Talk:Adi Shankara

Reference to a complete analysis on Adi Sankara's date in history

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)

Corrigendum: 'Adi Shankara's birth'

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)

In his essay - Some Fixed points in the chronology of Bharata included in the book - Astronomical Dating of Events and Select Vignettes http://indicethes.org/PROC14.PS.pdf , Dr. B.N.Narahari Achar states that Gautama Buddha, son of Suddhodana, the 23rd king of Iksavaku dynasty, according to puranic records died in 1807 BCE. This date, calculated as 27/3/1807 BCE by Kota Venkatachelam, is supported by the independent Buddhist source, Samyutta Nikaya, which states that for three months before his death Buddha was staying in Sravasti when there occurred the winter solstice (5/1/1807 BCE), a lunar eclipse (26/1/1807 BCE) followed by a solar eclipse (10/2/1807 BCE). He has confirmed these date using the Planetarium Software. Thus, Buddha lived long before Adi Shankara (509-477 BCE) whose horoscope given by Citsukhacarya, a boyhood friend of Sankara, gives Sankara’s birthdate as Nandana of Kaliuga 2593 (509 BCE) in the month of Visakha, Suklapaksa, Panchami tithi, Punarvasu Nakshatra, Karkataka lagna, Abhijin nakshatra or 5/4/509 BCE also stands confirmed using Planetarium Software. Thus, Sankara, who lived long after Buddha, was in a position to contradict or reject Buddhist beliefs. 509 BCE has not been accepted because Sankara quotes Dharamakirti who is mentioned by Xuanzang about which quote I am in no position to comment not having studied in depth Shankara’s works.Aditya soni (talk) 04:53, 1 March 2013 (UTC)Aditya soni (talk) 05:01, 1 March 2013 (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

I have removed the one date given at the very top as Sankara's birth and have added a text about three possible dates, with concise explanations as we should not elaborate very much in the lead section. Normally the lead should contain an even simpler statement (Date A or Date B), while explanations should be given in the section "Life", subsection "Birth and childhood". I will do this now, as the lead should only contain statements that are further elaborated in the article. Hoverfish Talk 10:39, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Too many See also entries!

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)

Suggesting that for now one can re-sequence the list for importance.इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 07:25, 30 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)

Adi Shankara Caste

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)

Could you elaborate here? Its significance and sources would help.इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 17:03, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

1. From Andhra Historical Society, Rajahmundry

• Title Journal of the Andhra Historical Society, Volumes 14-17
• Authors Andhra Historical Research Society, Rajahmundry, Madras, Andhra Historical ::Research Society
• Publisher Andhra Historical Research Society., 1953
• Original from the University of Michigan
• Digitized 30 Mar 2006
• Subjects India
• Preview:- [1] Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 16:20, 3 October 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)

I would appreciate if someone can help fix grammatical issues pointed out by Hoverfish. I have mentioned the entire incident from Shankara Vijaya cited by the honorable "Andhra Historical Research Society" to help readers. I also appreciate and understand the user's concerns about English readership, and I have clearly cited the exact English translation from the Journal to aid the same. Again, don't think I have gone too far with my edits into proving things. I have only added documented evidences into unsourced edits.Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 04:12, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Regarding Thiruvathiralike Sambandar

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)

I apologize for connecting this edit with you. I saw your revert edit which added it back to the article and assumed it was by you. Hoverfish Talk 12:19, 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)

I have removed Visvakarma reference as of now, since after rechecking carefully, it is apparent J.A.H.R.S. is not making those assertions Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 11:38, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

The reference to this sloka is found in the book "Visvakarma and his Descendents" which is written by Alfred Edward Roberts [2]. J.A.H.R.S. has published a letter from Sri A. Padmanabhan originally which I initially misunderstood as being published by the Journal. The journal actually was referring to the passage from this book. I have fixed the reference to the one by Alfred Edward Roberts back at the article. Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 15:15, 30 June 2013 (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)

Birth and childhood

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)

