Jump to content

Talk:Amoghavarsha

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

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Amoghavarsha. 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) 04:14, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation page needed

[edit]

There seems to be a need for a disambiguation page - as the name Amoghavarsha can lead to Khottiga Amoghavarsha, Amoghavarsha, Amoghavarsha II, Amoghavarsha III and Amoghavarsha JS

Can anyone help create?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.207.63.232 (talk) 12:06, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done, see Amoghavarsha (disambiguation). Thanks for identifying the need for this page! – Uanfala 21:34, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Amoghavarsha. 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) 18:35, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Correction : religious Identity of Amoghavarsha

[edit]

Hi User:Pied Hornbill, I noticed you reverted the recent edit regarding Amoghavarsha’s Jain affiliation. The article currently carries a misleading claim that his Jain association was a "later development," which I attempted to correct.

Historical sources clearly suggest that Amoghavarsha was born into a Jain tradition and continued his family's legacy of Jain patronage. Several respected scholars support this view, including: P.B. Desai, British historians like E.P. Rice, J. Duncan M. Derrett and A.S. Altekar in his (Rashtrakutas and Their Times)

Moreover, his contemporary Mahāvīracharya, in the Gaṇita-sāra-saṅgraha, refers to Amoghavarsha as a Jain king in the Maṅgalācharaṇa verses. Specifically, verse 8 praises his devotion to Syādvāda, a key Jain philosophical doctrine. You can view the 1912 edition here: 🔗 https://archive.org/details/GanitasarasangrahaMahavira1912

I also noticed that the Rashtrakuta Empire page may carry the same misleading claim about “later Jain affiliation,” and I’d be happy to help correct that as well. Thanks!

References:

Desai, P.B. Jainism in South India and Some Jaina Epigraphs. Sholapur: Jaina Samskriti Samrakshaka Sangha, 1957.

Rice, E.P. A History of Kanarese Literature. Calcutta: Association Press, 1921.

Derrett, J. Duncan M. Religion, Law and the State in India. London: Faber and Faber, 1968.

