Talk:Adi Shankara/Archive 2

Bad faith edits

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)

You mean that you reverted my edits because you object to my having this page on my Watchlist and trying to improve it and protect it from poor edits? Well at least you're honest about your bad-faith editing, but that doesn't really make it any better. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:17, 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 +++++++++

RfC

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)

I think we're getting a little too quick on the revert trigger on the part of both parties here. Maybe both Mel and Sam could agree to try observing a variation on the one-revert rule for a little while; let the article sit as it is right now, and commit only non-revert edits for a while. If one of you makes an edit that the other disagrees with that you would ordinarily revert, discuss it on the talk page. Most of the edits at issue in the series of reverts I look at and think "some of these are good changes, some are debatable, and some should probably be undone". Reverts of an entire submission is too coarse a tool for dealing with these situations, particular the debatable changes. The real problem here is that edits by third parties are at risk of being inadvertantly wiped out during reverts and counterreverts (this seems to have happened in the latest edit by User:Imc). Sound sensible? --Clay Collier 05:22, 30 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)

Could you both please summarise the stylistic or other differences between you two here? It looks like an extremely trivial dispute. --Ravikiran 17:16, 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 made a series of edits that I thought improved the article. SS reverted them, calling them bizarre. Since then he's refused to explain what it is about them that is bizarre, or to which he objects. I am still completely in the dark as to his reasons for revrting. Some of my edits reverted earlier edits by an anon, which I take to have replaced good style with slightly worse style. For example:

"From a young age, Shankara was attracted to asceticism and to the life of a renunciate. His mother Aryamba was however entirely against his becoming a Sannyasi, and consistently refused him her formal permission, which was required before he could take Sannyasam. Once when Shankara was bathing in the river, a crocodile gripped him by the leg and began rapidly to drag him into the water."

was changed to:

"From a young age, Shankara was attracted to asceticism and to the life of a renunciate. However, his mother, Aryamba, was entirely against his becoming a Sannyasi, and consistently refused him her formal permission, which was required before he could take Sannyasam. Once when Shankara was bathing in the river, a crocodile gripped him by the leg and began to rapidly drag him into the water."

Why SS thinks that the former is so much better as to warrant regular reverting I don't know. I don't hold that so-called split infinitives are grammatically wrong and must be avoided, but I can see no reason to insist on including one when the original text avoided it.

The changes which I reverted also included unnecessary division of the article into smaller sections, a lot of duplicated internal links, some PoV language (e.g., I replaced "his greatest lesson" with "his main lesson"), and the addition of a section which mentions what one writer (out of very many) has said about Shankara's dates — an addition which I think is somewhat PoV, as it raises one opinion above others. I also removed a duplication in the bibliography ("The commentary on the Bhagavad Gita" appears both as book that he certainly wrote and as one that he probably wrote, but on which there's no scholarly agreement, and I organised the external links section so that links to the same sites were grouped together.

Why is SS reverting all these and a host of other edits? I don't know; he refuses to say. The nearest he's come is to say that he opposes my watching over this article — something that Wikipedia editors do all the time (including, of course, SS himself). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:48, 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)

There will be a user conduct RfC is false edit summaries like this continue to be used. Sam Spade 16:25, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Attempt to resolve dispute

I wonder if the two of you couldn't try to go through the items in dispute one by one and find agreement on at least some of them? For example, the first item is "Hindu scriptures" v. "Hindu scriptures"[1]. Now, I don't have a strong opinion about this, but it seems to me that since Hinduism is hyperlinked a few lines above, and that links in turn to Hindu, that might suffice. But then, that is just my opinion.

The next item is Namboothiri v. Namboodiri. The latter redirects to the former. So, I don't understand why this is in dispute. It should be Namboothiri. The discussion of the spelling of this name should be moved to the Namboothiri talk page so that the editors of that article can participate.

The third item is is v. are. Since the subject of the sentence, "traditional source", is singular, "is" is the correct word.

Now, I notice that I've sided with Mel on the first two items, and Sam on the third, but I would caution both of you against drawing any conclusions from this. That is just how it happened to come out. The important thing is that if you can come to an agreement on any or all of these items, maybe some of the other items can be resolved as well. Even if you can't resolve all the items, finding agreement on some would be a big help if you do have seek arbitration to resolve the balance. Thank you both for trying to improve Wikipedea and best wishes. -Walter Siegmund (talk) 23:06, 6 November 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)

Sam, I appreciate very much your agreement with my opinion on the Namboothiri matter. I will proceed to make the change. I'd like to ask that Mel not revert the article to his version as long as progress in resolving the disputed items is occurring. I know that will be disagreeable to him because it is mostly Sam's version at this point, but I would be grateful for Mel's help in this regard. Now, the matter of whether Hinduism links to Hindu can be resolved, I think. The link that I found is just above the table of Contents of Hinduism: "See Hindu for more about a Hindu and different communities of Hindus." Now, I think that is bad style because it is easy to overlook. I had to search for it. I think it would be better if a place for Hindu could be found in the first two or three sentences. The wording of the sentence containing the link is bad too, because it is reminiscent of the See also section at the ends of article and breaks up the flow of the writing. But, perhaps we can agree to work with the other editors of Hinduism to improve the wording and to give Hindu more prominence. Thank you. Walter Siegmund (talk) 02:27, 7 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)

Sam, I'm sorry that I wasn't clear in my previous comment. For the record, it seems to me that a reader of this article is probably already fairly knowledgeable about Hinduism and Hindus since a beginner would be unlikely to start here. On the other hand, at least one link is appropriate, just to be safe. It seems to me that Hinduism is the more relevant of the two. From Hinduism, the reader can reach Hindu, albeit with the misgivings I expressed previously. I am sure that you know of the discussions occur among editors on the extent of links. Many share your view that the links should be more extensive than less. I would summarize as follows: More links are better because who can know what link might be helpful to a future reader v. too many links make it hard for the reader to find the one that is useful or necessary, and detract from the appearance of the article. I think we should give Mel an opportunity to comment. I'm pleased that you think I've been helpful, Sam. Thank you. -Walter Siegmund (talk) 04:24, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Use of links

First, for the record, I made the change of Namboodiri to Namboothiri before my edit above at 04:24, 7 November 2005 (UTC). Second, I want to thank Mel for not reverting the current content.

