Untitled[edit]

I did my best to combine the articles on Ayya Vaikundar and Vaikunda Avatharam into one article. I am unsure about the name Vaikunda Avatharam, but I think it is synonomous with Ayya Vaikundar. Steven McCrary 18:47, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

There are other inconsistencies here as well, especially with regard to the use of God (Moolamurthi) and Narayani and Krishna Avitar. Also, places are confusing Tharuvai, and Parvatha Ucchi Malai. Steven McCrary 19:26, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

I welcome the contributions of others, please take it from here. Thanks. Steven McCrary 19:31, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

From User talk: Stevenwmccrary58:

Ayya[edit]

Thanks for your work. You realised almost every thing rightly and done good. But you mistook a little and I made correction on that. Now please view the article so that you can find out that corrections. - Vaikunda Raja

Vaikunda, the spelling of Veiyelal varies on the page. Steven McCrary 08:16, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Muthukutty and Sampooranathevan[edit]

Vaikunda, The following sentence is confusing: "The first stage of Avatar is the child, born to Ponnu Nadar and Veylal, died immediatly after the birth." The child Muthukutty did not die until he was 22 years old, what "birth" is referred to here? Steven McCrary 08:07, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Vaikunda, in addition, the following statement are confusing for the uninitiated: "Sampooranathevan was granted Heaven. Then the Spirit of Narayana along with the Ultimate Soul or Paramatma incarnated in the body of a human being...." What does "granted Heaven" mean? How is this different from what happened in step 2? Does Paramatma translate to "Ultimate Soul" in English? What is this "Ultimate Soul?" Does it refer to the soul of Sampooranathevan? Steven McCrary 08:16, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

I think all about Vaikundar is confusing Steven. Let me try to clear it. First of all keep in mind the three facts, the Spirit, the Soul and the Body. Ayya Vikundar is a combination of the spirit of Narayana(Murthi stage), Soul of the Ultimate God, and body of an ordinary human being.
First of all the child born to Ponnu and Veilal died immedietly it born. Then in that body, the soul of Sampooranathevan, a celestial being of Deva Lokam (Upper World) installed along the spirit (not soul) of Narayana (murthi stage). All this events took place in seconds and so the people doesn't know any thing about this. They think a child born to the couple. This man is stated as Sampooranathevan in Akilattirattu and Muthukutty in History. So according to Akilam he was not an ordinary human being, but a celestial being take birth as a human being.
Then at his 24th age he was called inside the sea, he was taken inside (Soul of Sampooranathevan along with the spirit of Narayana was taken by the Sages, Kalai Muni and Gnana Muni into the sea by placing the body in Tharuvai) and there the soul of Sampooranathevan was granted heaven ( moksha). Then the Ultimate Soul or Paramatma,(‘Paramatma’ translated to ‘Ultimate Soul’ in English) or Nirguna Brahman with the spirit of Narayana came out of the sea and take the body from the Tharuvai and proceeded towards Detchanam. And from now he was called Vikundar and as God. This day is celebrated now as day of Avatar of Vaikundar.
Then saying more about Sampooranathevan he was a deva of Deva lokam and he fall in love with Para Devathai a woman of Yama Lokam who leaves herself from her husbund earlier. When all the Devas were asked to take birth in this world to assist God in destroying Kaliyan Sampooranan asked Thirumal to grand birth to Para Devathai along with him. Thirumal said that any way she was the wife of another person, and also you are from Deva lokam and she was from Yama Lokam. Yor are great but she is not so. So your’s is a wrong desire. But still Sampooranathevan firmly stick to his desire. So Thirumal asked him along with her to porform austirity to take birth unitedly. Any way after a series of happenings their austirity fails. But Thirumal said that since your Austirity met with failure she will born in the world and after living with her husband of Yama Lokam for some years after doing all her duty to him as per her karma she will (he too take birth in this world), leave him and live alone. At that time you two shall meet each other and will fall in love and live as husband and wife a you two will suffer a lot and get bored in the life and realise the (Ultimate real truth) God and both of you will be granted heaven.
As per this promise, Sampooranathevan till his age of 24 lived with Para Devathai in this world and he was granted moksha. – Vaikunda Raja
There is no mention of the child's death in the article. What was the nature of this death, mythical or physical? Steven McCrary 20:46, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
I will add some information about Sampooranathevan to clarify the article. Please check it. Thanks. Steven McCrary 20:46, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
As to my confusion, I can only say that if it confuses me it will confuse others as well. Wikipedia, being an encyclopedia, is designed to provide clear and concise information about a topic to the unaware and the uninformed. This article still needs improvements on this vein. Steven McCrary 20:46, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
Vaikunda, are you 61.2.234.160? In any case, excellent edits! The article is coming together very nicely. Thanks for your patience with me. Steven McCrary 17:34, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

This article is complete nonsense. Ayya Vaikundar. Pathetic topic. Must be removed from Wiki.

