This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
When a User reverts all my edits with no explanation but a childishly untrue claim in the edit summary that my own edit summary was inaccurate, I don't feel the need to explain my consequent revert, and I shan't in future. If anyone wants to explain what they think is wrong with my attempts to improve the article, then I'll be happy to discuss the issue. -- Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 21:18, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Your well aware of my objections to your watchdogging this page, we've already discussed this here. its seems I'm not alone in my concerns... funny, that... Sam Spade 03:21, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
I object to your reverts, and the reasoning for them, yes. Sam Spade 00:05, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
+++++++++ May 3rd 21:00 CDT I notice that user Mel Etitis had reverted some of the edits as unexplained. The reasons for the edits are commented inline - meaning they are in the article itself. Maybe Mel would like to clarify what needs to be explained here, and I'll do so.
Thanks - M +++++++++
As SS insists on reverting my edits but refuses to explain (the nearest he gets is calling them "bizarre" in his edit summary) I've asked for comments. Fresh eyes on the article would be appreciated. -- Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 22:30, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
Absolutely, that is my thought entirely. This all started because I saw this revert by Mel. As you can see from User_talk:Sam_Spade#Adi_Shankara, that has been my concern all along. Also, if you notice, I have been observing the 1 rr, making no more than 1 revert every 24hrs, and I have done my best to merge in any actual improvements. Sam Spade 14:34, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
It is. Basically I object to Mel having reverted a generally good edit, I reverted his revert, he reverted me back, and here we are. Sam Spade 22:11, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
I would describe that as a complete mischaracterisation, and advise any interested parties to review my statements, the links I provide, and the articles edit history. Sam Spade 01:52, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for your helpful comments. So that you know, Hinduism does not link to Hindu. Namboothiri I have no problem with, but he reverted a large number of wikilinks as well. My primary problem is his usage of a revert in these cases, which was clearly inappropriate and problematic. Sam Spade 23:55, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
Oh, I'm sorry, i misunderstood you at first. I thought you thought Hindu redirected to hinduism (which it once did, but no longer does). Now I see you were refering to the fact that the article Hinduism contains within it a link to Hindu. That is indeed the case, but I feel this article ( Adi Shankara) ought to link to hindu as well, and indeed generally should link to a wide variety of relevant articles. I sincerely appreciate your mediations here, Walter Siegmund. Sam Spade 03:34, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
We don't agree philosophically regarding wikilinks, I feel more is better, and that any concivably useful link should occur at least once per section. However, you have been communicative and reasonable regarding your preference, so I am willing to accept your preference for this page, as long as Mel does not resume reversions of edits which improve the article. Sam Spade 23:17, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
Your attempt to mediate has been noted and appreciated. Thank you very much. Sam Spade 00:36, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
The article has been protected per the request at WP:RFP. And please don't accuse me of taking sides, Mel did not contact me and I'd have protected the wrong version either way. Once you've resolved your differences of opinion, it can be unprotected. FeloniousMonk 01:09, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
I had explained to SS why I'd made the edits that I had, and he refused to discuss the issue, merely making general comments about me and the edits (mainly in edit summaries). I eventually (two days ago) asked for the page to be protected. I'm currently struggling with a particularly heavy teaching load, so I'm a couple of days behind checking on my Watchlist (I'm now at 02:06 on 8 x 05, if anyone's interested), and I missed the current discussion. I'm pleased that the intervention of a third party, Walter Siegmund, has finally brought SS to the discussion, but I'd asked for page protection before most of that discussion had taken place.
I agree with almost everything that Walter Siegmund said, and even where I don't I appreciate his calm and serious approach. I hope that he'll return to the Talk page. -- Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 22:40, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Sam Spade and Mel Etitis, thank you both for your kind words about my efforts. I've been thinking about how best to proceed given that Mel Etitis has little time to devote to this discussion at present and that it is in all of our interests to unblock the article promptly so that we and others can resume our efforts to improve it. Since you both have expressed confidence in my efforts and little inclination to examine my comments one by one, I wonder if a solution along the follow lines might be acceptable?
Thank you for your consideration of my proposal. - Walter Siegmund (talk) 19:47, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Sam Spade, I'm sorry. I can't agree to your stipulation to allow reversions of each other's work under any circumstance and I've modified the language above to make this clear. I fear that to do otherwise opens the door to a transfer of this dispute to another article or a resumption of the dispute on this article. I think that the history of this dispute demonstrates that reversion is not going to resolve a dispute between you and Mel Etitis. You are not giving up a useful tool by agreeing to this provision. You are gaining an end to the vexation that his reversions have caused you. I would be very grateful if you would be kind enough to reconsider your objection to this provision. Thank you. Walter Siegmund (talk) 22:58, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Mel Etitis, thank you for your prompt reply, especially in light of your busy schedule. Nothing in my proposal should be construed as restraining either of the parties from reverting edits by third parties as he sees fit and in accordance with the policies of Wikipedia. I've added language to this effect above. Thank you for pointing out the need to explicitly address this point. Walter Siegmund (talk) 22:58, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
I don't like seeing Mel revert good edits. That is the root of our conflict here. I am agreeable w things that make that stop happening. Sam Spade 03:56, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
Seems like there is no resolution right now.... a couple of possible solutions, more then one could be used:
1)Sam and Mel both agree to neither one do anything to this article without both of them agreeing to the change beforehand, maybe on one of the talk pages? If they can't find consensus on an issue, it doesn't happen. And, they go one proposal at a time.
2)Both agree to no mass reverts EVER on this page again
3)Both agree that for each change, they make actual edit comments EXPLAINING why they are doing it.
4)Both agree to only a one edit per day on this page
and lastly if that isn't possible, or doesn't work, how about if neither Sam Spade nor Mel Etitis touch this article for say.... 4 months?
Just some ideas. Sethie 01:39, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
Just some ideas.
I don't understand. I can't find any differences of opinion, only some relatively dubious grammatical 'correction'. Is there really any difference in substance between the two supposedly alternative articles? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.93.21.104 ( talk • contribs) 09:06, 13 November 2005 .
... Regarding your reversion of the edits of 129.79.205.132 on Adi Shankara, I think you may have overlooked certain positive aspects of those edits.
Thank you for considering these items and for your efforts fighting vandals. Best wishes, ...
You make good points. This is not the first example of Mel and I having a messy difference of opinion, and while that may not excuse, it might explain this incident. There was User_talk:Sam_Spade#Adi_Shankara which you may not have seen, btw. Sam Spade 12:05, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Just read the discussion. -- Bhadani 15:28, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
I frequently counsel people who are getting frustrated about an edit war to think about someone who lives without clean drinking water, without any proper means of education, and how our work might someday help that person. It puts flamewars into some perspective, I think.
Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing. [2]
Thats nice, but what I'm doing is making sure that when
3rd world kids find a way to edit, some pedant admin like mel doesn't revert them out of hand and leave a nasty note on their talk page.
Sam Spade 22:23, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
I am new to Wiki, and I guess a revert without an explination strikes me as "bad form," meaning it doesn't acknowledge or try to work with the work someone else it, it doesn't try to create any connection with the previous author, it just says, screw you, I am going to do what I want.
Having BRIEFLY read over this discussion page, I propose that both sides agree to not revert WITHOUT comment. Just a thought... I doubt there are ways to ban certain people/ip's from an article.
Howver, the good news is- Brahman is in everything and IS everything. The One without a Second is bad reverts and is grammer arguements, as well as mountains and music. I empathize with the frustrations of this situation, and I am certain that Shankara is laughing his ass off over this dispute. Sethie 20:32, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
This article was protected weeks and weeks and weeks ago, and there are no ongoing discussions. I've unprotected. -- Tony Sidaway| Talk 08:52, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Ughhh that may have not been a good idea.... Sam Spade started editing pretty soon after and I bet Mel will be right back un-doing them. (btw, I am neutral on this, I don't even understand the arguement). Sethie 05:41, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
I challenge you to review our previous discussion, particularly where we agreed and where we did not. Sam Spade 15:32, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
OK, let me rephrase: I challenge interested parties to scroll up ;) Sam Spade 15:53, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
Any info on the Dasnami Sannyasa and the formation Hindu monasticism by Shankara? Thanks. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 00:32, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Wsiegmund: Please note that when there are differing views on the dates, then it must be stated that scholars have not agreed on the dates and not as you have reverted. What is modern scholarship? can you please define this? What is the sourse for saying that modern scholarship is agreed on the date of Adi Shankara as 7 or 8th Century A.D? Appaiah 10:01, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Animesh78 keeps linking to a poetry page which, though not very informative offers a number of links to poetry, only one of which is to poetry by Shankara. When I change the link to point to the relevant page, he insists on reverting, apaprently under the impression that they're all by Shankara (despite the clear statement that they're by writers such as Tulsidas and Vasishtha. I've changed the link again to point to the one poem by Shankara, "Five Cantos on Maya". -- Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 20:49, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
And why don't you navigate to POEMS link just below the mainpage of stutimandal dot com to see the poems by Adi Shankara? It seems Mel Etitis finds it hard to navigate, contrary to what I (and many visitors have thought so far).
I mean -- we have more than one poem to offer -- should we link all of them one by one?
Animesh78 01:18, 12 February 2006 (UTC)Animesh for Stutimandal
<quote> Major connections with the subject of another article that will help readers to understand the current article more fully (see the example below). This can include people, events and topics that already have an article or that clearly deserve one, as long as the link is relevant to the article in question. </quote>
I really don't understand how or why stutimandal (or any other poetry site having many stutis by Adi Shankara) should be deprived of having a link. The major connection that I observe is "Philosopher -> His poetry." I wonder if someone has a dispute against this.
I think an average web-surfer knows how to click at the home-page of another poetry-website.
Animesh78 01:25, 12 February 2006 (UTC)Animesh78
No one wishes to deprive stutimandal of having a link. Myself, Mel, and pletny of other editors doe wish to deprive stutimandal of having multiple links listed on one wiki article, especially if the links don't reffer specifically to the topic at hand!
I suggest you make a page that lists all of his poems and then put that ONE link into this article. Sethie 06:03, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Gone are the days of gentlemen. Enjoy the rule over a "free-wikipedia". I am withdrawing any links to Stutimandal from this *ruled and dictated* place. I still don't understand your *sad* claims that poetry of Adi Shankara has no reffer(sic) specifically to the topic of Who Adi Shankara was.
Regarding Sethie's suggestion of having a separate page for Adi Shankara -- I think Wikipedia should adapt to the world and the other way.
69.107.117.73 09:36, 12 February 2006 (UTC)Animesh78
Why do you think Five Cantos on Maya should not be linked? They seem relevant to me and satisfy the criteria of WP:EL, in my opinion. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 00:36, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Well the point is this: We have more than one poem (about 10 right now and increasing) of Adi Shankara; according to the (right) rules of wikipedia, 10 links from same website is a bad practice; I want to link the homepage for the same (from homepage the site can be navigated); Mel Etitis wants to link only Maya Panchakam. Either you guys decide with him or I am removing the link to Maya Panchakam. Linking only Maya Panchakam, at least to me, is a dishonor to Adi Shankara as well as the hard-work going on inside that website.
Animesh78 05:55, 15 February 2006 (UTC)Animesh
It is not our jobs to honor Shankara, as editors, it is our job to write a good article. I am for having one of his poems in there. If at any point your page is organized by author, then add in a Shankara page. Sethie 06:32, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Oh come on! Personally I think only those persons should edit who have an interest in that topic; if you don't want to honor Adi Shankara, then I don't know what to say. To me, still, it is a disrespect to the site and the poet in question. Now the bone is stuck in the throat -- neither it's going down nor coming out. I will prefer removing the link altogether.
Animesh78 07:44, 15 February 2006 (UTC)Animesh
It seems to me that a debate over the motivations of editors is not helpful. We should all assume that we are here to make the article better. The Eight cantos on Achyuta seem to me to satisfy the criteria of WP:EL. [3] Mel Etitis (20:49, 11 February 2006 UTC) says that the main page only has one link to Adi Shankara poems. Apparently the link to The Eight cantos on Achyuta is more recent. Also, I find the following additional poems by Shankara via links near the bottom of the page:
I concede that the site is not as ideally organized for the purposes of this article as it might be. But, since there are two links to Shankara poems (and indirect links to 12 others), is an external link to the main page (as Animesh78 has been advocating) unwarranted? Walter Siegmund (talk) 19:34, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Animesh78 00:48, 16 February 2006 (UTC)Animesh78
I suggest you look around some other articles. Take a look how external links are set up. Look and see how they are always very precise links to things mostly or only related to the article. I guess I am asking you to take a look around and get a feel for Wiki, then come back and discuss. Sethie 01:42, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Theres a page on Nirvana Shatkam which I beleive was written by Adi Shankara. It would be great if someone here could check the page and see if its right and I've linked it to the right person. Cheers -- Salix alba ( talk) 21:23, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Mr. Etitis -
(1) Meaningless to most readers??? Well, not to the ones I've talked to.
(2) What proof are you looking for. You have conveniently dismissed the proof the Mathas have to offer.
(3) The link to the reference was to the author and not the article? Explain to me how this is useful??
(4) Good content is more important than good English? You ascribe, oops subscribe to that?
I've noticed that you're a regular over these year and I do appreciate you taking the time to maintain this article but that does not give you dictatorial control over the content.
This article is no longer neutral, and I’ve notice that only those views that get the Mel Etitis nod of approval gets in which is just sad.
Thank you, M May 6 2006 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.249.139.167 ( talk • contribs).
66.141.187.234 19:13, 7 May 2006 (UTC) M 2006/05/07
++++++++++
Mr. Etitis, I’m short on time and so here are my responses (not necessarily in any order)
bhaja govindam bhaja govindam bhaja govindam mudamate samprapte sannihite kale na hi na hi rakshati dukrunkarane (and here is the translation of the foreign language text - Adore the Lord, adore the Lord, adore the Lord, O fool! when the appointed time comes, the repetition of grammatical rules will not, indeed, save you) – Adi Sankara
peace 70.243.200.243 02:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC) M 2006/05/07
++++++++++
The crocodile story was actually something that Shankara spun on his own to make his mother agree to his sanyasa. There was no crocodile (remember he was bathing in a temple tank). Shankara did not actually lie because by Crocodile he did not mean the animal he meant the usual life (samsara). One has to read the story as Shankara saying to his mother that he will drown dragged down by samsara and hence she should let him be an ascetic.
I expanded the Life section. Babub 17:22, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi,
Regarding this sentence: "Adi Shankara is believed to be the founder of the Dashanami monastic order and the Shanmata tradition of worship".
I am changing it to" "Adi Shankara is believed to be the organizer of the Dashanami monastic order and the founder of the Shanmata tradition of worship".
Please see the page Dashanami_Sampradaya. The dasanami / ekadandi tradition and their monastries have existed before the birth of Sri Adi Shankara.
Adi Shankara founded a form of worship by merging various hindu beleifs / factions into the Shanmata tradition and founded four mutts to help organize the methodology of worship as well as provide an organized support base for hinduism. He did not found the dasanami / ekadandi tradition. The dasanamis / ekadandis have existed even in the Pallava and Pandya periods.
