Jump to content

Talk:Ayyappan

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

sorry,you have mistaken the poet Ayyappan with the 'god' Ayyappan.This is a serious error to be corrected

"The temple is unique in all India, in that there is no distinction of caste or religion in determining who can enter it." - I fail to see how this is a true statement. There are many sects of Hinduism that have similar statements and as such I am going to remove the unique from the sentence.

Some edits

[edit]

The link to Lord Ayyappa's consort 'Poorna' is incorrect. It points to an irrelevant page. Could someone correct please? - 6th July 2017

Cleaned up the article removed duplicate links, added relavency
to GOD AYYAPA & Linked 2 Lord Ayyappa Article Tux the penguin 06:07, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sad seeing the article

[edit]

Its saddening to see the state of this article. No attempt has been made to dig out the real history behind Lor ayyappa and no mentions of buddhism have been made. Even in this world of science and technology all I can see is just the myth which itself has lots of Ridicules in it. I am disappointed. --ചള്ളിയാന്‍ 17:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

That is misinformation and communist propaganda. Historians like M. G. S. Narayan has said buddhism had never established in Kerala as the communists propagate. 2409:4073:2102:FF9C:E5C0:5885:4DAE:A159 (talk) 11:45, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

no distinction of caste or religion in determining who can enter it?

[edit]

There are no restrictions on nationality and religion as far as entry into Sabarimala is concerned. Only ladies in the age group of 10 and 50 are not allowed beyond pampa river — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.174.49.250 (talk) 03:54, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

tourists and foreigners (and menstruating women) are not allowed (see Sabarimala). the article needs to be corrected. --ti 05:24, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may correct it yourself if you can provide sufficient verification.--AaronCarson (talk) 21:26, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

The website says "This reference article is mainly selected from the English Wikipedia with only minor checks and changes (see www.wikipedia.org for details of authors and sources) and is available under the GNU Free Documentation License. See also our Disclaimer." Wikipedia has not copied the article, the site has copied wikipedia. --Redtigerxyz Talk 05:10, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Picture of Ayyappan

[edit]

I had uploaded a pic of Ayyyappan(AYYAPPAN.jpg), but i couldnt work it out on this page. Help solicited. Arjun024 (talk) 08:26, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No Ayyanar and Ayyappan are one and the same. Ayyanaar is also the son of Shiva and Vishnu in his Mohini avatar. In fact, foster father of Ayyappan is Raja Sekhara Pandian and Pandian dynasty had its capital at Madurai, down south of Tamilnadu. Pandalam, the place where Lord Ayyappan was brought up was ruled by Pandian dynasty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.174.49.250 (talk) 03:58, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ayyappan / Ayyanaar distinction

[edit]

The article says that Ayyappan and Ayyanar are the same and that the Tamils call Ayyappan as Ayyanar. To the best of my knowledge this is incorrect. I'm a Tamil. Ayyappan is identified as the son of Shiva and Vishnu and is a totally different god, whilst Ayyanar is a rural god of protection. Each village has its own version of Ayyanar alias Muneeswarar alias Karuppsamy etc. These gods of protection are manifestations of Shiva. This is apparent from the weapons that these gods have. Most have Trishuls, along with huge swords or long sickles. Moreover, some of these gods are shown with a third eye(iconic of Shiva) and have three horizontal lines of holy hash decorating their foreheads(another symbol of Shiva). Hence I am removing the statement Mr.Falcon (talk) 16:47, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What a comedy Ayyappan trained in Cheerappanchira family?

[edit]

Please stop vandalism —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.254.131.60 (talk) 12:22, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mount of Lord Ayyappa

[edit]

IP Editor 218.186.16.228 asserts are you the tantri? Horse is for Sastha, not for Ayyappa. Ayyappa is an incarnation of Sastha. and reverts my edit.

I am not thanthri. Thazhamon family are the thanthris. Thanthri Kantararu Rajeevaru has specifically clarified that Horse is the mount of Lord Ayyappa, the presiding deity of Sabarimala. It came in the Sabaramala supplement of MAthrubhumi.