The remainder of Muthukutty's Life[edit]

What happens after the avatar? To be complete, I believe this article should also chronicle the life of the body of Muthukutty after the avatar, possibly by reference to the Ayyavazhi mythology#Post-incarnational events and to the death of the body of Muthukutty. What do others think about this? Steven McCrary 20:46, August 1, 2005 (UTC)


Avatar[edit]

I think the article will now does not confuse any body.I have made changes changes.Then in the third stage of the Avatar where the soul was granted moksha,the soul get unified with the Ultimate god of Ultimate oneness. This action seems similar to advaita tradition.Then onwards the soul of Sampooranathevan han no singularity of it's own from now but it was into the ultimate oneness. It has no other name at all. On other words the singularity of the soul of Sampooranathevan gets destroyed and flow together in to the Ultimate soul. So it is notable that not to call it as Ultimate soul of Sampooranathevan.But instead Ultimate Soul. – Vaikunda Raja

Life glory of Lord Ayya Vaikundar is outlined strictly based on Holy Akilathirattu Ammanai which is the primary text for all and Arul Nool without any deviation. Holy Akilathriattu Ammanai says LORD NARAYANA HIMSELF INCARNATED AS LORD VAIKUNDAR. - (User: KrishnakumarSiva)

Sorry for the Mistake[edit]

Sorry for a mistake. On a deep reading of Akilam I found that the child born to Ponnu and Veiyelal did not died, after the birth but born dead.I've made changes in the article. - Vaikunda Raja

Citation[edit]

On what account this article was marked for citation. See the external links. - Vaikunda Raja 21:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The link to kanyakumarionline is down. The second link to the page on the Nadars does not contain any mention of Ayya Vaikundar the third link seems to be the website of the organisation(?) Are these considered valid references? See WP:CITE - Parthi 22:52, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Let me explain. You say Mr. X is born in Y region on date D. How do we know that's true? (no offence, this is just an example). Wikipedia's basis is verifiability, which triumphs truth. Whatever you write may or may not be true, we simply have no idea about that unless you provide a reference from an established, independent source. Organisational websites or devotional websites that put forward claims do not count as valid established sources. The unsourced tag applies to the whole article. How do we know even a single part of it is correct? Or as a complete outsider, how do I verify it? That's why the source tag was inserted, and until you provide them, I'm putting the tag back. Thanks. --Ragib 02:19, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I have gone through and tried to copyedit this article in an attempt to prune the proletysing tone of this article. There is still much work to be done. The article is full of POV and there is not a shred of evidence to support any of its claims. - Parthi 23:45, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The day of birth of Muthu kutty is neither noted in history Nor in Ayyavazhi mythology. But the day of incarnation of Vaikundar was noted. Still there are several assumptions. In other matters I will cite. Wait for a day or two. - Vaikunda Raja 11:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POV[edit]

This article needs a thorough copyedit to remove POV statements. e.g.

Ayya Vaikundar, who arose from the sea at Thiruchendur on 20th of the Tamil Month of Masi
He, then, gathered the people around, and caused some of them, both male and female, to get 'possessed' of the evil spirits (peyattam).
People came to him to listen to his teachings and instructions, to be cured by him of different diseases,

Parthi 23:54, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a bio article - not a 'belief related article[edit]

As abio article in an encyclopedia, this article should contain statements such as 'bodily present', etc. - Parthi 19:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But the life history of Vaikundar known from external sources are too small. More over this is not the life history of Muthukutty or Mudisuudum Perumal. But of Vaikundar. Vaikundar is the name mentioned in Akilam. So if Biography is provided for Vaikundar it should be completely based on that source. If there are historical evidences related to that it may be sourced. But not against the main source.
Also as per Akilam the career of Vaikundar and muthukutty begins from different place and time. That is Vaikundar starts from Thiruchendur Sea and Muthukutty from the birth as a child. If needed seperate articles could be provided on Biography on Mudisoodum Perumal. - Vaikunda Raja.

What Muthukutty[edit]

I already told this is a beleif related article.