Altekar, A.S. Rashtrakutas and Their Times. Poona: Oriental Book Agency, 1934. Shraman revival (talk) 07:08, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you opened this discussion section. Give me a couple of days to collect my sources and we can discuss how to put together this section in the concerned page. Usually when you go for mediation, you are expected to provide visual evidence of the content like a snipped, but we don't have to go that far. You can type out a few lines here per author along with the name of the source and then we can come up with a balanced section taking my sources and that of user Holenarasipura and create a consolidated paragraph for Amoghavarsha and all other kings. I need a few days to get together my own sources.Pied Hornbill (talk) 23:38, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for starting the discussion — much appreciated!
P.B. Desai and A.S. Altekar both explicitly note that Amoghavarsha was a devout Jain ruler.
J. Padmanabha, Epigraphia Carnatica (Rice), Ram Bhushan Prasad Singh, Jyotiprasad in(Jainism: The Oldest Living Religion in India), and A.S. Altekar mention that Amoghavarsha was born into a Jain tradition and continued his family legacy of Jain patronage. His Jain identity was not a late-life conversion but a core part of his upbringing and royal policy.
J.D.M. Derrett states that although Amoghavarsha was a devout Jain, he also supported Hindu temples and ensured peaceful trade for Muslim merchants, showing his pluralistic governance. Derrett also refers more broadly to the Rashtrakutas as a Jain dynasty.
The Jain mathematician Mahāvīrācārya, a contemporary of Amoghavarsha, opens his Gaṇita-sāra-saṅgraha with a mangalacharana (invocatory verses) praising Amoghavarsha as a devout follower of Jinendra (the Jina) and as a king whose land was blessed with prosperity and happiness. He specifically highlights the king’s adherence to Syādvāda, a core Jain philosophical doctrine. Shraman revival (talk) 07:28, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please take your time gathering your references,
In the meantime, since it may take a few days, I was thinking of temporarily adding the well-sourced content I’ve already compiled (with inline references) just to prevent the spread of misinformation. Of course, I’ll be open to refining or rewriting it based on your sources once you're ready — we can definitely work together to create a consolidated version. Shraman revival (talk) 07:31, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please be aware that this is an encyclopedia and here the goal is not to do a Phd research on which king had how many Jain preceptors and poets, built how Hindu temples etc. Here only summary information from a birds eye view is given and if the reader wants details, he/she needs to buy books and read them in particular. I expect you to write down what you see in your sources the way I have done below. I don't want your interpretation of it, just the way it is printed in your source.
  • Sources with a few lines per source:
  • Aishik Dutta,"A History of India" 2025, "The Rashtrakutas were known for their religious tolerance, patronizing Hinduism, Jainism and Buddhism". Their most remarkable achievements are in the rock cut architecture, with the Kailasa temple at Ellora and the Elephanta caves being the prime examples...."
  • Sailendra Nath Sen, "ancient Indian history and civilization, 1999, "In the Rashtrakuta period, with the exception of Hinduism, Jainism had no serious rival and was basking in the sunshine of popular and royal favor. Many kings like Amoghavarsha I, Krishna II, Indra III and Indra IV were staunch patrons of Jain religion".
  • Divyam Agrawal, "India Unveiled: Chronicles from Dawn to Independence", 2025 "The Rashtrakutas had a profound impact on religion particularly in their support of Jainism and Hinduism. They were known for their religious tolerance and many of their rulers practiced Jainism though they also supported Hindu temples and rituals"
  • Abraham Vaeltine William Jackson, "History of India: From the sixth century B.C. " 1906, Writing about Amoghavarsha he says "the Digambara sect of Jainsim was liberally patronized by this prince...". Does not mention anything about other kings.
  • Radhey shyam Churasia, "History of Ancient India: Earliest Times to 1000 A.D", 2002, on Amoghavarsha I he writes "He adopted the Jain religion and patronised the Digambara sect of Jains..."They erected numerous beautiful temples over the country. The Kailash temple at Ellora is one of the wonders of the world"
  • Suryanath Kamath, (2001), "History of Karnataka", "The Vedic religion continued to be the religion of the Rashtrakutas, as alomst all their inscriptions began with the invocation to Vishnu or Shiva. They were Vaishnavas as suggested by their royal emblem Garuda and a good majority of their records begin only with the invocation of Vishnu. Even Amoghavarsha I, who has been described as a Jaina by some scholars, was clearly a Vaishnava in his leanings as his own Sanjan record begins with a prayer of Veeranarayana and he himself assumed the title Veeranarayana. The record itself is a document testifying his devotion to Mahalakshmi. The famous Shiva temple at Ellora and the many rock cut shrines of Vedic religion, testify to the flourishing condition of Vedic religion..."
  • Chopra, Ravindran, Subramaniyan, 2003, "History of South India", while writing about Amoghavarsha, "He patronized Jainism particularly the digambara sect, so much that he is mistaken to be a Jain himself. He never gave up the worship of Hindu gods and goddesses..."
  • Pandit Bisheshwar Nath Reu, , 1997, "The history of the Rashtrakutas (Rathodas)", "In the copper grant of Dantidurga II (c.753) there is an impression of the image of Shiva" In the coins of Krishnaraja I, his title is mentioned a Parama Maheshvara, and in his inscription of c.768 there is an impression of Shiva Linga. But of the copper plate grants of later dates some bear impressions of an image of Garuda while others that of Shiva"..."From the above it appears that kings of this dynasty from time to time used to observe the Shaiv, the Vaishnava or the Shakta religions".