Thanks. --Illusion 06:26, 4 May 2009 (UTC)Mayasutra —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mayasutra ( talk • contribs)
hi, this article is severely poor. im not sure if anyone has realised but the main text to which the information about sankara is credited Sankara-Dig-Vijaya is actually a mythological text written around 1600 AD called a hagiography that bears little or no relevance to the historicity of the life of sankara. as an example, it is seriously academically doubted that sankara founded the mathas - though this is accepted as hindu tradition it should be noted so and not as historical fact as this is far from the truth. indeed, even the dating here is innacurate. i'm a 2nd year indian civilisation student at the university of edinburgh, and am in the middle an essay on sankara so dont have time to edit the article myself, but i can point anyone interested in the direction of a number of academic works.
a hagiography is a mythological/folk tale written around 1000 years after sankaras death to eulogise him in the face of contention from other religions. it is contextually reactive and other than indicating to one the reverence of sankara it has no historical value !
luke. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.112.72.23 ( talk) 15:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I noticed that the pronunciation of some Malayalam words are given in IAST system. I was wondering if IAST could transliterate Malayalam correctly too? Are all the sounds in Malayalam portray-able in IAST? -- thunderboltza.k.a.D eepu Joseph | TALK13:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
This convention should be applied to any language spoken in the Indian subcontinent that is written in an Indic script. The major languages are: Assamese, Bengali, Gujarati, Hindi, Kannada, Konkani (when written in Kannada or Devanagari scripts), Malayalam, Marathi, Nepali, Oriya, Pali, Punjabi (when written in Gurmukhi script), Sanskrit, Sinhala, Tamil, Telugu.
Please add visarga after the word आदि शंकर in Devanagari. Apnavana 02:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
My computer has indic enabled, yet I see the hindi/ devnagari spelling wrong in the article page. Can anyone explain why? Its comes ok here. Is unicode causing it to come out wrongly there? -- Lost (talk) 06:26, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
This article is posted as a featured article. What is not said is that the article as featured is edited. I don't know how the editing is done, but leaving out the birth/death years makes the article very weak. Kdammers 06:13, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi,
I just finished a cource in Comparative Religion at Uppsala University in Hinduism and Buddism and now I find that Adi Shankara is Today's featured article :-) Good idea,.. how is the prosess of choosing Today's featured article made?
In my MS Explorer (Swedish version) there is a bit strange signs: Malayalam: ആദി ശങ്കരന്,
Check out Eco Theology article if you whant some info about Ecology and Theology and please help to develop that article so that soon itcould be Today's featured article?
-- Swedenborg 12:11, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Dear Hinduism Project members and others interested in Hindusim There is a controversy on the Hinduism regarding Raja Yoga. Please read the debate on the Hinduism discussion page. Your comments are requested on the Hinduism discussion page to help resolve the controversy. Thank you. HeBhagawan 14:46, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
If the modern scholarship is agreed on the 788 – 820 CE date, then shouldn't that be the date specified in the introduction? - Cibu 04:30, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Didn't Adi Shankara comment on Eleven upanishads? Syiem 13:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
The following is an extract from the Dig-Vijaya sub-section of this article: "He then defeated the Jainas at a place called Bahlika". The word "defeated" does not clearly indicate the nature of defeat of the Jainas. Were they defeated militarily or in a debate? TathD 14:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
The article cites three books: by Swami Tapasyananda, by Keay and by Greaves. Most of the references are to the book by Tapasyananda and there is only one to Greave's book and none to Keay's. COuld somebody please explain why it is like that or add some more inline citations? Kkrystian 10:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone have the idea of Adi Shankara's Gotra? BalanceRestored 06:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC) There are local mythologies that his father was a Twoshta. Vedic decent of TWOSHTRI.There is a sloka in sankaradvigvijayam revealing his gothra as Abhuvana twoshta viswakarma.
Acharyo sankaro nama Twoshta putra nisamshaya Viprakula gurorvdweeksha Viswakarman to brahmana
Sloka published in Kesari Annual magzine in 1978 by Dr. Sadasiva sharma ,Palakkad, Kerala. Write up The gothras of Viswakarma Rsi. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.164.229.5 ( talk) 07:46, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
"Adi Shankaracharya was not only a saint of profound spiritual insight, but also helped develop scientific concepts. It is believed that Adi Shankara was the first mathematician to use the concept of Number Line (Ref: "Sankara Bhaashyam" (4-4-25) of the "Brihadaaranyaka Upanishad"), the idea of assigning a set of natural numbers to a straight line. As the number of elements in a set of natural numbers is infinite, it requires a symbol of infinity to represent them. A straight line can be considered to be infinitely long. Adi Shankara adopted a straight line as a symbol of infinity. A straight line can be divided to infinite number of parts and each of these parts can be assigned the value of a particular number. This is called number line. Though his concept lacks the perfection of modern number line theory, Sree Sankaran exhibited his intellectual ingenuity in conceiving such a novel idea. [1]
Yet another example for Sree Sankaran's unbiased and pure scientific pursuit of knowledge could be seen in the second "Slokam" (verse) of Soundarya Lahari (a collection of 100 Slokams in praise of Goddess Durga written by Adi Shankara). In the Slokam Thaneeyaamsam paamsum thava charana pankeruhabhavam, we can see a hint to the theory of inter-convertibility of mass and energy (the famous equation E = MC² put forward by Albert Einstein). [2]
In another context, Adi Shankara postulated that the diameter of Sun is 1 lakh "Yojanas". Later the modern scientific community calculated the diameter which agreed very closely with (just 3% error) the value provided by Adi Shankara. [3]"
Removed since the website is not WP:RS. The Namboothiri-trust website may tend to glorify members of it's community. The website does not list it's sources for it's assertions about Shankara's knoweledge of Maths and might be WP:OR.-- Redtigerxyz ( talk) 06:02, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Is this really true? I know a movie, where he was given Brahmin status by another Brahmin. Please check this one. -- Thirusivaperur ( talk) 16:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
He is almost certainly a Nambudiri. But yea, a source would be helpful. Trips ( talk) 06:00, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Local mythologies prevailing around Aluva in KERALA is that Sankara's father was a Viswakarma who married a Namboothiri lady,and thus got thrown out of the community.This frustht may be a reason of these communities non participation of the funeral of sankara's mother. Local viswakarmans are still celibrating sankara jayanthy by there own. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.164.241.127 ( talk) 05:56, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
In the "Historical and cultural effect" section, it is stated that Shankara exhorted his followers to worship God. According to Schopenhauer's On the Will in Nature, in the "Sinology" chapter, Westerners are always trying to find their God in other religions. Steeped from childhood in the concept of a Judeo–Christian anthropomorphic God, Westerners can't understand how a religion can exist without such a being. Are we sure that Shankara's Vedanta refers to a humanoid God who created, supervises, and controls the universe? Is this presentation of God in Vedanta merely a Western European assumption? Lestrade ( talk) 17:05, 31 October 2008 (UTC)Lestrade
Adi Shankara begins his Gurustotram or Verses to the Guru with the following Sanskrit Sloka, that has become a widely sung Bhajan:
Guru Brahma, Guru Vishnu, Guru Deva Maheshwara. Guru Sakshath Parambrahma, Tasmai Shri Gurave Namaha. (tr: Guru is the creator Brahma, Guru is the preserver Vishnu, Guru is the destroyer Siva. Guru is directly the supreme spirit — I offer my salutations to this Guru.)
I wonder why this has been deleted by somebody. Is this information not true? or is there anybody who dislikes that kind of information?
slightly different translation is to be found [6] here
I don't know the name of the above quoted Shloka, how to find a source apt for wikipedia?
Okay, the title/name is Guru Stotram.
The song is to be found here [11], no direct link available.
In the past, a user has requested mediation on this issue. The dispute was resolved at 16:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC) by Xavexgoem. For more information, see the case page.
Adi Shankara is from Kerala by birth. -- 91.130.91.84 ( talk) 12:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
The wikipedia page for biographies states, that the article should be conservatively written. In any case of biographies in whole wikipedia, this means, that the ethnicity of the person is used only, since any other script mislead the reader. The reader could think, that this person is of Marathi or any other ethnicity using the Devanagari script which is certainly wrong and misleading. To keep it conservative, the Devanagari script has to be removed. -- Leadcorrector ( talk) 15:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
This is a stupid debate. Neither Malayalam the language, nor its script, nor the Devanagari script are attested at Shankara's time. His ethnicity is now assumed to Malayali because of his place of birth, but given that the area could be considered to be part of the wider 'Tamil country' of those times, perhaps his name should be written in Tamil instead (that's not a serious suggestion). I vote for keeping Devanagari for clarity. Imc ( talk) 16:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
For clearer view of the consensus, please include your sign (* --~~~~) in the relevant section. Please continue the comments above.
Old debate to which I can only shake my head. The correct argument is of course that the article should be informative for the users of the encyclopedia, not conservative. If many readers are served by his name being written in Devanagari, then the name should be written in Devanagari. Same reasoning for Tamil and for Malayalam, irrespective of whether it was spoken at that time. ... said: Rursus ( mbork³) 19:52, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
I have been trying to place a sentence in the Hindu meditation section of the 'meditation' article that Adi Shankara is generally regarded as a primary exponent and theoretician about Hindu meditation. These have been deleted by editor Mitsube with the comment that Shankara didn't write or practise meditation to any eminent degree within the Hindu tradition. Anyone who has read Shankara's books (not merely googled for references about him on- line, including biographies about him) must challenge this. I suspect it is part of an ideological agenda to claim that Hindu meditation began with the Buddha. Fauncet ( talk) 14:10, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Aadi Sankara was born and brought up as a kid in the banks of river
Muvattupuzha near
Piravom in
Muvattupuzha Taluka,kerala. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
59.93.22.239 (
talk) 09:33, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
The debate about the Devanagari and Malayalam scripts was quite a while ago, but I just want to clarify something. Devanagari is not, and certainly was not in the past, "the" Sanskrit script. Sanskrit can be and has historically been written in all or most Brahmi-derived scripts. A Malayali is quite likely to use the Malayalam script to write in Sanskrit. However, neither of these scripts would have been around in Shankaracharya's time, so only the IAST is needed in an English Wikipedia article. If we must include some sort of Indic script, then Malayalam makes some sense because he was from what is now Kerala and probably spoke some sort of proto-Malayalam, whereas Devanagari has very little relevance. -- 137.205.75.53 ( talk) 23:18, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Referring to the information as given under the para 'Historical and cultural impact', where it is stated that Adi Shankara believed that 'the most important access to highest truth was Vedic texts, and that access to these liberating texts should be socially restricted to upper-caste males' and subsequently under the para 'Works', Adi Shankara quotes in the Taittiriya Upanishad that "it has been established that everyone has the right to the knowledge (of Brahman) and that the supreme goal is attained by that knowledge alone". The two statements seem ironical to me and it appears that he is refuting his own belief in keeping the Vedic knowledge accessible to only the upper-caste males, by stating in Taittiriya Upanishad that everyone has the right to the knowledge (I am assuming that he is referring to the same knowledge in both of the statements).
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Only truth i shall seek ( talk • contribs) 16:51, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
I have come across an alternative view expressed on Adi Shankara's works. It is quite well researched, though it's largely original research. Can I add a couple of sentences about this article? Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajesh shenoy ( talk • contribs) 06:22, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
User:TheRingess has been removing useful links to Shankaracharya's Peetha websites like kamakoti.org that are certainly relevant to the article. Should these links be kept or removed. Let the consensus decide. -- Hinduismispeace ( talk) 08:33, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
A neutral and impartial view on the date of Sri. Adi Shankaracharya is available at:
http://www.sanskrit.org/www/Shankara/shankar2.html
Below are the incomplete and unbelievable analysis and claims regarding the date of Sri. Adi Sankara, the outcome of "sponsored research" - to the convenience of recently established Kanchi math in South India. This is a preamble to the Kanchi math's attempt to draw a direct lineage to Adi Shankara and to retro-fit the math's fabricated historical timings and concocted lineage of non-existent gurus - prior to 19th century AD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.98.190.184 ( talk) 31 August 2013
Hi 68.98.190.184, I see that we are using page 4 of this website/document in 9 cases in the section Mathas to support the text there. I encourage the main editors of this article to see whether page 2, given above, can be cited to support the dates given. Hoverfish Talk 18:24, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Adi Shankara was born somewhere between 507-509 BCE please go through the following website http://www.indiadivine.org/audarya/hinduism-forum/187608-dating-adi-shankara.html for reference not this website alone but I have come across articles in print media giving that particular years as birth date correction of this particular aspect is very important.Though the dat mentioned in this article is different from the above mentioned but one interesting co-incidence is several websites and printed media have mentioned he has lived for 32 yrs just as mentioned in this article so a proper conclusion would be to mention both of these days untill a substantial evidence supporting any of these dates is given by historians. Midnghtchild ( talk) 09:43, 8 January 2011 (UTC) Refer: http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/fr/2003/05/23/stories/2003052301540800.htm
( Rangakuvara ( talk) 09:00, 7 May 2011 (UTC)) Sanskrit words should be pronounced as Sanskrit only. Regional flavor will ruin the meaning. Please correct the word as Shankara (Some places it is written Sankara. It should be Sharada; not sarada. It should be Gopala; not Kopala.(Because Kopala, and Kopi have different meanings)
The current date of Shankara, i.e, 788-820 A.D. was first derived from a manuscript found at Belgaum. This date also was agreed with the internal evidence evinced from the works of Shankara himself. However, as years rolled on, a variety of dates were calculated. The verse found in the manuscript of Belgaum also appears in the treatise Shankara Digvijaya Sara (SDS), a summary of Brihat Shakara Vijaya (BSV), written by Sadananda. Although, BSV gives a date of 509 B.C., SDS mentions a date of 788 A.D. It is therefore clear that Sadananda gives Shankara’s date relying on some other source. Since the verse in both the Belgaum manuscript and SDS appears to come from the same source, which itself could be unreliable. Also, the date of 788 A.D. is in conflict with traditional dates, that is, those held by the Mathas found by Shankara himself. However, the 788 A.D. dateline was accepted, since all traditional accounts of Indian history, including the Puraan, were conveniently considered to be worthless of any historical content, and were ignored.
Numerous compositions with the title “Shankara Vijaya” describing the exploits of Shri Shankara are available, five of which confirm one date, four do not mention any date at all and only one gives the date of 788 A.D.(Antarkar’s thesis, BORI). One written by Chitsukhacharya, a childhood companion of Shankara from the age of 5, can be considered to be authorative. M.R.Bodas in his “Shankaracharya aani tyancha sampradaaya” published in 1923 gives the date of Chitsukhacharya as 514-416 B.C. As he was 5 years elderto Shankara, the latter’s date comes to be (514 – 5) 509 B.C. Chitsukhacharya’s “Brihat Shankara Vijaya” states that Shankara was born Vaishakha Shukla Panchami in the constellation and lagna of Dhanu, in the year Nandana of 2593 Kali, i.e, (3102 – 2593) in 509 B.C. This date was also calculated by Prof. Upadhya in his book “Sri Shankaracharya”. This tallies with the dates assigned and maintained in the lists of Aacharyas maintained in the establishments at Dwaraka (490 B.C.) , Jyotirmath (485 B.C.), Puri (484 B.C.) and Sringeri (483 B.C).
On the basis of “Shankara Satpatha”, the late Narayana Shastri of Madras wrote a book titled “Acharya Kaala” in which the date 509 B.C. has been derived to be Shankara’s date of birth. The Keraliya Shankara Vijaya also provides a verse with astronomical details of Shankara’s birth. This verse also verifies the unmistakable 509 B.C. dateline. A chronogram relating to Aadi Shankara and appearing in Prachina Shankara Vijaya is quoted by Atma Bodha gives the 509 B.C. date. This chronogram is supported and corroborated by Jina Vijaya, a Jain scripture, even though it is outspokenly hostile to Shankara. Jina Vijaya gives the date of Kumarila Bhatta (557 B.C.), who was senior contemporary to Shankara by 48 years.