The proof is visible to anyone visiting the temple. As per the thanthra rules, the idol on the top of the flagpole is the mount of the deity. The horse is the idol on top of the flagpole. That is paraphrasing Sri Rajeevaru. In the matter of temples, the word of the thanthri is final.

Also, remember the phrases thuraga vaahanam and vaaji vaahanam in harivaraasanam

DileepKS(talk) 02:58, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the idea of the tiger as a mount (as mentioned in the infobox) comes from the story of Ayyappan coming to his mother on the tigress. User:DileepKS69, do you have any online or book sources for this information? Prad2609 (talk) 05:57, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed removal of sections or merging with another article

[edit]

I would like to propose the removal of sections: Victory, Prasadam, Pilgrimage, Offerings, The Austerities and The Guru from this article or consider moving them or merging them with the article on Sabarimala. They do not seem to be necessary as part of an article on Ayyappan. Prad2609 (talk) 06:15, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since it has been two weeks since I posted this note and since I see no opposition, I have deleted the sections mentioned above. Please feel free to revert if there is an opposite view. Prad2609 (talk) 17:13, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ayyappa as an incarnation of Buddha?

[edit]

The statement<Recent research has led researchers to believe that the chant of Swamiye Saranam Ayyappa to be an adaptation of Buddham Sharanam Gachhami and also claim that the idol of Ayyappa has great similarity to Buddhist idols. Hence, they consider him to be an incarnation of the Buddha[1]

The link providing this statement has not provided any hard facts. Only saying recent research. Research by whom? Ayyappa has nothing to do with Buddhism.

Also the statement <Hence, they consider him to be an incarnation of the Buddha[1]> is not mentioned in same article. This is only an opinion and should be removed to prevent confusion, because...Buddha Avatara was an incarnation of Lord Vishnu. Please provide references to where Buddha himself had incarnations. I don't believe it works that way. Hanumanta (talk) 22:51, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ayyappan's wives Poorna and Pushkala Sabarimala — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boboshowme (talk • contribs) 19:20, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Poorna and Pushkala are wives of DharmaShasta and not Ayyappa. Ayyappa is the incarnation of Dharmashastha and is a bachelor.
Anish Viswa 03:06, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki article didn't mention any purana that telling about Ayyappa Story

[edit]

No one ever mention sources of Ayyappa story from puarana. Is these stories are purely local? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.168.79.1 (talk) 12:26, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Ayyappa's History(Purana)can be updated from the below link

http://www.ayyappatemple.in/history1.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Padmanaban.nitt (talk • contribs) 09:02, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Ayyappan. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:42, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Improvements

[edit]

@Ms Sarah Welch: I have made some improvements to the article, please see if they are good. See revision before here and the current revision and please suggest some improvements. You are the user who primarily knows a lot about reliable sources in Hinduism, hence asking. Thanks, 86.97.129.80 (talk) 08:03, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One large section is unsourced. Either we should add WP:RS that verifies the content, or just delete the section/paras. I have tagged it for now. I will review other contributions later, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:19, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ms Sarah Welch:Hi, this is the same person as above, my ip address changed. I have deleted the unsourced facts and replaced it with sourced content. Please check and see if its ok when you have time, thanks. 2.51.18.247 (talk) 15:01, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. The New Directions Publishing is not a good source, the text cites a private letter in footnote 9 rather than a verifiable primary or secondary source. The claim needs a better source. I am tagging that sentence, though leaving it in for now. The second source you added, the Younger's book published by Oxford Univ Press is good and WP:RS. The summary in the history section needs some copyediting. Your contributions are welcome, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:13, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ms Sarah Welch: I have added another source. Please check if reliable, 2.51.18.247 (talk) 16:44, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again. I checked. The author of the new source writes about magic / natural potions / ethnic beliefs about herbs and foods. Not appropriate for this or other related articles. I have updated the section with more sources. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:24, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2.51.18.247: I moved the unusual Achankovil temple info from the lead to main, per our lead guidelines. I also added more sources. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 11:13, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ms Sarah Welch: Thanks, is the section "popular culture" really necessary ? I don't see similar sections in articles of Hindu deities such as Vishnu or Krishna. 2.51.18.247 (talk) 17:06, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessary, but if something is notable and sourced it may be better to include that in for article stability. Almost all of it is unsourced, and therefore can be deleted. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:56, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ms Sarah Welch: Is this a reliable source ? It talk about Ayyappan being an incarnation of Dharmashasta. 2.51.18.247 (talk) 14:53, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. It is published by Syracuse University Press, Eliza Kent is a professor specializing on South Asian religions and religious pluralism. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:20, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ms Sarah Welch: Hi, its me again, I have added two more sources, please check if they are reliable, Thanks 2.51.22.222 (talk) 19:40, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