I will find more resources but when you look at this content I have posted it becomes clear that there was lot of fluidity in what each king practiced privately and publicly. It would be hard to sell any Rashtrakuta king other than Amoghavarsha I as a king with a "deep interest" in Jainsim. Most other kings were favoring what ever was best for the situation otherwise Krishna I would not have commissioned the Kailasa temple at Ellora, Amoghavarsha the Jain Narayana temple at Pattadakal etc.Pied Hornbill (talk) 22:55, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See, this is the article page of Amoghavarsha, not the Rashtrakuta kings page. You are a respected editor, and I’m sure you already know this. I am here to discuss only about Amoghavarsha and his religious affiliation. There is no need to bring in the discussion about all kings of the dynasty — it would be better if that is taken up on the relevant kings’ pages.
I’ve already presented this reliable points and references before too:
  • P.B. Desai notes that Amoghavarsha continued the legacy of Jain patronage inherited from his father Govinda III and earlier ancestors.
  • A.S. Altekar (Rashtrakutas and Their Times) Amoghavarsha was a devout Jain, stating that his affiliation with Jainism was not adopted later in life, but rather a continuation of family tradition.
  • Rice (Epigraphia Carnatica) directly refers to Amoghavarsha as a Jain king.
  • Ram Bhushan Prasad Singh writes that Amoghavarsha's court was filled with Jain monks and poets, and archaeological remains at Malkhed (Manyakheta) indicating Rashtrakutas were Jains, concentration of Jain temples during his reign. He also observes that there is little to no Vedic religious evidence from Rashtrakuta territory. During their rule, He refers more broadly to the Rashtrakutas as a Jain-leaning dynasty.
  • Jyotiprasad Jain(Jainism: The Oldest Living Religion in India) lists Amoghavarsha alongside Dantidurga, Krishna I, Dhruva Dharavarsha, and Govinda III their Successor follower of Jainism.
  • J. Padmanabha also describes Amoghavarsha explicitly as a Jain king.
  • J.D.M. Derrett states that although Amoghavarsha was a devout Jain, he also supported Hindu temples and ensured peaceful trade for Muslim merchants, showing his pluralistic governance. Derrett also refers more broadly to the Rashtrakutas as a Jain dynasty.
  • The mathematician Mahāvīrācārya, a contemporary of Amoghavarsha, praises the king as a devout follower of Jinendra in the Gaṇita-sāra-saṅgraha, highlighting his commitment to the Jain doctrine of Syādvāda and his role in ensuring prosperity in the land.
these are direct statements from multiple published and independent scholars. and I’m citing their work faithfully, I do hope this core information about Amoghavarsha's Jain identity can be retained, as it’s well-supported by reliable sources. And we need to fix it as soon as possible so that the article reflects accurate and sourced information. Shraman revival (talk) 12:47, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I just want to respectfully interfere in your conversation with a few clarifications — not trying to argue, just to correct some points.
  • (Aishika Dutta) The Rashtrakutas were known for patronizing multiple religions, and Jainism especially flourished in their court. They built Jain cave temples, and the Jain Kailasa temple at Ellora was constructed during this era.
  • (Radhey Shyam Chaurasia) The Kailasa temple was built under Krishna I, not Amoghavarsha.
  • (Suryanath Kamath) Most Rashtrakuta inscriptions begin with a formulaic Sanskrit invocation, like Swasti Sri or Om Namo, not Vishnu or Shiva, and usually every inscription starts by specifying the temple or religious institution to which the grant or donation is being made, rather than invoking a single deity.