It is stated in the Nepal Rajavamshavali that “Aadi Shankara came from the South and destroyed the Buddha faith” and this occurred during the reign of Vrishadeva Varma (Kali 2615 to 2654), i.e., during 487 B.C. to 448 B.C. (Chronology of Nepal History, K.Venkatachalam). The date of Vrishadeva is again confirmed relating Harsha Shaka (457 B.C.) from Alberuni’s accounts. In his “Short History of Kashmir”, Pt. Gavshalal writes, “The 70th ruler in the list of Kashmir Kings, Gopaditya (417-357 B.C.) founded agraharas and built temples of Jyeteshwara and Shankaracharya”. That Shankara must have visited Kashmir before 417 B.C. then becomes quite obvious.
The observations and references stated above sufficiently and unmistakably prove that Aadi Shankara was born in 509 B.C. His life-span of 32 years was that of a superhuman in which he travelled to all parts of Bharatvarsha, spreading the thought and philosophies of Vedic wisdom and strength. He removed the confrontations existing between the followers of different modes of worship presenting a message of unity among all – finally departing from his earthly abode in 477 B.C.
So please correct the date of his birth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.241.123.3 ( talk) 10:44, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
The word "Namboodiri" is a Tamil word. Malayalam is relatively a modern language and has nouns borrowed from Tamil and Sanskrit. It will be unbiased if such linguistic qualifiers are either used strictly correctly or simply dropped.
Thank you. 184.145.15.246 ( talk) 01:10, 29 August 2011 (UTC)Dr. Sekhar
There are too many see also entries. So, as a result, the important entry like Vivekchuramani is at the end and may be easily overlooked. I suggest to keep only most relevant entries. -- Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 22:26, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
This article is about Abhinava Shankara and not Adi Shankara. The Abhinava Shankara was a Keralite. He was the author of all books of which were thought to be wriiten by 'Shankaracharya' except the "Prasthana Trayi' which was written by Adi Shankara. His place of birth might be either Malabar (most probably Ponnani or Tirur Taluks of present day Malapuram district) or Tulu Nadu. There is a place called Kalady in Ponnani Taluk in the Malabar region of Kerala. The place of birth may not be the Kalady of northern Travancore (in present Ernakulam district) as most of the ancient brahman scholors of Kerala were from Malabar area. Anoop.m ( talk) 14:59, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
In "Sri Sankara Vijaya" there is a sloka "Acharyo sankarao nama, Twostha putra nisamshaya, Viprakula gurordweeksha, Vishwakarman thu Brahmana." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.107.127.189 ( talk) 18:57, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
I must remind the editors of this page that the article is written for a general English readership. I saw the recent reverts and was about to warn this multiple account user. However I see a serious issue with the edits of Ganesh J. Acharya text that was put back in the article. The text is full of mistakes, capitalization and grammar are erratic and it is full of terms a general readership cannot understand. One example is the phrase "Sankara was born under the star Thiruvathiralike Sambandar with whom he has a lot of commonalities". As far as I am concerned, this phrase makes no sense at all. So before I add all the necessary cleanup templates, I thought of leaving a note here in the hope that some copyediting/cleanup will improve the section soon. This said, I see that the text of the section "Birth and childhood" is going too far to prove a point about Shankaras lineage (recension??). Please keep the length and content of sections within an overall balance in the article and do not try to prove a point with too many explanations. This used to be a Featured Article after all.
Hoverfish
Talk 19:53, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Also with regards to this sentence "Sankara was born under the star Thiruvathiralike Sambandar with whom he has a lot of commonalities". It was not added by me, it was added by someone else. Ganesh J. Acharya ( talk) 09:59, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
The statement "Much of what is thought about Sankaracharya today is interpolated myth" can be accepted without a citation as it doesn't get into specifics and it is most probable that false beliefs exist on almost any topic. However when we come to "This includes the establishment of mathas", this has to be written from a Neutral Point Of View and it does need a citation: "According to (source A), this includes the establishment of Mathas.(citation of source A)" Else it can be contested and removed (per consensus). Hoverfish Talk 14:40, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Actually this phrase contradicts what is stated later on in the article, under Mathas, so I removed it. If there is a reliable source supporting this, it should be mentioned in the proper section of the article, in due weight, and attributed to the source. Hoverfish Talk 03:49, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Shankaracharya's Caste Caste
Shankarcharya himself stated that he was belong to a Viswakarma community through his books. Then why all these debates are going on? The sloka of Sankara Vijayam, "Acharyo sankarao nama, Twostha putra nisamshaya, Viprakula gurordweeksha, Vishwakarman thu Brahmana." reveals the same.
He was the great scholar. Why are some people trying to make him a namboothiri? This will not bring him more superiority or higher status. Because Namboothiri dont have more superiority or status than Viswakarma people!
Shankara stated that he was from Viswakarma community means, he knew that the community is the most superior community in India. He was proud to say that he is from the community. I can give some explanation about the community. Please refer the veda parts which is mentioned in the talk
History of Brahmin
According to purusha suktha Brahmins have take birth from the face of Purusha. From ancient time itsef, after the 'Veda Period' people got divided into four categories namely, Brahmin, Kshathriya, Viysya and soodra. Brahmin (also called Brahmana; from the Sanskrit brahmana)is a term for a scholar class in the traditional Hindu societies of India and Nepal.
"brAhmaNo asya mukhamAseet bAhoo rAjanya: krta: ooru tadasya yad vaishya padbhyAm shoodro ajAyata"
This means :From his mouth came forth The men of learning And of his arms Were warriors made From his thighs came The trading people And his feet gave Birth to servants.. Brahmins are classified into two namely Poursheya Brahmin and Arsheya Brahmin
Poursheya Brahmins also known as Vishwabrahmin are divided into five gotras means descendance of five rishis; each clans's name is mentioned in the Yajurveda (4.3.3). Sanaga, Sanatana, Abhuvana, Pratanasa and Suparna rishis. These are the rishis born from the purushas face.
Purusha Viswakarma people are the descendance of the five rishis mentioned. That means the descendance of Viswakarma or parabrahma purusha or Purusha (The cosmic man). According to Hinduism, Parabrahman is the ultimate reality of the universe. He is the creator of the whole universe. He is also called as the Purusha (The cosmic man). We can see the reality in Rigveda purushasukta and Yajur veda purushasuktha. Purushasuktha states that the purushan or the Cosmic man is the one from whose navel all the visible things emanate. Rigved 10 - 81, 10 - 82 is also saying the same. We can see a lot of knowledge about Parabrahma in Vedas. He is the only one who emanated from nothing (Swayam Bhoo).
The five lords (Pancha Deva) including Thrimurthy is his first creation. This truth is told by Lord Siva to Skantha (Sree Murukan) as ParaBrahma Thatwa Rahasya.
"DevaDeva MahaDeva Devasaya JagadGuru ViswaSrishtiSthaddakartha, Bhoohime Parameswara Sarvanga SarvaSasthra Vicharana Viswakara Navyam Sarvam Sumana SrunuShanmukha"
This words from SkanthaPurana means that, we Brahma, Vishnu, Maheswara, Surya and Indra are only God's creation. Brahma is creation (srishti), Vishnu is the present (Sthiti), Surya is light energy (Prakasha), Indra is Protection and me (Siva) is doing only dissolution. We can't do anything beyond this. It can only be done by the ultimate creator who created us. He is the Nithya AdiMadhyaAnthaRakshitha HiranyaGrbha Prajapthi Parabrahma Viswa Virat Purusha Viswakarma Deva.
All these are showing that Viswakrama is visualized as the 'Ultimate reality' (later developed as Brahman) in the Rig Veda,from whose navel all visible things Hiranyagarbha emanate. The same imagery is seen in Yajurveda purusha sukta, in which the divine smith Tvasta emerging from Vishwakarma.
Nambuthiris are Saptharshi Brahmins Aarsheya Brahmins are from 'saptharishis' they are known as 'Saptarishi Brahmin' descendants of Saptharshis also known as Manasa Putras of Brahma : Bhrigu, Atri, Angirasa, Vashista, Pulastya, Pulalaha and Kratu. They are not directly from the face of purusha.
By Acharya Sachivothaman (Ajithkumar.T) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Masterjith ( talk • contribs) 21:57, 29 October 2013 (UTC) -- Masterjith ( talk) 18:42, 8 November 2013 (UTC)-- Masterjith ( talk) 19:41, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
I have made a first attempt in copyediting this section. Issues I see: 1. POV concerns as mentioned above have still to be met. 2. The statement "The Deva Kammalars who were jealous of their title..." does not make clear what this title refers to. 3. The section is titled "Birth and childhood" but only the last sentence gives us minimal information about his childhood. So under such a title, so much on the issue of lineage is bound to raise an Undue Weight problem. My suggestion is that the lineage issue becomes simplified and the necessary supporting points from the documented evidence go into the footnote (inside the reference) itself. I am not knowledgeable enough on the issue and do not have the sources stated to attempt this myself. Hoverfish Talk 14:40, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
I moved issues of origin, caste or lineage to the general section under "Life". The idea is to have the information about caste and lineage separately, avoiding undue weight in the section about Shankara's childhood. Hoverfish Talk 13:17, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
From 'The History of Mayavada' published as Beyond Nirvana by GVP. In Çaìkaräcärya’s Çariraka-bhañya, it is interesting to note that he quoted verses from Bhagavad-gétä while commenting on the Vedänta-sütra verse 1/2/5 beginning çabda viç sät. Noting this very unusual inconsistency by Çaìkaräcärya way back in the 1200’s AD, Madhaväcärya the founder of the Brahma Vaiñëava sampradäya wrote in his illustrious treatise Sri Tattva-muktävalé verse 59 as follows: småteç ca hetor api bhinna ätmä naisargikaù sihyati bheda eva na cet kathaà sevaka-sevya-bhävaù kaëöhoktir eñä khalu bhäñyakartuh In his commentary on the Vedänta-sütra, Çaìkaräcärya also quoted verses from the Vedic scriptures that demonstrated the nature and the difference between the Supreme Lord and the individual soul. Indeed, if Çaìkaräcärya did not accept this conception, then how could he utter this statement? The verse that Çaìkaräcärya quoted was from Bhagavad-gétä, chapter 18, çloka 61: éçvaraù sarva-bhütänäà håd-deçe’rjuna tiñthati bhrämayam sarva-bhütäni yanträrüòhäni mäyayä The Supreme Lord is situated in the hearts of every living entity O’ Arjuna, and is directing the movements of all living beings who wander in the cycle of birth and death, by His mäyä, as if they are mounted upon a machine. It is ironic that Çaìkaräcärya should quote a verse that recognises the supra-mundane majesty of the Supreme Lord, and which specifies in no uncertain terms the clear and precise distinction between God and the living entities. As such the verse completely contradicts his own Mäyäväda hypothesis that the living entities and the Supreme Lord are one. What is even more surprising is that Çaìkaräcärya also quotes from the Gétä, chapter 18, verse 62: tam eva çaraëaà gaccha / sarva-bhävena bharäta tat prasädät paräm çäntià / sthänaà präpsyasi çäçvatam O’ descendent of Bharata, exclusively surrender to that Éçvara in every respect. By His grace, you will attain transcendental peace and the supreme abode. Concluding Words 126 Beyond Nirväëa Both the above verses indicate that, contrary to what Çaìkaräcärya may have propounded in his Mäyäväda hypothesis, he was clearly aware that the Supreme Lord and the living entities existed in distinct relationships, and that the path to salvation was complete surrender to the Supreme Lord Kåñëa. Further evidence of this can be found in his most revealing and extraordinary departure from the world, in a welldocumented verse that Çaìkaräcärya spoke to his disciples prior to his infamous submergence into the boiling cauldron of oil. bhaja govindam bhaja govindam bhaja govindam müòha-mate / sampräpte sannihite käle nahi rakñati òukån-karaëe You fools! All your word jugglery will not protect you when the time of death arrives; so just worship Govinda! Worship Govinda! Worship Govinda! Govinda is one of the confidential names of the Supreme Lord Kåñëa. It was first revealed in the ancient poem called Brahmä Saàhita, the hymn of Lord Brahmä, which was sung at the very beginning of the creation of the material universe. One of the main verses repeated throughout the Brahmä Saàhita is ‘govindam ädi puruñaà tam ahaà bhajämi’, which translates as “I worship Govinda, who is the primeval Lord.” After being lost for many hundreds of years, this exceptionally beautiful poem was uncovered by Çré Caitanya Mahäprabhu, long after the departure of Çaìkaräcärya. For Çaìkaräcärya to use the confidential name of the Lord in this verse factually reveals his true position as an incarnation of Lord Çiva, ‘the auspicious one’, who is eternally the greatest servitor of the Lord. From examples like these it is clear that although Çaìkaräcärya was executing his service by preaching the Mayavada hypothesis, he himself was factually well aware of the actual truth. Though I realise the necessity of presenting here the numerous Vaiñëava arguments and reasons that have convincingly routed the theories of Mäyävädism, I must defer due to the limited length of the essay. At the same time I request the venerable readers to refer to the following books for a clearer and more exhaustive explanation of these topics. 1 �� Ñaö-sandarbha, Krama.sandarbha and Sarvasaàvädiné, by Çréla Jévä Gosvämé �� Govinda Bhäñya, Siddhänta Ratnam, Prameya Ratnävalé, Viñëusahasranäma Bhäñya, and Upaniñadä Bhäñya, by Çréla Baladeva Vidyäbhüñaëa. �� Also Çréla Bhaktisiddhänta Sarasvaté Prabhupäda’s, Caitanya Caritämåta, Anubhäñya, Çrémad-Bhägavatam and Govinda Bhäshya. 127 Section B The concept of ‘Nirväëa’ What emerges as a consequence of discussing the biography of Mäyävädism is that all historical facts and the entire range of its’ corner stone principles can be refuted merely on the basis of ‘Aitihya-pramäna’ (evidence based on time-honoured precepts). Mäyävädism stands on very weak logic, faulty arguments and faulty evidence. Hence, in open debates or direct dialectical exchanges it has always known defeat. If in spite of hearing the facts about Mäyävädism one still desires to pursue a path to attain nirväna, then our advice is to not forget that nirväna, as enunciated by the Mäyävädés, is a falsity and a figment of the imagination that hazardously misleads and deceives the innocent. This statement is easily substantiated by simple, traditional knowledge and without recourse to further support from other readily available evidences. Nirväëa, the concept of a liberation attained by merging into a void, is for the living entity a factually non-existent condition of being or awareness that can never be attained. There is not a single instance or example of any monist or impersonalist attaining the state of nirväëa. Of this we are certain, because if we scour the biographies of Goudapäda, Govindapäda, Shankaräcärya or Mädhava, we would be forced to conclude that none of them attained the state of nirväëa, liberation. It is a well known fact that Çaìkaräcärya’s spiritual master Goudapäda appeared to Çaìkara when he was in deep meditation one day and said: “I have heard many praises about you from your guru Govindapäda. Show me the commentary you have written to my composition Maëòukya Kärikä.” Çaìkaräcärya handed him his commentary and Goudapäda was extremely pleased and approved it. From this story it thus appears that neither Goudapäda nor Govindapäda had merged into void to be silenced forever. If both had attained nirväëa, liberation, it would have been impossible for Govindapäda to speak to Goudapäda. Furthermore, it would have been impossible for Goudapäda to later appear before Çaìkaräcärya and describe his meeting with Govindapäda – all of which took place after the physical demise of both. The followers of Çaìkaräcärya will give no occasion to doubt the veracity of this mystical event having taken place, and therefore the only intelligent conclusion one may draw from it is that neither had forsaken their individual identity and existence after their demise – nirvana is simply a myth.
bv avadhoot maharaja Wcw108 ( talk) 18:43, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi Gopala nadar1234, Sadasiva nadar 2323, Narayana nadar2232, Sasi sharma123, Sambanda nadar123, Sasi pillai7272, and possibly more, can you please state your concerns about the article so we can work out a solution. The result of such edits are that even if you have a good reason, or a positive contribution, it is bound to get reverted. Thanks. Hoverfish Talk 12:57, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
I have filed a report on multiple account usage (sockpuppetry) here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/User:Ramesh shankar4432. You may comment or defend yourself against this claim by editing section "Comments by other users". My hope is to stop removal of cited text without discussing and reverts so we can proceed based on consensus. Hoverfish Talk 20:21, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
1. Shankara was born in a Viswa-Brahmin family
2. Please change Viswa-Brahmin to Nambudiri Brahmin
3. http://www.hindupedia.com/en/Adi_Shankaracharya
SitaChaturvedula ( talk) 11:09, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
The existing version is according to the Andhra Historical Research Society and verses of Shankara identifying himself so have been stated. If this is not the only version, can any notable source be given for this contrary claim? Hindupedia does not offer any citations at all. Is Hindupedia a reliable source for Wikipedia? Is there any traditional text that states that Shankara was a Nambudiri Brahmin? If so, we surely must state that according to source A he was Viswa-Brahmin but according to source B he was Nambudiri Brahmin. Unless the claim stated in the article is proved false, i.e. that the stated sources do not say so, we may not take away the Viswa-Brahmin claim. Hoverfish Talk 11:43, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
One more question, possibly towards the Viswa Brahmin version: Nambudiri is defined as "Hindu Brahmins from the Indian state of Kerala". Isn't this the case with Shankara? This article does state he is from Kerala. Hoverfish Talk 12:03, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
1, Ganesh J. Acharya where did you read this details ( ADI Shankara and his widowed mother initially had difficulties from both the communities but later he over come them. ), what are the academic credential for that source? anyway that doesn't mean shankara was born in Nambudri family.