The reference

From Andhra Historical Society, Rajahmundry

• Title Journal of the Andhra Historical Society, Volumes 14-17
• Authors Andhra Historical Research Society, Rajahmundry, Madras, Andhra Historical ::Research Society
• Publisher Andhra Historical Research Society., 1953
• Original from the University of Michigan
• Digitized 30 Mar 2006
• Subjects India

cites "When the world famed Sankara- charya of Travancore, the founder of the Advaita School of Philosophy, ..., halted at Masulipatam he styled himself " Jagatgoru." The Devakammalars of South India, who were very jealous of their title, incensed at an apparent impostor trying to assume what was their own exclusive property, questioned his right to the distinction, when the celebrated philosopher sang the following lines:— " Acharyo Sankaro nama " Twashta putro naeanyasa, " Viprakula gurordiksha, " Visvakarmantu Brahmana" I am a decendent of Twashter, ... I am a Brahmin of the Vishwakarma Caste" (Sankara Vijaya)" Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 17:35, 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)

Highly Important Information on the life of Shankaracharya

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)

To a multiple account user

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)

Edit request on 20 November 2012

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)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Vacation^nine 17:12, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Out of common knowledge Adi Shankara's father was a Vishwakarma and Mother a Nambudiri or Vice versa. So, both versions (i.e. he being a Vishwakarma and/or Nambudri) may stand true. As per certain citations that I have read ADI Shankara and his widowed mother initially had difficulties from both the communities but later he over come them. Again, as far as citations from Shankara Vijaya is concerned Adi Shankara himself has cited he belongs to Vishwakarma caste. Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 09:20, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Alas, common knowledge is of no use here. On the other hand, citations can be useful and it would be great if you could provide any that you may have. Please be aware that it is perfectly ok for us to show both points of view and, indeed, that is the correct procedure when reliable sources differ. In other words, what Hoverfish said. There is another argument, which has been raised on several occasions at WT:INB: if there is uncertainty and the person's caste is not actually relevant to their notability, then simply do not state it. - Sitush (talk) 10:20, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Considering what both Ganesh J. Acharya and Sitush have stated, I have included both castes (with a "citation needed" template on the second), and I have moved the text supporting the Vishwakarma version inside the Andhra Historical Research Society reference. This way the caste issue does not take undue weight in the intro to "Life". However this intro is in need of some cleanup. Can some of the information be moved to appropriate sections? Hoverfish Talk 11:33, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I find no indication that Adi Shankara's spoken or written language was Tamil. His works are not mentioned in Tamil literature but neither in Sanskrit literature, which is an ommission IMO. In this article, in Adi Shankara bibliography, as well as in Wikisource, the original text is stated to be and given in Sanskrit. Until this issue is made clear here, I remove the statement as contradictory to the rest of the article. Hoverfish Talk 14:35, 22 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)

I do not know any ancient texts directly citing Shankara was born to a Nambudiri. But locals will always know history of people who were born and brought up in their locality which is why I wrote above "Out of common knowledge". There are many sources that cite he being a Nambudiri as well. So, I guess both should be presented and we should wait for other contributors to come up with sources. With regards to 3.a if his mother is a Nambudri and father a Vishwabrahmin or vice versa as it is commonly said, then his gotra from father's side could be from a pancha rishi brahmana and from mother's side could be a "Sapta rishi" brahmana. Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 06:09, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

The following is clearly mentioned in Journal of the Andhra Historical Society, Volumes 14-17. Andhra Historical Research Society, 1953. p. 161. "According to the Shankara Vijaya, when Adi Shankara visited Masulipatam, the Devakammalars became angry at his claim of being a Jagatguru believing an impostor was trying to assume a title that was their own exclusive property. Questioning Shankara his right to the distinction, he sang in reply: Acharyo Sankaranama Twashta putro nasansaya Viprakula Gourordiksha Visvakarmantu Brahmana: I am a decendent of Twashter, ... I am a Brahmin of the Vishwakarma Caste". So, he is a Vishwakarma beyond any doubt. Again, no one here is far more knowledgeable than Adi Shankara himself. When he has himself said that... the matter ends.Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 06:09, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Since we are not supposed to make Original Research in Wikipedia, I have placed a template requesting a relevant citation from the "ancient hagiographies as well as contemporary write ups on the same". If no citation is offered within a month or so, I think the claims of gotra, sutram and Nambudiri should be removed. Hoverfish Talk 09:44, 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)

This websites are not registered by any research center, these websites have no relation with any government organization or academy, we cant trust articles in third party websites, they may used contents from past wikipedeia article.