  • the Sanjana copper plate is not related to Amoghavarsha, though it includes titles like Prithvivallabha, Shrivallabha, Atishayadhavala, Prabhutavarsha. not Parameshwara
  • "Veera Narayana" These are Sanskrit honorifics, not exclusive to Vaishnavas. The term Narayana means “supreme soul” and appears in Jain texts as well — sometimes even referring to Jain kings or revered donors in Karnataka and central India.
  • You might have heard of a Jain temple called Veeranarayana Basadi, built under the Rashtrakutas.
  • (Pandit Bisheshwar Nath) – In Dantidurga's copper grant, titles like Prithvivallabha and Khadgolka appear — but there are no divine images or impressions of any gods on these plates.
Similarly, Krishna I carried titles like Akalavarsha, Shubhatunga, Prithvivallabha, and Shrivallabha.
You can verify this in Epigraphia Carnatica.
Also, there is no contemporary source that refers to the Rashtrakutas as explicitly Hindu. Sadashiva Altekar clearly states that the Rashtrakutas were Jains.
Some of them kings even became Jain monks or undertook Sallekhana. Also he states that Many have confused their religion as Hindu, and Altekar also describes their successors or family descendants, like the Shilaharas and Rattas, were also follower of Jainism.
Similarly, the Vijayanagara Empire also built a Jain temple — but that doesn't make them Jains. They were staunch Vaishnavites, a well-known fact. So it wouldn’t be justified if I include Jainism in their religion section simply because they built Jain temples, right?
Thank you. Adipatil0909 (talk) 17:16, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sir, I brought up general information about all kings because you (and user Shraman revival) were hitting all the sub-articles on kings, some of which I reverted and some were reverted by user Holenarasipura. Also you cannot overrule the opinions of historians with your own opinions or with that of other historians of your choice. BTW, Aishika Dutta comment of "Jain Kailash temple" must be referring to the 5 lesser known Jain caves temple. The world knows the center piece of their architectural achievements was the Kailash temple which was built for the god Shiva. Also important are the Elephanta cave temples and the Kasivishvanatha temple at Pattadakal. Their most spectacular constructions were very much Hindu in faith, while the world agrees the wealth of Kannada and Sanskrit literature (both religious and secular) were the achievements of their Jain poets and writers, and that many kings had Jain preceptors. That being said, there is no overwhelming consensus that Amoghavarsha was born a Jain, nor that other kings of the dynasty were either born as Jainas or supported only Jainism. No one can really precisely state what religion a king followed in his personal quarters when maintaining a secular kingdom would have been paramount. So this is what I suggest to you.
  • In the subarticle on each king (excepting Amoghavarsha) we can come up with a general paragraph about how they were secular and followed both Jainism and Hinduism (supporting Jain and Hindu monasteries, patronage to Jain poets, construction of Hindu temples etc), and add a line saying "although some kings may have been more inclined toward Jainism" with or without mentioning names. This keeps it non-controversial and balanced.
  • For Amgohavarsha, we can say that "while there is no consensus among historians about his birth religion, this peace minded king showed a keen interest in developing the Digambara sect of Jainism, although the king maintained his secular credentials by supporting Hindu monasteries and temples as well.