2, No evidence for shankara was born in Nambudri family or Adi Shankara's father or Mother is a Nambudiri and Hindupedia is not a reliable source.
3, I can see now in wikipedia article Shankara's gotram (lineage) is Atreya lineage
a, Shankara was born in Atreya lineage ? if shankara was born in Atreya lineage there is chance to relation with Nambudri family because Atreya lineage is part of "Sapta rishi" brahmana, Nambudiri caste may have relation with Sapta rishi but vishwakarma brahmin is part of "pancha rishi" brahmana.
b, pancha rishi brahmana and sapta rishi brahmana had marriage relation in purana
c, Nambudri brahmin and vishwakarma brahmin came to kerala with parashurama. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raghu chandran ( talk • contribs) 04:38, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
These links were placed in the Notes section: 1 2 3 4 5. I placed two of the as inline citations, some as external links and 2 I am not sure what to do with, so I let them as loose notes. Hoverfish Talk 10:26, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
1, http://www.who.is/whois/outlookindia.com 2, http://www.who.is/whois/exoticindiaart.co.in 3, http://www.who.is/whois/advaita-vedanta.org 4, http://www.who.is/whois/sringeri.net 5, http://www.who.is/whois/jstor.org — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raghu chandran ( talk • contribs) 07:14, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
It may be possible, as Raghu chandran pointed out, that these sites may have used info from previous versions of this article. The rest of their content, however does not seem to be "mirroring" Wikipedia, though I could be wrong. The content of advaita-vedanta.org at least, seems to be coming from some other hagiography source and contains so much information we never published here. A site doesn't have to be related to the government or the academy to be accepted as a reliable source. If in doubt, there is the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard where sources can be brought up and decided upon. In any case we still have the option Sitush stated "if there is uncertainty and the person's caste is not actually relevant to their notability, then simply do not state it." Hoverfish Talk 09:56, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Joshua Johnson needs to stop inserting his biased views and opinions in the introduction of article. Joshua Johnson has constantly shown an biased against Advaita tradition and has filled the article with opinionated controversial information. Avdmoh ( talk) 13:02, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
The birth year of Shankara is still heavily disputed by traditional and western scholars. It is not proper to put a disputed issue as an objective fact in the introduction. The seperate birth date section of the article has all the necessary detailed information. Introduction of an Article should contain only undisputed, objective facts., removed
Adi Shankaracharya [...] (8th cent. CE) [Note: Modern scholarship places Shankara in the earlier part of the 8th century CE (c. 700–750). [4] Earlier generations of scholars proposed 788–820 CE. [4] Other proposals are 686–718 CE, citation needed 44 BCE, [5] or as early as 509–477 BCE.]
Joshua Johnson needs to stop stuffing the Article's introduction with heavily biased opinions. The introduction is meant for objective facts, not opinions.- removed the same info on Shankara's dates; see above.
No reason to change the previous content. Shankara consolidated Advaita Vedanta., changed
who's works had a strong influence on the doctrine of Advaita Vedanta. [6] [4]
who consolidated the doctrine of Advaita Vedanta. [6] [4]
argue for the unity of Ātman and Nirguna Brahman
discuss the unity of Ātman and Nirguna Brahman
The similarity between Advaita Vedanta and Mahayana Buddhism is alleged by modern scholars., changed
Shankara's Vedanta shows similarities with Mahayana Buddhism
Some scholars have argued that Shankara's Advaita Vedanta shows similarities with Mahayana Buddhism
oshua Jonathan is engaging is disruptive PoV pushing. The similarities between Advaita and Mahayana are already discussed in detail below. No need to include it in the introduction, which should be brief and objective.
References
Keshava
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).The similarities between Advaita and Mahayana are already discussed in detail below. It does not belong in the introduction of article., removing
Some scholars have argued that Shankara's Advaita shows similarities with Mahayana Buddhism; opponents have even accused Shankara of being a "crypto-Buddhist," [1] [2] a qualification which is rejected by the Advaita Vedanta tradition, given the differences between these two schools. Shankara himself stated that Hinduism asserts "Ātman (Soul, Self) exists", while Buddhism asserts that there is "no Soul, no Self". [3] [4] [5]
eroer1
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).@ JJNito197: the WP:LEAD summarizes the article, so this removal is unwarranted, even more because with your next edit you re-inserted Shankara's view on the difference between the Advaita and Buddhist views. A view which, by the way, is misinformed; Buddhism has had it's own discussions on essentialism, see Rangtong-Shentong; and Advaita's view on the self-luminosity of awareness, which you removed diff from the lead of Advaita Vedanta as being "contentious terminology" diff, was taken over from Yogacara.
Just two days ago, I've had the same discussion about the lead summarizing the article with another editor, who's now blocked, so I'd appreciate it not to repeat that discussion. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 14:34, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
This edit added the following info to the lead:
There is also a common belief among scholars including Vincent Smith [1] [2] that Adi Shankara played an important role in the decline of Buddhism in India. [3] [4] [5] Adi Sankara played a major role debating with Buddhist monks, and publicly defeated a few notable ones in theological debates. [6]
I've moved those two sentences downwards diff, to the section on Shanakara's influence; as explained in the article, Shankara's influence is overstated. Moving it back diff is misplaced.
There is no corresponding section in the article which such info, so it is misplaced to add this to the WP:LEAD, which is supposed to summarize the article. And that has already been pointed out several times, today and two days ago.
All in all: a popular belief misleadingly presented as a common scholarly opinion, based on crappy sources, which does not belong in the lead. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 15:51, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
See also Decline of Buddhism in the Indian subcontinent, which mentions Shankara only one time. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 18:23, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Where are these sources? I see the sources above, which don't really appear to support what you're saying they do. Could you provide a source that more directly supports what is being claimed? Honestly with the sources above it looked like you searched a phrase in Google Books and copied the results which looked "close enough" which don't really say what you've searched for. - Aoidh ( talk) 19:32, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Decline of Buddhism edit summary
I propose the edit summary be as follows,
Adi Shankara is believed by some Hindus to be responsible for the decline of Buddhism in India.
[1] 'When Adi Shankaracharya uprooted the Buddhism from India'
[2] 'To the extent that Adi Shankaracharya checkmated Buddhism through resurgent Hinduism , and prevented India from turning predominantly Buddhist'
[3] 'Adi Shankaracharya walked the length and breadth of India, defeated scholars of Buddhism, Jainism and various alternate schools of thought in scholarly'
[4] "with the rise of Advaita Vedanta, concepts of which were compiled by Adi Shankara, Buddhism declined in India."
[5] 'Hindus of the Advaita persuasion (and others too) have seen in Sankara the one who restored the Hindu dharma against the attacks of the Buddhists (and Jains) and in the process helped to drive Buddhism out of India.'
[6] 'Hindu revivelist Adi Shankaracharya sent Buddhism packing to Cambodia'
[7] 'Adi shankara revived the faith the Vedic way, not by kicking Buddhists out of India, but introducing reforms in Hinduism to bring it back to its pure purpose'
[8] 'It was the coming of Adi Shankara that the influence of Buddhism subsided on the Indian subcontinent'
--or-- Adi Shankara is believed by Hindus to be responsible for the decline in Buddhism in India through intellectual debate.
Please advise on how this sentence should be altered (or not). Please also note: these are new sources on top of the others previously cited in article.
How it would read -
Shankara's Advaita shows similarities with Mahayana Buddhism; opponents have even accused Shankara of being a "crypto-Buddhist, a qualification which is rejected by the Advaita Vedanta tradition, given the differences between these two schools. Adi Shankara is believed by some Hindus to be responsible for the decline of Buddhism in India; Sankara played a major role debating with Buddhist monks, publicly defeating a few notable ones in theological debates. Shankara himself stated that Hinduism asserts "Ātman (Soul, Self) exists", while Buddhism asserts that there is "no Soul, no Self."
References
JJNito197 ( talk) 00:01, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
decline of Buddhism in India; Sankara played a major roleis WP:SYNTESIS; do Hovey or Pandey state that Shankara contributed to the decline of Buddhism by debating Buddhist monks? Let alone that this was Shankara's major contribution?
Quoting Whaling, in the body of the article, suffices. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 09:23, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
Regarding
this revert (your sixth), edit-summary partial restore of neutral, valid content not being discussed in talk
, which added
Adi Sankara played a major role debating with Buddhist monks, and publicly defeated a few notable ones in theological debates. [1] [2]
References
incorrect. This is also mentioned in the thread above. The WP:LEAD summarizes the article; this is not in the article, except for the exact same sentence, which I moved into the body of the article, because it is WP:UNDUE for the lead. And even there it is undue, given that this is what the article already says:
and participating in public philosophical debates with different orthodox schools of Hindu philosophy, as well as heterodox traditions such as Buddhists, Jains, Arhatas, Saugatas, and Carvakas.
It's also unverifiable, because no pagenumbers were given. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 03:20, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
Notice "well-composed" and "carefully sourced"; not exactly descriptors of your edits. Maybe the lead can be shortened; but notice that the article has five sections, to which the lead corresponds. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 09:37, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
Shankara was a peripatetic orthodox Hindu monk who traveled the length and breadth of India. The more enthusiastic followers of the Advaita tradition claim that he was chiefly responsible for "driving the Buddhists away". Historically the decline of Buddhism in India is known to have taken place long after Shankara or even Kumarila Bhatta (who according to a legend had "driven the Buddhists away" by defeating them in debates), sometime before the Muslim invasion into Afghanistan (earlier Gandhara).
Although today's most enthusiastic followers of Advaita believe Shankara argued against Buddhists in person, a historical source, the Madhaviya Shankara Vijayam, indicates that Shankara sought debates with Mimamsa, Samkhya, Nyaya, Vaisheshika and Yoga scholars as keenly as with any Buddhists. In fact his arguments against the Buddhists are quite mild in the Upanishad Bhashyas, while they border on the acrimonious in the Brahma Sutra Bhashya.
It's not what Pandey says. What's the pagenumber and relevant quote for the Hovey-source? I can't find Shankara nor Sankara in the Hovey-source. The lead already says
According to tradition, he travelled across the Indian subcontinent to propagate his philosophy through discourses and debates with other thinkers, from both orthodox Hindu traditions and heterodox non-Hindu-traditions.
Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 20:15, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Adi Shankara has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
name of Adi sankara in Malyalam:ശ്രീ ശങ്കരാചാര്യ OusephMathai ( talk) 17:58, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Adi Shankara's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "lexicon":
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 20:16, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Adi Shankara has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The first word under the "Dating" section is obviously meant to be "Reliable" but is misspelled "Eeliable". That is all. 2601:981:4400:5B10:F96D:C511:3E59:93D2 ( talk) 23:34, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Adi Shankara has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Died c. 750 CE Kedarnath, Gurjara-Pratihara Empire (present-day Uttarakhand, India) to Died c. 475 BCE Kedarnath, Gurjara-Pratihara Empire (present-day Uttarakhand, India) Xhimanshuz ( talk) 08:15, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Adi Shankara has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Koller 2013, pp. 100–101: "Atman, which is identical to Brahman, is ultimately the only reality and [...] the appearance of plurality is entirely the work of ignorance [...] the self is ultimately of the nature of Atman/Brahman [...] Brahman alone is ultimately real." need to removed from Notes,This book is to defame and spread lie about Adi Shankaracharya Xhimanshuz ( talk) 14:26, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template.
ScottishFinnishRadish (
talk) 14:56, 28 April 2022 (UTC)This
edit request to
Adi Shankara has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the section where Sri Adi Sankaracharya’s date of births are mentioned. Please remove the last line about the most popular followed dates of birth. When the article mentions so many possibilities, then what is the source for putting the information that the most populat dates of birth as 8th century CE. This is false information for many as well as suppression against Vaidika Sanathana Dharma what is called Hinduism today.
Please remove the statement of the most popular dates and also the date of birth and death mentioned in the main box on the right.
Thank you. 99.155.66.160 ( talk) 05:14, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
I feel the article can be a lot more detailed and more clear.
When we write, During his tours, he is credited with starting several Matha (monasteries), however this is uncertain
, are we casting doubt on the factual accuracy of Adi Shankara establishing Mathas? Or are we claiming that the hagiographies are uncertain about this episode i.e. employing a roundabout way of telling that they are internally inconsistent?
TrangaBellam (
talk) 16:03, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Adi Shankara has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Born Shankara c. 700 CE Kalady, Chera Kingdom (present-day Kochi in Kerala, India) to Born Shankara c. 507 BCE Kalady, Chera Kingdom (present-day Kochi in Kerala, India) Xhimanshuz ( talk) 07:33, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Adi Shankara has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
14.139.240.85 ( talk) 20:54, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Adi Shankara has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the section “Moksha - liberating knowledge of Brahman”, The word “mahavykas” is the wrong word and the link is also not there. the correct word should be “Mahavakyas” and the link should be this one “ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahāvākyas” 2601:647:4001:8560:68C5:DEE0:7489:EFB7 ( talk) 03:43, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
Done. JJNito197 ( talk) 22:23, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
We should add the location ex : kedarnath, uttarakhand was where he died and kalady, kerala was where he was born. 2402:E280:2152:AA:784E:F5AC:494C:CA41 ( talk) 10:55, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
Thanks!