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)

Very much eager to know exact verses from the hagiography sources regarding this matter in concern.Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 14:37, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 15 May 2013

please change http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adi_Shankaracharya#Mathas to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advaita#Advaita%20Mathas for only Shishya name on table.

117.237.194.209 (talk) 14:27, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I could copy-paste the extended information into this article, but not right now; real life is waiting for me at this very moment. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:39, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I must be missing something....I don't see the text http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adi_Shankaracharya#Mathas anywhere in this article. So it was already taken care of...or wasn't needing to be taken care of in the first place. If there is still an error somewhere, please change the template back to no and provide more infomation onto where this link appears. Thanks! ^Jguy_Talk^Done 18:05, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

The link is incorrect; 117.237.194.209 means "copy Advaita Vedanta#Advaita Mathas into Adi_Shankaracharya#Mathas; the Advaita Vedanta article has got a longer section on this topic. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:15, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I've copied the info + the sources. greetings, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:50, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Ādi Śaṅkarācāri

In Southern India Ādi Śaṅkarācārya is very commonly called Ādi Śaṅkarācāri. Since the edit was deleted [3] started this discussion. Please check Google books, Google search results to understand the same. Please check the following links [4], [5] Please google non IAST spellings like Sankaracari, Sankarachari, Sankarachary to understand its popularity. Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 11:58, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Vishwakarma claim

My attention has recently been drawn once again to wild claims being made on Wikipedia by members of the Viskwakarma community. They make much of the work done by Alfred Edward Roberts, Proctor of Ceylon and author of Vishwakarma and his Descendants. This is a very dubious work that in this particular context is quoting an equally dubious work, ie: an unspecified version of the Shankara Vijayam.

The Worldcat entry for "Alfred Edward Roberts" shows only one publication, which is unusual for a scholar. The claim made in various of our articles, including this one, is that Roberts held an official position as proctor in Ceylon. A proctor at that time in that place was an appointed legal official, although he is not named in Arnold Wright's fairly comprehensive 1907 list of officials nor can I find him in the London Gazette of the period. You'll find almost nothing but ourselves and mirrors for his name and location on Google Search and there is nothing accessible to me at Google Books other than a couple of snippets (eg: on p. 159 of this) which note that the name was in fact a pseudonym and seems to be suggesting that the work "attempted a truly spectacular coup" on behalf of the Viswakarma community.

I can find nothing to indicate of whom AER might be a pseudonym or even if that person had any official standing anywhere. Given the massive interest that the Brits had in (usually amateurish and now-discredited) recountings of the ethnography of India, especially in the period of publication, there was no shame in him using his real-life name and I am unaware of a single major figure of that period who did.

Drilling down on the Roberts Worldcat entry gives four variants. What qualification a lawyer might have to author an 80-page book about a native community is a complete mystery to me. It seems likely to have been published originally in 1909 by a Vishwakarma publisher and then re-published as a second edition in 1946 by a pandit whom I am reasonably suspicious will turn out also to have been Vishwakarma. The pandit title is often self-proclaimed or recognised only by members of the community of whom the person is a member. Two of the variants at Worldcat also refer to a co-author called Ratnajinendra Rabel Ratnawira - this latter person gets only one GSearch hit and that is for this book. My suspicion is that at best Roberts, like so many British administrators of his type and era, relied on folklore accounts given to him by locals of dubious merit; like many of them - eg: Edgar Thurston - he (Roberts) may not even have understood the language. For all we know, Roberts and Ratnawira may have been the same person.