iUniverse publications are WP:SPS, so not a reliable source. The other one is fine. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:20, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi am trying to add some improvements to the content. But is not possible.i can also fetch u reliable sources. Kindly help me. Vish ind (talk) 22:10, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 1 September 2017

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Consensus reached. No name change. Add alt names for Ayyappan.(non-admin closure) Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:17, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ayyappan → Ayyappa – I feel that Ayyappa is more common than Ayyappan. Google search for the exact term "Ayyappa" provides 60,90,000 results, while search for the term "Ayyappan" yields 23,90,000 results. (I have difficulty linking the url, so please pardon.) I examined both urls and they don't seem to give false positives. I further checked using ngram, which shows the same results. @Ms Sarah Welch and 2.51.22.222: pinging two contributors who seem to know a lot about the topic and improved the article to nearly GA status. I may be wrong with the statistics, so please correct me if wrong. King Prithviraj II (talk) 21:09, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutral I just ran "Ayyappan is" vs "Ayyappa is" in GBooks and the Malayalam spelling and Hindi/Telugu/Tamil spelling were exactly equal. In ictu oculi (talk) 21:41, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral Google search results need some caution in this case. Because Ayyappan and Ayyappa are also common names, nothing to do with the deity and the subject of this article. See for example the name of the last co-author of this article, and this as another example. Yes, NGram chart is better but has the same issue. Between Ayyappa and Ayyappan, NGram is unclear. Either seems to be a good title. Whatever we do, the alternate should be a redirect page to this article, as should all the other synonyms for the subject of this article. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:20, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ms Sarah Welch and In ictu oculi: Search results for "ayyappa god" www.google.co.in/search?q="Ayyappa+god"&oq="Ayyappa+god"&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0l4.2981.4544.0.6041.2.2.0.0.0.0.173.331.0j2.2.0....0...1.1j4.64.psy-ab..0.2.328...0i67k1.6_2EPs7jreo gives 15,400 results. "Ayyappan god" www.google.co.in/search?q="Ayyappan+god"&oq="Ayyappan+god"&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0i13k1l3j0i13i10k1.4285.4560.0.4710.2.2.0.0.0.0.181.181.0j1.1.0....0...1.1j4.64.psy-ab..1.1.178.EnwCj99Q7NA gives 5,270 results. King Prithviraj II (talk) 13:46, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did you see the search results that show Ayyappa as slightly more common than Ayyappan ? "Ayyappa god" is also slightly more common than "Ayyappan god" and as far as I know, there is only one god by the name Ayyappan/Ayyappa. Than how is it a dead heat ? IAST transliteration would give Ayyappa (Yes, exactly Ayyappa without any diactrics.) So if moving to IAST or the other way, its Ayyappa. Also, the mantra for Ayyappa is Swamiye Saranam Ayyappa, not Ayyappan. King Prithviraj II (talk) 12:13, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • King Prithviraj II: It is a close call. Ayyappa is quite common, as is Dharma Sastha etc as one drives through and visits temples in rural Kerala, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu and elsewhere. Per our MOS guidelines, we must use the spelling in tertiary WP:RS. In Encylopedia Britannica, for example, it is it is Ayyappan. Jones and Ryan's Encyclopedia of Hinduism on page 58 spells it Ayyappan too, as does Merriam-Webster's Encyclopedia of World Religions on pages 100-101. Something to reflect on, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:01, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, seeing that Britannica uses Ayyappan but Ayyappa is common, either word should be used with caution. I just did some research on this topic, South Indian languages tend to add an n after a name, like Raman and Shivan. So it seems it is grammatically correct in Malayalam. (Which doesn't actually matter to English Wikipedia, but just checking all sides) I have a question though, some sources do spell it as Ayyappa, so when citing those sources, are we supposed to stick to the name of the article or name in the source ? Also, shouldn't WP:COMMONNAME be considered and given more weightage as Common name is a policy and WP:RS is a content guideline ? Thanks, King Prithviraj II (talk) 17:12, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • King Prithviraj II: Both satisfy the COMMONNAME guidelines, with tertiary sources favoring the "COMMONNAME in English sources" as Ayyappan. Both are frequent and frankly, we have only checked google search results above, and not the actual 1000s of search links for both Ayyappan and Ayyappa to remove duplicates, non-RS etc. On rest: if we quote, we must quote the exact spelling/words used by the source. Either spelling is fine in the main text if the source uses a particular spelling. Per MOS and stylistically, one consistent spelling is better and easier to the reader, particularly those who are new to the topic. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 23:38, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, then here's what I think about the topic.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ayyappan. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:29, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits