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
When a User reverts all my edits with no explanation but a childishly untrue claim in the edit summary that my own edit summary was inaccurate, I don't feel the need to explain my consequent revert, and I shan't in future. If anyone wants to explain what they think is wrong with my attempts to improve the article, then I'll be happy to discuss the issue. -- Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 21:18, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Your well aware of my objections to your watchdogging this page, we've already discussed this here. its seems I'm not alone in my concerns... funny, that... Sam Spade 03:21, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
I object to your reverts, and the reasoning for them, yes. Sam Spade 00:05, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
+++++++++ May 3rd 21:00 CDT I notice that user Mel Etitis had reverted some of the edits as unexplained. The reasons for the edits are commented inline - meaning they are in the article itself. Maybe Mel would like to clarify what needs to be explained here, and I'll do so.
Thanks - M +++++++++
As SS insists on reverting my edits but refuses to explain (the nearest he gets is calling them "bizarre" in his edit summary) I've asked for comments. Fresh eyes on the article would be appreciated. -- Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 22:30, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
Absolutely, that is my thought entirely. This all started because I saw this revert by Mel. As you can see from User_talk:Sam_Spade#Adi_Shankara, that has been my concern all along. Also, if you notice, I have been observing the 1 rr, making no more than 1 revert every 24hrs, and I have done my best to merge in any actual improvements. Sam Spade 14:34, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
It is. Basically I object to Mel having reverted a generally good edit, I reverted his revert, he reverted me back, and here we are. Sam Spade 22:11, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
I would describe that as a complete mischaracterisation, and advise any interested parties to review my statements, the links I provide, and the articles edit history. Sam Spade 01:52, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for your helpful comments. So that you know, Hinduism does not link to Hindu. Namboothiri I have no problem with, but he reverted a large number of wikilinks as well. My primary problem is his usage of a revert in these cases, which was clearly inappropriate and problematic. Sam Spade 23:55, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
Oh, I'm sorry, i misunderstood you at first. I thought you thought Hindu redirected to hinduism (which it once did, but no longer does). Now I see you were refering to the fact that the article Hinduism contains within it a link to Hindu. That is indeed the case, but I feel this article ( Adi Shankara) ought to link to hindu as well, and indeed generally should link to a wide variety of relevant articles. I sincerely appreciate your mediations here, Walter Siegmund. Sam Spade 03:34, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
We don't agree philosophically regarding wikilinks, I feel more is better, and that any concivably useful link should occur at least once per section. However, you have been communicative and reasonable regarding your preference, so I am willing to accept your preference for this page, as long as Mel does not resume reversions of edits which improve the article. Sam Spade 23:17, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
Your attempt to mediate has been noted and appreciated. Thank you very much. Sam Spade 00:36, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
The article has been protected per the request at WP:RFP. And please don't accuse me of taking sides, Mel did not contact me and I'd have protected the wrong version either way. Once you've resolved your differences of opinion, it can be unprotected. FeloniousMonk 01:09, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
I had explained to SS why I'd made the edits that I had, and he refused to discuss the issue, merely making general comments about me and the edits (mainly in edit summaries). I eventually (two days ago) asked for the page to be protected. I'm currently struggling with a particularly heavy teaching load, so I'm a couple of days behind checking on my Watchlist (I'm now at 02:06 on 8 x 05, if anyone's interested), and I missed the current discussion. I'm pleased that the intervention of a third party, Walter Siegmund, has finally brought SS to the discussion, but I'd asked for page protection before most of that discussion had taken place.
I agree with almost everything that Walter Siegmund said, and even where I don't I appreciate his calm and serious approach. I hope that he'll return to the Talk page. -- Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 22:40, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Sam Spade and Mel Etitis, thank you both for your kind words about my efforts. I've been thinking about how best to proceed given that Mel Etitis has little time to devote to this discussion at present and that it is in all of our interests to unblock the article promptly so that we and others can resume our efforts to improve it. Since you both have expressed confidence in my efforts and little inclination to examine my comments one by one, I wonder if a solution along the follow lines might be acceptable?
Thank you for your consideration of my proposal. - Walter Siegmund (talk) 19:47, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Sam Spade, I'm sorry. I can't agree to your stipulation to allow reversions of each other's work under any circumstance and I've modified the language above to make this clear. I fear that to do otherwise opens the door to a transfer of this dispute to another article or a resumption of the dispute on this article. I think that the history of this dispute demonstrates that reversion is not going to resolve a dispute between you and Mel Etitis. You are not giving up a useful tool by agreeing to this provision. You are gaining an end to the vexation that his reversions have caused you. I would be very grateful if you would be kind enough to reconsider your objection to this provision. Thank you. Walter Siegmund (talk) 22:58, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Mel Etitis, thank you for your prompt reply, especially in light of your busy schedule. Nothing in my proposal should be construed as restraining either of the parties from reverting edits by third parties as he sees fit and in accordance with the policies of Wikipedia. I've added language to this effect above. Thank you for pointing out the need to explicitly address this point. Walter Siegmund (talk) 22:58, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
I don't like seeing Mel revert good edits. That is the root of our conflict here. I am agreeable w things that make that stop happening. Sam Spade 03:56, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
Seems like there is no resolution right now.... a couple of possible solutions, more then one could be used:
1)Sam and Mel both agree to neither one do anything to this article without both of them agreeing to the change beforehand, maybe on one of the talk pages? If they can't find consensus on an issue, it doesn't happen. And, they go one proposal at a time.
2)Both agree to no mass reverts EVER on this page again
3)Both agree that for each change, they make actual edit comments EXPLAINING why they are doing it.
4)Both agree to only a one edit per day on this page
and lastly if that isn't possible, or doesn't work, how about if neither Sam Spade nor Mel Etitis touch this article for say.... 4 months?
Just some ideas. Sethie 01:39, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
Just some ideas.
I don't understand. I can't find any differences of opinion, only some relatively dubious grammatical 'correction'. Is there really any difference in substance between the two supposedly alternative articles? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.93.21.104 ( talk • contribs) 09:06, 13 November 2005 .
... Regarding your reversion of the edits of 129.79.205.132 on Adi Shankara, I think you may have overlooked certain positive aspects of those edits.
Thank you for considering these items and for your efforts fighting vandals. Best wishes, ...
You make good points. This is not the first example of Mel and I having a messy difference of opinion, and while that may not excuse, it might explain this incident. There was User_talk:Sam_Spade#Adi_Shankara which you may not have seen, btw. Sam Spade 12:05, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Just read the discussion. -- Bhadani 15:28, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
I frequently counsel people who are getting frustrated about an edit war to think about someone who lives without clean drinking water, without any proper means of education, and how our work might someday help that person. It puts flamewars into some perspective, I think.
Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing. [2]
Thats nice, but what I'm doing is making sure that when
3rd world kids find a way to edit, some pedant admin like mel doesn't revert them out of hand and leave a nasty note on their talk page.
Sam Spade 22:23, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
I am new to Wiki, and I guess a revert without an explination strikes me as "bad form," meaning it doesn't acknowledge or try to work with the work someone else it, it doesn't try to create any connection with the previous author, it just says, screw you, I am going to do what I want.
Having BRIEFLY read over this discussion page, I propose that both sides agree to not revert WITHOUT comment. Just a thought... I doubt there are ways to ban certain people/ip's from an article.
Howver, the good news is- Brahman is in everything and IS everything. The One without a Second is bad reverts and is grammer arguements, as well as mountains and music. I empathize with the frustrations of this situation, and I am certain that Shankara is laughing his ass off over this dispute. Sethie 20:32, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
This article was protected weeks and weeks and weeks ago, and there are no ongoing discussions. I've unprotected. -- Tony Sidaway| Talk 08:52, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Ughhh that may have not been a good idea.... Sam Spade started editing pretty soon after and I bet Mel will be right back un-doing them. (btw, I am neutral on this, I don't even understand the arguement). Sethie 05:41, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
I challenge you to review our previous discussion, particularly where we agreed and where we did not. Sam Spade 15:32, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
OK, let me rephrase: I challenge interested parties to scroll up ;) Sam Spade 15:53, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
Any info on the Dasnami Sannyasa and the formation Hindu monasticism by Shankara? Thanks. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 00:32, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Wsiegmund: Please note that when there are differing views on the dates, then it must be stated that scholars have not agreed on the dates and not as you have reverted. What is modern scholarship? can you please define this? What is the sourse for saying that modern scholarship is agreed on the date of Adi Shankara as 7 or 8th Century A.D? Appaiah 10:01, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Animesh78 keeps linking to a poetry page which, though not very informative offers a number of links to poetry, only one of which is to poetry by Shankara. When I change the link to point to the relevant page, he insists on reverting, apaprently under the impression that they're all by Shankara (despite the clear statement that they're by writers such as Tulsidas and Vasishtha. I've changed the link again to point to the one poem by Shankara, "Five Cantos on Maya". -- Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 20:49, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
And why don't you navigate to POEMS link just below the mainpage of stutimandal dot com to see the poems by Adi Shankara? It seems Mel Etitis finds it hard to navigate, contrary to what I (and many visitors have thought so far).
I mean -- we have more than one poem to offer -- should we link all of them one by one?
Animesh78 01:18, 12 February 2006 (UTC)Animesh for Stutimandal
<quote> Major connections with the subject of another article that will help readers to understand the current article more fully (see the example below). This can include people, events and topics that already have an article or that clearly deserve one, as long as the link is relevant to the article in question. </quote>
I really don't understand how or why stutimandal (or any other poetry site having many stutis by Adi Shankara) should be deprived of having a link. The major connection that I observe is "Philosopher -> His poetry." I wonder if someone has a dispute against this.
I think an average web-surfer knows how to click at the home-page of another poetry-website.
Animesh78 01:25, 12 February 2006 (UTC)Animesh78
No one wishes to deprive stutimandal of having a link. Myself, Mel, and pletny of other editors doe wish to deprive stutimandal of having multiple links listed on one wiki article, especially if the links don't reffer specifically to the topic at hand!
I suggest you make a page that lists all of his poems and then put that ONE link into this article. Sethie 06:03, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Gone are the days of gentlemen. Enjoy the rule over a "free-wikipedia". I am withdrawing any links to Stutimandal from this *ruled and dictated* place. I still don't understand your *sad* claims that poetry of Adi Shankara has no reffer(sic) specifically to the topic of Who Adi Shankara was.
Regarding Sethie's suggestion of having a separate page for Adi Shankara -- I think Wikipedia should adapt to the world and the other way.
69.107.117.73 09:36, 12 February 2006 (UTC)Animesh78
Why do you think Five Cantos on Maya should not be linked? They seem relevant to me and satisfy the criteria of WP:EL, in my opinion. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 00:36, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Well the point is this: We have more than one poem (about 10 right now and increasing) of Adi Shankara; according to the (right) rules of wikipedia, 10 links from same website is a bad practice; I want to link the homepage for the same (from homepage the site can be navigated); Mel Etitis wants to link only Maya Panchakam. Either you guys decide with him or I am removing the link to Maya Panchakam. Linking only Maya Panchakam, at least to me, is a dishonor to Adi Shankara as well as the hard-work going on inside that website.
Animesh78 05:55, 15 February 2006 (UTC)Animesh
It is not our jobs to honor Shankara, as editors, it is our job to write a good article. I am for having one of his poems in there. If at any point your page is organized by author, then add in a Shankara page. Sethie 06:32, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Oh come on! Personally I think only those persons should edit who have an interest in that topic; if you don't want to honor Adi Shankara, then I don't know what to say. To me, still, it is a disrespect to the site and the poet in question. Now the bone is stuck in the throat -- neither it's going down nor coming out. I will prefer removing the link altogether.
Animesh78 07:44, 15 February 2006 (UTC)Animesh
It seems to me that a debate over the motivations of editors is not helpful. We should all assume that we are here to make the article better. The Eight cantos on Achyuta seem to me to satisfy the criteria of WP:EL. [3] Mel Etitis (20:49, 11 February 2006 UTC) says that the main page only has one link to Adi Shankara poems. Apparently the link to The Eight cantos on Achyuta is more recent. Also, I find the following additional poems by Shankara via links near the bottom of the page:
I concede that the site is not as ideally organized for the purposes of this article as it might be. But, since there are two links to Shankara poems (and indirect links to 12 others), is an external link to the main page (as Animesh78 has been advocating) unwarranted? Walter Siegmund (talk) 19:34, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Animesh78 00:48, 16 February 2006 (UTC)Animesh78
I suggest you look around some other articles. Take a look how external links are set up. Look and see how they are always very precise links to things mostly or only related to the article. I guess I am asking you to take a look around and get a feel for Wiki, then come back and discuss. Sethie 01:42, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Theres a page on Nirvana Shatkam which I beleive was written by Adi Shankara. It would be great if someone here could check the page and see if its right and I've linked it to the right person. Cheers -- Salix alba ( talk) 21:23, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Mr. Etitis -
(1) Meaningless to most readers??? Well, not to the ones I've talked to.
(2) What proof are you looking for. You have conveniently dismissed the proof the Mathas have to offer.
(3) The link to the reference was to the author and not the article? Explain to me how this is useful??
(4) Good content is more important than good English? You ascribe, oops subscribe to that?
I've noticed that you're a regular over these year and I do appreciate you taking the time to maintain this article but that does not give you dictatorial control over the content.
This article is no longer neutral, and I’ve notice that only those views that get the Mel Etitis nod of approval gets in which is just sad.
Thank you, M May 6 2006 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.249.139.167 ( talk • contribs).
66.141.187.234 19:13, 7 May 2006 (UTC) M 2006/05/07
++++++++++
Mr. Etitis, I’m short on time and so here are my responses (not necessarily in any order)
bhaja govindam bhaja govindam bhaja govindam mudamate samprapte sannihite kale na hi na hi rakshati dukrunkarane (and here is the translation of the foreign language text - Adore the Lord, adore the Lord, adore the Lord, O fool! when the appointed time comes, the repetition of grammatical rules will not, indeed, save you) – Adi Sankara
peace 70.243.200.243 02:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC) M 2006/05/07
++++++++++
The crocodile story was actually something that Shankara spun on his own to make his mother agree to his sanyasa. There was no crocodile (remember he was bathing in a temple tank). Shankara did not actually lie because by Crocodile he did not mean the animal he meant the usual life (samsara). One has to read the story as Shankara saying to his mother that he will drown dragged down by samsara and hence she should let him be an ascetic.
I expanded the Life section. Babub 17:22, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi,
Regarding this sentence: "Adi Shankara is believed to be the founder of the Dashanami monastic order and the Shanmata tradition of worship".
I am changing it to" "Adi Shankara is believed to be the organizer of the Dashanami monastic order and the founder of the Shanmata tradition of worship".
Please see the page Dashanami_Sampradaya. The dasanami / ekadandi tradition and their monastries have existed before the birth of Sri Adi Shankara.
Adi Shankara founded a form of worship by merging various hindu beleifs / factions into the Shanmata tradition and founded four mutts to help organize the methodology of worship as well as provide an organized support base for hinduism. He did not found the dasanami / ekadandi tradition. The dasanamis / ekadandis have existed even in the Pallava and Pandya periods.