Although the Ayyavazhi mythology insists that its founder was an incarnation of the god Vishnu, it was in real life founded by a man named Muthukutty. Muthukutty, when he was 24 suddenly decided to proclaim his divinity. He utilised the superstitious nature of the downtrodden people of southern Tamil Nadu to establish the faith which came to be known as Ayyavazhi. Muthukutty also tried to help these people who had been oppressed by the government and the stratified Hindu society. He taught them to respect themselves and gave them a unique faith and a worship practice to define their own identity. He was harassed by the then government and spent some time in gaol. On returning he performed some 'miracles' with the help of the village shamans. With the increase in the followers who were desparate to find solutions to their sufferings, Muthukutty's popularity also increased. Some of his followers began to compile the set of rules for this new faith and these became the Arule Nool and Akilam.

I strongly object this. Are you personally attacking. How you can tell "He utilises the superstitious nature of the downtrodden people"?

Saying Religious belief as superstitious!!! Once I remember, some one added Article:Religion to the Category:Superstition, and how he was condemned by wikipedian users uniformly.

Then, Akilam didn't say that Vaikundar is Mudisoodum Perumal. Akilam itself says that they were two. It says that at his 24th age Sampooranathevan (known as Mudisoodum Perumal in history) was granted heaven and in that body Vaikundar incarnated. Even Sampooranathevan was a great reformer as per I've read. Akilam itself says it. Also some historical writers say that in (I think) Thol seelai poorattam (Upper cloth Agitation) Mudisoodum perumal participated. Also Akilam and some few external sources says about the divine powers of even Mudisoodum Perumal. That is he was called for a treat by the caste Hindus in Munthuvazh Malai (a hillock). There 5 types of poison were given by mixing up in milk to Mudisoodum Perumal. But miraculously Perumal remained affected. This poison was early tested with dogs. This show the divine power of Perumal himself. But still Vaikundar was not Perumal. Perumal at his 24 died. Vaikundar incarnated then in his body.

The right way is to start another Ayyavazhi related article about Muthukutty or Mudisoodum Perumal, and tell the historical and religious views on him. Also if you see historically do you know exactly when did Mudisoodum Perumal born? Even historians follow Akilam.

Then what does this means? "Some of his followers began to compile the set of rules for this new faith and these became the Arule Nool and Akilam.". Are you telling Akilam was composed by the followers? Only the history of Arul Nool unknown. There were no reference about the origin of Arul Nool. But Akilam?!!

Also these usages is not healthy, suddenly decided to proclaim his divinity- He utilised the superstitious nature of the downtrodden people- performed some 'miracles' with the help of the village shamans- followers began to compile the set of rules for this new faith.

I am removing the contents from this sub-heading. Again not removing unilaterally. - Vaikunda Raja

Palmyra[edit]

The article states that the subject in his early life made his living as a Palmyra climber. The name links to a ghost city in Syria. I will delete the link. What is meant by a "Palmyra climber" in India? J S Ayer (talk) 04:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure enough, someone has stuck it back, with a reference. Come on, what is it supposed to be? Palm climber? That would fit with "agricultural laborer." J S Ayer (talk) 00:15, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Palmyra is Borassus tree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.241.77.188 (talk) 11:40, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article doesn't correspond to Wikipedia's rules[edit]

One cannot understand from this article where is biography and where is religion. Rewrite.93.183.240.237 (talk) 17:32, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is not accidental; There are two 'Vaikundar'(s)  ; A religious figure (Vaikundar: based on Akilam, Arul Nool and beliefs) and another a historical man (Mudisoodum perumal: drawn upon historians and a few missionary reports). It is ideal to split the article into two. - Vaikunda Raja (talk) 07:50, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

it still needs to be fixed. The article is in absolutely horrible shape, and it is also duly tagged with ((cleanup)). So, ((fixit)). I mean, sheesh, Vaikundar isn't the only person who has been considered a deity, and we manage to write decent articles about all of the others, even Jesus. If we can have an encyclopedic article about Jesus (Christ), we can also have an encyclopedic article about Muthukutty (Ayya Vaikundar). --dab (𒁳) 10:58, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The whole article needs improvement, it looks absolutely messed up right now hence added the copy editing template to it. The tone of the article in not suitable for wiki, added ((tone)) template as well. I did tried to clean it up but gave up as the whole article needs to be re worked in order to make it suitable for Wiki. --India142 (talk) 10:37, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. This article should be split into two, one as a biography, and the other as the portrayal of Vaikundar in Ayyavazhi beliefs. --Joshua Issac (talk) 22:20, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

suggestions[edit]

