Talk:Narayana Guru/Archive 1

__NONEWSECTIONLINK__

Narayana Guru and Atheism
I disagree with the text in this section. Associating Narayana Guru with atheism clearly shows the lack of knowledge of the originating author on the Guru's philosophical and metaphysical works and perspective and reasoning of the Universe. Proclaimed atheists being associated with an individual in social reform initiatives does not by itself make the individual an atheist.

Also there is a clear distinction between rationalists and atheists.

This section needs to be edited.

Aaroamal

5 Feb 2005

Narayana Guru and Sahodran Ayyappan
Narayana Guru had disagreed with Sahodaran Ayyappan when the latter tried to corrupt Guru's teachings with Atheism.In fact Ayyappan requested Guru's permission to modify the slogan 'Oru Jati, Oru Matham, Oru Daivam Manushyanu' as 'Jati Venda, Matham Venda, Daivam Venda'. However, Guru ridiculed him by asking " If Ayyappan wants to collect Rs.1 from each person to set up a library, you will ask ' Give One Rupee,Give One Rupee,Give One Rupee'. Does that mean ' No Rupee,No Rupee,No Rupee " ?

This 'Sahodaran' kept quiet at that time.However, he renewed his Atheist activities after the samadhi of Guru, thereby corrupting Guru's ideology. Vested interests fully exploited this confusion to corrupt Guru's teachings by projecting this 'Sahodaran' even above Guru.

Krishnan

06-Feb-2005

Clarification on Atheism
No where in the article did I say that Naryanaguru was an atheist. What I wrote was “his attitude towards the existence of a personal god is considered quite ambivalent” and that many of his followers had considered him an atheist. Can somebody point out which sentence of the article gives such an impression that he was an atheist? It goes to the credit of Sri Narayanaguru that in spite of being a theist, he openly accepted even atheists as his core desciples. The importance of this can be guaged only if one consideres the period in which he lived.

One also has to be clear about the kind of thiesm Narayana Guru adovocated. It definitely was not the one associated with the brahaminical/casteist Hiduism.

I find it bit difficult to comprehend why this section on atheism and atheist followers of Narayanaguru should be edited out. A discussion/debate on the philosophy of Narayanaguru is thoroughly understandable but I find it puzzling that the followers of Narayanaguru are getting overly agitated on hearing the word atheism. Pity indeed!

And I agree with Aaroamal that there is a distintion between rationalist and atheist. That is precisely why I assert in my user page of wikipedia that I am both an atheist and rationalist.

MANOJTV 09:02, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Clarification on Atheism
Manoj, True, you did not explicitly write that Narayana Guru was an atheist. However, you implicitly structured a (misinformed and incomplete) statement as follows:


 * “When Sahodaran Ayyappan modified Narayana Guru's famous catchphrase, Oru Jati, Oru Matham, Oru Daivam Manushyanu (One Caste, One Religion, One God for Humanbeing) and re-written it as Jati Venda, Matham Venda, Daivam Venda Manushyanu…the latter did not protest”.

Obviously by stating that “…the latter did not protest”, here you are clearly implying that Narayana Guru accepted Sahodaran Ayyappan’s atheistic view as amendment to the famous catchphrase. I am sorry to say that this is absolutely false!

Everybody appreciates that Narayana Guru was tolerant of atheists because he respected an individual’s fundamental right and freedom to belief, or disbelief, in the exitence of God. That tolerant attitude however should not be misinterpreted to imply otherwise.

As Krishnan has already pointed out, Narayana Guru’s reaction to Sahodaran Ayyappan’s revised version of the slogan was a clear protest, so it is not true to say …”the latter did not protest”.

Please could you explain what you mean by saying, “his attitude towards the existence of a personal god is considered quite ambivalent”; are you referring to any of Narayana Guru’s writings, if so which one? Which serious scholar of Narayana Guru has so commented? Also, in what context is that statement being included under the heading “Narayana Guru and Atheism”.

Futher you state that “Many of his followers infact considered him as an atheist” – Please could explain the bases of such consideration, rather than a very general statement as such. Is it not just the miniscule minority atheist followers, if at all, that try to portray the Guru likewise; did any of his majority theist followers consider the Guru an atheist? So, again the statement “many of his followers” is misleading.

Again we should not forget that Narayana Guru was a multifacted genius. His followers would have been (and still are) from the various disciplines in which he was a mastero. So his atheist followers would have been good social reform activists, poets, yogis and so on, and therefore entertained as his followers in each of the respective disciplines (not necessarily in the religious or theistic discipline alone).

At least I am not agitated by the article for the reason that Wiki articles are dynamic and can be edited and improved. However, I believe in a healthy discussion to remove potential distortions to social history and the profile of historical personalities. So let us take this forward as open and friendly discussion. Your contribution is otherwise appreciated - don't get me wrong!

Aaroamal

10 February 2005


 * As an unskilled reader coming by chance to the article I would say the wording is controvercial. My personal opinion is that "...did not protest..." implies some sort of endorsement in modern european culture (I am personally from Bulgaria). As ahimsa is also in the list of possible explanations we can leave to the reader to judge.
 * "Many of his atheist followers ..." may also be considered taking side. For me personally to understand it would be interesting to know also the opinions of non-ateistic followers (regardless of their religion). Knowing almost nothing about India in general I cannot know how many of Guru's followers were religious and how many were ateists.
 * What I know for certain is that after reading this article I've got my spirit lifted because such person have lived. Thank you for the work all of you have done. -- Bggoldie 10:47, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Please don't undermine Guru's relevance
Narayana Guru had attained the supreme state of oneness with the Supersoul(Brahman).As such it was not required for Him to follow routine rituals like normal men. But, He was extremely concerned about the spiritual health of His followers and this aspect reflects in His teachings. Guru never shied away from correcting His followers' mistakes. Had He chosen Atheism, the honest Gurudevan would have definitely abolished own temples during His period itself.

Many learned men interpret Philsophies to suit with own objectives, without thinking about the potential ill-effects on people of lesser intelligence. The scriptures say " One who is learned and experienced should not bewilder the intelligence of ignorant people by inducing them to give up their prescribed duties. Rather by properly performing all his own actions in a composed and detached state of mind, he should encourage them to perform their prescribed duties".

The post-Guru, reformist 'Apostles'like Sahodaran Ayyappan deliberately corrupted Guru's teachings for selfish political gains. As a result of this, Ezhavas lost their spiritual power, and were filled with 'false ego' and 'arrogance'. This created hatred,selfishness and disunity in the community.

Mr.Manoj, you have repeated the historical mistake by superimposing 'Sahodaran Ayyappan' over 'Guru' (by discretely hiding Guru's refusal to adopt Atheism). Why are you silent on Nataraja Guru ?. Is he inferior to 'Sahodaran Ayyappan'?.As Guru's followers, our words and action(s), should not undermine Guru's relevance.

Krishnan 10-Feb-2005.

Consecration of Aruvippuram Temple.
This historical act of Gurudevan is most notable, as He successully brought Lord Siva's divine presence to the Sivalingam. Prior to the consecration, Guru had entered in to deep mediation for several hours glowing like a radiant star.During the auspicious 'Brahma Muhurtam', He plunged in to the nearby river and came up with a perfect sivalingam.The consecration was done meeting the specified requirements of 'AGAMAS'.

It is the absolute correctness of the Consecration and Guru's spiritual qualification that overwhelmed the elite Brahmin Tantrics, who had challenged Him.

Krishnan

11-Feb-2005

Don't publish Nonsense

 * This page of course is for discussion. But please don't write nonsense such as glowing like a radiant star and perfect shivalingam. First, no one was around when Narayanaguru went into deep meditation. The people came to know about the consecration only later.  If no one was around, how can one say that he glowed like a radiant star?  Second, what is a perfect shivalingam?  Is there any given specification to be measured upto? Can somebody publish a clear image of the Shivalingam at Aruvippuram so that the readers of this page can compare the same with any normal shivalingam, not necessarily a pefect one?

If any body wants to practice their skills in using adjectives in English language why can't they use any other forum leaving Wikipedia alone? Indianskeptic

Don't publish Nonsense - Very true!!
I am sorry to point out the gross anomaly in Indianskeptic’s statement “''First, no one was around when Narayanaguru went into ‘deep meditation’. The people came to know about the consecration only later''”, which is absolutely false and baseless!

Sree Narayana Guru performed the consecration at Aruvippuram NOT IN ISOLATION, NOR OUT OF THE BLUE! The consecration was done at the climax of a large spiritual congregation participated and witnessed by hundreds of followers and key disciples of the Guru at the time. The consecration was done by the Guru amidst the synchronous chanting of the “Ohm Namashivaya” mantra rising from the thronging crowds gathered on either side of the river at Aruvippuram (as described by even sceptical writers of that time).

Indianskeptic, I wish you had researched facts before you poked holes in anybody else’s statement. A few descriptive adjectives used by Krishnan would do much lesser harm than your misinformed contribution to distort history.

Cynicism should not stop anybody from researching the documented social history of Kerala.

Aaroamal 12 Feb 2005


 * I am very much aware that Narayana Guru consecrated the Ezhava Shiva in front of a large number of people. But I was just taking on Krishnan for the usage of unwanted exaggerations and superlatives which may suit a hagiography and not a biographical article in an encyclopedia.  There has been a tendency to attribute supernatural powers to Narayana Guru.This is unwarranted.  He is a great man even without attributing any of these gimmicks.

Now here is the flow of my reasoning: Either Mr. Krishnan used meaningless adjectives or what he wrote was literally true. In the first case, such an adjective does not suit wikipedia.

If what he wrote was literally true, there was no chance of being anybody present during he performed the consecration. Because everybody present then would have instantly disintegrated into minute particles due to the extreme heat accompanying the glow of the radiant star! Only aliens light-years away would be able to vouch for such a phenomena! Not earthly beings like Krishnan, Raman or Indianskeptic.

Any way, take it lightly. Some how I can't stand claims of supernatual powers being attributed to humanbeings. And particularly to such an eminent social reformer as Narayana Guru. I am sorry for being aggressive.

Indianskeptic

Tolerance of views and perspectives
Dear Indianskeptic

Appreciate your regret note. However, your perception of where the article resides in Wikipedia is to be revisited. This article on Narayana Guru is rightly classified under Wikipedia categories 1. Hindusim and 2. Indian Religious Figures. What might seem “unwanted exaggeration and superlative” to you might not seem the same to Krishnan. It is a matter of perspectives, is it not? So, to Krishnan the article is very much hagiography (i.e. the biography of the saint Sree Narayana Guru), for which you admitted that is appropriate to describe likewise!

Again to test your flow of reasoning, may I suggest that you adopt a different frame of reference to your own perspective of being next to the star in rationalising Krishnan’s remark “glowing star”. If I look at the night sky from where I live on Earth, I can see the glow of many a thousand stars without being annihiliated! You don't have to stand next to the star to see its glow. Interestingly, the glow I see today may be stars that vanished a thousand years ago. Again, it is a matter of perspective.

When you say, “I can’t stand the claims of supernatural powers being attributed to human beings”, you are only talking for yourself. Would you dare go the articles in Wikipedia on Muhammad and Jesus Christ to challenge the supernatural powers attributed to them? If so, I am sure that will lead to precisely tracing your IP address and charging you for blasphemy! Please do not seek to exploit the pacifist and tolerant approach of Hinduism for gaining mileage in any manner.