Thanks. --Illusion 06:26, 4 May 2009 (UTC)Mayasutra —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mayasutra ( talk • contribs)
hi, this article is severely poor. im not sure if anyone has realised but the main text to which the information about sankara is credited Sankara-Dig-Vijaya is actually a mythological text written around 1600 AD called a hagiography that bears little or no relevance to the historicity of the life of sankara. as an example, it is seriously academically doubted that sankara founded the mathas - though this is accepted as hindu tradition it should be noted so and not as historical fact as this is far from the truth. indeed, even the dating here is innacurate. i'm a 2nd year indian civilisation student at the university of edinburgh, and am in the middle an essay on sankara so dont have time to edit the article myself, but i can point anyone interested in the direction of a number of academic works.
a hagiography is a mythological/folk tale written around 1000 years after sankaras death to eulogise him in the face of contention from other religions. it is contextually reactive and other than indicating to one the reverence of sankara it has no historical value !
luke. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.112.72.23 ( talk) 15:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I noticed that the pronunciation of some Malayalam words are given in IAST system. I was wondering if IAST could transliterate Malayalam correctly too? Are all the sounds in Malayalam portray-able in IAST? -- thunderboltza.k.a.D eepu Joseph | TALK13:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
This convention should be applied to any language spoken in the Indian subcontinent that is written in an Indic script. The major languages are: Assamese, Bengali, Gujarati, Hindi, Kannada, Konkani (when written in Kannada or Devanagari scripts), Malayalam, Marathi, Nepali, Oriya, Pali, Punjabi (when written in Gurmukhi script), Sanskrit, Sinhala, Tamil, Telugu.
Please add visarga after the word आदि शंकर in Devanagari. Apnavana 02:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
My computer has indic enabled, yet I see the hindi/ devnagari spelling wrong in the article page. Can anyone explain why? Its comes ok here. Is unicode causing it to come out wrongly there? -- Lost (talk) 06:26, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
This article is posted as a featured article. What is not said is that the article as featured is edited. I don't know how the editing is done, but leaving out the birth/death years makes the article very weak. Kdammers 06:13, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi,
I just finished a cource in Comparative Religion at Uppsala University in Hinduism and Buddism and now I find that Adi Shankara is Today's featured article :-) Good idea,.. how is the prosess of choosing Today's featured article made?
In my MS Explorer (Swedish version) there is a bit strange signs: Malayalam: ആദി ശങ്കരന്,
Check out Eco Theology article if you whant some info about Ecology and Theology and please help to develop that article so that soon itcould be Today's featured article?
-- Swedenborg 12:11, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Dear Hinduism Project members and others interested in Hindusim There is a controversy on the Hinduism regarding Raja Yoga. Please read the debate on the Hinduism discussion page. Your comments are requested on the Hinduism discussion page to help resolve the controversy. Thank you. HeBhagawan 14:46, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
If the modern scholarship is agreed on the 788 – 820 CE date, then shouldn't that be the date specified in the introduction? - Cibu 04:30, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Didn't Adi Shankara comment on Eleven upanishads? Syiem 13:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
The following is an extract from the Dig-Vijaya sub-section of this article: "He then defeated the Jainas at a place called Bahlika". The word "defeated" does not clearly indicate the nature of defeat of the Jainas. Were they defeated militarily or in a debate? TathD 14:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
The article cites three books: by Swami Tapasyananda, by Keay and by Greaves. Most of the references are to the book by Tapasyananda and there is only one to Greave's book and none to Keay's. COuld somebody please explain why it is like that or add some more inline citations? Kkrystian 10:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone have the idea of Adi Shankara's Gotra? BalanceRestored 06:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC) There are local mythologies that his father was a Twoshta. Vedic decent of TWOSHTRI.There is a sloka in sankaradvigvijayam revealing his gothra as Abhuvana twoshta viswakarma.
Acharyo sankaro nama Twoshta putra nisamshaya Viprakula gurorvdweeksha Viswakarman to brahmana
Sloka published in Kesari Annual magzine in 1978 by Dr. Sadasiva sharma ,Palakkad, Kerala. Write up The gothras of Viswakarma Rsi. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.164.229.5 ( talk) 07:46, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
"Adi Shankaracharya was not only a saint of profound spiritual insight, but also helped develop scientific concepts. It is believed that Adi Shankara was the first mathematician to use the concept of Number Line (Ref: "Sankara Bhaashyam" (4-4-25) of the "Brihadaaranyaka Upanishad"), the idea of assigning a set of natural numbers to a straight line. As the number of elements in a set of natural numbers is infinite, it requires a symbol of infinity to represent them. A straight line can be considered to be infinitely long. Adi Shankara adopted a straight line as a symbol of infinity. A straight line can be divided to infinite number of parts and each of these parts can be assigned the value of a particular number. This is called number line. Though his concept lacks the perfection of modern number line theory, Sree Sankaran exhibited his intellectual ingenuity in conceiving such a novel idea. [1]
Yet another example for Sree Sankaran's unbiased and pure scientific pursuit of knowledge could be seen in the second "Slokam" (verse) of Soundarya Lahari (a collection of 100 Slokams in praise of Goddess Durga written by Adi Shankara). In the Slokam Thaneeyaamsam paamsum thava charana pankeruhabhavam, we can see a hint to the theory of inter-convertibility of mass and energy (the famous equation E = MC² put forward by Albert Einstein). [2]
In another context, Adi Shankara postulated that the diameter of Sun is 1 lakh "Yojanas". Later the modern scientific community calculated the diameter which agreed very closely with (just 3% error) the value provided by Adi Shankara. [3]"
Removed since the website is not WP:RS. The Namboothiri-trust website may tend to glorify members of it's community. The website does not list it's sources for it's assertions about Shankara's knoweledge of Maths and might be WP:OR.-- Redtigerxyz ( talk) 06:02, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Is this really true? I know a movie, where he was given Brahmin status by another Brahmin. Please check this one. -- Thirusivaperur ( talk) 16:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
He is almost certainly a Nambudiri. But yea, a source would be helpful. Trips ( talk) 06:00, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Local mythologies prevailing around Aluva in KERALA is that Sankara's father was a Viswakarma who married a Namboothiri lady,and thus got thrown out of the community.This frustht may be a reason of these communities non participation of the funeral of sankara's mother. Local viswakarmans are still celibrating sankara jayanthy by there own. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.164.241.127 ( talk) 05:56, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
In the "Historical and cultural effect" section, it is stated that Shankara exhorted his followers to worship God. According to Schopenhauer's On the Will in Nature, in the "Sinology" chapter, Westerners are always trying to find their God in other religions. Steeped from childhood in the concept of a Judeo–Christian anthropomorphic God, Westerners can't understand how a religion can exist without such a being. Are we sure that Shankara's Vedanta refers to a humanoid God who created, supervises, and controls the universe? Is this presentation of God in Vedanta merely a Western European assumption? Lestrade ( talk) 17:05, 31 October 2008 (UTC)Lestrade
Adi Shankara begins his Gurustotram or Verses to the Guru with the following Sanskrit Sloka, that has become a widely sung Bhajan:
Guru Brahma, Guru Vishnu, Guru Deva Maheshwara. Guru Sakshath Parambrahma, Tasmai Shri Gurave Namaha. (tr: Guru is the creator Brahma, Guru is the preserver Vishnu, Guru is the destroyer Siva. Guru is directly the supreme spirit — I offer my salutations to this Guru.)
I wonder why this has been deleted by somebody. Is this information not true? or is there anybody who dislikes that kind of information?
slightly different translation is to be found [6] here
I don't know the name of the above quoted Shloka, how to find a source apt for wikipedia?
Okay, the title/name is Guru Stotram.
The song is to be found here [11], no direct link available.
In the past, a user has requested mediation on this issue. The dispute was resolved at 16:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC) by Xavexgoem. For more information, see the case page.
Adi Shankara is from Kerala by birth. -- 91.130.91.84 ( talk) 12:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
The wikipedia page for biographies states, that the article should be conservatively written. In any case of biographies in whole wikipedia, this means, that the ethnicity of the person is used only, since any other script mislead the reader. The reader could think, that this person is of Marathi or any other ethnicity using the Devanagari script which is certainly wrong and misleading. To keep it conservative, the Devanagari script has to be removed. -- Leadcorrector ( talk) 15:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
This is a stupid debate. Neither Malayalam the language, nor its script, nor the Devanagari script are attested at Shankara's time. His ethnicity is now assumed to Malayali because of his place of birth, but given that the area could be considered to be part of the wider 'Tamil country' of those times, perhaps his name should be written in Tamil instead (that's not a serious suggestion). I vote for keeping Devanagari for clarity. Imc ( talk) 16:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
For clearer view of the consensus, please include your sign (* --~~~~) in the relevant section. Please continue the comments above.
Old debate to which I can only shake my head. The correct argument is of course that the article should be informative for the users of the encyclopedia, not conservative. If many readers are served by his name being written in Devanagari, then the name should be written in Devanagari. Same reasoning for Tamil and for Malayalam, irrespective of whether it was spoken at that time. ... said: Rursus ( mbork³) 19:52, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
I have been trying to place a sentence in the Hindu meditation section of the 'meditation' article that Adi Shankara is generally regarded as a primary exponent and theoretician about Hindu meditation. These have been deleted by editor Mitsube with the comment that Shankara didn't write or practise meditation to any eminent degree within the Hindu tradition. Anyone who has read Shankara's books (not merely googled for references about him on- line, including biographies about him) must challenge this. I suspect it is part of an ideological agenda to claim that Hindu meditation began with the Buddha. Fauncet ( talk) 14:10, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Aadi Sankara was born and brought up as a kid in the banks of river
Muvattupuzha near
Piravom in
Muvattupuzha Taluka,kerala. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
59.93.22.239 (
talk) 09:33, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
The debate about the Devanagari and Malayalam scripts was quite a while ago, but I just want to clarify something. Devanagari is not, and certainly was not in the past, "the" Sanskrit script. Sanskrit can be and has historically been written in all or most Brahmi-derived scripts. A Malayali is quite likely to use the Malayalam script to write in Sanskrit. However, neither of these scripts would have been around in Shankaracharya's time, so only the IAST is needed in an English Wikipedia article. If we must include some sort of Indic script, then Malayalam makes some sense because he was from what is now Kerala and probably spoke some sort of proto-Malayalam, whereas Devanagari has very little relevance. -- 137.205.75.53 ( talk) 23:18, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Referring to the information as given under the para 'Historical and cultural impact', where it is stated that Adi Shankara believed that 'the most important access to highest truth was Vedic texts, and that access to these liberating texts should be socially restricted to upper-caste males' and subsequently under the para 'Works', Adi Shankara quotes in the Taittiriya Upanishad that "it has been established that everyone has the right to the knowledge (of Brahman) and that the supreme goal is attained by that knowledge alone". The two statements seem ironical to me and it appears that he is refuting his own belief in keeping the Vedic knowledge accessible to only the upper-caste males, by stating in Taittiriya Upanishad that everyone has the right to the knowledge (I am assuming that he is referring to the same knowledge in both of the statements).
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Only truth i shall seek ( talk • contribs) 16:51, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
I have come across an alternative view expressed on Adi Shankara's works. It is quite well researched, though it's largely original research. Can I add a couple of sentences about this article? Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajesh shenoy ( talk • contribs) 06:22, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
User:TheRingess has been removing useful links to Shankaracharya's Peetha websites like kamakoti.org that are certainly relevant to the article. Should these links be kept or removed. Let the consensus decide. -- Hinduismispeace ( talk) 08:33, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
A neutral and impartial view on the date of Sri. Adi Shankaracharya is available at:
http://www.sanskrit.org/www/Shankara/shankar2.html
Below are the incomplete and unbelievable analysis and claims regarding the date of Sri. Adi Sankara, the outcome of "sponsored research" - to the convenience of recently established Kanchi math in South India. This is a preamble to the Kanchi math's attempt to draw a direct lineage to Adi Shankara and to retro-fit the math's fabricated historical timings and concocted lineage of non-existent gurus - prior to 19th century AD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.98.190.184 ( talk) 31 August 2013
Hi 68.98.190.184, I see that we are using page 4 of this website/document in 9 cases in the section Mathas to support the text there. I encourage the main editors of this article to see whether page 2, given above, can be cited to support the dates given. Hoverfish Talk 18:24, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Adi Shankara was born somewhere between 507-509 BCE please go through the following website http://www.indiadivine.org/audarya/hinduism-forum/187608-dating-adi-shankara.html for reference not this website alone but I have come across articles in print media giving that particular years as birth date correction of this particular aspect is very important.Though the dat mentioned in this article is different from the above mentioned but one interesting co-incidence is several websites and printed media have mentioned he has lived for 32 yrs just as mentioned in this article so a proper conclusion would be to mention both of these days untill a substantial evidence supporting any of these dates is given by historians. Midnghtchild ( talk) 09:43, 8 January 2011 (UTC) Refer: http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/fr/2003/05/23/stories/2003052301540800.htm
( Rangakuvara ( talk) 09:00, 7 May 2011 (UTC)) Sanskrit words should be pronounced as Sanskrit only. Regional flavor will ruin the meaning. Please correct the word as Shankara (Some places it is written Sankara. It should be Sharada; not sarada. It should be Gopala; not Kopala.(Because Kopala, and Kopi have different meanings)
The current date of Shankara, i.e, 788-820 A.D. was first derived from a manuscript found at Belgaum. This date also was agreed with the internal evidence evinced from the works of Shankara himself. However, as years rolled on, a variety of dates were calculated. The verse found in the manuscript of Belgaum also appears in the treatise Shankara Digvijaya Sara (SDS), a summary of Brihat Shakara Vijaya (BSV), written by Sadananda. Although, BSV gives a date of 509 B.C., SDS mentions a date of 788 A.D. It is therefore clear that Sadananda gives Shankara’s date relying on some other source. Since the verse in both the Belgaum manuscript and SDS appears to come from the same source, which itself could be unreliable. Also, the date of 788 A.D. is in conflict with traditional dates, that is, those held by the Mathas found by Shankara himself. However, the 788 A.D. dateline was accepted, since all traditional accounts of Indian history, including the Puraan, were conveniently considered to be worthless of any historical content, and were ignored.
Numerous compositions with the title “Shankara Vijaya” describing the exploits of Shri Shankara are available, five of which confirm one date, four do not mention any date at all and only one gives the date of 788 A.D.(Antarkar’s thesis, BORI). One written by Chitsukhacharya, a childhood companion of Shankara from the age of 5, can be considered to be authorative. M.R.Bodas in his “Shankaracharya aani tyancha sampradaaya” published in 1923 gives the date of Chitsukhacharya as 514-416 B.C. As he was 5 years elderto Shankara, the latter’s date comes to be (514 – 5) 509 B.C. Chitsukhacharya’s “Brihat Shankara Vijaya” states that Shankara was born Vaishakha Shukla Panchami in the constellation and lagna of Dhanu, in the year Nandana of 2593 Kali, i.e, (3102 – 2593) in 509 B.C. This date was also calculated by Prof. Upadhya in his book “Sri Shankaracharya”. This tallies with the dates assigned and maintained in the lists of Aacharyas maintained in the establishments at Dwaraka (490 B.C.) , Jyotirmath (485 B.C.), Puri (484 B.C.) and Sringeri (483 B.C).
On the basis of “Shankara Satpatha”, the late Narayana Shastri of Madras wrote a book titled “Acharya Kaala” in which the date 509 B.C. has been derived to be Shankara’s date of birth. The Keraliya Shankara Vijaya also provides a verse with astronomical details of Shankara’s birth. This verse also verifies the unmistakable 509 B.C. dateline. A chronogram relating to Aadi Shankara and appearing in Prachina Shankara Vijaya is quoted by Atma Bodha gives the 509 B.C. date. This chronogram is supported and corroborated by Jina Vijaya, a Jain scripture, even though it is outspokenly hostile to Shankara. Jina Vijaya gives the date of Kumarila Bhatta (557 B.C.), who was senior contemporary to Shankara by 48 years.