Since the subject of links has been broached, I wonder if it wouldn't be good to try to resolve that category next, rather than item by item. A cross-wiki link to Wiktionary may be better for some of the links, but for now, I'd like to focus on only the issue of whether the word should be linked or not. Here are my thoughts.

What should not be linked

Plain English words:

• crocodile
• universe
• mortality
• theistic

The time, space, causation, change and eternity articles do include sections on philosophy, but it is embarrassing that the only comment on Asian thought on these matters I found was one sentence in Causality. Consequently, a reader of this article would find little of help in those. Moreover, this article does not discuss the philosophy of time, space, causation, change or eternity in any significant detail. But, I would support linking to those articles once they include significant Asian philosophical content. But, even then, the link should be to the philosophy section, not to the top of the article. I didn't find anything on philosophy or religion in universe or mortality.

• time
• space
• causation
• change
• eternity

What should be linked

Major connections with the subject of another article that will help readers to understand the current article more fully:

• Vishwanath
• Kashi
• Shiva
• Ishwara
• Manisha Panchakam But only if the article is written promptly.
• Nrsimha
• Kali
• Laksmi
• Buddhism
• South India Kashmir is linked, so South India or India should be linked as well (but only the first occurrence). The second is a redlink.

Technical terms should be linked unless they are fully defined in the article:

• shlokas
• atman But only the first occurrence and it should be spelled consistently in this article (and hopefully with the referenced article as well).
• sacerdotalism

Discussed earlier, see entry at 04:24, 7 November 2005 (UTC) above.

• Hindu

Thank you. Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:28, 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)

Sam, thank you for your spirit of cooperation and your interest in resolving disagreements through discussion. I think I summarized your position on links (and that of those who disagree with you) in my comment of 04:24, 7 November 2005 (UTC), but correct me if I'm wrong. We are fortunate, however, that the Style Guide section on links can help us resolve our differences. That is why I linked to sections of the Style Guide in my list of the links in dispute above. I thought that you and Mel might be able to discuss whether the link in question was in the correct sublist, rather than rehashing philosophical positions on links. The latter is not relevant to this discussion, in my view, and is unlikely to lead to agreement, in any case.

Subsequent to your acceptance of the link changes that I suggested, I was disappointed to see that Mel reverted the article that you and I were working on to his version and requested that it be blocked. Further effort on my part, in the absence of participation by Mel, seems fruitless to me. Best wishes to you both. -Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:26, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Your attempt to mediate has been noted and appreciated. Thank you very much. Sam Spade 00:36, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Article protected

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)

LOL! What a joke, as soon as reasonable people start agreeing on what edits to make, a good friend of Mel (who has refused to participate in discussion) locks the page... shortly after Mel reverts! What a coincidence! Sam Spade 20:01, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

My position

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)

Proposal to resolve this dispute

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?

• I will undertake to edit the disputed items consistent with my suggestions above. These have been accepted by Sam Spade and mostly agreed to by Mel Etitis.
• I will edit the items not yet discussed in a manner that seems best to me. I will give prompt consideration and response to queries posted here regarding all edits.
• Both parties will agree to not make any further change(s) to the disputed items without proposing the change(s) here for comment one week prior to making the change(s). Each agrees to make the change(s) only if a clear consensus, or no dissent, occurs.
• In the future, both parties agree to avoid criticizing one another or their actions in general terms. A well-reasoned comment on a specific edit is appropriate, however, and will be accepted as such by the recipient.
• Both parties agree not to revert the other in the future on this or any other article. But, if you edit anonymously, please don't complain if you are reverted by the other.
• Neither party is restrained by this agreement from reverting edits by third parties to this or other articles, as he sees fit, and in accordance with the policies of Wikipedia.
• Both parties agree that this is the full and final settlement of this dispute and agree not to rehash it henceforth.
• Once both parties have accepted these terms (or as modified by subsequent discussion), Mel Etitis will request the block on the article be removed so that the other items can be accomplished.
• For the record, this is the difference page for the disputed items.

Thank you for your consideration of my proposal. -Walter Siegmund (talk) 19:47, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree to that, unless the agreement not to revert applies to pages other than this one, and w the stipulation that Mel (and I) not revert non-vandalism edits to this page w/o prior consensus. Sam Spade 21:34, 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)

There's nothing in Walter Siegmund's proposal to which I could reasonably object, and I agree to all parts, and thank him for the time and thought that he's put in to this. I'd rather not tie my hands with regard to edits by anyone else, though. (For example, the insistence of certain religious groups to impose their non-standard views concerning Shankara's dates don't count as vandalism, but needs to be dealt with.) --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:26, 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)

In that case I cannot agree, this entire problem is the result of a revert Mel made of an anon edit. I don't have major edits to be making to this article, but others do. Mel cannot be allowed to stand in their way. Sam Spade 00:37, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for giving serious consideration to my proposal. I have found that fighting other people's battles is rarely rewarded or appreciated. But that is your decision. Perhaps you can understand my disinclination to put effort into resolving a dispute that seems certain to erupt again. Best wishes. Walter Siegmund (talk) 02:55, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Sam Spade, you deserve a more complete response than I've given. I am sorry. I don't think your proposal that you and Mel Etitis not revert non-vandalism edits to the article without prior consensus is workable. What is and is not vandalism is a matter of judgement. I think before long you would disagree and fall back into conflict. The POV date dispute, is not Vandalism, in my opinion. If that is correct, under your proposal, a consensus would have to be obtained before each such edit could be reverted. Surely, the ensuing delay would only encourage the POV advocates. I suppose that an exception could be made for that category, but that makes deciding when to seek consensus before reverting more complex and thereby open to criticism. -Walter Siegmund (talk) 04:44, 11 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.