No information about Ayya Vaikundar == social reforms == — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.105.101 (talk) 15:31, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article is complete nonsense. Ayya Vaikundar. Pathetic.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ayya Vaikundar. 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: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:20, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge of Historical Vaikundar into Ayya Vaikundar[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
To keep Ayya Vaikundar and Historical Vaikundar as separate mystical and historical perspectives; stale discussion with no consensus for a merge. Klbrain (talk) 11:24, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ayya Vaikundar needs to be written from a historical perspective, rather from a purely mythical perspective like done in Muhammad or Sai Baba of Shirdi. Redtigerxyz Talk 16:48, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is regarding the discussion for merging the article Historical Vaikundar to Ayya Vaikundar alone and not about anything else.
Ayya Vaikundar is a belief/mythology article based on Ayyavazhi beliefs, Ayyavazhi Mythology. The details here is elobrated upon in Akilathirattu Ammanai, the holy book of Ayyavazhi. Moreover there are hundreds of commentaries/thesis/lectures/books published in Tamil, Malayalam and English languages based on this; and few are mentioned in the reference section too. Ayya Vaikundar is a spiritual figure worshipped by million predominantly in Tamil Nadu and Kerala. And so the spiritual views over him (based on Sacred texts Akilathirattu Ammanai and Arul Nool) matters.
On the other hand Historical Vaikundar refers to the life and teachings of Ayya Vaikundar, being reconstructed purely from a historical perspective with reference to various historical sources in contrast to the mythological Akilamic views as mentioned explicitly in the intro of the article. The Historical views over Vaikundar equally matters because the social impact of the teachings of Vaikundar have had significant impact in South Indian Society generally; Specifically it impact over the Tamil and Keralite society is huge as briefed in the intro section again
" Ayya Vaikundar was the first to succeed as a social reformer in launching political struggle, social renaissance as well as religious reformation in the country. Vaikundar was the pioneer of the social revolutionaries of south India and Kerala. Research scholars regard Vaikundar as a teacher, healer and also a miracle worker. He was also said to be the forerunner of all social reformers of India. He was in the forefront of movements for Human Rights and Social Equality. His teachings also effected many social changes in southern India, resulting in the emergence of a series of social and self-respect movements such as Upper cloth agitation, Temple entry agitation and other movements including those of Narayana Guru, Chattampi Swamikal, Vallalar and Ayyankali."
Academics confuses the historical as well as the spiritual perspective over Vaikundar often. Because both the academic disciplines, the Social and the spiritual ones have mutually inconsistent opinions over several events, instances, happenings etc. Hence both articles are needed to reflect the different perspectives which often goes mutually contradictory otherwise. Thanks - Vaikunda Raja:talk: 08:28, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Vaikunda Raja: Please keep discussions in one section. I've merged your separate section into this one — DaxServer (t · m · c) 08:48, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Vaikunda Raja:, appreciate your work on this article and Historical article. Most neutral references use Ayya Vaikundar for the historical figure. Other religions have historical figures like Jesus, Muhammad, Sai baba of Shirdi which are described in neutral sources and religious sources. As per Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Religion, we cover the religious views saying that "Akhilam regards that .." or "Ayyavazhi believe this". The main Ayya Vaikundar needs to be neutral and include historical perspectives (similar to FA Jesus - see sections Jesus#Historical_views - historical and Jesus#Life_and_teachings_in_the_New_Testament - religious. An article purely from mythical view point can be created similar to Life of Jesus in the New Testament. Historical Vaikundar can be a sub-article if it can be expanded, but considering the length, we can have it in the main article IMO --Redtigerxyz Talk 08:54, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I shall reply in detail shortly, Thanks - Vaikunda Raja:talk: 09:02, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
“Most neutral references use Ayya Vaikundar for the historical figure.”
It would be helpful if you further elaborate on this…
“Other religions have historical figures like Jesus, Muhammad, Sai baba of Shirdi which are described in neutral sources and religious sources.”
That is similar in the Case of Vaikundar. There are several neutral sources which described Vaikundar. This includes publications from credible universities, newspaper reports, academic research works, thesis, opinions and reports in leading news papers etc. But the amount of details those neutral sources carry is minimal when compared to other secondary sources including commentaries on Akilathirattu and other religious books. Here too the neutral sources does not contradict the informations in religious books; But they often confuses between historical information with spiritual ones.
Muthirikkinaru, for example: Curing with water and soil (Patham and Mann) is mentioned in multiple external sources including critical ones as Christian Missionaries. Christian missionaries are wary about Vaikundar right from the beginning. They even went to the extent of calling Vaikundar as Satan. But they accredit the presence of Muthirikinaru. So validating from the external reference, though critical, it is quiet evident that curing exists from 1840s. That does not mean that they endorses the spirituality behind the practice.