It is stated in the Nepal Rajavamshavali that “Aadi Shankara came from the South and destroyed the Buddha faith” and this occurred during the reign of Vrishadeva Varma (Kali 2615 to 2654), i.e., during 487 B.C. to 448 B.C. (Chronology of Nepal History, K.Venkatachalam). The date of Vrishadeva is again confirmed relating Harsha Shaka (457 B.C.) from Alberuni’s accounts. In his “Short History of Kashmir”, Pt. Gavshalal writes, “The 70th ruler in the list of Kashmir Kings, Gopaditya (417-357 B.C.) founded agraharas and built temples of Jyeteshwara and Shankaracharya”. That Shankara must have visited Kashmir before 417 B.C. then becomes quite obvious.
The observations and references stated above sufficiently and unmistakably prove that Aadi Shankara was born in 509 B.C. His life-span of 32 years was that of a superhuman in which he travelled to all parts of Bharatvarsha, spreading the thought and philosophies of Vedic wisdom and strength. He removed the confrontations existing between the followers of different modes of worship presenting a message of unity among all – finally departing from his earthly abode in 477 B.C.
So please correct the date of his birth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.241.123.3 ( talk) 10:44, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
The word "Namboodiri" is a Tamil word. Malayalam is relatively a modern language and has nouns borrowed from Tamil and Sanskrit. It will be unbiased if such linguistic qualifiers are either used strictly correctly or simply dropped.
Thank you. 184.145.15.246 ( talk) 01:10, 29 August 2011 (UTC)Dr. Sekhar
There are too many see also entries. So, as a result, the important entry like Vivekchuramani is at the end and may be easily overlooked. I suggest to keep only most relevant entries. -- Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 22:26, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
This article is about Abhinava Shankara and not Adi Shankara. The Abhinava Shankara was a Keralite. He was the author of all books of which were thought to be wriiten by 'Shankaracharya' except the "Prasthana Trayi' which was written by Adi Shankara. His place of birth might be either Malabar (most probably Ponnani or Tirur Taluks of present day Malapuram district) or Tulu Nadu. There is a place called Kalady in Ponnani Taluk in the Malabar region of Kerala. The place of birth may not be the Kalady of northern Travancore (in present Ernakulam district) as most of the ancient brahman scholors of Kerala were from Malabar area. Anoop.m ( talk) 14:59, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
In "Sri Sankara Vijaya" there is a sloka "Acharyo sankarao nama, Twostha putra nisamshaya, Viprakula gurordweeksha, Vishwakarman thu Brahmana." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.107.127.189 ( talk) 18:57, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
I must remind the editors of this page that the article is written for a general English readership. I saw the recent reverts and was about to warn this multiple account user. However I see a serious issue with the edits of Ganesh J. Acharya text that was put back in the article. The text is full of mistakes, capitalization and grammar are erratic and it is full of terms a general readership cannot understand. One example is the phrase "Sankara was born under the star Thiruvathiralike Sambandar with whom he has a lot of commonalities". As far as I am concerned, this phrase makes no sense at all. So before I add all the necessary cleanup templates, I thought of leaving a note here in the hope that some copyediting/cleanup will improve the section soon. This said, I see that the text of the section "Birth and childhood" is going too far to prove a point about Shankaras lineage (recension??). Please keep the length and content of sections within an overall balance in the article and do not try to prove a point with too many explanations. This used to be a Featured Article after all.
Hoverfish
Talk 19:53, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Also with regards to this sentence "Sankara was born under the star Thiruvathiralike Sambandar with whom he has a lot of commonalities". It was not added by me, it was added by someone else. Ganesh J. Acharya ( talk) 09:59, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
The statement "Much of what is thought about Sankaracharya today is interpolated myth" can be accepted without a citation as it doesn't get into specifics and it is most probable that false beliefs exist on almost any topic. However when we come to "This includes the establishment of mathas", this has to be written from a Neutral Point Of View and it does need a citation: "According to (source A), this includes the establishment of Mathas.(citation of source A)" Else it can be contested and removed (per consensus). Hoverfish Talk 14:40, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Actually this phrase contradicts what is stated later on in the article, under Mathas, so I removed it. If there is a reliable source supporting this, it should be mentioned in the proper section of the article, in due weight, and attributed to the source. Hoverfish Talk 03:49, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Shankaracharya's Caste Caste
Shankarcharya himself stated that he was belong to a Viswakarma community through his books. Then why all these debates are going on? The sloka of Sankara Vijayam, "Acharyo sankarao nama, Twostha putra nisamshaya, Viprakula gurordweeksha, Vishwakarman thu Brahmana." reveals the same.
He was the great scholar. Why are some people trying to make him a namboothiri? This will not bring him more superiority or higher status. Because Namboothiri dont have more superiority or status than Viswakarma people!
Shankara stated that he was from Viswakarma community means, he knew that the community is the most superior community in India. He was proud to say that he is from the community. I can give some explanation about the community. Please refer the veda parts which is mentioned in the talk
History of Brahmin
According to purusha suktha Brahmins have take birth from the face of Purusha. From ancient time itsef, after the 'Veda Period' people got divided into four categories namely, Brahmin, Kshathriya, Viysya and soodra. Brahmin (also called Brahmana; from the Sanskrit brahmana)is a term for a scholar class in the traditional Hindu societies of India and Nepal.
"brAhmaNo asya mukhamAseet bAhoo rAjanya: krta: ooru tadasya yad vaishya padbhyAm shoodro ajAyata"
This means :From his mouth came forth The men of learning And of his arms Were warriors made From his thighs came The trading people And his feet gave Birth to servants.. Brahmins are classified into two namely Poursheya Brahmin and Arsheya Brahmin
Poursheya Brahmins also known as Vishwabrahmin are divided into five gotras means descendance of five rishis; each clans's name is mentioned in the Yajurveda (4.3.3). Sanaga, Sanatana, Abhuvana, Pratanasa and Suparna rishis. These are the rishis born from the purushas face.
Purusha Viswakarma people are the descendance of the five rishis mentioned. That means the descendance of Viswakarma or parabrahma purusha or Purusha (The cosmic man). According to Hinduism, Parabrahman is the ultimate reality of the universe. He is the creator of the whole universe. He is also called as the Purusha (The cosmic man). We can see the reality in Rigveda purushasukta and Yajur veda purushasuktha. Purushasuktha states that the purushan or the Cosmic man is the one from whose navel all the visible things emanate. Rigved 10 - 81, 10 - 82 is also saying the same. We can see a lot of knowledge about Parabrahma in Vedas. He is the only one who emanated from nothing (Swayam Bhoo).
The five lords (Pancha Deva) including Thrimurthy is his first creation. This truth is told by Lord Siva to Skantha (Sree Murukan) as ParaBrahma Thatwa Rahasya.
"DevaDeva MahaDeva Devasaya JagadGuru ViswaSrishtiSthaddakartha, Bhoohime Parameswara Sarvanga SarvaSasthra Vicharana Viswakara Navyam Sarvam Sumana SrunuShanmukha"
This words from SkanthaPurana means that, we Brahma, Vishnu, Maheswara, Surya and Indra are only God's creation. Brahma is creation (srishti), Vishnu is the present (Sthiti), Surya is light energy (Prakasha), Indra is Protection and me (Siva) is doing only dissolution. We can't do anything beyond this. It can only be done by the ultimate creator who created us. He is the Nithya AdiMadhyaAnthaRakshitha HiranyaGrbha Prajapthi Parabrahma Viswa Virat Purusha Viswakarma Deva.
All these are showing that Viswakrama is visualized as the 'Ultimate reality' (later developed as Brahman) in the Rig Veda,from whose navel all visible things Hiranyagarbha emanate. The same imagery is seen in Yajurveda purusha sukta, in which the divine smith Tvasta emerging from Vishwakarma.
Nambuthiris are Saptharshi Brahmins Aarsheya Brahmins are from 'saptharishis' they are known as 'Saptarishi Brahmin' descendants of Saptharshis also known as Manasa Putras of Brahma : Bhrigu, Atri, Angirasa, Vashista, Pulastya, Pulalaha and Kratu. They are not directly from the face of purusha.
By Acharya Sachivothaman (Ajithkumar.T) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Masterjith ( talk • contribs) 21:57, 29 October 2013 (UTC) -- Masterjith ( talk) 18:42, 8 November 2013 (UTC)-- Masterjith ( talk) 19:41, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
I have made a first attempt in copyediting this section. Issues I see: 1. POV concerns as mentioned above have still to be met. 2. The statement "The Deva Kammalars who were jealous of their title..." does not make clear what this title refers to. 3. The section is titled "Birth and childhood" but only the last sentence gives us minimal information about his childhood. So under such a title, so much on the issue of lineage is bound to raise an Undue Weight problem. My suggestion is that the lineage issue becomes simplified and the necessary supporting points from the documented evidence go into the footnote (inside the reference) itself. I am not knowledgeable enough on the issue and do not have the sources stated to attempt this myself. Hoverfish Talk 14:40, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
I moved issues of origin, caste or lineage to the general section under "Life". The idea is to have the information about caste and lineage separately, avoiding undue weight in the section about Shankara's childhood. Hoverfish Talk 13:17, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
From 'The History of Mayavada' published as Beyond Nirvana by GVP. In Çaìkaräcärya’s Çariraka-bhañya, it is interesting to note that he quoted verses from Bhagavad-gétä while commenting on the Vedänta-sütra verse 1/2/5 beginning çabda viç sät. Noting this very unusual inconsistency by Çaìkaräcärya way back in the 1200’s AD, Madhaväcärya the founder of the Brahma Vaiñëava sampradäya wrote in his illustrious treatise Sri Tattva-muktävalé verse 59 as follows: småteç ca hetor api bhinna ätmä naisargikaù sihyati bheda eva na cet kathaà sevaka-sevya-bhävaù kaëöhoktir eñä khalu bhäñyakartuh In his commentary on the Vedänta-sütra, Çaìkaräcärya also quoted verses from the Vedic scriptures that demonstrated the nature and the difference between the Supreme Lord and the individual soul. Indeed, if Çaìkaräcärya did not accept this conception, then how could he utter this statement? The verse that Çaìkaräcärya quoted was from Bhagavad-gétä, chapter 18, çloka 61: éçvaraù sarva-bhütänäà håd-deçe’rjuna tiñthati bhrämayam sarva-bhütäni yanträrüòhäni mäyayä The Supreme Lord is situated in the hearts of every living entity O’ Arjuna, and is directing the movements of all living beings who wander in the cycle of birth and death, by His mäyä, as if they are mounted upon a machine. It is ironic that Çaìkaräcärya should quote a verse that recognises the supra-mundane majesty of the Supreme Lord, and which specifies in no uncertain terms the clear and precise distinction between God and the living entities. As such the verse completely contradicts his own Mäyäväda hypothesis that the living entities and the Supreme Lord are one. What is even more surprising is that Çaìkaräcärya also quotes from the Gétä, chapter 18, verse 62: tam eva çaraëaà gaccha / sarva-bhävena bharäta tat prasädät paräm çäntià / sthänaà präpsyasi çäçvatam O’ descendent of Bharata, exclusively surrender to that Éçvara in every respect. By His grace, you will attain transcendental peace and the supreme abode. Concluding Words 126 Beyond Nirväëa Both the above verses indicate that, contrary to what Çaìkaräcärya may have propounded in his Mäyäväda hypothesis, he was clearly aware that the Supreme Lord and the living entities existed in distinct relationships, and that the path to salvation was complete surrender to the Supreme Lord Kåñëa. Further evidence of this can be found in his most revealing and extraordinary departure from the world, in a welldocumented verse that Çaìkaräcärya spoke to his disciples prior to his infamous submergence into the boiling cauldron of oil. bhaja govindam bhaja govindam bhaja govindam müòha-mate / sampräpte sannihite käle nahi rakñati òukån-karaëe You fools! All your word jugglery will not protect you when the time of death arrives; so just worship Govinda! Worship Govinda! Worship Govinda! Govinda is one of the confidential names of the Supreme Lord Kåñëa. It was first revealed in the ancient poem called Brahmä Saàhita, the hymn of Lord Brahmä, which was sung at the very beginning of the creation of the material universe. One of the main verses repeated throughout the Brahmä Saàhita is ‘govindam ädi puruñaà tam ahaà bhajämi’, which translates as “I worship Govinda, who is the primeval Lord.” After being lost for many hundreds of years, this exceptionally beautiful poem was uncovered by Çré Caitanya Mahäprabhu, long after the departure of Çaìkaräcärya. For Çaìkaräcärya to use the confidential name of the Lord in this verse factually reveals his true position as an incarnation of Lord Çiva, ‘the auspicious one’, who is eternally the greatest servitor of the Lord. From examples like these it is clear that although Çaìkaräcärya was executing his service by preaching the Mayavada hypothesis, he himself was factually well aware of the actual truth. Though I realise the necessity of presenting here the numerous Vaiñëava arguments and reasons that have convincingly routed the theories of Mäyävädism, I must defer due to the limited length of the essay. At the same time I request the venerable readers to refer to the following books for a clearer and more exhaustive explanation of these topics. 1 �� Ñaö-sandarbha, Krama.sandarbha and Sarvasaàvädiné, by Çréla Jévä Gosvämé �� Govinda Bhäñya, Siddhänta Ratnam, Prameya Ratnävalé, Viñëusahasranäma Bhäñya, and Upaniñadä Bhäñya, by Çréla Baladeva Vidyäbhüñaëa. �� Also Çréla Bhaktisiddhänta Sarasvaté Prabhupäda’s, Caitanya Caritämåta, Anubhäñya, Çrémad-Bhägavatam and Govinda Bhäshya. 127 Section B The concept of ‘Nirväëa’ What emerges as a consequence of discussing the biography of Mäyävädism is that all historical facts and the entire range of its’ corner stone principles can be refuted merely on the basis of ‘Aitihya-pramäna’ (evidence based on time-honoured precepts). Mäyävädism stands on very weak logic, faulty arguments and faulty evidence. Hence, in open debates or direct dialectical exchanges it has always known defeat. If in spite of hearing the facts about Mäyävädism one still desires to pursue a path to attain nirväna, then our advice is to not forget that nirväna, as enunciated by the Mäyävädés, is a falsity and a figment of the imagination that hazardously misleads and deceives the innocent. This statement is easily substantiated by simple, traditional knowledge and without recourse to further support from other readily available evidences. Nirväëa, the concept of a liberation attained by merging into a void, is for the living entity a factually non-existent condition of being or awareness that can never be attained. There is not a single instance or example of any monist or impersonalist attaining the state of nirväëa. Of this we are certain, because if we scour the biographies of Goudapäda, Govindapäda, Shankaräcärya or Mädhava, we would be forced to conclude that none of them attained the state of nirväëa, liberation. It is a well known fact that Çaìkaräcärya’s spiritual master Goudapäda appeared to Çaìkara when he was in deep meditation one day and said: “I have heard many praises about you from your guru Govindapäda. Show me the commentary you have written to my composition Maëòukya Kärikä.” Çaìkaräcärya handed him his commentary and Goudapäda was extremely pleased and approved it. From this story it thus appears that neither Goudapäda nor Govindapäda had merged into void to be silenced forever. If both had attained nirväëa, liberation, it would have been impossible for Govindapäda to speak to Goudapäda. Furthermore, it would have been impossible for Goudapäda to later appear before Çaìkaräcärya and describe his meeting with Govindapäda – all of which took place after the physical demise of both. The followers of Çaìkaräcärya will give no occasion to doubt the veracity of this mystical event having taken place, and therefore the only intelligent conclusion one may draw from it is that neither had forsaken their individual identity and existence after their demise – nirvana is simply a myth.
bv avadhoot maharaja Wcw108 ( talk) 18:43, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi Gopala nadar1234, Sadasiva nadar 2323, Narayana nadar2232, Sasi sharma123, Sambanda nadar123, Sasi pillai7272, and possibly more, can you please state your concerns about the article so we can work out a solution. The result of such edits are that even if you have a good reason, or a positive contribution, it is bound to get reverted. Thanks. Hoverfish Talk 12:57, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
I have filed a report on multiple account usage (sockpuppetry) here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/User:Ramesh shankar4432. You may comment or defend yourself against this claim by editing section "Comments by other users". My hope is to stop removal of cited text without discussing and reverts so we can proceed based on consensus. Hoverfish Talk 20:21, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
1. Shankara was born in a Viswa-Brahmin family
2. Please change Viswa-Brahmin to Nambudiri Brahmin
3. http://www.hindupedia.com/en/Adi_Shankaracharya
SitaChaturvedula ( talk) 11:09, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
The existing version is according to the Andhra Historical Research Society and verses of Shankara identifying himself so have been stated. If this is not the only version, can any notable source be given for this contrary claim? Hindupedia does not offer any citations at all. Is Hindupedia a reliable source for Wikipedia? Is there any traditional text that states that Shankara was a Nambudiri Brahmin? If so, we surely must state that according to source A he was Viswa-Brahmin but according to source B he was Nambudiri Brahmin. Unless the claim stated in the article is proved false, i.e. that the stated sources do not say so, we may not take away the Viswa-Brahmin claim. Hoverfish Talk 11:43, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
One more question, possibly towards the Viswa Brahmin version: Nambudiri is defined as "Hindu Brahmins from the Indian state of Kerala". Isn't this the case with Shankara? This article does state he is from Kerala. Hoverfish Talk 12:03, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
1, Ganesh J. Acharya where did you read this details ( ADI Shankara and his widowed mother initially had difficulties from both the communities but later he over come them. ), what are the academic credential for that source? anyway that doesn't mean shankara was born in Nambudri family.