Outside comments on this dispute

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 .

Editing disputes often seem to be about rather minor matters when viewed by others. However, it is important to know that the editors of an article often care a great deal about the subject and the content of the article, e.g., Chimera and Circumcision. I found the following differences (parties correct me as necessary):

• grammar, especially the use of split infinitives.
• spelling/upper & lower case (always a problem when transliterating between two languages).
• extent of word-linking.
• the number of sections.
• one item in the biography list.
• wording described as somewhat POV.
• inclusion of a reference described as somewhat POV.

I think that the progress made above suggests that it is possible to resolve these matters. Unfortunately, they do not seem to be at the root of this dispute. Sam Spade states, "... this entire problem is the result of a revert Mel made of an anon edit. I don't have major edits to be making to this article, but others do. Mel cannot be allowed to stand in their way." Also, "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." [Talk:Adi_Shankara#Proposal_to_resolve_this_dispute]

When I thought this dispute was about content, I resisted commenting on its history. (Rehashing the past is not a good way to move forward.) At this point, however, a short comment may be in order. I think AGF might have helped. Suppose Sam Spade had assumed that Mel Etitis had overlooked the good points in the edit in question and that he would appreciate a kind and thoughtful note on his talk page to that effect. Something like the following might have been appropriate:

... 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.

• An extra parenthesis was deleted in the first line. It is easy to miss, but surely a good thing.
• South was made lower case in keeping with my reading of the MoS on directions. Am I misinterpreting the MoS here? I notice that South India exists. Perhaps that link should be substituted here.
• I wonder if the variant spelling of keraliya might be kept parenthetically, at least until the redlink article is stubbed and it can be debated there?
• Perhaps one or two of the grammar edits could be retained on the principle of encouraging newcomers?

Thank you for considering these items and for your efforts fighting vandals. Best wishes, ...

I think Mel Etitis may have responded in a manner more to your liking to such an approach. I think it is important to keep in mind the saying, "You can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar."

In conclusion, I don't know how, short of an indefinite block, to prevent an editor from reverting good, or bad, edits. All you can do is try to persuade the editor of your opinion of a particular edit. If you make a good case, most editors will either agree with you or try to reach an acceptable compromise. If not, you may have made the editor more receptive to the edit and you may persuade third parties. In either event, if you move on, you can improve some of the other 800,000 articles that need your attention. The anonymous editor, 129.79.205.132, has done that and has been complemented on his/her talk page on the quality of his/her contributions.

I hope that those reading my comments will not see them as one-sided. Although I have directed most of my comments toward Sam Spade, I have criticized the reversion of the anonymous editor by Mel Etitis in my example of how Sam Spade might have handled the dispute differently.

The anonymous edit at the root of this dispute.

Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 23:58, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

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)

Sam Spade, I have seen User_talk:Sam_Spade#Adi_Shankara. It is my opinion that arguments over grammar, if no clear rule applies, are best avoided. I think that the split infinitives in dispute here fit that description and that the two parties concur. To the extent that is not true, it is an issue better raised at Talk:Split infinitive, than here. In my example of how you might have argued your position with Mel Etitis (above), I listed it last and justified it on the basis WP:bite, not grammar. The grammar argument is very weak and I think many (or most) editors share the opinion of 195.93.21.104 (above).

• It is inevitable, in a project as geographically and culturally disparate as this, that disagreements will arise over wording. Depending on the language that you experienced as a child, studied in school, or hear daily, a particular phrase may sound untutored, on one hand, or pedantic or precious, on the other. It is more positive to embrace the diversity of the backgrounds of our editors and the strength and vitality that such diversity confers on the project. At the same time, you should recognize that no particular uniformity of expression is likely to emerge from the chaos that is at the core of Wikipedia.
• The content is not affected by how a thought is expressed, as long as it is expressed clearly. Please keep the goal of the project in mind (see below).
• If the content is not clear, point out how the original could be misinterpreted and how the wording you prefer solves that problem. That is a good argument, in my view, and a fight that is worth fighting.
• If the wording is a clear violation of a rule of grammar, e.g., a singular subject with a plural verb, it may be an argument worth pursuing. However, it may be an indication that the sentence is cumbersome and should be rephrased. As an example, consider "The traditional source for accounts of his life is the Shankara Vijayams, which are essentially hagiographies." The alternative wording, "The hagiographic Shankara Vijayams are the sources of accounts of his life" might be acceptable to both parties." It is a bit more succinct, as well. Rewording and reorganizing, even if not immediately successful, is more likely to lead to agreement than an edit war.

Sam Spade, I've replied to you, but I wonder if Mel Etitis wouldn't be kind enough to consider my comments, as well. Isn't it about time to settle this? Bhadani, have you any substantive comments? Best wishes to everyone. Walter Siegmund (talk) 20:32, 19 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)

Unprotected

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 think that if either party wishes to avoid resuming their reversion war, that it would be constructive to make the edits suggested by a third party (me) and agreed to by both parties above. Admittedly, not all issues were addressed by that discussion, but perhaps the parties could resolve the few remaining differences amicably by following the guidelines and policies of Wikipedia, e.g., assume good faith, no personal attacks, etc., that are familiar to both disputants. Regarding the unresolved issue of the use of section headings, I think that the guideline is fairly clear. Mel Etitis' version hews somewhat closer to the guideline than that of Sam Spade, in my opinion. Please see Wikipedia:Guide_to_layout#Structure_of_the_article. Walter Siegmund (talk) 19:49, 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)

Hi, imo, the word challenge is inappropriate; Why don't you list out your points of agreement and disagreement as you perceive them to be? This would give a chance to Walter Siegmund to either confirm by corroborating your points or in disagreeing on specific points. --Gurubrahma 04:18, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, let me rephrase: I challenge interested parties to scroll up ;) Sam Spade 15:53, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Dasnami order?