“we cover the religious views saying that "Akhilam regards that .." or "Ayyavazhi believe this".'"
In this case Vaikundar and Jesus should be viewed in sharp contrast. In the case of Jesus there are several beliefs about him; that of Christianity, that of Judaism, that of Islam, all deviate from one another and in several instatnce mutually contradict and oppose. That is not the case About Vaikundar. The religious beliefs regarding Vaikundar came from Akilathirattu and Arul Nool. And there are no opposing religious views. Hence it is not necessary to use “Akhilam regards that .." or "Ayyavazhi believe this" every now an then in this mythology related article.
But it shall be used in articles of sacred places such as Srirangam, Thiruvananthapuram, Tiruchendur and Kanyakumari since Akilam speaks in volumes about the universal significance of those temples; most of the information not found any where else other than Akilathirattu.
“The main Ayya Vaikundar needs to be neutral and include historical perspectives”
May be; But already there is necessary information (including dates) for few instances and events. But can be elaborated if needed.
“Historical Vaikundar can be a sub-article if it can be expanded, but considering the length, we can have it in the main article IMO”
Both Historical Vaikundar and Ayya Vaikundar articles are in c -class level. Several crucial informations are missing in both; I admit that. I am working towards expanding both articles significantly, soon. Thanks, - Vaikunda Raja:talk: 11:24, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Some non-religious academic literature mentions Ayyavazhi or Ayya Vaikundar as the following:
  • Historical Dictionary of New Religious Movements - p. 48 "Founded in the 19th century by Ayya Vaikundar (ca. 1810—ca. 1857), who claimed to be an avatar of Narayan (Vishnu), the movement derives from the Hindu tradition, although some claim it to be a separate religion."
  • The Problem with Interreligious Dialogue: Plurality.. "This cult was founded by a man named Muthukutti, now called by his followers Ayya Vaikundar, who claimed to be an avatara of Vishnu and born in 1809 in Travancore in the oppressed Nadar caste."
  • FACETS OF CONTEMPORARY HISTORY pp. 261-2 "Its founder was a famous socio-religious reformer called Muthukutty or Mudisoodum Perumal, popularly known as Ayya Vaikunda Swami. Ayyavazhi is centered on the life and preaching of Ayya Vaikundar, his ideas and philosophy. ... Ayya Vaikunda Swami was a socio-religious and political reformer in Tranvore ... Ayya Vaikundar's followers reffered to him as Ayya, the father. After his death, there emerged a cult known as Ayyavazhi, the path of Ayya"
The lead of this article is currently non-neutral. "Ayya Vaikundar (c.1833 –c.1851) ... is the first and the foremost Purna avatar of Eka-Paran." This is purely an Ayyavazhi belief; academic references refer him as the founder of Ayyavazhi. Redtigerxyz Talk 15:35, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I mentioned earlier; The confusion in the academics is, upon which Vaikundar they are talking about; The Historical Vaikundar or the Mythical Vaikundar. If they are discussing the mythical Vaikundar then they have to interpret Akilathirattu or Arul Nool, since they are the source of the mythology on Vaikundar. But if they are discussing the Historical Vaikundar then they may have many things about Vaikundar independent of the religion and mythology; And all those things may find a place in the Historical Vaikundar article, but in an fair academic way and not with a serious bias.
Also, regarding the lead section it would be ideal to compare the pages Rama and Krishna. - Vaikunda Raja:talk: 10:09, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Vaikunda Raja, I think the underlying issue is that you hold this incorrect idea - other secondary sources including commentaries on Akilathirattu and other religious books. Akilathirattu is not a secondary source. Please consult WP:PRIMARY which says in a footnote that Further examples of primary sources include:...religious scripture; medieval and ancient works, even if they cite earlier known or lost writings. At a minimum, you need to say "Akilatirattu says so and so", "as held by Akilatirattu" and so on; but a lot of it simply cannot be used without proper secondary sourced discussing the same assertions. Hemantha (talk) 04:22, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hemantha, Yes Akilathirattu and Arul Nool are not secondary sources they are the primary sources. But the commentaries on Akilathirattu are secondary. - Vaikunda Raja:talk: 10:13, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Who has authored these commentaries and when were they written? Hemantha (talk) 11:44, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Many of those commentaries are mentioned in the reference section; There are more than 500 books published on Akilathirattu, Ayyavazhi, Ayya Vaikundar etc published in the last hundred years. Out of these some of them are full length commentaries (several of them in volumes) on Akilathirattu and Arul Nool. - Vaikunda Raja:talk: 07:36, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I can see those. My point is they all appear to be written by devotees and published by Ayyavazhi organizations - which makes them primary once again. Hemantha (talk) 19:11, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Secondary sources are not necessarily independent sources
  2. No; Not all of them are written by believers/devotees/related organisations. It includes university books & journals, leading newspapers, academic researchers and several of them are cited in the article. - Vaikunda Raja:talk: 09:52, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Modify or merge[edit]