This reminds me of the conflict between Kannada and Telugu groups about the native language of Krishnadevaraya. His "Amuktamaalayada" makes him appear to be a Telugu, but his lineage is Tulu (father was Tuluva Narasa Nayaka) and his personal diaries "Krishnadevarayana Dinaachari" is in Kannada, he held mostly Kannada titles and he is buried around the same place in Hampi where he was born, and there are several "Nagalapura" in Karnataka and A.P, Nagaladevi being his mothers name.

Users easily forget that an encyclopedia is a very summary, birds eye view article not to dwell too much on any detail. If anyone wants to discuss and decide the actual meaning of "Veeranarayana"they should publish their own book and be happy with it.Pied Hornbill (talk) 22:54, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please stay on topic — this Talk page is for improving the "Amoghavarsha" article only.
I’d like to remind you both that this is not a general discussion page. Per Wikipedia policy, Talk pages are meant only to discuss improvements to the specific article — in this case, Amoghavarsha. Please avoid unrelated or off-topic commentary.
Regarding the content of the article:
This article already presents a neutral point of view.
Amoghavarsha I is clearly identified in contemporary texts as a Jain king, so there is no need to add later sources that suggest otherwise.
Adding later sources or personal interpretations to claim a different religious affiliation — especially when contemporary records are clear — goes against Wikipedia’s policies on Verifiability and Point of View.
Amoghavarsha I is not credited with building any Hindu temples, including the Kailasa temple — which is widely attributed to Krishna I. If any Rashtrakuta king is known to have built a Hindu temple or donated to a Hindu monk, only then should Hinduism be added to their article or infobox — and that too with proper, reliable sources. If contemporary sources are available, there is no need to rely on later sources. Only when a king’s donation to a Hindu temple or Jain monk is clearly supported by their own inscriptions should secondary sources be used to supplement that information.
That said, I have included Hinduism in the infobox of Amoghavarsha because some secondary sources mention a donation to the Mahalakshmi temple in Kolhapur. However, other historians argue that this temple was originally Jain temple at the time of Amoghavarsha. I have presented both views neutrally.
Please do not push any religious point of view — whether Hindu or Jain — into unrelated articles. A king’s religious affiliation should only be added if it is clearly supported by contemporary inscriptional records. You cannot create or misuse sources just to forcefully insert your own religion into the article.
If you would like to raise issues about other kings or topics, please do so on their respective Talk pages — not here. Shraman revival (talk) 05:29, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
and just to clarify — I’ve already added Amoghavarsha’s Hindu affiliation in the article, based on secondary sources that mention a possible donation to the Mahalakshmi temple at Kolhapur.
We’ve already had a detailed discussion on this Talk page, and the current version represents a balanced and neutral compromise. So please do not change anything further regarding this. Shraman revival (talk) 05:30, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks you for your response User:Pied Hornbill
1. You said some Jain caves are "not important" — but for historians, every temple and monument matters. Have you ever visited Malkhed, the capital of the Rashtrakutas? There are hundreds of ruined Jain basadis scattered across the area, all of historical and archaeological value. The Rashtrakutas didn’t just build the Kailasa temple — they built Kailash temple - Jain cave temple - Buddhist caves at a time.
2. At Pattadakal, out of the nine temples, several show signs of religious transformation. Archaeologists have noted discrepancies between the internal statues and outer architecture, often dated with a 200-300 year gap based on carbon dating and iconographic style. This has led some to believe that original Jain idols were replaced during the Bhakti era. Similar arguments have been made about Ellora’s Kailasa temple. Articles and research papers have documented such transitions (I can share the titles if needed). These examples show that religious attribution isn't always static and requires deeper, multi-perspective research — not assumptions.
3. You mentioned “no consensus” among historians about Amoghavarsha's religion, but many contemporary sources clearly identify him as a Jain. His court poet Jinasena refers to him in Jain texts, and his own inscriptions reflect Jain values of non-violence and renunciation. His ancestors too were Jain followers. While Rashtrakutas respected multiple faiths, Jainism had a deep influence, especially on Amoghavarsha. You are welcome to review the available Jain prashastis and court literature if in doubt.
4. Yes, I am ready to write a balanced statement except for Amoghavarsha, See, if any kings like Krishna I donated to Jain monk Aryanandi, you cannot ignore that now just to maintain "balance." I am also ready to add if any Hindu temples were built by Rashtrakuta kings — and I have done that too. But their Jain patronage is widely known; the Rashtrakutas were followers of Jainism. Even some kings became Jain monks — for example, (Indra IV) Why would he become a Jain monk if they were Hindu? I don’t think there is any better example to prove they were Jains. Even their family descendants like the Rattas and Shilaharas are widely known as followers of Jainism. and first of all at the time of Rashtrakutas there no religion called hinduism, people usually call Shamanic and Vedic religion, and both are sanatanis,