Any info on the Dasnami Sannyasa and the formation Hindu monasticism by Shankara? Thanks. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 00:32, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Modern scholars

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)

Appaiah, thank you for your query. Please see Talk:Adi Shankara/Archive 1 for the discussion of the dates with sources. The article, as written, discusses the date controversy and those holding different views in the section, Shankara's dates. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 14:59, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Poetry link

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)

Of Poetry Links

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

What wiki says for adding links

<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:

• Poems 1
  • Five-Letter Eulogy (Shiv Panchakshar)
  • Eight Pada on Krishna
  • Eight pada on Bhavani
  • Garland of Names of Shiv
  • Six Pada on Nirvana
  • Nirvana Manjari
  • Sharda Bhujangam
• Poems 2
  • Gauri Dashakam
  • Vishnu Shatapadi
  • Kaupina Panchakam
  • Maya Panchakam
  • Achyutashtakam

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's behaviour in removing the link altogether (six times so far, five times from IP addresses and once from your account) hasn't helped us to take his case seriously. Still, when I last looked (and the site keeps changing) there was only one link to Shankara poetry on the main index page (labelled in tiny letters), and the Shankara page (to which I linked) then had a firther unspecified link to "poetry" which turned out to be another index page with a different selection of links, a few of which were to Shankara poems.

It's perhaps worth pointing out that he shouldn't be adding links to his own site at all; the most he should do is let us know about the site on this page, so that we can check it and decide whether or not to add a link (so says Wikipedia:External links#What should not be linked to, anyway: "A website that you own or maintain (unless it is the official site of the subject of the article). If it is relevant and informative, mention it as a possible link on the talk page and wait for someone else to include it, or include the information directly in the article." --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:54, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I willingly concede that Animesh78's behavior has been less than exemplary. It is helpful to quote Wikipedia guidelines and policies that bear on this matter and I thank Mel Etitis for doing so. But, if I may, I'd like to cite the guidance of WP:BITE. "New contributors are prospective "members" and are therefore our most valuable resource. We must treat newcomers with kindness and patience — nothing scares potentially valuable contributors away faster than hostility or elitism. While many newcomers hit the ground running, some lack knowledge about the way we do things."

However, I think this discussion should be about whether a link to the main page of stutimandal improves this article or not. It is a good point that linking to a site that is changing rapidly poses potential maintenance problems. Walter Siegmund (talk) 00:20, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Mel: My first edit was with an IP address, I didn't bother much since it was the first addition. For the next time I signed in, having recalled my old time password. Since then Wiki is playing naughty -- it shows my status as Animesh78 when I visit the page. When I edit the page, it stores my IP address.

The site is not "only dedicated" to Adi Shankara but to all the sanskrit poets. That said, I did insist in the beginning that there are more than one-poem by Adi Shankara -- and Maya Panchakam (like any other poem, if I remain alive) will be thrown out of the main page since only recent-most stuff is stored there. The stuff that you quoted gives a *possibility* of incorporating external links to the article on your own. Finally, I still don't understand the motivation behind linking only one poem out of 12. You still need to answer this!

Walter: I think I received hostility about misunderstood issues here. For me -- as an information looker -- a website that hosts 10s of Adi Shankara's poem is worth a quote on the page. For Mel it isn't. Certainly there is subjectivity involved here and the *imposing* part started from the other side first.

The site does not changes (rapidly or otherwise), per se. Only the list of five-poems at front-page changes. Any added poem makes into the Poem list (1, 2, and so on in future). We are trying to deliver poetic content there and occasion or slight-redesign has been happening. But in all these cases, the list of poems has remained untouched.

Finally, I have also received a threat of being banned from modifying Wiki. The contention is that I cannot add or subtract links at my will. If there is a website which I am helping to run, I will love to see it presence here in totality -- if someone already knows Maya Panchakam or is not interested in Maya Panchakam will never follow that link; I don't mind removing the link altogether from Wiki for google has been kind on us. But having a tertiary presence in the form of one-poem is highly-objectionable. Sincerely,

Animesh78 00:48, 16 February 2006 (UTC)Animesh78

No one has threatened you with a ban from Wiki. A block is a short term (usually 24 hours)... block.

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)

And what is wrong with my proposition -- Since Maya Panchakam alone will hardly add anything to the cause of poetry or life of Adi Shankara, so just chuck the link and forget stutimandal??? I don't want to get a feel for WIKI. Now can the WIKI let go it's feel of the poetry website in question?

Oh and I forgot to tell -- I added 6 links to demonstrate Mel Etitis that his *referencing* scheme has *obvious flaws*.

Animesh78 02:50, 16 February 2006 (UTC)Animesh78

Since the list of the five poems on the main page of the stutimandal site are the most recent added, it seems likely that on occasion, the list will contain NO poems by Adi Shankara. We would risk sending a reader to a site that would have no obvious link to the article subject. That would risk disappointing the reader.

I think it adds to the article to link somehow to stutimandal. I understand that Animesh78 does not like the article linking to just one poem and I agree that the site content is interesting, valuable and attractive and offers much more than just the one poem. I understand further that Animesh78 feels ill-treated and wishes stutimandal to no longer be linked from Wikipedia. I hope that those feelings will pass. But, I don't think that anyone can reasonably expect to control how Internet web sites link to one another. An alternative, however, is to link to the two poem lists. [4] [5] These contain links to 7 and 6 poems by Adi Shankara respectively. Above, Animesh78 says, "Only the list of five-poems at front-page changes. Any added poem makes into the Poem list (1, 2, and so on in future). We are trying to deliver poetic content there and occasion or slight-redesign has been happening. But in all these cases, the list of poems has remained untouched." It would seem that this alternative would address Mel Etitis' concern that "the site keeps changing".