This article is riddled with theological statements that are presented as though they are facts, plagiarising Hindu deities and concepts for its own ends. It needs to be modified to have the concepts plagiarised from Hinduism deleted or merged with the historical individual who founded this sect. Chronikhiles (talk) 11:16, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Krishna is being mentioned in several other texts including few upanishads other than mahabharatha and have slightly/significantly differing views about him. Does that mean that authors of those texts had plagiarized from which ever the first source?! - Vaikunda Raja:talk: 09:57, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you understand what the difference between plagiarism and adaptation is, which explains a lot of your activity. The differing views of Krishna in various texts do not matter as they all fall under the ambit of Hinduism, which has evolved over millennia. Your sect claims to be a whole different faith, all the while ripping off established doctrines, terms, and deities that everyone acknowledges as originating in texts that are classified under Hinduism. Ayyavazhi is, it seems to me, just a sect of Vaishnavism. You claim that your founder was an incarnation of Narayana, which you are allowed to, but you have added links to the Hindu deity, rather than a "unique" Ayyavazhi deity. Remove the links and create new articles for Perumal, Lakshmi, Narayana, and other Hindu deities your dogma is based on, just like Buddhism and Jainism have done. Or you can just acknowledge the official position of your sect, which is that you're Hindus, and I will have no quarrel with you. Om Namo Narayanaya. Chronikhiles (talk) 10:22, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You told that "You claim that your founder was an incarnation of Narayana..." I did not claim anything and is not authorized to do so. The line in which the article is been written is that of Akilathirattu Ammanai the holy text.
Kamba Ramayana has several minor as well as few major differing views over characters, events personalities etc from that of Valmiki Ramayana. So Kambar plagiarized from Valmiki...?! If not so where does the boundary between plagiarism and adaptation lies? ... In the context of the differing views between Akilathirattu and other hindu texts? - Vaikunda Raja:talk: 08:30, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Redtigerxyz This merge proposal is still on waiting list. I can't decide what should we do. Shall we remove the merge tag or merge the article? Kautilyapundit (talk) 10:45, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Kautilyapundit, suggest we make this article on the historical individual and the mythology be created as a sub-article.--Redtigerxyz Talk 15:50, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good Idea, let me clear the merge tag. Kautilyapundit (talk) 06:36, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article Ayya Vaikundar is a Mythology article. An article on Vaikundar, a spiritual character/personality who's beginning extends beyond yugas as per mythology; (and in the Kaliyuga from the year 1833-1851). But the Historical Vaikundar article is about a real Historical figure whose period is 1809-1851.