5. It’s true that Telugu flourished in Krishna Devaraya’s court. his family was Telagu-speaking — inscriptions from his reign are in Kannada. Inscriptions were written in the local language of the region. and every Inscriptions were usually written in the local language spoken by the people of that region, and kings often chose the language accordingly.
I’m open to discussing any king’s record in detail — based on inscriptions, copper plates, and contemporary literature. Let’s stick to sources and maintain neutrality — but not at the cost of erasing historical facts.
------
User:Shraman revival, I respect your guidelines — we will not further discuss all Rashtrakuta kings here. I just wanted to clarify a few points. Going forward, I will discuss these topics on their respective individual pages, and I am also ready to engage with User:Pied Hornbill on each king's page.
As you suggested, I am following exactly that approach. If a king has clear and verifiable evidence of patronizing Jainism or Hinduism — for example, if Indra III is proven to have constructed a Jain temple or donated to a Jain monk — then Jainism should rightly be mentioned. If Indra III has no reliable source connecting him to Hinduism, then there is no need to include Hinduism just for the sake of balance. another example, Krishna I built the Kailasa temple (Hindu), but he also made donations to Jain monks, as recorded in the Nerur copper plates. In such cases, both Jainism and Hinduism should be mentioned.
Similarly, if a king built a Hindu temple and has no connection to Jainism, then we can include Hinduism. But if a king has ties to both traditions — or if the sources clearly reflect both — then we should include both Jainism and Hinduism without compromise.
If a particular king’s religious affiliation is not backed by any reliable source, then we should leave that part empty.
Let’s respectfully continue any further discussion on the respective talk pages of each king.
Thank you! Adipatil0909 (talk) 17:06, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have gone ahead and reverted all edits by the petulant User:Shraman revival who, despite being on this discussion, has gone ahead and added information without consensus. The user needs to realize that no data in wiki is guaranteed to remain stable long term unless it comes with consensus. The user also needs to learn how to write with a good flow and ad info to a encyclopedia without making it sound like a debate, a personal religious mission etc. It does not matter where the discussion takes place, so long as its intention is well understood.Holenarasipura (talk) 01:29, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest we go one article (king) at a time before addressing any issues on the main article on Rashtrakuta Empire. Once again, no personal opinions will be accepted, all debate oriented lines or personal theories trying to "lead" the reader will be removed.Pied Hornbill (talk) 02:53, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please keep discussions focused on Amoghavarsha I
You are discussing everything except Amoghavarsha I.
Kindly note that this talk page is specifically intended for improving the Amoghavarsha I article. However, many recent comments are focused on other kings. As per Wikipedia guidelines, such discussions should take place on the respective article talk pages.
Regarding Amoghavarsha himself, the relevant points have already been addressed. While some editors are claiming this well-known Jain king to be Hindu, there is no clear evidence of that in contemporary records. In fact, contemporary sources identify him as a Jain ruler.
Still, I have added references to Hinduism as well and maintained a balanced presentation in the article with appropriate citations.
Thank you. Shraman revival (talk) 05:59, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
== Let’s conclude discussion here ==
We’ve already discussed Amoghavarsha’s points at length. For other kings, please continue the discussion on their respective article talk pages, as per Wikipedia’s content policies and WP:DISCUSS. Let’s conclude this particular thread here to keep the conversation focused and efficient
and I’ve consistently maintained neutrality in articles. Amoghavarsha is widely recognized as a Jain king in contemporary records, and my edits reflect that. Please leave him as a Jain — and avoid generalizing every ruler as a Hindu king without proper evidence.
Claiming Amoghavarsha as a Hindu is no different from me claiming, without sources, that Sri Krishnadevaraya was a Jain — and we both know that would be unfair.leave Amoghavarsha as he is, and avoid making unsupported claims.
Endless reverts back and forth don’t help either of us — it just wastes our time without resolution. Please think!
thank you Shraman revival (talk) 07:05, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you understand that no discussion is possible while you continue to take a stubborn approach and keep making side edits before discussions begin.Pied Hornbill (talk) 20:30, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In fact you are claiming a discussion on Amoghavarsha is over even before it began. We were supposed to put the material here first and then come up with a compact paragraph that takes all reliable sources into account. You seem to be handling this issue with a "siege" mentality and you are asking me to stay away from an article as though it belongs to you and it is off limits to others. I suggest you read up on wiki policy first.Pied Hornbill (talk) 20:35, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Amoghvarsha was a Jain King and a devotee of Jain Tirthankars. He has nothing to do with Hinduism and the Vedas. 2603:8000:2F0:8100:F1B8:AA32:AC3B:A811 (talk) 17:47, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Compromise proposal

