claim before you wrote it or rather added it.

now coming to your Angkor wat claim, again, the source you quoted was incomplete and not authentic. so i took pains in searching extensively as different websites projected different claims. if you can find an authenticated source please do mention here.

Angkor wat today is a buddhist place of worship and not a Hindu temple. The artcile here very clearly states that Renganathaswamy temple is a Hindu place of worship and also that the temple is not a monument and most parts of the temple are not open for all. - SS 07:57, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

SS, thank you for your research. Regarding the claim about being the largest temple, I propose that the article state that it is the largest Hindu temple, (Although Angkor Wat was once a Hindu temple, and hence someone could still argue the point). Sincerely, BostonMA 14:45, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Mr.Boston, Angkor Wat, yes, was a Hindu temple and it is now not. As you have mentioned, now it is not a Hindu temple and that is the only concern. What is the point in arguing a topic which holds no good a fact to this very present day? Its of no clarity then! further information, on Angkor Wat states that it is not a Temple but a combination of many temples which exist together, that may well make me say, there are more than 20 temples, small and big outside Srirangam temple, which could well make it the largest of any size! The claim that it is the largest temple is justified and prevails to stay here. Any further points are welcome! SS 16:29, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

SS, I am not sure if there is an exact definition of what is a single temple as opposed to what is multiple temples. In my own mind, if there is a wall with gopuram(s) at the entrace(s), then that wall, and everything within it may be called one temple. Certainly, a temple is not merely the sanctum sanctorum. Nor is every individual shrine its own temple. If you look at the article for Angkor Wat, or on the internet, then you will see that there is an enclosing wall, and gopurams at the entrances. Some people may call the multiple shrines as multiple temples. But others would not. I do think it is relevent that the Angkor Wat temple is still in use by Theravada Buddhists and is not merely an acheological monument. Because I think the issue is not so clear, I think the article needs a reference to a Reputable Source to back up the claim of being the largest. I will be adding a "citation needed" tag to the claim. (I can show you how to add a citation if you need help with this.) Please feel free to discuss this further. --BostonMA 14:23, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Picture Requested

The current picture of the temple has an original size of 161 pixels. However, inside the infobox, it enlarged, leading to pixilation, or little squares of color. This is particularly noticable in the lower portion of the image. I have not been able to adjust the size of the image inside of the infobox to remove the pixilation. I have uploaded two new images but I feel that they are just as poor. If anyone has a good high resolution picture of the temple, (without the fuzziness, darkness etc. from which my images suffer) please upload them. Thanks.

Sri Ranganathaswamy Temple

Name:	Sri Ranganathaswamy Temple
Creator:	Ranganayaki Mahalaxmi

Primary deity:	Ranganatha
Architecture:	Kovil
Location:	Srirangam, Tamil Nadu

Sri Ranganathaswamy Temple

Name:	Sri Ranganathaswamy Temple
Creator:	Ranganayaki Mahalaxmi

Primary deity:	Ranganatha
Architecture:	Kovil
Location:	Srirangam, Tamil Nadu

Sri Ranganathaswamy Temple

Name:	Sri Ranganathaswamy Temple
Creator:	Ranganayaki Mahalaxmi

Primary deity:	Ranganatha
Architecture:	Kovil
Location:	Srirangam, Tamil Nadu

[edit] Ayyavazhi?

I find the comment that "This temple is also noted in Ayyavazhi mythology." to be somewhat of a factoid that is not very useful. Paul, could you explain -- here, not in the article -- what significance this temple has for Ayyavazhis? Do Ayyavazhis visit the temple? Is there some other way that Ayyavazhis find the temple significant? --BostonMA ^talk 23:04, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

The temple is not religiously attched to Ayyavazhi but mythically. (i.e) Immedietly after finishing the activities of Krishna Avatar, after granting moksha to Karna, Thirumal make the seven virgins to give birth to Seven babies (boys) and went and dwell in Srirangam. It is more perfect to say that the place 'Srirangam' is noted in Akilam rather than the temple in Srirangam. But the article on Srirangam (town) doesn't mention any other mythical things. So I mentioned it in the temple article.

The place Srirangam is considered sacred (not now). It is also the same in the case of Kailash and Thiruvananthapuram. (See Thirumal in Thiruvananthapuram). But Ayyavazhi's dont consider these places sacred now because of the universal change that took place; once during the advent of Kali yuga and then immedietly after the incarnation of Vaikundar, as taught by Akilam. - Paul 18:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Picture request

This image from flickr should be good enough -srini 05:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mythology

The term mythology, inherently assumes that whatever mentioned is a myth and is derogatory in the sense that it is questions the authenticity of the content. It is advisable that the section be renamed to some other suitable title such as 'Puranic References', and the content be rewritten accordingly, so as to preserve the sanctity of the content.

Moreover, it is an offense to use the term 'mythology' while refering to pastimes related to Visnu. Jbarot 20:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Hinduism. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page. Guidelines: Manual of Style - Naming conventions How you can help: Notice board - Discussion board
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as high-importance for this Project's importance scale.