You can read more about blocking at WP:BLOCK. In this case, I'm not sure what purpose a block would serve. Animesh78 has been very willing to discuss this matter. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:31, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

thanks Walter! That is a nice solution. I am up for it, if others agree to it. If there are any *great* changes which hurt the Wikipedia, I will let you guys know. Finally, *making poet profiles* is one project that has been luring us. If it ever happens, Adi Shankara will get His space and we will inform you. A minor change to the link names in the article would be good -- Just say Gauri Dashakam and other poems by Adi Shankara.

Animesh78 19:33, 16 February 2006 (UTC)Animesh78

Nirvana Shatkam - Sextet of Salvation

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)

Well, I don't want to jump ahead and talk, but ... Yes Nirvana Shatkam has been written by Adi Shankara. But that poem is covered by one of the existing links at Adi Shankara's page (see stutimandal's poem list). The site in question has font in Telugu, and has too many advertizements as well; also it works *only* with Microsoft Internet Explorer. If you insist on a link, you can use stutimandal's link or sanskrit.gde.to's link. Both are ad-free pages and so-far dont have commercial intentions. Animesh78 01:00, 21 February 2006 (UTC)animesh78

recent edits

1. "Sankara was born on the visaka sukla panchami day." This is meaningless to most readers (including me). If its significance can be given, and a citation supplied, then fine (saying that theres' no controveresy isn't enough; see WP:CITE).
2. The change from the factual claim that modern scholarship agrees on 8th-centuryt dates to the false and misleading claim that this is merely a "popular" view isn't acceptable. The same goes for the removal of the sentence "However, there is no concrete evidence for the existence of these mathas before the 14th century." The change from good to poor English (e.g., "ascribe" doesn't mean "subscribe") doesn't help, but it's not the main problem.
3. The removal of a reference and of three external links also needs explanation. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:37, 4 May 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).

1. The article isn't for people who already know about the material; rather than claiming that the phrase (which gets no hits on Google) is familiar to your friends, why not explain what it means?
2. We go by scholarship, not by religious institutions' myths and legends. That's the nature of an encyclopædia as opposed to a religious text.
3. ?
4. Good content and good English are both important; without the latter, we're not communicating satisfactorily.
5. Placing the "PoV" template on the article just beacsue you're not getting your own way isn't good-faith editing. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:58, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

1. Maybe if you had asked what it means before you removed it, it would not have been bad faith on your behalf.
2. Thank you for taking the time to explain what an encyclopedia is as opposed to a religious text. Apparently truth coming from ‘religious texts’ don’t find place in your encyclopedias. Please remember that Sankara is a religious person and back in his time (509 BCE or 708 CE), there were no Encyclopedia Brittanicas or Wikipedias around.
3. You had asked why I removed the reference section.
4. False statements coated in good English is worse than truth coated in bad English. So before you go grab a dictionary or a grammar book, you perhaps need to get some authentic texts on Sankara.
5. Oh please, just because you have the time to revert edits by others does not mean that article in neutral. It is slanted to the Mel Etitis views on Sankara.
6. I hate to generalize but it appears that you want this article on an ‘Eastern’ subject to have a ‘Western’ bias - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NPOV#Anglo-American_focus
7. I know you are an admin, but maybe you should go reread these pages - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NPOV#Lack_of_neutrality_as_an_excuse_to_delete So please discuss before you revert edits based on your subject matter expertise (which I gather is not much because you said you couldn’t find out what vaishaka sukla panchami stands for – Allow me to save you some more googling – It means the fifth day of the bright fortnight of the vishaka month – that was the day of Sankara’s birth. The controversy over the dates is about the year, and not the month/day of birth.)
8. Whenever I edit the pages, I make sure that I give weightage to all opinions even if I don’t necessarily agree with them. But very rarely do I see you doing so. Aren’t you supposed to be neutral being an admin and all? It is very convenient to reject other’s views as religious and dismiss them. Secondly, just because a view is popular does not mean it is correct. The last time this article was locked was because of your disagreement with another contributor. That speaks volumes about how you have been influencing your control over these pages. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines#Key_policies

66.141.187.234 19:13, 7 May 2006 (UTC) M 2006/05/07

1. When an anonymous editor adds text in a foreign language with no explanation, you'll find that it's frequently removed. To make this less likely, open an account and (more importantly) explain your edits.
2. Once again, you need to read WP:NPOV, etc.
3. Yes, and your response was unclear.
4. You seem to have missed the point. And I have a number of scholarly texts on Indian philosophy in general, and on Sankara in particular.
5. No, it's slanted to what can be backed up by scholarship and citations.
6. See previous point. Playing the "East versus West" card doesn't work, given that much of the scholarship which disagrees with your position is Indian.
7. First, I have read the section; you can't hide behind it, however — this issue has been debated at length, and a great deal of evidence and argument given. You're trying to ignore that, but it's all either above or in the history. Secondly I'll pass over your peculiar assumption that not understanding the phrase means that I know little about Sankara.
8. We don't (often can't, and generally shouldn't) represent every opinion equally. Moreover, non-scholarly opinions such as religious faith should be mentioned, but not presented as on a par with scholars. We shouldn't say that there is one god in three persons, that Jesus was the messaiah, etc. — we should say that that's what Christians believe. We shouldn't say that Sankara was born long before the scholars agree; we should say that some religious believers hold that to be the case. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:36, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

++++++++++

Mr. Etitis, I’m short on time and so here are my responses (not necessarily in any order)