Finally, if you take pains to closely study Narayana Guru’s philosophical works such as Atmopadesa Satakam and Darsanamala, you will, on the one hand, as I understand, a person who reveres the Guru and on the other hand as a rational thinker, tend to gain a better understanding into the Guru’s vision of the fourth dimension (i.e. spacetime). In fact in 1897 Narayana Guru had explained space and time in parallels to what Einstein did in the 1920s to explain relativity to the common man. So it might amount to shutting off the doors to knowledge for any rational person to preclude that there is nothing called the supernatural. Our knowledge of what normally happens in the three dimensions is what we accept as natural. It is only for those few who have (“tasted the cream of absolute wisdom” in the words of Narayana Guru), been able to experience or envision the fourth dimension, to explain the truth beyond our common perspectives of the Universe. So, let us be tolerant and open to other perspectives when being rational. Only then will rationalism lead to gaining knowledge and become a pleasure to live with. I am sure it will open new worlds for you too, beyond what you have experienced to date.

All this said in good spirits, by the way.

Aaroamal 14 Feb 2005

Clarification
While reading Mr.Manoj's very casual narration about the Consecration of Aruvippuram temple, my conscience asked me to write what I had learnt from a scholar of SriNarayana Dharma (my relative). I have based the usage' Glowing Radiant Star' on Oxford English.Glowing= Very Enthusiastic, Radiant=Looking very bright and happy & Star = Brilliant person. Those who know about Yoga, Meditation and Kundalini will not be surprised about Guru's Sidhis, therein.

I have just done my duty toward Gurudevan and not mislead to promote any hidden agenda.

Krishnan

17 Feb 05

Towards truth and reconciliation
Is it now possible for us to keep aside the bitterness (for which I am mainly responsible) and seriously discuss certain issues related to Narayana guru's philosophy and belief?

Regarding Naryana Guru's silence over his disciple Sahodaran's slogan No caste, No religion, No god, the wikipedia article seems to be correct. In a recent article written by T.N.Jayachandran, former addl.Chief Secretary, Government of Kerala, and Vice-Chancellor of the Calicut University, it is asserted that Narayana Guru did not object to Sahodaran's modification. (See, Yukthireka special issue (August 2004) commemorating the 150th birth anniversary of Narayana Guru). Now, it is entirely possible that this assertion was thoroughly misconceived and the version given by Krishnan was the correct position taken by Narayana Guru. But can Krishnan or anybody else give the source of the information? I am not throwing a challenge, this is a genuine query.

The statement in the article as to the ambivalent stand taken by Narayana Guru on the possibility of a personal god also seems to be not off the mark. In one of the last dialogues with Natarajaguru, Narayana Guru tried to clarify what he had meant by god. I give the gist of what he said: ''Matter is divisible and if one divides matter indefinitely one may reach the state of void. But this void is not mere nothingness. It is the essence. It is god. (This is not a quotation, but just the meaning of what he said. The exact quotation appears in the book Word of the Guru written by Natarajaguru. I read it in a Malayalam translation done by Guru Nitya Chaitanya Yeti. (Page 407, Narayanaguru: Jeevitham, Kruthikal, Darsanam'' - Editor K.N.Shaji. It would be advisable if someone could quote the exact text in English as given by Natarajaguru. I do not possess the book, Word of the Guru.). If this was the concept of god for Narayana Guru, definitely it does not point to a personal god. At the same time, he did write a number of devotional verses praising many a Hindu god. What stand one should take in such a situation?  To me (yes, it is a personal opinion), it seems, there was a steady progression in Narayanaguru's philosophy from a personal god to an impersonal god. He got more and more identified with the philosophy of advAita.

Even the temples he built over a period of time do not indicate any idea of a personal god. While the first temple had a crude Shivalinga as the idol (according to Kumaranasan approximately resembling a shivalinga; (ethandu oru shivalingakruthiyulla; Page 30 Guru - Kumaranasante Drushtiyil : DC Books, Kottayam, Kerala,), it took a variety of forms later on – for instance, a lamp in Karamukku, mirrors in Kalavangodu and Ullala, a beautiful slogan (Sathyam, Dharmam, Daya, Sneham) in Murukkumpuzha and no idol at all in Aluva.  By 1917 he got fed up with demands for more temples and then pronounced, in no uncertain terms, not to have any more temples.

It is pertinent to point out here, also, that he offered earlier, in a dialogue with T.K.Madhavan, to build churches and mosques if a request was made by people from the respective faiths.

Again, it would not be entirely correct to call him a Hindu sage and hence the wikipedia categorization does not seem to be correct. His most famous message, One Caste, One Religion, On God, in no way means that the caste is Ezhava, the religion is Hinduism, and the God is a Hindu god. Moreover, in 1916 he declared: ''It is years since I left castes and religions. Yet some people think that I belong to their religion. That is not correct. I do not belong to any particular caste or religion''.

I do not deny that Narayana Guru had accepted a lot from Hindu philosophical heritage but it does not automatically mean that he accepted Hinduism per se as his creed. He was above every caste,creed and sect. He even came out of the organization (SNDP) he helped to found, when he realized that it started diverging from its initial ideals and goals. That was Sri Narayana Guru, the eminent social reformer.

I have differences, too, with Narayana Guru on many an issue. But this is not a platform to delve into that, at least now.

Indianskeptic

God is Inseparable from Narayana Guru's Philosophy
With reference to Indianskeptic's last posting, for the time being, please read the following words of Narayana Guru, as relevantly quoted by Nataraja Guru in the English language:

"Matter is divisible. Nothing has indicated anything to the contrary. Imagine a body subjected to division and sub-division ad infinitum. We can imagine that we thus reach what one would be tempted to conceive as 'nothing'. But it is something still. This is the primordial Substance, This is God or whatever you may choose to call it. This is one way of arguing the point."

Then the Guru added:

"There are other ways of arriving at the same point. They appear more complicated and involve postulates less easily acceptable to the world, but there is nothing wonderful or secret or difficult about this knowledge. It is the simple essence of Vendanta."

Will shortly get back to explain the context, plus respond to other points of discussion. Be assured that there is no ambivalence in the Guru's philosophy; it is crystal clear for those who have studied it with an open mind. However, sorry guys, am too busy this week for any further input.

Aaroamal 21 February 2005


 * Dear Aaroamal,

Thank you for the original quotation from Natarajaguru. Eagerly waiting for further comments.

Indianskeptic

On Aruvippuram Temple
It is surprising that the user User:130.126.229.198 who demands, rightly, historic evidence for the usage of Ezhava Shiva fails to give any such evidence for the use of Not Their Siva. S/he should have done so before excising the word Ezhava shiva. Will the user, atleast now, come out with the evidence s/he her/himself asked for?

The extensive information on Nataraja Guru, though important in a page on Nataraja Guru, is not very relevant here. The user may add that information there. The page on Nataraja Guru now doesn't give much information. Will the user be able to expand the article?

The translation of Shiva Linga as Shiva Idol is not correct. Though it may sound sacrilegious today, the worshipping of Shiva Linga is related to fertility cult which was quite prevalent in India in the past. It may be noted here that fertility cult was prevalent throuhout the ancient world.Worshipping of human sex organs, both male and female, is part of such a culture. One can find its resonance even today in the tantric practices. My uderstanding is that the correct translation of linga here is penis/phallus, though the theological scholars of today have built a lot of mumbo-jumbo around it, obliterating the original meaning. Not only scholars, even the common people who worship Shiva Linga today do not relate their worship to the ancient fertility cult. Narayan Guru himself would not have thought about it while he consecrated it. But that does not alter its meaning.MANOJTV 09:19, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Guru and Shivalingam
Dear Manoj: I am the User:130.126.229.198. First of all let me thank you for making a page on Narayana Guru. Also thanks for your comments and thoughts on my editing. The question of Ezhava Shiva had been discussed and debated for decades. My main point to delete such word from the article was the realization of Advaita-Vedantic teaching of Guru and his strong protest against caste based classication (and subsequent descrimination) of human beings. You will never encounter a word Ezhava in any of his writings. More over his famous saying " Dont ask cask caste, say caste and think caste" clearly indicacates his position in this issue: how a person who said to his deciples not to say caste can himself violate his own sayings. This was the main argument Guru Nithaya Chaitanya Yati had given against the theory of Ezhava Shiva in his mastepiece " Samyag Darshanam". Also Narayana Guru wrote two small works dismissing the the real exsistance of caste: see Jati Nirnayam and Jati Lakshnam. Historical evIdence is needed only for those who doesnt understand Gru completely. I put that in the article to quell the thoughts of such people.

I do agree that Shiva idolis not the correct word for Shiva Lingam. However, your understanding on the meaning of Shivalingam is highly misplaced. Each idol or diety in Hindu temples speaks a a secrtet language (protolangauge) and Shivalingam is not an exception. Its a symbolic representation of union bettween Shiva (male or positive counterpart) and Shakti (female or negetive counterpart) validating the existance of of the NeutralAbsolute (the God). The real worshipper who worship Shiva on Shivalingam should understand this and his goal should be to identify himself with that Absolute to atain the Existance-Consiousness- Bliss (sat-Chit-Ananda). The deciphrerence of protolasnguage can be found in Nataraja Gurus book Word of the Guru and also Nitya Chaitanya Yatis " An intelligent mans guide to Hindu religion". Narayana Guru was well aware of the meanings of his consecrations. When the worshipper and worshipped becomes one for that person the Shivalinga is just a stone and guru clearly say this in Darshana Mala (Chapter 2 versec 10)

"kam satyam na dvitiyam hyasatyam bhati satyavat silaiva sivalingam na dvitiyam silpina krtam"

One (alone) is real, not a second, What is unreal, indeed, seems as being real. The Siva Lingam is stone itself, Not a second made by the mason.

EKAM SATYAM, one (alone) is real, DVITIYAM NA, not a second, ASATYAM HI, what is unreal indeed, SATYAVAT BHATI, seems as being real, SILA IVA SIVA LINGAM, the siva lingam is stone itself, SILPINA KRITAM DVITIYAM NA, not a second made by a mason

Meaning:

It is the Self that alone is real. Anything other than the Self is not at all real. The unreal world merely has a semblance of the real. That which seems like the Siva-lingam (i.e. the phallic emblem of Siva) is really the stone itself. As for the Siva-lingam it merely seems as if it is a reality independent of the stone. What is real is the stone and the Siva-lingam is what is supposed on the basis of what really exists. The Siva-lingam, is not one that the mason made independently of the stone. It is the stone itself. The stone is real and the Siva-lingam is unreal. In the same manner the Absolute is real and the world is unreal. The unreal world (only) seems real.

About Nataraja Guru: Sure I can post an article about Nataraja Guru.

Pradeep

P.I. Pradeepkumar, Ph.D. Roger Adams Lab, Dept of Chemistry, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, USA,

On Ezhavashiva, Shivalingam and other matters
Dear Pradeep,

I have no quarrel with those who contend that Narayanaguru never used the words ezhava shiva if he had never used that phrase. But the prevalent knowledge amongst the people of Kerala is otherwise. It could be possible, as Pradeepkumar claims, that this was part of a deliberate malicious propaganda.

But when one tries to overturn a generlly accepted knowledge, it is imperative on his/her part to give evidence. The statement such as Historical evidence is needed only for those who doesnt understand Gru completely won't suffice. Any historical personality, Narayanaguru included, should be judged and her/his works (both textual and practical) analysed in the context of the historical period in which s/he lived. It won't be entirely fruitful or correct to construct a personality based solely on her/his textual works as Pradeepkumar tries to do.

Even if Narayanaguru had used the phrase Ezhava shiva during the initial phase of his life, it would not have anyway diminished his importance because he was a humanbeing born in a sudra caste rebelling against a caste-ridden Kerala society. Is it so repugnat to say that there was a steady evolution/progress/change in Narayana Guru's thought?