I am tired that I was explaining this again and again and again several times, which other users are well aware of. Inspite, the article is been reverted every now and then, irresponsibly. Some days back somebody has even initiated and concluded a proposal here without any prior information, and have now decided to proceed, unilaterally!

Somebody had even went to the extent of proposing deletion of the Historical Vaikundar. And I had spent hours explain things in detail and now somebody else had come up with a similar proposal afresh!

Serious POV push, in the disguise of NPOV repeatedly is never acceptable. - Vaikunda Raja:talk: 06:09, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, it is understandable that the article need a major clean-up and re-write. Its remaining almost as it was written almost a decade back; It is a lengthy, time consuming process and we are working upon that. - Vaikunda Raja:talk: 09:34, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what to say. But still as an uninvolved editor to the article, I'm gonna be neutral. Thanks for the long reply. Kautilyapundit (talk) 06:47, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Vaikundar[edit]

Namaste @Redtigerxyz [[1]]

We would like to thank you for your efforts to make an article about Vaikundar. Appreciated. At the same time, please do not add the fake and unsourced contents about Ayya vaikundar. This article were written based on historical perspective as per Akilathirattu Ammanai. As you aware to understand Rama Avatara, Ramayana was provided to the world. For Krishna Avatara, Mahabharatha was written. To know about Vaikunta Avatara, Akilathirattu was provided to mankind. You cannot write life story of Rama, or Krishna or vaikundar based on unsourced content. It should be written based on the scriptures. Please note that your activities are hurting us. As you aware Vaikundar (Sriman Vaikunda Swami) is an Tenth avatar of Lord Narayana as per Holy Akilathirattu and Arulnool, but you have reported saying he is Mr.Muthukutty alias Sampoorna Devan become lord Vaikundar. Which is against the fact and you are purposefully defaming lord vaikundar. It is not acceptable. You are hurting us and defaming our GOD. Please note that Cyber defamation complaints with ref Acknowledgement Number : 21602200009493, and 21605200023615 was already raised, based on which unsourced contents were removed. This is for your kind reference and perusal.

"Lord Narayana himself incarnated as Vaikundar" - Akilathirattu

We would also like to cite the following court case and the judgment given by the court for your study.

Court Judgement on #Swamitoppu Pathi :

First addl. Subordinate Court, Nagercoil. O.S. No: 89/2005, 90/2005.

Ananthakutti and others Vs. The commissioner, H.R. & C.E. Admn. Department and others

According to this judgement, Swamithoppu Pathi is a common place of worship, that is, a public temple of the deity Sreeman Narayanaswamy, and the main door to principle deity's sannidhi contains information of evidentiary nature pertaining to the ten incarnations of Maha Vishnu, and the outer podium or prahaaram has additional sannidhis or halls of worship for Shiva, Amman, and this place in Swamithoppu represents the reincarnation of Maha Vishnu as Vaikuntar.

On behalf of the people of Ayyavazhi, and on behalf of our organization, we humbly request that please do not publish false news that defames Vaikundar, the deity we worship, and the temple we consider sacred, and our faith. Truth alone Triumphs. Thanks! - Srianu — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srianu1 (talk • contribs) 18:03, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Srianu1 - Please understand Wikipedia's rules on conflicts of interest. It appears you are editing on behalf of an organization; don't forget that sharing an ID is not allowed. Please now stop any edit warring and do not remove referenced content. Also, understand that threats of legal action will get you blocked immediately. Deb (talk) 07:53, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Srianu1, to explain this another way, the article on Rama is not solely based on Ramayana. It refers to and discusses of a lot other sources as well. Similarly the Wikipedia article on Ayyavazhi also cannot be based on a single source, Akilathirattu. Also note that the way you have rules in Ayyavazhi about various things (how to refer, what kind of language etc), Wikipedia also has rules which you need to understand and respect. Hemantha (talk) 10:06, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Hemantha, Please re-instate the article back to neutral content as per Akilathirattu ammanai. Please kindly note that, you are purposefully defaming lord vaikundar the deity we worship, and the temple we consider sacred, and our faith. You are doing cyber defamation saying Mr.Muthukutty alias Sampoorna Devan become lord Vaikundar. Which is against the fact. Akilathirattu says "Lord Narayana himself incarnated as Vaikundar". Please read akilathirattu ammanai then write the content about vaikundar. Kindly note that, in this regard legal complaint already pending with city police station.
"As per your grievance with Ack. No 21605200023615 reported on cyber crime portal has been transferred to district BANGALORE CITY. regards National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal"
Kindly request you to please do not publish false news that defames Vaikundar. Thanks. Srianu1 (talk) 16:52, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Srianu1 has been indef'ed for making legal threats, and now a new user Slkanyakumari1980wiki (talk · contribs) has been created and is making substantially the same edits to this article (and to Historical Vaikundar) asSrianu1 made. Meters (talk) 06:54, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Team,
This refers to the two articles published in the following links of Wikipedia under caption Ayya Vaikundar/Historical Vaikundar
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayya_Vaikundar
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Vaikundar.
The two divergent articles referred to above, according to me has inherent contradictions in both, and does not reflect the true divine nature and acts of Lord Vaikundar, who was reportedly the incarnate of Lord Narayana if one go by the text Akilathirattu Ammanai, which is akin to Veda Agama to the followers of Lord Vaikundar as the contents in them are reportedly dictated by the Lord himself to his disciple Hari Gopalan.
The observation that ‘few events referred to in the mythology have yet to be validated historically’, events mentioned in the historical Vaikundar, mention that ‘Research scholars regard Vaikundar as a teacher, healer and also a miracle worker’ cast doubt whether Lord Vaikundar was indeed divine incarnate or a human being like a preacher? Ayya Vaikundar was certainly not a healer or miracle worker like preachers, but divine incarnate and cured the suffering by his divine power like Perfect Masters of yester years.
Expressed view that ‘The mission of the Destruction of Kali involves a joint role of Lord Narayana and Ayya Vaikundar’ leaves a feeling that Lord Ayya Vaikundar and Lord Narayana were two different personalities whereas Lord Vaikundar was incarnate of Lord Narayana himself.  The divine nature of Lord Vaikundar got revealed when the cruelty and tortures inflicted by the King of Travancore had in no way affected divine Lord Vaikundar who was in human form, instances of which find no mention anywhere in these articles.  Mention as Akilam and Akilathirattu confuse one to believe that they were two different texts. Therefore in my opinion the documents should be redrafted to tell the life of Ayya Vaikundar based on the text Akilathirattu Ammanai alone, which is the primary source for all.
If what I have read, understood and found in several sources was that Lord Vaikundar was undoubtedly Lord Narayana’s incarnation, manifested on earth in human form to end the misery and sufferings of eighteen classes of oppressed and suppressed in the deep southern states especially in Kerala where he commenced the reforms, series of social and self-respect movements etc were commenced subsequently toed by other eminent contemporary personalities like Narayana Guru, Chattampi Swamikal, Vallalar and Ayyankali.
Therefore it would be appropriate if the life glory of Vaikundar is outlined strictly based on Akilathirattu Ammanai and Arul Nool without any deviation and historical events involving his presence his acts in human form can be classified year wise beginning from his manifestation, followed by different phases of penance, complaints of missionaries to the British Govt, acts of King of Travancore, imprisoned in jail and his release, marriages (Thirukalyanam), Muthiri Kinaru, establishments of Nizhal Thangals and Thuvayal Thavasu etc on various occasions. They could come as historical time line or historical events involving Lord Vaikundar, mentioning the supporting documents wherever they are available including external documents available if any. Thanks - Santhipriya
Also read,
http://www.vaikundar.com/history-of-ayya-vaikundar.aspx
https://www.ayyadharmapathi.com/history/ Illayaram sekar (talk) 08:01, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We are working on this. - Vaikunda Raja:talk: 09:16, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Protection[edit]