1. The edits were explained in the body of the text (if you had cared to read them before reverting)
2. If submitting edits by non-registered users is not acceptable, then why don’t you submit that to the Wikipedia policy makers? (there are quite a few Wiki articles that require a person to be logged in before making edits) Or is it because only views that are not acceptable to Mr. Etitis needs to come from registered users?
3. The Aryan invasion theory is still believed to be true by a number of Indians but it does not make it correct. Here is a link to a ‘Western’ source on this subject – http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/hinduism/history/history5.shtml Do you now see where the modern ‘scholars’ got their dates? Doesn’t matter if they are eastern/western. They still have the dates wrong and so do you. I'm not playing any East vs. West card here.
4. You may have a number of ‘scholarly texts’ on Indian Philosophy but it does not necessarily make you an expert on Sankara to make dictatorial edits here. Any decent material on Sankara would have Vaisakha as his month of birth. Your arguments that the text was of foreign origin and hence the delete is bogus at best. So are you telling me that your knowledge of Sankara are based on translations which may or may not be correct? And of course, you reject translations coming from ‘religious sources’, which leaves you to the ‘modern scholarly’ translations. How enlightening!
5. Finally, I don’t need to hide behind anything. I’m calling it as it is. You are biased and are in fact, providing little value to this article (except for the spelling/grammar check which can be very easily accomplished with a decent Word processor). Unfortunately, the general public are the losers in this case as all they can read about is the Mel Etitis version of Sankara history. May I suggest a little experiment – how about letting the article grow without your ‘oversight’ for a period of six months? How sad for Wiki that you are an administrator! It is futile and a waste of time discussing this with you any further.

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

++++++++++

I can certainly attest to the fact that "Sankara was born on the 'isaka sukla panchami' day" means nothing to this American reader, nor to the vast majority of American readers, I suspect. Reliable sources such as the Encyclopædia Britannica support the 8th-century CE date. I'm concerned that you are not assuming good faith on Mel Etitis part. Moreover, your remarks are not in keeping with my reading of the WP policy of WP:NPA. Please don't make personal attacks on other editors. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 04:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Crocodile Myth

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.

Expanded life

I expanded the Life section. Babub 17:22, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Message to Mitsube

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)

Well alright, but that article is copy-pasted from some other site so it should really be deleted. Mitsube (talk) 06:29, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Can you please clarify which article is copy-pasted from an other site? I have provided info from various books to show the existence of the Dasanamis / ekadandis before the birth of Sri Adi Shankara. And any reason why the article should be deleted? --Illusion 07:59, 4 May 2009 (UTC)Mayasutra —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mayasutra (talk • contribs)

Poorly Sourced & Consequentially Wildly Inaccurate

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)

Archive

• /Archive 1
• /Archive 2

---

Sanskrit and Malayalam

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? -- thunderboltz^{a.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK}13:37, 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.

from: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Indic)--^Babub→Talk 15:05, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, so I guess that means Malayalam can indeed be expressed in IAST. I had asked because there are a few sounds in Dravidian languages that do not exist in North Indian languages. -- thunderboltz^{a.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK}15:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Pronunciation of the name differ in each language. So which one should be represented using IAST? -Cibu 04:33, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

आदि शंकर is incorrect ; ( ङ ) should be used instead of (.) . Bharatveer 06:29, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Bharatveer, Could you give the complete word with proper spelling, in devanagari? Thanks, --^Babub→Talk 14:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• shankara in malayalam should be written as ശങ്കര rather than ശങ് കര activevoid 17:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• Instead of coding {{unicode|ആദി ശങ്കര}} , ir can be written ആദി ശങ്കര directlyactivevoid 07:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Bharatveer for correcting the devanagiri spelling! ^Babub→Talk 13:19, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Visarga is missing

Please add visarga after the word आदि शंकर in Devanagari. Apnavana 02:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

आदि शंकर

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)

Both come out okay for me, what do you see on the article? Gizza^{Chat ©} 06:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I see it just the way Indic template cautions against. Funnily, other articles with indic are ok. I see even the slokas just above works section wrongly. Can you suggest a remedy? Maybe I need to redo the indic procedure -- Lost^(talk) 06:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Mine kind of screws up weirdly too. I am unable to see the character "ṅ" in the article window, but I can see it fine in the edit pane. I can't say I have any experience with Indic scripts though.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  05:53, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

featured article editing

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)

what about the entire "dates" section? The man lived some time in the 8th or 9th century, that's about all that is known with any certainty. dab (ᛏ) 15:18, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Interesting...

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)

Articles that are featured on wikipedia can make it to the front page through the process listed here. So, in order to get the Eco Theology article on the front page, you first need to get it featured. See What is a featured article? to know the criteria it should meet to be featured.

The "stange signs" you see might be incorrectly displayed Malayalam text. See WP:COMPLEX to correct the display.--thunderboltz^(Deepu) 17:09, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear Hinduism Project members

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)

Dates

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)

Upanishad Bhasyas

Didn't Adi Shankara comment on Eleven upanishads? Syiem 13:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Defeating The Jainas

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)

Yes, these wins talk about debates. Clarified in the article now. Thanks. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Sources cited

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)

Adi Shankara's Gotra

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)

Contribution to Mathematics

"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.

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).

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."

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)

Shankara born as Brahmin?

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)

God?

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

I just learned that the concept of Ishvara relates to this important issue.Lestrade (talk) 13:19, 1 November 2008 (UTC)Lestrade

Reinsert

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?

Austerlitz -- 88.75.193.211 (talk) 11:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

slightly different translation is to be found [6] here

• [7] a source
• [8]
• [9]
• [10]

I don't know the name of the above quoted Shloka, how to find a source apt for wikipedia?

Austerlitz -- 88.75.79.27 (talk) 11:32, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, the title/name is Guru Stotram.

Austerlitz -- 88.75.79.27 (talk) 12:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The song is to be found here [11], no direct link available.

