Talk: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. |
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale. (add comments) |
 |
This article is maintained by the Tamil Nadu workgroup. |
|
More information about this article...
|
|
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Vaishnavism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Vaishnavism. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page. |
 |
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.
|
| ??? | This article has not been rated yet on the quality scale. |
content copied from Tiruchirapalli. If it is useful here, it can be added
Srirangam is situated between two rivers Cauvery and Cooladam , which is splited from cauvery at Mukambur and again join at kallanai .
[edit] Changes proposed!
1. "The construction of the temple spanned across three centuries from the 14th to 17th centuries and many rulers have had a hand in its construction, including the Cheras, Pandyas, Cholas, Hoysalas and rulers from Vijayanagar."
It needs to be understood that the rulers mentioned above never constructed the temple but actually performed "thiruppani" which means renovations etc. So it stands to be corrected.
- It is also not true that construction of the temple only spanned 3 centuries. The existing text suggests that temple construction only began in the 14th century. However, as I wrote in a version of the Temple article:
- 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.
- And of course, Ramanuja was present in the 11th century CE. --BostonMA 02:33, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Im afraid, you misunderstood. i just quoted from the existing article - SRIRANGAM. All that i wrote was, "It needs to be understood that the rulers mentioned above never constructed the temple but actually performed "thiruppani" which means renovations etc. So it stands to be corrected." - yes, the official records state that even before ramanujas period the temple existed where acharyas like alavandhar lived. Anyways ive corrected the article.
Regarding the name, I checked the link which you had provided, which mentions about the three renganatha temples along Kaveri, on popular assumption only. It unfortunately doesnot quote any reference which i suppose is necessay, when we get into discussions. All details i have provided are purely based on official records which can be found in the temple and other libraries like Saraswati Mahal in tanjore etc. there is authenticated evidence available on the names Ive mentioned below. Again as mentioned earlier, Im afraid I donot know much about the other two renganatha temples along the bank of Kaveri which are supposed to be built in the later days as compared to the one in SRIRANGAM. - SS 08:08, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
- Dear SS, I apologize for neglecting to respond to you sooner. Unfortunately, I sometimes to do not communicate that well. I was agreeing with you in my comments. It is as you say that temple is older than 13th, 14th centuries. It is also as you say that the article gives the wrong impression of the age of the Temple. I was quoting the Sri Ranganathatswami Temple article as a proposal to replace the text in the Srirangam article. I believe it to be more accurate. Please feel free to change the description of the age of the temple in the Srirangam article, or if you prefer, I will change it. --BostonMA 14:45, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
2. i donot know any source which claims (religious or otherwise) the name of RENGANATHA at SRIRANGAM as ANTYA RANGA. Im afraid there are just three names to the main deity (moolavar) which are NARAYANAN and JAGANNATHAN (both before HE arrived to SRIRANGAM) and RENGANATHAN after HE reached this place. This needs to be corrected. As far as the other two temples on the bank of cauvery, we may discuss from other sources -SS 16:35, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
- It was interesting to read [1], which argues that the names used in popular literature have no authority behind them, only the course of the Kaveri. I have no objection to your removal of the name. However, it might be best to mention that popular usage refers to the three temples along the Kaveri as belonging to Adi-, Madya- and Antya- Rangam. --BostonMA 02:33, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Suggestions!
I understand that in the SRIRANGAM Article a reference has been made to "Akilattirattu Ammanai" and corresponding detail provided.
It will have to be primarily understood that the SRIRANGAM RENGANATHASWAMY Temple derives its history from "Shathaadhyayi" and "Dashaadhyaayi". References are also made from Valmiki Ramayana and recorded recent history(dating back to the last 10 centuries) which are available.
Hence i believe it will be of great implortance to mention the actual history of the Temple from these sources initially.
The History is precisely written in the SRIRANGAM RENGANATHASWAMY Temple Article.
The changes will be incorporated in this page (SRIRANGAM) after discussion.SS 16:35, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
- I agree that Akilattirattu Ammanai should not be the source of history of the temple. Regarding Valmiki Ramayana, I believe the story of Vibhishana in Valmiki Ramayana deserves to be mentioned. However, question arises whether Srirangam temple is same temple referred to there. To answer that question, I think the Padma Purana (Patala Khanda) should be mentioned as providing the connection between the Valmiki Ramayana account and Srirangam. --BostonMA 15:08, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] "Discrimination"
This is an extremely biased and misleading headline I think because it does not take into account there reasons why non-Hindus are not allowed. Firstly, non-Indian Hindus are permitted to enter (for example, members of ISKCON) so the description is presumptious. Secondly, the primary reason non-Hindus aren't allowed into the core Hindu temples is because they are firstly places of worship, and therefore not a tourist attraction. It is in order to preserve the atmosphere of worship in the most sacrosanct parts of the temple that non-Hindus are barred. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.198.13.53 (talk) 21:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm from srirangam and I love the town and want to retire there when my time comes. "Firstly, non-Indian Hindus are permitted to enter"....."Secondly, the primary reason non-Hindus aren't allowed". Dude, make up your mind. just kidding man. no dis-respect. i know what you are trying to say. That non-hindus are allowed to enter the temple, but not allowed to enter the core because it is a place of worship. Now, how do you decide who is a hindu and non-hindu. Do you show ur ID card when walk in? No. So any muslim, christian or buddhist TOURIST can walk into the core without any type of hassle as long as he is BROWN. However, if you are WHITE or BLACK, you will be stopped and you have to prove to the guy that you are a Hindu. How can these guys prove? I suppose if you are a member of ISKCON or something you can prove by wearing a hare rama type outfit. So if you are WHITE and you don't wear a hare rama outfit, you are not a Hindu or pious enough? Man, the whole point is when an organization pays someone to stand in front and pick out people based solely on their skin colour and asks them to prove a certain thing (that they are hindu) to enter its premise,is RACIAL DISCRIMINATION. I'm not afraid to call a spade, a spade. Most of us are at the receiving end of similar type of behavior at the north american airports. We should know better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.83.200.192 (talk) 15:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