The tendency among the followers of eminent personalities to build up supermen out of their heroes clensing them of all possible human frailities should be discouraged.

On Shivalingam: The talk of a symbolic representation of union bettween Shiva and Shakti etc etc is all, in all possiblity, a later day development and may nothing to do with what the original worshippers of shivalinga conceptualised. One may attribute any meaning to anything but atleast the translation should be correct. MANOJTV 11:54, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Anjengo
The article contains this curious line :

>> At Varkala a temple for Anjengo (Anjaneya) was built.

Anjengo (Anjuthengu) is a place near Varkala. This article says that Guru built a temple in Anjengo in 1904. Googling for it comes up with the exact line quoted above from different sites. The phrase 'At Varkala, a temple for Anjengo' is nonsense.

Does anyone know whether the temple in Anjengo was for Hanuman ? If not, I propose changing that line to 'He built a temple at Anjengo' or something to that effect. Tintin 23:34, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete the Section on Atheism
This section hardly makes any sense. It hardly represents a major thrust of NG's work and so calling it out as a separate section is a distortion when such sections do not appear for major discussions of the philosophy that NG did speak of. It appears more in form of an apologia from someone who is enamored of Atheism -- something which is itself a questionable category in the Indian discourse.

In other words, the existence of non-existence of "God" is a Western obsession. This is not a major point of discussion in the Indian traditions other than in studies that resurrect side discussion in the mirror of the Western debate. Balagangadhara's work, The Heathen in His Blindness argues that Atheism is a *religious* category of Western culture, which is itself formed by religion. Puck42 01:33, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Reinstating section on Atheism
The person who deleted the section on atheism does not seem to have any clue as to atheism, Indian or western culture or even Narayanaguru.

As the section shows, some of the most important followers of Narayanaguru and leaders of the movement he spearheaded during the latter's life-time (and even later) were atheists. And they considered, rightly I think, some of the important currents of Narayanaguru's thought had affinity to atheism.

Before deleting any information on atheism, it is better to have atleast some basic knowledge about that concept. For starters, it is available in Wikipedia iteslef: Atheism.

The comment to the effect that atheism is alien to Indian culture is pure nonsence, to say the least. The thoughts of the ancient Indian materialist/atheist philosopher Carvaka (whose works were destroyed by his Brahminical opponents) were so prevalent even as late as 14th century India that Madhavacharya, thought it very important to refute it first to establish his idea of advaita in his work Sarvadarshan Sangraha.(Whether he succeedes in his attempt is a different matter). Buddhism and Jainism, two of the great religions originated in India, are evidently atheist. Many other imporant branches of Indian philosophy such as Viseshika, Sankya, etc too are either opposed to or silent about the idea of a god. A number of books written by Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya explores the materialist/atheist philosophies in ancient India. Even Dr.S.Radhakrishnan, who himself was not an atheist, thought that many major Indian philosophies and religions were atheistic. His eminently readable two-volume work 'Indian Philosophy would give a wealth of information on materialist philosphies in India.

No Balagangadhars or any other exponent of Brahminical thought can erase the great idea of atheism from Indian history. MANOJTV 06:08, 20 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Manoj, Appreciate the paragraph you posted today, demonstrating Naryana Guru's vision way beyond existing religions at the time. However, I strongly feel that parts of the earlier paragraph in the section are grossly misleading in terms of Narayana Guru's view of God (within his own definitions, which he never gave up until the end). He never could be considered an atheist under any definition of the term atheism. When someone disassociates from existing religions, for the reason that they segregate and discriminate the human genus, he cannot become an atheist. So I suggest you edit the part (Many of his atheist followers in fact considered him as an atheist. For instance, one of his prominent disciples Sahodaran Ayyappan was a militant atheist and one of the founders of Yukthivadi, the first rationalist/atheist magazine in Malayalam. When Sahodaran Ayyappan modified Nārāyana Guru's famous catchphrase, Oru Jati, Oru Matham, Oru Daivam Manushyanu (One Caste, One Religion, One God for Humanbeing) and re-written it as Jati Venda, Matham Venda, Daivam Venda Manushyanu (No Caste, No Religion, No God for Humanbeing), the latter did not protest.). The first part/sentence itself indirectly undermines the knowledge of this atheist followers - by saying that they considered him an atheist. Perhaps many of them would have seen him as a rational thinker, which is different, from thinking him an atheist. At least not so if at all they had really studied his philosophical works. The second part/sentence of course is not true. Narayana Guru's reaction was a negative one, i.e. to change in the catchphrase. Aaroamal, 8th Nov, 2005.


 * "Frustrated by the attempts made by a section of his followers to identify him with Hinduism" would not be the correct pharsing, because the Guru did not ever have a problem with the principles of Hinduism, which he endorsed and often said that his philosophy was not different from Advaita. The Guru clearly stated that certain outrageous practices of Hinduism that got embedded in society was what needed to be deplored and changed; and he clearly differentiated the two (priciples and practices) and said that the reform of practices would only amount to 'social reform' and not necessarily amount to 'religious reform'. Also we should bear in mind the Guru had such an elevated thinking that his vision of his own identity was never limited to Hindus alone. Invariably he belonged to the larger world beyond the Hindus and other religions and included all of humanity, be it believers or non-believers in religions or God. The right wording would be Avoiding attempts made by a section of his followers to identify him with Hinduism alone,..........Aaroamal, 8th Nov, 2005.


 * I have to say this about the points/suggestions made by Aaroamal. To take the second one first, I don't think I need to have any objections to the re-phrasing of the sentence as suggested by Aaroamal though I don't completely agree with the reasons highlighted by him. I agree with the re-phrasing because I am not sure whether Narayana Guru was in fact frustrated. Since I don't know for sure what mental state Narayana Guru was in when he sent out the message, it won't be right on my part to stick on with the phrase. About my disagreement with Aaroamal, I will come back to it some time later.

About atheistic interpretations of Narayana Guru's teachings, I completely disagree with Aaroamal. There are umpteen number of individuals (I am not one among them!) who reads atheism into Narayana Guru's messages. A very clear case is that of M.C.Joseph, the apostle of rationalism/atheism in Kerala, who very cogently argued that Naryanaguru was in fact aiming at atheism and philosophy of irreligiousness. (See, for instance, his essay Matha virodhathinte Matham - The Religion of Irreligiousness. (Page 322-325 in Narayanaguru: Ed: P.K.Balakrishnan, March 2000 (First Edition 1954), Kerala Sahitya Academy). While I do not agree with this radical interpretation making Narayana Guru an out-and-out atheist, I do think that a lot of his teaching has affinity to atheism as I have understood that concept.

As to Sahodaran Ayyappan's rephrasing of Narayana Guru's famous catchphrase, I am yet come across any material supporting Aaroamal's contention that Narayana Guru had disagreed with Sahodaran. And I don't see any reason why he should have objected becasue there was nothing in Sahodaran's work or in his re-worded catchphrase that would have invited such an objection from Narayana Guru. To quote his catchphrase in full:


 * Jathi Venda,Matham Venda
 * Daivam Venda Manushyanu
 * Dharmam Venam, Dharmam Venam
 * Dharmam Venam Yethochitham

Yet I wm willing to accept Aaromal's contention, if I am given sufficient proof. MANOJTV 10:53, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Guru, God and Atheism
Instead of reading Gurus works or by the people who had studied in and out of Gurus Philosophy (like Natataraja Guru, Nitya Chaitanya Yati and Muni Narayana Prasad) Manoj is trying to establish that Guru is an atheitst by borrowing arguments from his atheist followers who were never serious in studyig Gurus philosophical works. Manoj can you site any article by Joseph or ayappan or Jayachandan which examines Gurus philosophical works? If one read Gurus famous work Atmopadesa satakam or Darsana Mala carefully, there are ample evidences sugests that Guru never rejected the concept of God. or If he was an atheist why did he write Daivadasakam: A Universal prayer? There are are a new class of self proclaimed intellectuals who want to corner Guru as social reformer or Religious reformer or Atheist or Marxist rather than a reevaluator of Vedanta Philosophy. They just wasting time as Guru said in Atmopadesa satakam like blind men trying to explain elephant. Reasoning is the basic frame work of Vedanta so there is no need to resatte that Guru was a Rationalist. In vedanta there is only one god so Guru accepted that fact. Any serious seeker in Gurus vision must read two books (1) The Word of the Guru by Nataraja Guru (2) The Philosophy of Sree Narayana Guru by Muni Narayana Prasad. Without reading those authetic books, writing and and arguing in Internet forums are really a blot to what Guru preached " Our aim is not to argue and win but to know and let know". I quote from the Guru prasads books The Philosophy of Sree Narayana Guru

Chapter 19, GOD TEMPLES AND RITES

" Narayana Guru an enlightened person was hounoured by everyone irrespctive of their walk of life or view of life. His vision being all comprehensive and unitive, no one could see and outlander in him, and more those of different perceptions had the feeling that Guru was with them. Even atheist were among his close followers.

Was he a believer? Yes; only that it is in ascientific sense. God the one reality that underlineseverything that apperars in the world, here or hereafter, was more than matter of belief for Guru. Admitting the existance of world means admitting the realness of God, for the world cant appaer to be causual Reality underlying (see Darsanamala 2.2). Likewise admitting GOd means admitting the existance of world as the appaarent form in which God becomes manifest. God, atman, Brahman, arivu (Cit) were interchangable terms to him. God and the world are inseperably one, as are water and waves, as are gold and ornaments.

Does God exist? The direct answer to this question derivable from Gurus philosophy would be, " God alone exists, all that appear forming the world are simply various manifestations of one God". Can you see God then? Yes, God alone is what you see, you simply mistake it as the world."

So what does it mean? One who had understood the basic frame work of Gurus philosophy (not necessarily in detail) wouldnt make blunders in portayig him as an Atheist.

Pradeep.


 * The following points may be of relevance to the ongoing discussion on Narayana Guru.