Austerlitz -- 88.75.79.27 (talk) 12:09, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

No need of Devanagari

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)

But he wrote in Sanskrit, NOT the Keralite language.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 13:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

So what? All wikipedia biography articles are only based on their ethnicity. For instance, A.R Rahman wrote songs in every language, but he is of Tamil ethnicity, so his Tamil name is given in the article only. --91.130.91.84 (talk) 13:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

No, you are wrong, not all biography articles are based on their ethnicity. for example Rekha & Rajnikanth. both articles has three scripts in the lead. C21K^talk 15:40, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I would like to correct those articles. --Leadcorrector (talk) 15:56, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Those scripts are added based on consensus. Please don't simply create problems here. do some constructive work. C21K^talk 16:02, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't want to make trouble for wikipedian sentimentalists, just wanna provide proper information for interested readers. --Leadcorrector (talk) 16:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Dear anon, Adi shankara is not unknown for his Malayalam. Most people will identify only the Devanagari script (Sanskrit language), in which Adi shankara wrote, NOT the Malayalam one.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 13:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

It seems, you didn't get the point. In whole wikipedia biography articles, ethnicity only is used for language to be used in the article. --91.130.91.84 (talk) 13:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Dear anon "Malayalam formed out of Tamil rather late and began developing a body of literature by the 9th century CE", which is a date much later than 5th-8th centuries - the range of dates for Adi Shankara. He works are in Sanskrit and may have Sanskrit or Tamil as his mother tongue. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 13:50, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

This is WP:OR and reveals your desperation. --Leadcorrector (talk) 13:57, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

http://www.bharatadesam.com/people/shankaracharya.php ”At The first year of his age he had learnt both Malayali, his mother tongue, and Sanskrit, the language of the Vedas.” --Leadcorrector (talk) 14:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

NOTE TO MEDIATORS: 91.130.91.84 removed the Devanagari and the pronunciation and was reverted by 3 distinct editors including User:C21K (latest), me, User:THF.

The line above may be considered as WP:OR so I take it back. The reference provided by Leadcorrector is not a relaible source, though it acknowledges Sanskrit, whose script is Devanagari. I am not against inclusion of Malayalam, but aganist removal of Sanskrit and pronunciation.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 14:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

You are creating really big troubles for wikipedia, if you insist to put in Devanagari script. Please stick to wikipedia standards. --Leadcorrector (talk) 14:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Please do not indulge in personal attacks and justify how i or the editors who put the Devanagari script in the first place "creating really big troubles for wikipedia". Please state appropriate wikipedia standards/ policies. Thanks. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 14:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

NOTE: The Sanskrit script was in the article as early as 2006 when the article reached FA status. [12] --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 14:46, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The editor who is removing the script has done so on several pages, and has given no reason for the removal. It should remain. Cf. also Fyodor Dostoyevsky. THF (talk) 14:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'm removing those scripts, because, for instance Tamanna Bhatia is of Marathi origin and hence should be written in Marathi script. If anyone needs prove/sources for this obvious facts, I'll provide them. There is no need to revert them immediately. I consequently asked you to use the talk page for such things, but you seem to have no interest in it. --Leadcorrector (talk) 15:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

His works are related to Sanskrit and not Malayalam. So, whats the point of removing Devanagari script ?. C21K^talk 15:09, 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)

There is no such wiki-policy which states only ethnicity of the person should be used. C21K^talk 15:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

True, but this is the common sense of conservatism. --Leadcorrector (talk) 15:56, 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)

Infact the language of Kerala in this period is currently under investigation by several scholars. It could be Malayalam, but more probably it was Tamil. Both scripts would be used til the scholars came to a conclusion. Devanagari is not the way to go here.--Leadcorrector (talk) 18:58, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Vote

For clearer view of the consensus, please include your sign (* --~~~~) in the relevant section. Please continue the comments above.

Include Devanagari

• --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:35, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
• Didn't Adi Shankara go all the way to Jyotirmath in the North to form his Matha, or did a script or rules of Grammar stop him? :D --Ekabhishek (talk) 09:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
• - C21K^talk 10:05, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
• - Imc (talk) 10:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
• - Gizza^{Discuss ©} 13:47, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
• - Priyanath ^talk 14:50, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
• All languages in India ? :) -- Tinu Cherian - 17:53, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Bypassers comment

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 (mb_ork³) 19:52, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

You mean, somebody should add a Chinese script as well to serve as many people as possible? Sounds very stupid to me. --91.130.91.93 (talk) 17:52, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Reference to Shankara in Hindu Meditation section of Meditation

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)

---

You are wrong on all counts. Mitsube (talk) 18:44, 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)

Script

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)

Irony

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)

Alternate viewpoint on Adi Shankara's works

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)

We already have "According to his philosophy, knowledge of brahman springs from inquiry into the words of the Upanishads, and the knowledge of brahman that shruti provides cannot be obtained in any other way.[39] Moreover, Shankara was committed to the caste system.[40] He also 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.[41]" Anything you want to add should be sourced to reliable secondary sources in accordance with WP:V. There are other criticisms of Shankara here. That source is a presentation of Christian philosophers, but it has been cited by some good academics works, so it could be used, I suppose. The author cites Hindu critiques of Shankara which might interest you. Mitsube (talk) 06:57, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

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:- [13] 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 [14]. 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)

Very nice to see such discussions in Wikipedia. Matter for laugh. In fact, there was no caste called Viswakarma in Kerala. It is a newly emerged 19th Century or 20th Century caste, actually not a caste - but a group of castes such as Tachans, Mesiris, Asari, Kollan, Thattan etc. This fabricated caste is now attempting to fabricate a history for them to show that they are Brahmins. In the real history of Kerala these castes were collectively known as Kammalas. Even now a days, the thachans, kollans, thattans etc. in Kerala generally do not claim that they are Brahmins. It is also a matter for laugh that now this fake-fabricated Viswakarma caste is trying to place Sankaracharya as a person belonging to Viswakarma caste. What to say. Shame on you people. Only you people can do such things. Shame. --Prasanthnnamboothiri (talk) 16:18, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