The article has been protected to deter sockpuppet activity. Deb (talk) 09:50, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vaikunda Avatar[edit]

Background : In 1809, a baby born (lit. "Vishnu with a crown") to Ponnu Madan and Veyilal Amma at Poovandanthope in the Kanyakumari District (part of Travancore then). The baby boy was named Mudisoodum Perumal.

In Background section whatever information is mentioned is irrelevant because this information belongs to Sampoorna Devan or Muthukutty. As per Holy Akilathirattu Lord Narayana Swamy himself Incarnated as Lord Vaikunda Swamy on 1833 BC Tamil Month 20th Maasi.

KrishnakumarSiva (talk) 15:31, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Historical Vaikundar which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 06:19, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Life glory of Lord Ayya Vaikundar is outlined strictly based on Holy Akilathirattu Ammanai which is the primary text for all and Arul Nool without any deviation and historical events involving his presence his acts in human form can be classified year wise beginning from his manifestation, followed by different phases of penance, complaints of missionaries to the British Govt, acts of King of Travancore, imprisoned in jail and his release, marriages (Thirukalyanam), Muthiri Kinaru, establishments of Nizhal Thangals and Thuvayal Thavasu etc on various occasions. They could come as historical time line or historical events involving Lord Ayya Vaikundar, mentioning the supporting documents wherever they are available including external documents available if any.  Also, i would like to merge this historical vaikundar page with Ayya vaikundar page to avoid duplication of contents. Holy Akilathriattu Ammanai says LORD NARAYANA HIMSELF INCARNATED AS LORD VAIKUNDAR. Thanks
Also read,
http://www.vaikundar.com/history-of-ayya-vaikundar.aspx
https://www.ayyadharmapathi.com/history/https://ayyavaikundar.in/%E0%AE%B5%E0%AF%88%E0%AE%95%E0%AF%81%E0%AE%A3%E0%AF%8D%E0%AE%9F%E0%AE%85%E0%AE%B5%E0%AE%A4%E0%AE%BE%E0%AE%B0-%E0%AE%B5%E0%AE%B0%E0%AE%B2%E0%AE%BE%E0%AE%B1%E0%AF%81/
KrishnakumarSiva (talk) 15:43, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Categories