 * 1) I have read some of Narayana Guru's works in verse (including Atmopadesa Sathakam) and almost all of his works in prose. I don't claim that I have understood him completely. The Malayalam style of his period is definitely a barrior for me in understanding his works throughly.
 * 2) I don't claim, I repeat, that Narayana Guru was an atheist. But many atheists, I repeat, did/do claim that his works definitely pointed towards atheism. It was in this context that M.C.Joseph's name was brought in.
 * 3) One has the freedom to believe that Nataraja Guru, Nitya Chaitanya Yeti, Muni Narayana Prasad et al have read Narayana Guru's works "in and out" and are the ultimate authority on him. But I don't think so. To me, they have read too much of brahminical hinduism in Narayana Guru's works.
 * 4) Naryana Guru, in spite of writing a number of verses in praise of hindu deities, did not write a single sentence on The Geeta, the ultimate Hindu book. And, to me, this is not accidental. But the above referred triumvirate who claimed to have read Narayana Guru "in and out" are all in praise of the very same book. This, to me, is not accidental too.
 * 5) I don't have much information on Nataraja Guru. But my understanding is that he did not take sanyas from Narayana Guru. He did so, after the death of Narayana Guru.
 * 6) One has every right to believe that the real Narayana Guru is the one who wrote verses in praise of hindu deities. And the Narayana Guru who revolutionised the social and religious life in Kerala is only an unwanted appendage. But I take a view which is diametrically opposed to it.
 * 7) Sahodaran Ayyappan was a nobody. Sahodaran knew nothing about Narayana Guru. Pradeep's is the final word. Hail! Vellappally. MANOJTV 08:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Reply to Manojs comments


 * 1) The core Wisdom of Gurus Philosophy is described in his poetic compositions such as Atmopadesa satakam, Darsana Mala, Arivu, Advaita Deepika, Vedanta Sutra... Among these Darsana Mala is one of his last compositions which are free from any religious symbols. His prose works are composed very early and doesn’t explore the all aspects his complete vision of Vedanta. Without proper commentary his poetic works are difficult to grasp. Now we have excellent commentaries on all his works to do proper study

2.  If you don’t claim, the importance you had given on those aspects has to be reevaluated. For me, you had given so much emphasis on this point! I agree with the second part in your comment

3.  Without properly reading Gurus works and the works of Natataraja Guru and his disciples, how you can make such a floppy statement. Narayana Guru himself told to his disciples that his philosophy is not different from the Advaita- Vedanta of Sankara. In advaita-vedanta philosophy there is nothing to be attributed to Brahminical hegemony. The sad truth is that Brahmins hide these core facts and twisted such Philosophies for there own sake for thousand of years. What Nataraja Guru and his disciple did was to show the world how Narayana Guru revaluated and restated the Advaita Philosophy in a scientific way. In doing so Natararja Guru even criticized Sankara on his silence about the caste discrimination described in the verse of Brhma Sutra. I quote Nataraja Guru from his book “An integrated Science of the Absolute"

Philosophizing with matter as the starting point was repugnant to Socrates who openly objected to the hylozoists, whom he charged with being interested only in mud and stones, and not in the world of the intelligibles. In India this same contempt is revealed by Sankara in his Brahma Sutra commentary. It is not difficult to discover, by carefully reading between the lines, how Sankara's philosophy is also tainted with this prejudice. A large part of his commentary contains a rather matter-of-fact polemical denunciation of the Samkhya and Nyaya-Vaiseshika approaches. He takes his stand quite rightly on the claims of sabda pramana (the validity of the scriptural texts)i, but his way of upholding the a priori and axiomatic method is not altogether scientific. In standing for the notion of the Absolute in all its independence and purity, Sankara never tires of stating again and again his objection to the ontological pradhana of the Samkhyas. He also summarily dismisses Buddhist philosophy and the paramanu (ultimate atom) doctrine of the Vaiseshikas.

No credit is given to the ancient rishis (sages); Kanada, and even the great Buddha are supposedly unable to counter the arguments of the Vedic lawgiver, Manu. The slightest criticism of the Vedic word, even when impossible and contradictory positions are found, is nonetheless endorsed by both Sankara and Ramanuja. This extreme intolerance in the name of orthodoxy unmistakably comes into evidence when the question of caste and Vedic orthodoxy are mentioned. In the apasudra-adhikarana (section denying Vedic rites, religion, etc., to the proletarian), the spiritual status of the sudra is discussed. This orthodox attitude denies any rights and dignity whatsoever to the common person. It is comparable only to the instances of slavery and lynching in America and the anti-Semitism of Europe and Hitler before and during the last World War. This section of the Brahma Sutras is a blot on human nature and genuine Indian spirituality should not be confused with it. We find mention of permission given to punish sudras by killing them if they happen to know the contents of any part of the Vedas. If they innocently happen to hear the Vedas being recited it is permitted to pour molten lead or wax in their ears. If the sudra is caught uttering any Vedic passage he is to have his tongue cut out. Although exceptions to this rule are mentioned and reluctantly approved using far-fetched and irrelevant arguments, as Max Muller pointed out, this section of the Brahma Sutras (I.3.34-38) sufficiently reveals the nature and intensity of the intolerance and exclusiveness of a group of orthodox Hindus. The claim of Hindu tolerance made by Swami Vivekananda in his famous Chicago Address seems very weak when viewed from this particular perspective.

That Sankara has no word to say against this in his commentary is rather strange because his position regarding caste is different in the Vivekacudamani, where in verse 297 he compares caste to a rotting corpse. Also in his Upadesasahasri (A Thousand Advices) in Verses 14 and 15 he tells the student it is wrong to think of himself as being a Brahmin. Whenever Narayana Guru met an orthodox person claiming to represent Vedanta, invariably the first question he put to him was whether or not there was any justice or kindness in the section of the Brahma Sutras dealing with the status or dignity due to sudras.

We have alluded to this section of the Brahma Sutras at some length merely to show how spirituality can degenerate into something closed and static. This tendency is evident in Sankara's commentary where he does not even succeed in covering up his intention of completely destroying all philosophical views different from those of the Brahma Sutras. He never accepts another's standpoint, but always clings tenaciously to his own. His conclusion found in II.2.17. regarding the Vaiseshika philosophy is summed up as follows:

"It thus appears that the atomic doctrine is supported by very weak arguments only, is opposed to those scriptural passages which declare the Lord to be the general cause, and is not accepted by any of the authorities taking their stand on Scripture, such as Manu and others. Hence it is to be altogether disregarded by high-minded men who have a regard for their own spiritual welfare."13

The only relieving feature of Sankara´s commentary is the extremely subtle nature of some of his speculation revealing delicate fencing tactics directed against a number of imaginary opponents. Unfortunately, many of these opponents are not true representatives of the schools of philosophy they are supposed to represent, but instead are mere caricatures. Sometimes they are even degraded to a lower position and presented as unintelligent. This device is used for the glory of Vedism and Vedanta. It appears that this work must have been written for the training of a group of Vedic Brahmins for use against their more philosophical and spiritual opponents.

Fortunately the position of the Brahma Sutras is openly and dynamically revalued by the Bhagavad Gita. In contrast the approach of the Bhagavad Gita is strikingly different to that of the Brahma Sutras. The Gita is strictly in accordance with scientific norms of thought and completely open and dynamic when it says in Chapter IV, Verse 11:

""My very path it is, that all men do tread from every possible approach."14

This open outlook is further evidenced when it says in Chapter IX Verse 32 that sudras, women, and even those of sinful origin can attain to the supreme goal.15 The Samkhya philosophy also receives complete recognition in Chapter XVIII, Verses 13-1616 The purpose of the Gita is to revalue the restate both the orthodox and heterodox currents of thought of its time. In Chapter V, Verses 4 and 517 the emphasis is on complete equality of status between orthodox and heterodox disciplines. In Chapter IX Verse 32 reference is made to five distinct levels or categories in the context of a philosophical analysis of the Absolute."

Because of this ignornace, J Reghu made similar comments on Nataraja Guru. Also if Nataraja Guru is not the authority, tell me who is the authority on Narayana Gurus philosophy?

4. About Gita:

This is a new theory floating around in Kerala after the publication of K. P Appanns book on Guru. Even scholars like him is completely mistaken or misguided in this issue. First of all Gita is not a religious text. It’s a text book of yoga (dialectics) which teaches Brhamavidya. Religion has no scope in the whole book. Scholars like Radhakrishnan, Gandhi, and Tilak all made such mistake in considering Gita as a religious text. One noted exception is Sri Aurobindo, who clearly demonstrated the Universality of Gitas teaching. Second fact is that Naraya Guru wrote books par excel with Gita. So there is no need for him to write anything about Gita. Moreover, unlike Sankara, Narayana Guru never wrote any commentary on Upanishads which is also text books on Vedanta. Instead he translated Isoupanishad to Malayalam. There are evidences suggests that in Guru encouraged people to read Gita. In Sivagiri students used to read and discuss Gita along with other Upanishads while Narayana Guru was alive. Moreover Narayana Guru discussed philosophy of Gita with Nataraja Guru and encouraged him to write the commentary in a new perspective. This can be found in Nataraja Gurus Gita commentary (Introduction)> I quote that section here: '' “Besides the immediate prompting of circumstances there was the deeper and remoter stimulus which had brought me to study Gita. This came fromNarayana Guru himself over thirty years back from centennial year. It was on a certain sunny afternoon, I resided as a disciple of the Guru at Ashram at Karkalla on the southern Malabar cost in 1925 that the Guru put me gently the unostentatious question: How could Krishna ask Aruba to Kill? Finding no ready answer I Guru replied in a low voice, “He would have regretted later". This cryptic response reminded in my memory, but I couldn't see at once the whole implication of what Guru meant.

Once more after an interval of two years while again living with guru, the conversation turned to Gita. This time it was the disciple who had the idea. He suggested that in the study of the Gita the blemish of the canvas should not be attributed to the picture in the mind of the painter. The canvas was the historical setting of the Mahabharata war as described in the epic poem, and the painting was the Wisdom teaching of that Vyasa wanted to transmit to future generations through this medium. The Guru seemed pleased this way of looking at the teaching of the Gita. Not only was his approval was thus given, but Guru also added that the view deserved to be made known. Such are the remoter circumstances that have prompted this book. "'' From this firs hand account, it is evident that Guru hadn’t had any problems with the philosophy of Gita but only with the commentators.

5.    I am expanding the Wiki page on Nataraja Guru you had created. Yes you are right; Narayana Guru didn’t give sanyasa to Nataraja Guru. Watch that space for more info. Also, I recommend you to read his autobiography “Autobiography of an Absolutist". Whatever I had written is based on that book.

6.   I don’t say that Narayana Guru didn’t reform anything. His reform movement is the outcome of his though going Absolutist outlook. So I have only problem with people who portray his as mere Social reformer.

7. I never criticized Ayyappan for his revolutionary social activities. He had all blessings from Guru himself. I believe that Ayappan and his atheist followers were never interested in Gurus Advaita Philosophy.

8. I am not an expert on Gurus philosophy. I am slowly trying to understand his teachings. So don’t ridicule me by calling an expert since guru himself dissociated from SNDP (there is a letter had written to yougam president), I don’t want to say Zindabad to Vellapalli! PRADEEP

Narayana Guru and his commentators
I don't think it is meaningful to discuss the philosophy of Gita, Mansusmruti, Sankara etc in this page. The question I raised is whether Narayana Guru himself ever wrote anything on the Hindu Text. And this is not a new theory. I remember reading, a few years back, an essay written by M.V.Devan, the well known artist, precisely on this topic. The essay is also included in his book, Devaspandanam, published by D.C.Books. I am yet to come across the book written by K.P.Appan. So, definitely, this has nothing to do with K.P.Appan and his book. And thank you for informing me of Appan's book. I will grab it when I visit Kerala next time!

The book that is necessary to understand Narayana Guru's works today is a book on Malayalam langauge of that period. And a Malayalam Dictionary too. Commenteries upon commentories by the so-called experts who knew them in and out may be worth reading for its own sake. And, why should the commentaries by his Hindu theological followers should be so sacrosanct and those by his atheist followers nothing but blasphemous?

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. An article on anybody or any topic should exposit the many facets of that personality or subject. May be in the coming days, one of those who think that Narayana Guru was an atheist may comment upon that. What is needed is facts and logical conclusions. Why should one get too much perturbed?

Vellappalli's movement, to me, is an extreme and lumpen-political manifestation of the attempts of Hindu ideologues to transform Narayana Gurua into Hindu sanyasi.

And I did not create the page on Nataraja Guru. Please check the page history!MANOJTV 06:33, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Narayana Guru and Brahminical dominance
From the way my editing of the article on Narayana Guru (to incorporate Guru's contribution in challanging Brahminical dominance in all areas of life - especially in religious matters - that characterised the social life in Kerala in the first quarter of the last century) are being reverted, it requires, it seems to me, some clarification.

Probably the usage "brahminical order" in the sentence ....he revolted against the brahminical order.." is not very accurate as the word brahminism is used with a variety of meanings (both positive and negative) as can bee seen from the Wikipedia article on brahminism. But when I used the term, I meant the "Brahminical dominance".  Hence in the present editing I use the term "Brahaminical dominance" instead of "Brahaminism".  I hope this may satisfy the user who frequently reverts the editings.