[edit]

@Ms Sarah Welch: Hello there Ms! Is it ok with you to keep an eye on this page for the next few days? The current Sabarimala issue has let to lot of edits here, often including addition of unsourced information, edit-warring and removal of sourced content. Your help is appreciated :) 2.51.190.138 (talk) 21:04, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. @Reginasinclairs: and others: please do not add content on religion / history / medical / science articles and similar wikipedia topics that are unsourced or sourced from tabloids, newspapers or other WP:Questionable sources, per admin and community consensus. Newspapers and news magazines may be okay as a source for current events and recent unfolding events, but for the rest we must rely on peer-reviewed scholarly sources. Further, please do not edit war, particularly on sensitive/inflammatory topics. If you have concerns or questions, let us discuss them. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:00, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the [[commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Cheerappan Chira Kalari,Room used by Lord Swamy Ayyappa when he was staying and training in this ancient Thiyyar Chekavar kalari,which trace their origin to Kadathanadu.Malikapurathamma worshipped at Shabarimala is from cheerappanc|nomination page]]. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:23, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple page histories

[edit]

I was trying to see why we have multiple page histories for this subject, and here is the timeline:

  • 2002 Oct 07: user TUF-KAT created Ayyappan
  • 2004 Dec 27: user CNRNair created Lord Ayyappa
  • 2005 Oct 06: user Kjrajesh merged Ayyappan into Lord Ayyappa
  • 2005 Dec 01: Pamri moved Lord Ayyappa to Ayyappa
  • 2006 May 14: user Grammatical error Cut-and-pasted Ayyappa into Ayyappan (which was a redirect)
  • 2017 Sep 14: there was a failed proposal to move Ayyappan back to Ayyappa

The history from Dec 2004-May 2006 is at Ayyappa. Jay (Talk) 19:04, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1st and 3 rd century.

[edit]

If this legend came about in 1st and 3rd century, how do we relate it to Muslim and Islam which started around 642 to 750 AD. Both started on two different time line. Or there is a big mix up.

Point to be thought of......... 49.207.209.123 (talk) 18:48, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On Vavar swamy

[edit]

The article prior to my edit shortly before writing this said in the lead that Muslims in Kerala honour Ayyappan, and linked it to three sources. None of those sources say exactly that Muslims in Kerala honour Ayyappan; what they do say is that Hindus in Kerala honour Vavar Swamy, a Muslim character found in the legends of Ayyappan. Indielov (talk) 10:06, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Moved Content

[edit]

This kind of tradition of ‘woman entering’ can also be seen in some orthodox churches.[1] Rowei99 (talk) 08:41, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Why are women banned from Mount Athos?". BBC News. 2016-05-26. Retrieved 2023-05-19.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ayyappan&oldid=1238397216"