It is well-known to those of us who work in the caste area of Wikipedia that puffery is common and it is my belief that this book was likely being used for that purpose at the time of publication and is so now. More, the existence of such puffed-up claims are acknowledged by academics, notably M. N. Srinivas in his seminal study of the sanskritisation process. I'd go so far as to suggest that the original publication may have been more or less an academic hoax. There are no citations of him or his book at JSTOR, other than p. 165 of this, which appears to indicate that the original 1909 publication was indeed made by a Vishwakarma advocacy group. There are no citations of him or his book at GBooks other than in the context already referred to above (ie: the pseudonym aspect). The Vishwakarma community are well-known for making a claim of Brahmin status that is generally not accepted by any other community. That claim has been pushed tendentiously on Wikipedia by self-identified community members, usually by citing Roberts, and we really do need to put a stop to this. - Sitush (talk) 03:29, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

BTW, for anyone who enjoys the idea of having bleeding eyes, feel free to read Talk:Vishwakarma (caste) where this type of nonsense has been going on for years. This time round, I've had enough and I'm going to fix it properly. - Sitush (talk) 03:49, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

why dont you remove this two worthless citations http://who.is/whois/advaita-vedanta.org and http://who.is/whois/exoticindiaart.com used to clime namboothiri caste ? this third party private websites have any academical credential ? adi shankaracharya was born in brahmin family not namboothiri or vishwakarma remove caste section from there until we get clear information — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gopalan Acharya (talk • contribs) 04:49, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Gopalan, your observation of the poor sourcing of that content is indeed accurate, and I have therefore removed it from the article. Her is the bit that was removed, in case you or some other editor wish to find better sources for it. Abecedare (talk) 04:58, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Adi Shankara Caste

Shankaracharya himself stated that he was belong to Viswakarma community through his books. Then why is this debates?

The sloka "Acharyo sankarao nama, Twostha putra nisamshaya, Viprakula gurordweeksha, Vishwakarman thu Brahmana." reveals the same! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Masterjith (talk • contribs) 20:43, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

As a general rule, the reason why people want to see the caste of other people mentioned in Wikipedia articles is because it reflects well on themselves, not because it is particularly relevant. This is also the reason why the caste of "uncomplimentary" people (criminals, for example) often seems to be ignored. Caste is a social construct and in almost all cases has no bearing on why a person's life is significant, although there are well-known exceptions (eg: Ambedkar).

I've no idea why Adi Shankara's caste has any bearing on his notability but I do know that the shloka and various other things have been and gone in this article. Can you find any modern reliable sources that mention his caste and explain why it is significant to his life? Members of the Vishwakarma community are among the most vociferous of POV-pushers here on Wikipedia, so the sources and rationale for inclusion will need to be impeccable. - Sitush (talk) 21:49, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I dont know, why people are considering only modern sources as a reliable one! To know about Sankaracharya, the oldest books are the reliable source because he was a historic person. The sloka "Acharyo sankarao nama, Twostha putra nisamshaya, Viprakula gurordweeksha, Vishwakarman thu Brahmana." is from ShankaraVijayam. It is written by himself. We cant produce more reliable one than Shankaras books. An auto biography or diary is more reliable than the words of others. If somebody is trying to study about Hinduism, he or she should study the Vedas. Because Vedas are the base of Hinduism. For this there modern books are nothing comparing with Vedas. Like that, To know about Shankaracharya, we should consider his own books. We should consider at least his names. From the ancient period itself, in his native place Kerala he is well known as 'Adi Shankarachari' or 'Adi Shankaracharya'. Both the surnames Achari and Acharya are the common surnames of Viswakarma Brahmins of Kerala.--Masterjith (talk) 20:03, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Please give shankara vijaya's page number and details — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gopalan Acharya (talk • contribs) 05:15, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Gopalan Acharyaji the Origial Shankara Vijaya by Anandagiri used to cite Shankara's birth place as Chidambaram and it has been edited to Kalady in subsequent editions? So are editings being done with the original texts? Shouldn't the originals be maintained as they are? The page 32 of "Kanchi Kamakoti Math, a Myth" by Varanasi Raj Gopal Sharma cites "Even the Kanchi Math in the re-edited text of Anandagiri Shankara Vijayam has taken off Chidambaram and named Khalati as the place of birth". Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 04:42, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

All newly printed shankara vijays are not with the Original story, we have to find 100+ years old shankara vijaya to get real birth details of shankaracharya but it is difficult to find original one because there is lot of shankara vijaya written by historians and conspiracy theorists — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.15.211.73 (talk) 05:49, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Ganesh J. Acharya According to vedas and purana there is only one brahmin caste they are Vishwabrahmin but in wikipedia somebody trying to erase original history — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gopalan Acharya (talk • contribs) 11:18, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