But, if the user does not want to have any reference to brahminical dominance appeaing in the wikipedia article on Narayana Guru, that will substantially negate the colossal contribution made by Narayana Guru in reforming Kerala society.

Towards understanding this aspect (that of challanging the brahminical dominance) of Narayana Guru's movement, I quote below a few sentences from Guru's biography written by Murkot Kunhappa and published by National Book Trust, India. I quote:

"Consecration of an idol of siva by Nanu Swami administered an electric shock to the crowd assembled there...

"This shock given at about the middle rung of the caste ladder, viz. the Ezhavas, was transmitted upwards to the Nambudiri Brahmins and downwards to the lowest among the several castes below Ezhavas.....

"The magnitude of this act of consecration of a Siva idol by the Guru can be better understood by a glance at the customs of the day. In Kerala, the Ezhavas and the castes below them were, as already stated, denied entry into Hindu temples. For that matter, they were forbidden even to walk along the public roads adjoining the temples. When the idol of a temple was taken in a procession round the town, the lower castes had to clear out of their own houses situated along the route of the procession.

"...And yet, here was an Ezhava performing this most sacred ceremonies, knocking out the very bottom of the caste system and all that it stood for, at one stroke." (Page 24-25, Narayana Guru - Murkot Kunhappa, Published by National Book Trust, India)

Ashaan is not a sub-caste of Ezhavas. This was/is a Malayalam term used to address anybody who is a teacher. Naryana Guru spent some time in his early life teaching school children. Hence the name. MANOJTV 12:11, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Works by Nārāyana Guru
He also published works in the Tamil langauge. It would great to list them out too.

RaveenS 10:03, 3 March 2006 (EST)

The leftist outlook
Guru was a writer(a poet) of great mastery in both Malayalam and Sanskrit.We can read them to understand his philosophy and position on religious matters. This article portrays an atheist/leftist view on the great Guru. Why can't the leftists limit their writings to Marx, EMS or E.K Nayanar? If a leftist write about Christ or Muhammed, we know where it will take us! Persons who read about the Guru for the first time will get a wrong perspective.


 * You falsely assume that all leftists are communists, or even atheists. Polar (talk) 11:32, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Narayana Guru is not a mere Social Reformer
Narayana Guru is not a mere Social Reformer

by Swami Vinaya Chaitanya

Every year, two days after Onam comes the birth-anniversary of Narayana Guru (1854-1928).The message of fraternity, oneness of Life and compassion Narayana Guru envisioned and exemplified, continues to inspire disciples in every part of the Earth, regardless of cast, creed, and cultural differences.

Narayana Guru began his efforts to better the lives of people below his mountain-cave, by installing a sivalinga, at Aruvippuram, near Thiruvananthapuram. The linga was a stone that he had picked up diving into the depths of a pool, chiseled by the waters of ages. The Guru had written on the temple-wall:

Devoid of dividing walls of caste or race Or hatred of rival faith, We all live here in brotherhood, And know this place to be, ‘This model-foundation’.

While everyone agree that his ideas -- Humanity is of One Caste, One Religion and One God -- is more relevant now than ever before, the common error in treating the Guru as a mere social reformer worked for the benefit of backward castes/classes is due to an improper assessment of his real contribution to human thought in general and Indian philosophy in particular.

Calling a guru “not a mere social reformer” doesn’t belittle social reform; it is only to draw attention to the principles of Guruhood. Those principles have been dear to people all over the world, though India can claim to have fostered such wisdom unbroken to the present day. All such gurus, regardless of the age they live in, have exemplified universal values, which serve as guiding principles of human life. For this reason, such teachers are called world-teachers or jagad gurus.

Viewing Narayana Guru’s teachings -- oneness of the human species, oneness of human effort and faith and oneness of God - in the universal context would make more sense. Hence, it is incorrect to limit his teachings to social reforms; it goes against the whole spirit of his teachings. Guru specifically says: manushyanam manushyatvam jatir gotvam gavam yatha (humanity is man’s caste, just as bovinity is the caste of the cow). Talking to disciples, he even lamented mankind’s inability to accept fellow humans as part of the species, while a dog recognizes another dog to be its own kind.

A proclamation by the Guru, published in Desabhimani in 1916, makes his stand on issues such as caste unequivocally clear:

Man-made divisions like caste that exist now, are meaningless and evil. It must end. The very thought of higher and lower castes must be wiped out. Mankind has long since renounced the thought. It is wrong to associate social issues with religion, just as it is wrong for religious beliefs to be subjected to social considerations. Social issues must be kept away from religion. Religion is a matter of perception.

No one’s religious freedom should be obstructed. There has to be different religions, so that it reflects the different kinds of people, their natures and the way their minds have developed. It will suffice if each follows the religion that he likes. We have founded some temples according to the wishes of some of the Hindus. If others, like Christians or Muslims, wish so, we shall ever be happy to fulfill them. When we say that we have left caste and religion, it only means that we have no special attachment to any particular caste or religion.

Narayana Guru has two poetic compositions to his name -- Jatimimamsa and Jatilakshanam. While the former deals with the basis of tradition and scripture, the latter indulges in a biological argument, that humanity is of one caste.

Not surprisingly, visions of saints like Allama Prabhu, Basavanna and Narayana Guru are strikingly similar, as we recognize them to be jagadgurus. Going back in our history, we would see the long line of teachers who enlightened humanity, as Narayana Guru shows the way in his Scriptures of Mercy (Anukampa dasakam). In this poem, Guru identifies arul, anpu, anukampa (Grace, Love, Mercy) as the essence of all religions and scriptures. The Jana, the Buddha, Krishna, Jesus Christ, The Prophet, Sankara, Thiruvalluvar and others are referred to as being the embodiments of this High Value of Grace/Love/Mercy.

Narayana Guru felt strongly the need for India to free itself from the evils of caste and religious rivalry. To have a society based on a vision of truth, it also becomes necessary to wipe out falsehood, like clearing the land of weeds before planting fresh seeds.

In a simple and profound prayer he wrote ‘for the children’ in the gurukula, Daivadasakam, Guru equates living beings to ocean’s waves and God to its depths. ‘We must find universal core of existence within us, to which we can relate. Let us be human beings first, and then we can be whatever else we wish to be.’ Again we quote the Guru Narayana: ‘Whatever be the religion, it would suffice if it makes a better man. May such wisdom, which has sustained humanity through time, guide us; the prayer with which these few flowers are offered, to you, and through you, to all the gurus.’

In the name of TN Jayachandran
Reading through these discussions, I note that some of the contributing authors, with an atheistic slant, have tried to portray TN Jayachandran as having implied that Sree Narayana Guru (SNG) had atheistic views; or that SNG’s alleged silence (to S. Ayyappan's rephrasing) substantiates a drift from SNG’s own spiritual path. TN Jayachandran does not share the view that SNG’s philosophy drifted from theism. Kindly do not drag TN Jayachandran’s name into a discussion in the wrong light. Aaroamal 06:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

On Maatan/Madan Asan & Digitised photo of Guru
Reason for my changes. (a). The black & white photograph is more authentic than the digitised one. (b). The digitised photo has some value and hence it is retained with appropriate note. (c). Maatan (Please note, the name is Maatan Aasaan and NOT Madan Asan. It is a name of one of the gods worshipped by non-brahmin communities in Kerala. It is still worshipped in some parts of Kerala. For example, please see a reasonably good article with certain references to the god Maatan. http://www.malayalamresourcecentre.org/Mrc/culture/artforms/patayani/main.html (d) "He knew Samskrita (Sanskrit), and master of Astrology and Ayurveda, the system of Indian medicine". This sentence is grammatically incorrect. It should be either "He knew Samskrita (Sanskrit), Astrology and Ayurveda, the system of Indian medicine." Or, it should be: "He knew Samskrita (Sanskrit), and was a master of Astrology and Ayurveda, the system of Indian medicine". (e). We should resist the attempts/temptations to brahminise the popular culture and icons of Kerala. (f). The article is NOT A well researched one. It contains large chuncks of materials (especially the section on his childhood) that do not have any historical basis, irrelevant or remotely relevant (hence not suitable to an article in an encyclopedia) to subject. PUSTHAKAPUZHU
 * (a)& (b) The black & white photograph is not reverted. (c) Please give Ref. the link that you have given is nothing to do with Narayana Guru.(d)its been corrected.(e)Wiki is not aforum or private reference domain where you can add you political interest.(f)The info added to the article is taken from multiple webistes that dedicated narayana guru. If you have contradicting opinion, you can contact admins of those website to change it. We can make changes to this article once authenticated refernce material or content is available in those sites.

Daya Anjali (talk / contribs) 10:41, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

PUSTHAKAPUZHU is evidently none other than the atheist who has come back under a new identity. Affinity for the old photo and the hatred for Hinduism is visibly back in the article! ~ C. John —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)

Madan, Maadan or Maatan?

 * 1) Only those who are illiterate or extremely careless about the language do pronouce Maatan as Maadan. In Malayalam it is always written as Maatan and not Maadan. Should one pronouce Kuta (umbrella) as Kuda, Patam (picture) as Padam, Patikal (steps) as Padikal?
 * 2) The link I referred to in my earlier communication ( http://www.malayalamresourcecentre.org/Mrc/culture/artforms/patayani/main.html)is about Patayani (Please note, it is Patayani and not Padayani) a traditional religio-cultural folk-art in Kerala. In the said article there is a reference to the deity Maatan. The reason behind inviting the attention of the wikipedia-user to the said article was to show that the name Maatan was not a name of the Hindu god Shiva but of a traditional local deity who was widely worshipped in Kerala. The article does have a reference to the deity Maatan. If one can establish that the deity Maatan and Shiva is one and the same god, then the claim that Maatan Aasaan was name after Shiva would hold good. Until then, it is only a claim. It was to contest the claim that Maatan Aasan was named after god Shiva that I added the reference to the local deity Maatan. Now that the reference to the god Shiva itself is deleted from the article, I have no dispute. Wikipedia article should not distort facts.
 * 3) There has been consistant attempt to distort history and to show Narayan Guru as a follower of brahminic Hinduism, especially in the recent times. The wikipedia article on Narayana Guru also reflects to a great extent the same mind-set prevelent in certain sections of Kerala today. They should not be allowed to use Wikpedia to paint the stalwarts of social liberation in Kerala with a Saffron brush. Why is Maatan the local deity a lesser god?
 * 4) Every authentic/authoritative article in Wikipedia should have references to material available in print. That is the wikipedia policy. A wikpedia article should not be a mere compendium of dubious materials present in numerous webpages. PUSTHAKAPUZHU


 * I think in English language you can spell a word in numerous ways if that word is not part of English vocabulary and being absorbed from other languages, expecially names. In that sense Madan or Matan or Maadan or Maatan can be used intermittently.
 * We cannot add any unsourced materials to wikipedia. So your political views too.