2, No evidence for shankara was born in Nambudri family or Adi Shankara's father or Mother is a Nambudiri and Hindupedia is not a reliable source.
3, I can see now in wikipedia article Shankara's gotram (lineage) is Atreya lineage
a, Shankara was born in Atreya lineage ? if shankara was born in Atreya lineage there is chance to relation with Nambudri family because Atreya lineage is part of "Sapta rishi" brahmana, Nambudiri caste may have relation with Sapta rishi but vishwakarma brahmin is part of "pancha rishi" brahmana.
b, pancha rishi brahmana and sapta rishi brahmana had marriage relation in purana
c, Nambudri brahmin and vishwakarma brahmin came to kerala with parashurama. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raghu chandran ( talk • contribs) 04:38, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
These links were placed in the Notes section: 1 2 3 4 5. I placed two of the as inline citations, some as external links and 2 I am not sure what to do with, so I let them as loose notes. Hoverfish Talk 10:26, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
1, http://www.who.is/whois/outlookindia.com 2, http://www.who.is/whois/exoticindiaart.co.in 3, http://www.who.is/whois/advaita-vedanta.org 4, http://www.who.is/whois/sringeri.net 5, http://www.who.is/whois/jstor.org — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raghu chandran ( talk • contribs) 07:14, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
It may be possible, as Raghu chandran pointed out, that these sites may have used info from previous versions of this article. The rest of their content, however does not seem to be "mirroring" Wikipedia, though I could be wrong. The content of advaita-vedanta.org at least, seems to be coming from some other hagiography source and contains so much information we never published here. A site doesn't have to be related to the government or the academy to be accepted as a reliable source. If in doubt, there is the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard where sources can be brought up and decided upon. In any case we still have the option Sitush stated "if there is uncertainty and the person's caste is not actually relevant to their notability, then simply do not state it." Hoverfish Talk 09:56, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Joshua Johnson needs to stop inserting his biased views and opinions in the introduction of article. Joshua Johnson has constantly shown an biased against Advaita tradition and has filled the article with opinionated controversial information. Avdmoh ( talk) 13:02, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
The birth year of Shankara is still heavily disputed by traditional and western scholars. It is not proper to put a disputed issue as an objective fact in the introduction. The seperate birth date section of the article has all the necessary detailed information. Introduction of an Article should contain only undisputed, objective facts., removed
Adi Shankaracharya [...] (8th cent. CE) [Note: Modern scholarship places Shankara in the earlier part of the 8th century CE (c. 700–750). [4] Earlier generations of scholars proposed 788–820 CE. [4] Other proposals are 686–718 CE, citation needed 44 BCE, [5] or as early as 509–477 BCE.]
Joshua Johnson needs to stop stuffing the Article's introduction with heavily biased opinions. The introduction is meant for objective facts, not opinions.- removed the same info on Shankara's dates; see above.
No reason to change the previous content. Shankara consolidated Advaita Vedanta., changed
who's works had a strong influence on the doctrine of Advaita Vedanta. [6] [4]
who consolidated the doctrine of Advaita Vedanta. [6] [4]
argue for the unity of Ātman and Nirguna Brahman
discuss the unity of Ātman and Nirguna Brahman
The similarity between Advaita Vedanta and Mahayana Buddhism is alleged by modern scholars., changed
Shankara's Vedanta shows similarities with Mahayana Buddhism
Some scholars have argued that Shankara's Advaita Vedanta shows similarities with Mahayana Buddhism
oshua Jonathan is engaging is disruptive PoV pushing. The similarities between Advaita and Mahayana are already discussed in detail below. No need to include it in the introduction, which should be brief and objective.
References
Keshava
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).The similarities between Advaita and Mahayana are already discussed in detail below. It does not belong in the introduction of article., removing
Some scholars have argued that Shankara's Advaita shows similarities with Mahayana Buddhism; opponents have even accused Shankara of being a "crypto-Buddhist," [1] [2] a qualification which is rejected by the Advaita Vedanta tradition, given the differences between these two schools. Shankara himself stated that Hinduism asserts "Ātman (Soul, Self) exists", while Buddhism asserts that there is "no Soul, no Self". [3] [4] [5]
eroer1
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).@ JJNito197: the WP:LEAD summarizes the article, so this removal is unwarranted, even more because with your next edit you re-inserted Shankara's view on the difference between the Advaita and Buddhist views. A view which, by the way, is misinformed; Buddhism has had it's own discussions on essentialism, see Rangtong-Shentong; and Advaita's view on the self-luminosity of awareness, which you removed diff from the lead of Advaita Vedanta as being "contentious terminology" diff, was taken over from Yogacara.
Just two days ago, I've had the same discussion about the lead summarizing the article with another editor, who's now blocked, so I'd appreciate it not to repeat that discussion. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 14:34, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
This edit added the following info to the lead:
There is also a common belief among scholars including Vincent Smith [1] [2] that Adi Shankara played an important role in the decline of Buddhism in India. [3] [4] [5] Adi Sankara played a major role debating with Buddhist monks, and publicly defeated a few notable ones in theological debates. [6]
I've moved those two sentences downwards diff, to the section on Shanakara's influence; as explained in the article, Shankara's influence is overstated. Moving it back diff is misplaced.
There is no corresponding section in the article which such info, so it is misplaced to add this to the WP:LEAD, which is supposed to summarize the article. And that has already been pointed out several times, today and two days ago.
All in all: a popular belief misleadingly presented as a common scholarly opinion, based on crappy sources, which does not belong in the lead. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 15:51, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
See also Decline of Buddhism in the Indian subcontinent, which mentions Shankara only one time. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 18:23, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Where are these sources? I see the sources above, which don't really appear to support what you're saying they do. Could you provide a source that more directly supports what is being claimed? Honestly with the sources above it looked like you searched a phrase in Google Books and copied the results which looked "close enough" which don't really say what you've searched for. - Aoidh ( talk) 19:32, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Decline of Buddhism edit summary
I propose the edit summary be as follows,
Adi Shankara is believed by some Hindus to be responsible for the decline of Buddhism in India.
[1] 'When Adi Shankaracharya uprooted the Buddhism from India'
[2] 'To the extent that Adi Shankaracharya checkmated Buddhism through resurgent Hinduism , and prevented India from turning predominantly Buddhist'
[3] 'Adi Shankaracharya walked the length and breadth of India, defeated scholars of Buddhism, Jainism and various alternate schools of thought in scholarly'
[4] "with the rise of Advaita Vedanta, concepts of which were compiled by Adi Shankara, Buddhism declined in India."
[5] 'Hindus of the Advaita persuasion (and others too) have seen in Sankara the one who restored the Hindu dharma against the attacks of the Buddhists (and Jains) and in the process helped to drive Buddhism out of India.'
[6] 'Hindu revivelist Adi Shankaracharya sent Buddhism packing to Cambodia'
[7] 'Adi shankara revived the faith the Vedic way, not by kicking Buddhists out of India, but introducing reforms in Hinduism to bring it back to its pure purpose'
[8] 'It was the coming of Adi Shankara that the influence of Buddhism subsided on the Indian subcontinent'
--or-- Adi Shankara is believed by Hindus to be responsible for the decline in Buddhism in India through intellectual debate.
Please advise on how this sentence should be altered (or not). Please also note: these are new sources on top of the others previously cited in article.
How it would read -
Shankara's Advaita shows similarities with Mahayana Buddhism; opponents have even accused Shankara of being a "crypto-Buddhist, a qualification which is rejected by the Advaita Vedanta tradition, given the differences between these two schools. Adi Shankara is believed by some Hindus to be responsible for the decline of Buddhism in India; Sankara played a major role debating with Buddhist monks, publicly defeating a few notable ones in theological debates. Shankara himself stated that Hinduism asserts "Ātman (Soul, Self) exists", while Buddhism asserts that there is "no Soul, no Self."
References
JJNito197 ( talk) 00:01, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
decline of Buddhism in India; Sankara played a major roleis WP:SYNTESIS; do Hovey or Pandey state that Shankara contributed to the decline of Buddhism by debating Buddhist monks? Let alone that this was Shankara's major contribution?
Quoting Whaling, in the body of the article, suffices. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 09:23, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
Regarding
this revert (your sixth), edit-summary partial restore of neutral, valid content not being discussed in talk
, which added
Adi Sankara played a major role debating with Buddhist monks, and publicly defeated a few notable ones in theological debates. [1] [2]
References
incorrect. This is also mentioned in the thread above. The WP:LEAD summarizes the article; this is not in the article, except for the exact same sentence, which I moved into the body of the article, because it is WP:UNDUE for the lead. And even there it is undue, given that this is what the article already says:
and participating in public philosophical debates with different orthodox schools of Hindu philosophy, as well as heterodox traditions such as Buddhists, Jains, Arhatas, Saugatas, and Carvakas.
It's also unverifiable, because no pagenumbers were given. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 03:20, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
Notice "well-composed" and "carefully sourced"; not exactly descriptors of your edits. Maybe the lead can be shortened; but notice that the article has five sections, to which the lead corresponds. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 09:37, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
Shankara was a peripatetic orthodox Hindu monk who traveled the length and breadth of India. The more enthusiastic followers of the Advaita tradition claim that he was chiefly responsible for "driving the Buddhists away". Historically the decline of Buddhism in India is known to have taken place long after Shankara or even Kumarila Bhatta (who according to a legend had "driven the Buddhists away" by defeating them in debates), sometime before the Muslim invasion into Afghanistan (earlier Gandhara).
Although today's most enthusiastic followers of Advaita believe Shankara argued against Buddhists in person, a historical source, the Madhaviya Shankara Vijayam, indicates that Shankara sought debates with Mimamsa, Samkhya, Nyaya, Vaisheshika and Yoga scholars as keenly as with any Buddhists. In fact his arguments against the Buddhists are quite mild in the Upanishad Bhashyas, while they border on the acrimonious in the Brahma Sutra Bhashya.
It's not what Pandey says. What's the pagenumber and relevant quote for the Hovey-source? I can't find Shankara nor Sankara in the Hovey-source. The lead already says
According to tradition, he travelled across the Indian subcontinent to propagate his philosophy through discourses and debates with other thinkers, from both orthodox Hindu traditions and heterodox non-Hindu-traditions.
Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 20:15, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Adi Shankara has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
name of Adi sankara in Malyalam:ശ്രീ ശങ്കരാചാര്യ OusephMathai ( talk) 17:58, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Adi Shankara's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "lexicon":
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 20:16, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Adi Shankara has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The first word under the "Dating" section is obviously meant to be "Reliable" but is misspelled "Eeliable". That is all. 2601:981:4400:5B10:F96D:C511:3E59:93D2 ( talk) 23:34, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Adi Shankara has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Died c. 750 CE Kedarnath, Gurjara-Pratihara Empire (present-day Uttarakhand, India) to Died c. 475 BCE Kedarnath, Gurjara-Pratihara Empire (present-day Uttarakhand, India) Xhimanshuz ( talk) 08:15, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Adi Shankara has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Koller 2013, pp. 100–101: "Atman, which is identical to Brahman, is ultimately the only reality and [...] the appearance of plurality is entirely the work of ignorance [...] the self is ultimately of the nature of Atman/Brahman [...] Brahman alone is ultimately real." need to removed from Notes,This book is to defame and spread lie about Adi Shankaracharya Xhimanshuz ( talk) 14:26, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template.
ScottishFinnishRadish (
talk) 14:56, 28 April 2022 (UTC)This
edit request to
Adi Shankara has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the section where Sri Adi Sankaracharya’s date of births are mentioned. Please remove the last line about the most popular followed dates of birth. When the article mentions so many possibilities, then what is the source for putting the information that the most populat dates of birth as 8th century CE. This is false information for many as well as suppression against Vaidika Sanathana Dharma what is called Hinduism today.
Please remove the statement of the most popular dates and also the date of birth and death mentioned in the main box on the right.
Thank you. 99.155.66.160 ( talk) 05:14, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
I feel the article can be a lot more detailed and more clear.
When we write, During his tours, he is credited with starting several Matha (monasteries), however this is uncertain
, are we casting doubt on the factual accuracy of Adi Shankara establishing Mathas? Or are we claiming that the hagiographies are uncertain about this episode i.e. employing a roundabout way of telling that they are internally inconsistent?
TrangaBellam (
talk) 16:03, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Adi Shankara has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Born Shankara c. 700 CE Kalady, Chera Kingdom (present-day Kochi in Kerala, India) to Born Shankara c. 507 BCE Kalady, Chera Kingdom (present-day Kochi in Kerala, India) Xhimanshuz ( talk) 07:33, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Adi Shankara has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
14.139.240.85 ( talk) 20:54, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Adi Shankara has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the section “Moksha - liberating knowledge of Brahman”, The word “mahavykas” is the wrong word and the link is also not there. the correct word should be “Mahavakyas” and the link should be this one “ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahāvākyas” 2601:647:4001:8560:68C5:DEE0:7489:EFB7 ( talk) 03:43, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
Done. JJNito197 ( talk) 22:23, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
We should add the location ex : kedarnath, uttarakhand was where he died and kalady, kerala was where he was born. 2402:E280:2152:AA:784E:F5AC:494C:CA41 ( talk) 10:55, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
Thanks!