[edit]

I dont mean to be rude but because of the poor quality of edits made by Shraman revival and lack of language flow, it has not been easy to glean info. I have tried to compile information as best as I could based on his edits as well as my earlier posting from various sources and made a compact and sensible paragraph about the kings religious affiliation here.

Historians are divided in their opinion about the actual birth religion of Amoghavarsha, whether he was born a Jain or if he became influenced by Jainism later on in his life. However it is a popularly accepted view that the king was a great patron of the Digambara sect of Jainism during at least the later part of his life though he continued to support Hindu monasteries, a secular tradition maintained by all Rashtrakuta kings. Historians such as J.D.M Durrett, A.S. Altekar and P.B Desai believe he was a Jaina from birth(give all citations). The historians Jain(1987), Jaina(1951) and Rice (1921) believe his Jain affiliation was not a later development, as historical evidence shows he was born into the Jain tradition and continued his family's legacy of Jain patronage(give citations). According to Desai and Altekar, He was a disciple and close patron of the Digambar Jain saint Acharya Jinasena who served as royal advisor and spiritual guide. Under Jinasena’s influence, Amoghavarsha ruled for 64 years. However other the historians propose a diverging version of the king's religion. According to Chopra, Ravindran, Subrahmanian, though Amoghavarsha was deeply influenced by Jainism he never gave up the worship of Hindu gods and goddesses.(citation) Historian Suryanath Kamath opines that while Amoghavarsha has been described as a Jaina by some scholars, was clearly a Vaishnava in his leanings as his own Sanjan record begins with a prayer of Veeranarayana and he himself assumed the title Veeranarayana (citation). Almost all Rashtrakuta inscriptions began with the invocation to Vishnu or Shiva. He claims they were Vaishnavas as suggested by their royal emblem Garuda and a good majority of their records begin only with the invocation of Vishnu. The historian R.S. Churasia claims the king adopted the Jain religion and patronised the Digambara sect of Jainism.(give citation from my posting). According to Kamath the Sanjan inscriptions tell of King Amoghavarsha sacrificing a finger from his left hand at the Lakshmi temple at Kolhapur to avert a calamity in his kingdom proving his adherence to Hinduism. However this is debated by the historian S. Settar and P.B. Desai who claim that this finger sacrifice is a misinterpretation of the word "bali" in the inscription, and in this context means "dana" (gift or donation), indicating the king made a donation for the temple, likely to serve local needs. They claim blood sacrifice (rakta bali) was not a practice of Shramana religions like Jainism.(citation)

This is how a compromise paragraph is written.Pied Hornbill (talk) 21:33, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the views of Ta Ra Su can't be allowed here because he is a novelist, not a historian.Pied Hornbill (talk) 21:38, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t know where you collected this source, and not a single reference supports your claims. Could you please tell me where you collected this — book name and page number?
The Sanjan plate was issued by Govinda III and begins with “Prithvivallabha, Vimaladitya, and Shrivallabha,” not “Veer Narayana.” It doesn’t even mention Shiva or Vishnu — the inscription starts with “Swasti Sri” and “Om Namo.”
Amoghavarsha got the title because he built the Jain Narayana Basadi. You say his inscriptions begin with Shiva and Vishnu — which inscription are you referring to? None of Amoghavarsha’s inscriptions mention them.
Please do some research before adding unsupported claims. Read the relevant books — I don’t think you know much about him; all your claims are unsupported except the Mahalakshmi Temple part.
You are trying in every way to push your POV to add your claims, even when the sources do not support it.
Thank you Adipatil0909 (talk) 09:21, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Amoghvarsha was a Jain king. He has certainly nothing to do with vedic Hinduism. 2603:8000:2F0:8100:F1B8:AA32:AC3B:A811 (talk) 17:46, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Religious affiliation – sourced content
Hi Pied Hornbill Your material is not supported by reliable sources, so I have restored the sourced content regarding Amoghavarsha I’s religious affiliation, as supported by contemporary records and per WP:V and WP:RS. If there are reliable sources indicating otherwise, please share them here — I am ready to acknowledge and discuss them so we can reach WP:CONSENSUS before making changes. Removing sourced content without consensus is not in line with Wikipedia guidelines. Shraman revival (talk) 06:10, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Amoghavarsha&oldid=1305128357"