Daya Anjali (talk / contribs) 17:06, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Phew! What a theory of phonetics and spelling rules!! Pusthakapuzhu
 * OK.Anyway, i will be reverting it to Madan.Since the book of Nataraja Guru(The Word Of The Guru : The Life And Teachings Of Guru Narayana) uses Madan Asan itself

Daya Anjali (talk / contribs) 07:46, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * An age-old technique! If you lose an argument/lack evidence, quote scriptures!!Pusthakapuzhu —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pusthakapuzhu (talk • contribs) 09:22, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

Sourcing
I am planning to cut this article back massively unless some citations of reliable sources turn up soon. As things stand, the majority of it is hopelessly unencyclopedic. I'll hang off for another 2 or 3 weeks but after that, well, my editorial red pen will be taken to pretty much anything that is not cited. - Sitush (talk) 23:57, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Name, title, NPOV
Throughout most of this article, Narayana is referred to as "Guru", which, if I understand correctly, is a title, rather than a name, and adds to the hagiographic tone of the article. Per WP:HONORIFIC, I think he should be called only by his surname, after the first mention. Would that be "Nārāyana"? (I ask only because I am not very familiar with Indian naming conventions.) More generally, the article strikes me as more reverential than encyclopedic. Using his name, rather than "Guru", will not fix that, but it seems like a good start. Peter Chastain (talk) 07:14, 23 December 2011 (UTC) "Nārāyanan" is the given name and not the surname. --BudChrSch (talk) 19:03, 13 October 2014 (UTC) The use of the word Devan in the boldface reiteration of the title may be inappropriate for an encyclopedic article. It is a title given to a deity and adds to the hagiographic tone of the article.BudChrSch (talk) 16:38, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Dubious source
Can someone explain why |title=Narayana Guru- The Social Philosopher of Kerala this is a reliable source? I note that the home page does not even function correctly, there is no indication of authority and the dedicated nature of the website concerns me - hagiographic etc. - Sitush (talk) 17:20, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * We now have a heap of citations that are clearly based on a dependent (rather than independent) source. This needs to change and it needs to changes pronto, otherwise the cites are likely to be deleted. - Sitush (talk) 20:58, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Some recent edits were removed citing the reason that Tourism websites are not good sources for history. May not some credibility be attributed to the official website of the Department of Tourism, Government of Kerala? If not, shouldn't the article be cut further short by removing other pre-existing paragraphs that appear to be reproduced verbatim from the same source? It may also be helpful to specify what other stuff seems not to be in the source. Thank you. BudChrSch (talk) 18:03, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Odd phrasing
user talk page discussion about this copied to this page.

You reverted to your revision on Narayana Guru undoing ~6 editors and ~20 edits done over ~30 days. I see that you have re-inserted one of the two content addition I had done. Is this content and reference (from academic book published by Oxford Univ. Press) not to be retained? Particularly when that article is in need of reliable sources! Thanks. -- AmritasyaPutra ✍ 14:04, 9 September 2014 (UTC)


 * If you can find a way to do it without breaching WP:NPOV then of course it can be retained. I was just about to try to find a copy of the book. What you cannot do is state as fact something that is disputed by reliable sources, and that is what had been done. - Sitush (talk) 14:23, 9 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Oh, and you need to abide by WP:CITEVAR also. - Sitush (talk) 14:25, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * That book is secondary reliable source from academic publication. Can you please provide the reliable source it contradicts? I will abide by WP:CITEVAR. Thanks. -- AmritasyaPutra ✍ 18:29, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * This discussion belongs in the thread I opened at the article talk page. As far as d.o.b. is concerned, there is already a reliable source that contradicts it, specifically pointing out that the suggested dates vary. - Sitush (talk) 18:31, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The edit made no changes to d.o.b. I will respond to the other concern raised on the talk page. Regards. -- AmritasyaPutra ✍ 00:36, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

This is odd stuff. What is a "middle peasant"? Why does being the son of one influence his following of Vedanta and his decision to teach etc? It makes no obvious sense. - Sitush (talk) 14:26, 9 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I cannot see the source, either, so it may be that we'll need a quotation if the significance can be proven at all. - Sitush (talk) 14:55, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It conveys a simple/ordinary peasant. If 'middle' is not clear we may simply write "a peasant". It does not say that being the son of peasant influences his following of Vedanta and his decision to teach, that itself is an inference. In fact, with that edit I deleted the dubious "He appears in turn to have" clause that was not sourced inline, that has been put back when this content addition was reverted. Do you want me to provide a quotation (the content and reference stands deleted as of now)? It is referenced to a secondary reliable source of Oxford University Press and it does not contradict any other reliable source like you said before. Regards. -- AmritasyaPutra ✍ 00:55, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I will add the content without using the "middle" word as discussed here. Thank you. -- AmritasyaPutra T 04:25, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ -- AmritasyaPutra T 04:49, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I missed these replies - got into stuff elsewhere. I'll take a look now. - Sitush (talk) 15:36, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I tweaked it a bit and then looked to add an authorlink to the citation, which is when I spotted Jean Drèze. That guy has no training in the subject matter at all, from what I can see. As such, he is not reliable for this material. - Sitush (talk) 15:44, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, no problem about that, but it does come from a publication of good reputation, he is an exceptional scholar in his field and no blemishes as such. Isn't that sufficient enough for a simple non-contentious addition? I know you have been around longer and perhaps know it better too. The intention is not to "argue". -- AmritasyaPutra T 17:03, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I am concerned about it because, even today, literacy is an concern in India. Although there certainly were some educated poor people, the idea of a peasant being educated in any meaningful sense back then seems remote. I'll have to check on this, though, as I know that the Brits did encourage at least some education for some people. Can you read Dutch? I'm wondering whether might be able to help with a translation, just to make sure of the term that Drèze is using. - Sitush (talk) 17:24, 18 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I made a few tweaks, but Dreze's book is published by Clarendon and it's called "Indian Development: Selected Regional Perspectives". (Actually, it appears to be an edited collection.) Why would this book be in Dutch? Or is there an article in it in Dutch? Note that I just corrected the very first citation in the article, where an essay in an edited collection was cited as if reference was made to a monograph. Drmies (talk) 18:18, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, . There are, as so often, lots of problems with the article but as far as the Dreze source goes, I can't see it at all and the citation had "lang=nl" in it. Looks like I may have wasted your time, sorry. - Sitush (talk) 20:06, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * No apology necessary, Sitush. Good luck keeping Scotland--if you want it, your third-to-last colony. (I'm not counting Milton Keynes, of course.) Drmies (talk) 22:21, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * , Jean Dreze and Amartya Sen are the editors. "Dutch" was a mistake, it is in English. The content I had added falls in Chapter 4 titled "On Kerala's Development Achievements" written by V K Ramachandran. -- AmritasyaPutra T 01:07, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah, now we are getting somewhere. The citation should read . I'll add that now and try to track down stuff on/by Ramachandran. - Sitush (talk) 10:34, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * thanks. -- AmritasyaPutra T 12:19, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Tourism websites as sources
I reverted here in part because a tourism website was introduced as a source. Such websites are not usually considered reliable for history and indeed they quite often take material from Wikipedia itself. - Sitush (talk) 18:24, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Please note that the source is not just another tourism website, but the official government website. Kindly consider whether your content removal has actually left the article any better than it would have been without it. BudChrSch (talk) 18:53, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Official government websites, particularly those in India, are not good sources. Political interference in historical revisionism, for example, is common. - Sitush (talk) 17:20, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * True indeed. However, what is in question here is such information as (1)the given name of our subject, (2)the names of his parents, (3)the number of his siblings, and (4)the names of some people in his life, such as his uncle and his teacher. The content removal is justifiable if any other sources is in disagreement with regard to these. Other points like what our subject may have studied as a student may be disputed. Also, there is a disagreement among the sources regarding Narayana Guru's year of birth. As such, it is improper for the article to proclaim that he was born in 1854. BudChrSch (talk) 17:39, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The article says that there is uncertainty about his birth year. As for the rest, just find a reliable source: it is difficult to believe that only a government website carries that information, and it is highly suspect if that is the case because it would tend to suggest that they've grabbed info from earlier versions of this article (that is not uncommon with that particular site, by the way). - Sitush (talk) 17:44, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, agreed. I was wondering whether the biography by Moorkoth Kumaran would be considered a reliable source? BudChrSch (talk) 16:21, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * There is nothing against using a source just because it is written in some non-English language, although see WP:NOENG for important info about how we handle them. That said, much has been written about Narayana Guru in English and we do generally seem to prefer English sources when they are available. I'd be wary of any biography that is effectively published in a hagiographic style, regardless of the language, and that appears to be likely in this specific case: Kumaran was no historian but he was a follower of Narayana Guru etc, which makes it pretty dodgy. - Sitush (talk) 16:37, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Which means what exactly? Is the book acceptable, or not? BudChrSch (talk) 15:01, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * What exactly do you want to use it for? - Sitush (talk) 09:00, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * To reinstate the aforementioned pieces of information.BudChrSch (talk) 13:41, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Who is the publisher? When? What is the ISBN? - Sitush (talk) 14:17, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Sitush, I wonder if it was due to the high quality of the source cited that you did not revert this edit? BudChrSch (talk) 06:02, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It should not surprise me that you are demonstrating yet more lack of clue. Take a look at my contribution history for 11 April, take a look at my general contribution history, and consider WP:DEADLINE. If you want to act like a petulant teenager, please do so somewhere else. - Sitush (talk) 08:15, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Public acceptance, honours, and veneration
This is regarding this edit. Isn't the act of such a recommendation being made by a government worthy of inclusion under that title? It is, IMHO, a recognition by the Government of Kerala.BudChrSch (talk) 15:59, 9 February 2015 (UTC)


 * This reinstatement seems odd to me. Governments recommend all sorts of things but unless something comes of the recommendation it is not usually worth noting. Did the Union Government accept this proposal from the Kerala government, or might it be considered mere posturing etc (which is very common). - Sitush (talk) 08:57, 15 February 2015 (UTC)


 * In reply to BudChrSch, the recommendation would be recognition if it was accepted. - Sitush (talk) 08:59, 15 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I think I expressed it very badly. My point is that if the proposal is accepted by the Govt. of India, it would be a recognition by it. However, even if it is not, such an unusual recommendation should be seen as an act of recognition by the Govt. of Kerala. My intention was to convey a point similar to the one being made by the following statement (from this Wikipedia page):
 * "The film is India's Official Entry for the Best Foreign Language Film for the 87th Academy Awards, but was not nominated."BudChrSch (talk) 13:36, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * So what? I don't even understand what that film-related sentence means. Now please self-revert. - Sitush (talk) 14:08, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't know that "I don't... understand" (maybe even don't care to understand) is an argument used by Wikipedians to remove content. Since when has I become so important? Let others decide. I will abide by any decision that comes out of a serious discussion. BudChrSch (talk) 02:11, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * "I don't understand" is not my justification for removal. I genuinely do not understand the connection or parallel that you are trying to make. Are you aware of the linguistic divisions of states? Regions within India are constantly battling for self-recognition or greater recognition and they do so through PR campaigns etc as well as through directly political processes. Trying to raise a favourite son to some national status is likely just an extension of that type of activity: the obsession with image and in particular with being "better" is an incredibly toxic aspect of Indian culture but shouting loudly about something means nothing in itself. - Sitush (talk) 08:56, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:INDICSCRIPT
I have reverted this edit. I myself had made such edits on a number of pages recently, whereupon I was enlightened about the problem with WP:INDICSCRIPT by User:Redtigerxyz thus:
 * "There was no binding consensus about removing Indic scripts on Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism, Sikhism articles. WP:INDICSCRIPT is WP:Local consensus of Wikiproject India. Wikiprojects Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism, Sikhism etc. were not consulted; also other countries/region like Nepal, Bengal, Bangladesh wikiprojects also need to be consulted. FA articles of both Hinduism and Jainism articles Anekantavada, Ganesha, Ahalya, Vithoba, Iravan use scripts and had them at the WP:FAC."BudChrSch (talk) 14:05, 15 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't give a damn what Redtigerxyz says: everyone else has been applying it to this type of article. Now stop your edit warring, please. - Sitush (talk) 14:08, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep your issues out of here. No one cares if you like the rules or not. And, I don't edit-war, for I have better things to do.BudChrSch (talk) 14:31, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I think those ancient Hindu deities etc are a different ball-game. I've never seen anyone remove scripts from those, although I'm not terribly familiar with them. - Sitush (talk) 14:54, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * "A different ball-game," you say? Now that's some good argument. This inconsistency in applying a policy is ridiculous. BudChrSch (talk) 15:19, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It is not a policy. - Sitush (talk) 15:24, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Perfect. We've come full circle. BudChrSch (talk) 16:39, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