There is a snippet preview of the same available here Kanchi Kamakoti Math, a Myth,by Varanasi Raj Gopal Sharma [6] Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 15:41, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Snippet view here, too. Such views are not acceptable and, in any case, I doubt that source is reliable. I really do think that you lot should give up on this: it doesn't seem to be terribly important anyway, except perhaps for the purposes of reflected glory and your own vanity. - Sitush (talk) 15:56, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

"except perhaps for the purposes of reflected glory and your own vanity." I am trying to bring up facts here. I guess a snippet preview helps visually seeing the actual source. Also since we just went through this ANI complaint User:Sitush_plus_a_group_is_possibly_trying_to_put_communities_in_India_to_a_fight I would rather avoid engaging you with discussions other then the source. Could you kindly point out why you think this source is not reliable other than going into other details? Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 16:36, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

"Visually seeing" isn't what's important. What matters is reliable sources and the ability to take individual citations from them within the proper context. Using Google snippets, especially in contested articles, is not acceptable. I admit I find it very, very difficult to follow the discussion (because of sub-par punctuation and grammar in some of the contributions here by Masterjith and the IP editor), but questions of what's reliable or not are of the utmost importance and should, in the case of dispute, be answered at WP:RSN. Google snippets are never a substitute for the real thing. Ganesh, I suggest you stop linking to that now-closed ANI thread: it blew up in your face, and your use of the link as a tool to blackball Sitush is not acceptable. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 16:51, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

If that ANI thread has blown my face I should be worried about it and not Sitush. Thanks for suggesting WP:RSN I will try and learn to use the same. Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 17:11, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Ganesh, the first half of this recent discussion at RSN may help you regarding snippets. The book that you link may be pseudo-history of the type peddled by Ishwar Sharan but in any event if no-one can see it then it is by default unreliable. I can find one citation of it - here - but it is not encouraging ("supposed" is vague and the point is not developed). Pseudo-history is a big problem with Indian authors who write of these ancient times. - Sitush (talk) 17:42, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Does wikipidia now require to publish entire page/books hereafter? That would be copyright violation. Which is why google books is only showing a snippet preview and not the entire page. So, what is that now wikipedians are expecting to do? As per the legal requirement one is not supposed to publish/quote more than the text that is actually required. If that snippet preview is not clarifying the context there is no way one can quote more than that or otherwise it is a legal violation. Curios wikipedians wanting to know the entire facts must buy the book. Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 02:22, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Again in this case the line on that "snippet" explains it well. Does anyone have any doubt that it can have other context then the one cited? If the source says "Even the Kanchi Math in the re-edited text of Anandgiri Shankara Vijayam has taken off. Chidambaram and named Kalati as the place of birth"? Editorial standards required one to read the source as a whole. This preview is present the whole context, what more is required? Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 03:45, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Sitush, time and again you have expressed such sentiments "except perhaps for the purposes of reflected glory and your own vanity.". If that is what it was I would have not fixed the above J.H.R.S reference. Also, w.r.t to my vanity I am as anyone else in the world a progenitor of GOD thyself. So, don't worry about my vanity since GOD is the purest of all, the vanity will never taint. If at all I show any kind of bias it is my personal vanity that will effect. Also I thank to GOD that I could detect that before anyone else could. Also if a bias is introduced someone or the other will pick it up and it will only bring in Shame which I am well aware of. So, don't worry I would not introduce a bias deliberately for but obvious reasons. Also it is a request not to quote these and stick to the technicalities of the source or otherwise one is bound to clarify. Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 04:19, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Also when this is quoted in Rig Vedas "Mighty in mind and power is Visvakarman, Maker, Disposer, and most lofty Presence.

Their offerings joy in rich juice where they value One, only One, beyond the Seven Ṛṣis. Father who made us, he who, as Disposer, knoweth all races and all things existing" http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/rigveda/rv10082.htm there is no way he will turn out someone else at all. Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 05:47, 8 February 2014 (UTC)