D.O.B.
People keep meddling with the date of birth, usually trying to change it to 1856. Please read the Pullapilly source, note that we use the words "circa" and "probably", and note that there are plenty of other sources that take a similar line to him, eg: this one. We could elaborate in a footnote but the preponderance of reliable sources (academic ones, indeed) is for 1854. - Sitush (talk) 15:26, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It is not clear why Pullapilly is being projected as an authority on this subject. From the declaration of his sources, this particular point seems to be made based on works of two other authors, whose credibility is not certain. Elsewhere in the same essay, he repeatedly cites publications by the S.N.D.P. Yogam, which seems to be totally certain that Narayana Guru was born in 1856 (see here).BudChrSch (talk) 18:24, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * As I say below, it is not our role to question secondary sources. Have you read the diff that I mentioned in the opening post for this section? That is a Princeton University Press book and it pretty much reflects Pullapilly, who is published by the excellent BRILL outfit. You'll note in that diff that even his disciple, Nataraja, said 1854. I've no idea what the SNDP might say but I wouldn't directly trust them on the point: it might be something weird like a more auspicious year in some numerological sense and we really do not want to go down that road. - Sitush (talk) 18:29, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I wish I could express myself better. I am not questioning the author's choice of sources. My question is whether he is an authority on this particular subject. Even the essay being cited has to do with the history of the Izhavas, and not with the life of Narayana Guru. This seems especially significant when he cites sources projecting minority views and ignores the significant majority view. BudChrSch (talk) 19:21, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Narayana Guru is closely associated with the Ezhavas; the SNDP is closely associated. The Princeton source supports Pullapilly and even cites his disciple. You seem to be arguing just for the sake of arguing now. - Sitush (talk) 08:51, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm arguing not for the sake of argument, but for the sake of providing more complete information in the article. The "Princeton source" clearly says that "there are differing opinions concerning his date of birth." All I am demanding is that we ourselves set the record straight in such a fashion, rather than unilaterally deciding in favour of one year or the other. That would be more in keeping with WP:NPV. As for your circa argument, it is too nuanced and too complex for the lay reader (remember WP:RF). I must admit that I (a "lay" person myself) did not notice the ca. until it was pointed out by you here. Most people also do not know what it implies. BudChrSch (talk) 15:17, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You are citing another essay but at the end of the day, if people cannot read properly then we cannot help them all that much. We do say that there is doubt and I do say above that we could extend the information by using a footnote. We currently stress the preponderant view, which seems entirely appropriate. Equally, it is appropriate that we do not assert 20 August 1856 as being definitive, as you were doing. - Sitush (talk) 16:00, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * For your information, it was not I who was making those edits. You will be glad also to know that I am completely opposed to making any kinds of assertions here. We are not historians, and (at least I) do not have any reason to support any one view point. All I want is the inclusion of all significant views. And by the way, I know I'm citing an essay (what's wrong with that?). Read it-it was written by some sane minds and makes some good points, like this one:
 * "If you find yourself defending something as it is the "academic standard" or because it is what you as an editor want, you know you're going wrong! Write for our readers, not for academics and not for yourself." BudChrSch (talk) 16:26, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * is not a reliable source for the D.O.B.?  — Jeff G. ツ 12:26, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Of course not. It is not a mainstream website, the author says "I am an engineer by profession. Writing is my passion. I enjoy writing, reading, travel, life, love, freedom and philosophy", which means he has no relevant expertise, and the article clearly shows that there is uncertainty among academic writers who do have such expertise. Websites are rarely good sources for anything related to caste. - Sitush (talk) 12:30, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Marriage
By stating that ...Cyriac Pullapilly says that he was probably married for a few years but "his worshipful biographers ignored this part of his life out of reverence for his later ascetism"., the article probably gives undue weightage to a tiny minority-view, thereby violating WP:RSUW. Please discuss it here. BudChrSch (talk) 16:58, 15 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Pullapilly is a respected academic. You are citing an essay. - Sitush (talk) 17:21, 15 February 2015 (UTC)


 * All right. You get my point, though? His respectability as an academic is not in question here. What I said is that the article is giving undue weightage to a tiny minority-view. Further, Pullapilly has declared the source for that claim on the very same page. It appears to be made based on the works of other people whose credibility is not certain. BudChrSch (talk) 17:53, 15 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I mean no offence but I am wondering if English is your first language. You seem to be missing some subtleties here, as with the birthdate thing. Pullapilly says "probably", not "certainly". Nor is it a tiny minority view: there are other sources that say the same and it is not usually our role to question the selections that a respected academic makes (indeed, that is the entire point of using secondary sources). I have seen a source somewhere that said he tricked his mother regarding the marriage, twisting her words to suit his purpose and thus only seeing his bride "through the curtain" or some such symbolic thing, but the book containing that story was dreadful and very unlikely to be considered reliable.


 * If you want an analogy for Pullapilly's point, perhaps consider the marriage status of Narendra Modi, which was denied for years because people connected to the RSS etc deem celibacy to be a necessity. Similarly, celibacy for certain religious people is considered of great significance. - Sitush (talk) 18:02, 15 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Forgive my poor command over English. But again, I do not have any issues with what the cited author is saying. Whether or not he is certain about the matter is not my concern. What I was saying is that, considering the very large number of publications that take the opposite view, one or two publications taking this view should be considered a tiny minority. BudChrSch (talk) 18:43, 15 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Your command of English is very good and there is nothing that you have to apologise for. It just seemed as if you were missing the significance of a word. Whether we show the opinion given in other publications depends on whether they are reliable and to what extent they might help counter an opinion that marriage was "probable". If Pullapilly had said Narayana Guru did marry and another reliable source said that he did not then we would definitely need to show both. But since Pullapilly doesn't say that, the need is less evident. It would be helpful to know what sources you are considering (and, please, nothing from SNDP etc). - Sitush (talk) 18:48, 15 February 2015 (UTC)


 * It is true that almost all other sources, even the ones by his "worshipful biographers," agree that he did marry. However, the "... for a few years" part is difficult, if possible at all, to come across. If you're asking me to show a book published by a big Western publisher contradicting Mr.Pullapilly, I'm sorry, I have none to offer. Not because every such other source is in agreement with him, but simply because there are no such sources (that I know of). BudChrSch (talk) 02:00, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Let me get this straight. Your point in creating this section is merely to contest "for a few years"? If so, what would you rather it said? - Sitush (talk) 08:49, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


 * To understand what I'm saying, you need to have some understanding of the system of marriage prevalent in those times in his community, whereby the bridegroom didn't have even to be present for his marriage. The various accounts of his marriage agree on the point that he was himself not present for the ceremony. Further, a significant section of the works on his life hold that he left his house before the bride was brought home, ruling out all possibilities of a married life together. To be neutral and fair, one must also present to the reader this view. As of now, we are giving undue weightage to a (most probably) minority view, although inadvertently. BudChrSch (talk) 15:57, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I understand that particular procedure but the accounts vary and it was not the only possible ceremony. But we can say no more than the sources say. Whether or not he was present, the academics seem to say that he was regarded at the time as having married. Whether the marriage was consummated or the couple even lived together is perhaps moot but unless we have a source that says it was moot, we can't say it here and it isn't obviously even relevant. The interesting bit about "for a few years" is that is would appear to imply that the marriage ended for some reason or another, which could of course include the death of his wife - I've no idea what happened and so cannot elaborate on that.


 * Look, there are sources in the article and I've provided some others during our various discussions here. I'm not seeing sources that differ and that are also reliable. Until those turn up (and, yes, they may exist), we can't really progress. - Sitush (talk) 16:44, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. I think I have made my point amply clear. Any further discussion on this between us will only serve to increase the length of this talk page. I'm leaving it here in the hope that future editors will consider whether or not this is an issue, and make edits (or not) in the best interest of the article itself and its readers. BudChrSch (talk) 17:00, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, it didn't take long before you decided to have another go, did it? And you did so without even resuming this conversation. - Sitush (talk) 16:47, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Sitush, it's ridiculous how you talk as if I'm someone who is hell bent on destroying the article and you are The One who saves the day each time I have a go at it. Look dude, aren't we supposed to write an article that reflects all the significant view points? Then what's your problem with the article saying what Moorkkoth Kumaran thought, or what Kumaran Asan thought? What's wrong with citing their own works for this? I did not cite them to make any questionable claims, did I? You seem to be making edits mindlessly, just for the sake of an argument on this page. BudChrSch (talk) 00:51, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Why are they significant? What does it add? Have you ever seen WP:SPA? - Sitush (talk) 05:23, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Frankly, no. Now that you have shown me and I have read it, I doubt if you have ever cared to read it yourself. It says: "one must look at the editor’s complete edit history, not just recent edits." And, where exactly did I appear to you to edit for "promotion, advocacy or other unsuitable agendas?" Dear friend, I would rather be someone who adds one sentence to one single article than somebody who mostly only undoes additions to a wide variety of articles.


 * Why are they significant? They are significant because (1) they were Narayana's contemporaries who actually knew him personally, and (2) they represent the majority view point.


 * What does it add? It adds the weight that the majority view point deserves. BudChrSch (talk) 14:08, 28 March 2015 (UTC)


 * We do not give much weight to the words of acolytes and disciples; Pullapilly, who was neither, covers the point. A similar scenario can be seen regarding the atheist vs Sikh argument for Bhagat Singh. I am on the verge of reporting you for tendentious editing. It's either that or a lack of competence, while the fact that you went away for a month then came straight back to this article without even resuming the discussion just sticks of SPA. - Sitush (talk) 14:37, 28 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm amazed at how you are able to see a similarity between that discussion and this. First of all, I'm not arguing that Narayana was unmarried (I don't even know). All I'm saying is that a significant view point is that he did not enjoy any conjugal relationship. While stating thus, I did not try to silence the other opinion (I did not so much as modify that sentence in any manner). Second, I didn't present any original research here. If I ever come up with a piece of original research, I would like due credit for that. So, original research being presented on Wikipedia by me is out of the question. Third, and most important, point: Cyriac Pullapilly writing something about Narayana Guru is in no way similar to Bhagat Singh writing something about himself. Now, don't assume that I'm questioning your source here. I'm not. I'm just stating a fact. BudChrSch (talk) 16:08, 28 March 2015 (UTC)


 * No, you are stating the opinions of people who had a vested interest in ensuring that the subject's image was kept as "pure" as possible. They have no more idea whether he had a conjugal relationship that you or I do, unless voyeurism or orgies etc were involved. He was most probably married: anything else is speculation. My point about Singh was not what he said but rather what his acolyte said. The same applies here. - Sitush (talk) 17:54, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Oh, come on! You know that I was not referring to Narayana Guru's marriage when I said, "I'm just stating a fact." As would be understood by anybody whose "first language" is English, I was referring to the third point of that particular argument. Now I'm genuinely beginning to question your motives. BudChrSch (talk) 01:38, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * What third point are you referring to? There are several comments above that involve multiple points. - Sitush (talk) 08:39, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you even understand the meaning of the words that and particular? Since it appears to me that you don't, here's what I was referring to:"Third, and most important, point: Cyriac Pullapilly writing something about Narayana Guru is in no way similar to Bhagat Singh writing something about himself." In that article you were defending something that the subject of the article wrote about himself. Here, that's definitely not the case. BudChrSch (talk) 09:45, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I responded to that point: My point about Singh was not what he said but rather what his acolyte said. The same applies here.. - Sitush (talk) 10:05, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

CORRECTION!
QOUTE:

Gurudevan, as he was known by his followers, led a reform movement in Kerala, rejected casteism and promoted new values of spiritual freedom and social equality.[1] END OF QUOTE

The article quality is quite bad, as is more or less the quality of most article connected to Kerala and even India.

As to the claim that it was 'Gurudevan' who led a reform movement in Kerala, it is just nonsense. There was no Kerala during his time. North Malabar and South Malabar were quite unconnected to Travancore, and more connected to Madras Presidency. Even the language of Malabar, especially that of North Malabar, was not Malayalam at that time period in history.

Even between North Malabar and South Malabar, social issues were different and quite apart from those in Travancore Kingdom. In Malabar, social reform spontaneously came with the English rule. In Travancore kingdom also, most of the social reforms can be attributed to the English pressure exerted from Madras, and due to the changes imposed by Colonel Munro during his brief Dewanship in Travancore.

As to Narayana Guru, it is quite surprising that his name is not seen mentioned in either Travancore State Manual written by V. Nagam Aiya or in Native Life in Travancore written by Rev. Samuel Mateers. This does not mean that he was not involved in actions pointing towards social leadership. However, there is always the possibility that he was not acknowledged by a vast section of the society. Inside his own follower group, he would be a great personage. However outside the domain, he will literally be a nonentity.

That he or his team did built a temple (Jagadhanadha Temple) in Tellicherry has a content of deceit. In that some of the cunning social leaders of the local Thiyya community tried this as a diversionary tactic to lead the Thiyya youngsters from following English systems, which they might have feared would have allowed them to develop beyond the control of their caste leaders.

There is no doubt the Narayana Guru did have a following, mainly among the Ezhavas, and that he had some followers from other castes. However, that does not make him a leader of the Hindus or of any other castes. If such claims are made, they will be repudiated by others. Whether even the Shanars of South Travancore accepted him as their leader is not known or seen mentioned in the article.

As to the claim that he has promoted 'social equality', how can that be when he more or less spoke Malayalam, which is literally full of inequalities, and pejoratives to followers and subordinates? These are just empty claims with no basis. If at all any semblance of social equality was enforced in Malabar, it was by the English rule.

The main article has the quality of such article as Nayanar, Gandhi etc. which are all mere fan versions, all with tall claims to exclusive rights to events, historical and social. All of doubtful quality.

Apart from all this, on this Talk Page one busybody is seen dictating terms and sort of appointing himself or herself to self-appointed leadership, unilaterally. Who is this guy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.214.29.46 (talk) 09:03, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Narayana Guru. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150102071757/http://www.orientblackswan.com/display.asp?categoryID=0&isbn=978-81-250-5722-2 to http://www.orientblackswan.com/display.asp?categoryID=0&isbn=978-81-250-5722-2

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:48, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Narayanaguru
I wonder how people misguiding this wonderful site Sreeretnan (talk) 18:11, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

What nonsense written to defame a good personality of 20th century Sreeretnan (talk) 18:13, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

What nonsense written about the biograpghy of a gentleman from southern State of india

Please don't allow hard-liners to write defamation statement Sreeretnan (talk) 18:56, 6 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I have merged your above three statements into one section - no need to start a new section for each statement when they refer to the same thing. As for your concern, well, this page is for discussion of improvements to the article but you are being so vague that no improvements can be made from the information you give. Please see WP:V and WP:RS. Oh, and note that (a) one cannot libel the dead; and (b) Wikipedia is not censored. - Sitush (talk) 06:08, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

sree Narayana Guru
Adding the link here for reference www. Sreenarayana.in Sreeretnan (talk) 07:50, 7 June 2018 (UTC)


 * See WP:RS. - Sitush (talk) 07:56, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Year of Birth
I would like to know whether anybody can identify the exact year of birth of Sree Narayana Guru by citing reliable sources.Adithyak1997 (talk) 17:00, 1 October 2018 (UTC)


 * No, because reliable sources differ and we have a policy of neutrality. - Sitush (talk) 17:06, 1 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I would like to know whether any of the following sources can be considered as reliable:

a)https://missionldc.blogspot.com/2018/03/sree-narayana-guru.html b)https://divyum.com/category/geography/kerala/kerala-renaissance-important-leaders/sree-narayana-guru/ c)http://www.realbharat.org/sree-narayana-guru-the-revolutionary-social-reformer-398/ d)https://books.google.co.in/books?id=p2JgDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT234&lpg=PT234&dq=20+august+1856+%22guru%22&source=bl&ots=4KV86WFKnl&sig=mJJIq6Vx7I3nDZAG8bGxNu_-8oA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjMqZzWzOrdAhVacCsKHdSiAC8Q6AEwB3oECAEQAQ#v=onepage&q=20%20august%201856%20%22guru%22&f=false e)http://www.snaofna.org/ f)https://www.thefamouspeople.com/indian-philosophers.php If none of these sources can be considered as reliable, please do revert this edit done by me. Sorry for not including names for each of the link instead of their hyperlinks.Adithyak1997 (talk) 15:40, 3 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Almost entirely, No. And we do not need more sources anyway - we already have the evidence that the date is uncertain and nothing is going to change that: sources disagree and that is what we say. - Sitush (talk) 15:49, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

A slight correction!
QUOTE: Narayana Guru (August 28, 1855 – September 20, 1928) was a spiritual Sage and social reformer of India. END OF QUOTE.

He was actually a subject of Travancore Kingdom. It is true that he did set up some Hindu temples in the Malabar District of Madras Presidency, in British-India, a sweeping statement that he was a 'social reformer of India' might not be historically correct. There is nothing wrong in being precise.

As to his social reforms in British-India, actually in British-Malabar, almost all the social freedoms he was fighting for in Travancore kingdom was already a fact of life in British-India.

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:10, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Narayana Guru 1967 stamp of India.jpg

Revert?
I am seriously thinking of reverting this to how it was prior to the mass of edits by Tachs around April 2019. Well-intentioned I am sure they were but they really haven't helped matters. I've already removed loads of poor-to-terrible citations etc but there comes a point when it is simpler just to wind it back. - Sitush (talk) 15:35, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

We would be looking at something like this version and then building off it with anything useful that has happened since. There isn't a lot because many of the remaining sources are from news outlets and they're rarely reliable if Indian (except for The Hindu and its stablemates). - Sitush (talk) 15:37, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:24, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Athmopadesha shathakamwork by Narayana Guru, Verse 10.jpg
 * Sree Narayana Guru with Mahatma Gandhi.jpg
 * Sree Narayana Guru with Rabindranath Tagore.jpg

No religion
Narayana guru has no religion, even though he is born to hindu ezhava. he said he did not belonged to any caste or religion

https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/pm-modi-hails-contributions-of-sree-narayana-guru/article65356290.ece

https://www.mangalorean.com/sree-narayana-guru-said-one-caste-one-religion-one-god-but-never-asked-naming-circle-in-his-name/

http://academickids.com/encyclopedia/index.php/Narayana_Guru 173.66.121.55 (talk) 02:54, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

can you please put your views here too?

Aruvippuram Shiva Prathishta
As narrated by shivalingadasa Swamikal who had witnessed the event.

"The Guru had discussed the idea of ​​a shrine at the creek with many of his devotees. The Guru could understand that everyone wanted it. That is how the Guru ordered that the day of Shivaratri in 1888 could be the Pratishtha. The Guru did not tell the people who had gathered there for the Shivratri Vrat, except that he pointed to a rock facing the river and said that they can be here. Shivalinga Dasa Swami, Naniyashan and Bhairavan Shanti were there as assistants to the Guru. Guru did not tell even them what he was going to do. However, the devotees who had gathered there had made all the preparations they could. Around the rock where the Guru was standing as a pedestal, a pandal was tied and raised on top of the rock. Marotikayas are cut in the middle and oil is poured into them and lit. Those lamps were fixed on the thatched roofs. Nadswara reading was also arranged. Vaidyas arranged Ashtabandham for idol fixation.

Gurudev was in a solemn silence all that day. At that time no one had the courage to even look at the face of the Guru who was as radiant as the golden idol in meditation near the Parnashala. At dusk all the lights turned on. The devotees started chanting the Panchakshari mantra. It was half past midnight. The night when devotees stay awake for Lord Shiva who has drunk poison. The Guru awoke from meditation and came out of Parnashala. Like the rising sun. Guru went straight to the river. In Neyyar there is a kayam (whirlpool sinkhole) called 'Shankaran kuzhi'. The rushing river turns around and flows forward in the deep Shankarankuzhi. Nothing comes up when fallen into Shankaran Kuzhi!.It is believed that Agastya gave his worshipping Shiva Linga to Neyyar river somewhere before leaving. As the crowd swelled, the Guru sank into the lake. Time passes.It has been a long time after guru disappeared under the water.People are standing with their arms folded and unable to even say a word. Only the chanting of the mantra of the river can still be heard. Then the Guru emerges from that bed. In his right hand he holds up a rock in the form of Shivalinga and with his left hand he climbs up holding the rock like an expert. Walking straight on, he reached the edge of the rock he intended to place. He held the rock close to his chest and stood meditatively, tears flowing from those compassionate eyes. He remained in meditation for hours. A ray of light from the sky rushed through the air and touched the stone in the Guru's hand. He placed the round stone on the flat stone. Rock fused to rock. The Vaidhyas who were waiting for the Ashta Bandham asked the Guru, 'Should the Ashta Bandham be applied?' The Guru's lips, which were sealed in silence, spoke for the first time that day. 'No. It's already fixed!'" Ningalonnichpovuka (talk) 14:14, 26 July 2022 (UTC)


 * In my view, no. It’s not encyclopaedic. It’s anecdotal. And it’s greatly excessive in length. George Custer&#39;s Sabre (talk) 06:21, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification admin. Ningalonnichpovuka (talk) 16:12, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

'excessive' ?
i need to add some contents as well as images, but fear that it would be termed as 'excessive' But if you see this wikipedia page Swami Vivekananda, you can see even his relative's , and other family pics too. May i add some pics which is aligning with the format of Wikipedia article too this page ? Also need to add some sections with proper references.

can you please help me here? Ningalonnichpovuka (talk) 13:20, 29 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Dear Ningalonnichpovuka, I hope you are fine. You can’t use another page with an excessive gallery as grounds for adding them all here again too. It’s too much. This is an encyclopaedia, not a fan site. Sorry. George Custer&#39;s Sabre (talk) 13:43, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Philosophy
I observed a new change in philosophy of narayana guru to vedantha. Yes i agree that he was a advaitha vedhanthin from his work athmopadesha shathakam, but he also supports for duality as seen from his first verse. he never explicitly said he support any philosophy but it can be seen from his works. I too oppose the idea of putting 'one caste one religion one god' as his philosophy because it is just a low level philosophy/thought when taking his work as a whole.

Also one thing shold be mentioned here is that he also said ' my religion is also bhudhism', so putting vedanta as his philosophy , i dont thing it is apt. I know narayana guru was from siddha tradition of rishis , his work from suppport advaitha and daitha in some place also, he even told in the last verse of athmopadesha shatakam than the universe or brahman along with out athma is so complex and cannot be explained by words or human understandable ideas.

What do you think here Ningalonnichpovuka (talk) Ningalonnichpovuka (talk) 16:29, 11 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Either keep that empty or add all philosophies. ChandlerMinh (talk) 07:30, 19 August 2022 (UTC)