It is a request to the readers of this page to kindly go through an earlier complaint that I made. I suspect Prasanthnnamboothiri, Masterjith, Gopalan Acharya and many other editors are Meat Puppets of some Administrators. Many editors are in touch with each other (please refer this thread Thanks for the ping alert) How ethical it is for wikipedians to ping each other and lobby? I had put up a complaint earlier but the way the same was handled abruptly by the Administrators without much of cross examining here I guess lot of Administrators are involved into writing these type of offensive messages from community related IDs to put communities in India into a fight. Please go through this complaint and watch editors carefully. I had written earlier that Wikipedia must stop if it continues to allow such messages what Prasanthnnamboothiri has just written. [User:Sitush_plus_a_group_is_possibly_trying_to_put_communities_in_India_to_a_fight https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=594386881#User:Sitush_plus_a_group_is_possibly_trying_to_put_communities_in_India_to_a_fight] The complaint was made at 09:11 UTC, and by 11:20 UTC the entire compaint was wrapped up in such a short duration?

Request readers to please go through "Ch. 67 -Original Cause of All Causes" as narrated by Potuluri Virabrahmendra Swami [15] to understand who the current Viswabrahmins are. Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 12:01, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Mr. Ganesh J. Acharya I am not. I am not an administrator. I expressed my genuine opinions here. If you are saying I am a puppet, the responsibility of proving the same resides in you. All these things will not provide any benefit to you. I strongly believe you are a puppet for some other user. --Prasanthnnamboothiri (talk) 14:56, 11 March 2014 (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)

Biased opinions in the introduction

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 WP:LEAD summarizes the article; you have repeatedly removed sourced info that's in the article:

• diff, edit-summary 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). Earlier generations of scholars proposed 788–820 CE. Other proposals are 686–718 CE, 44 BCE, or as early as 509–477 BCE.]

The lead summraizes the article; this info is in the article; it's sourced; and the note explains that there are different opinions.

• Three reverts:

• diff, edit-summary 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.
• diff, edit-summary 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.

into

who consolidated the doctrine of Advaita Vedanta.

As you can read in the article, Shankara's image as the 'consolidator' of Advaita Vedanta dates from later centuries.

It also changed

argue for the unity of Ātman and Nirguna Brahman

into

discuss the unity of Ātman and Nirguna Brahman

"Discuss" is a statement of fact; there are various opinions on the reltion between Atman and Brahman.

• diff, edit-summary The similarity between Advaita Vedanta and Mahayana Buddhism is alleged by modern scholars., changed

Shankara's Vedanta shows similarities with Mahayana Buddhism

into

Some scholars have argued that Shankara's Advaita Vedanta shows similarities with Mahayana Buddhism

That's good, except that the similarities are also notes, and criticised, by the Vaishnavite tradition.

• diff, edit-summary 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.

Wholesale revert; again, the lead summarizes the article. So, being treated in the article is not a reason not to mention it in the article.

References

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:09, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

And here you go again, 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," 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".

Notes

References

Ypu really should read WP:LEAD and WP:3RR, while I'm reporting you for edit-warring. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:37, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Buddhist influences

@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)

@Joshua Jonathan: I'm not a scholar on Buddhism, nor do I want to be. I'm adressing you on Advaita on the talk page over there. JJNito197 (talk) 14:53, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Decline of Buddhism

This edit added the following info to the lead:

There is also a common belief among scholars including Vincent Smith that Adi Shankara played an important role in the decline of Buddhism in India. Adi Sankara played a major role debating with Buddhist monks, and publicly defeated a few notable ones in theological debates.

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.

• "There is also a common belief among scholars [...] that Adi Shankara played an important role in the decline of Buddhism in India." - No, it is not common, as explained in the article; Shanakara's fame dates from centuries later.

• Chitkara, M. G. (2004). Vedic Religious Tradition. APH Publishing Corporation. ISBN 978-81-7648-195-3. - who's M.G. Chitkara? The statement "Adi Shankaracharya single-handedly defeated Buddhism in India" reflects a popular belief, not a "common" scholarly understanding.
• Ph.D, M. Jankiraman (2020-11-03). Perspectives in Indian History: From the Origins to AD 1857. Notion Press. ISBN 978-1-64983-995-4. - "who consolidated the doctrine of Advaita Vedant - straightly copied from Wikipedia. Notion Press is a self-publishing company.
• Pradhan, Basant (2014-11-05). Yoga and Mindfulness Based Cognitive Therapy: A Clinical Guide. Springer. ISBN 978-3-319-09105-1.</ref> - "with the rise of Advaita Vedanta, concepts of which were compiled by Adi Shankara, Buddhism declined in India."

• "including Vincent Smith" - Vincent Arthur Smith is a Raj-era source; they're not accepted at Wikipedia.

• rajnish, manu. STATE OF MIND. manu rajnish. ISBN 978-93-5087-127-0. - who is manu rajnish? Not WP:RS.
• Allen, Charles (2010). The Buddha and Dr. Führer: An Archaeological Scandal. Penguin Books India. ISBN 978-0-14-341574-9. - Vincent Smith is referenced here in regard to the loss of the partial unity of India; Buddhism is mentioned as being threatened with extinction "as Hinduism underwent a spiritual revival beginning spearheaded by the Brahmin reformer Adi Shankara." Faulty reading of a source from a pop-historian.

• Adi Sankara played a major role debating with Buddhist monks, and publicly defeated a few notable ones in theological debates.

• Hovey, Sally Wriggins. Xuanzang: A Buddhist Pilgrim on the Silk Road. Westview Press, 1998. - WP:UNDUE for lead; at best it fits in at Adi Shankara#Life.

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)

@Joshua Jonathan: Its a common belief that Shankara removed Buddhism from India whether you like it or not. Doesn't really matter if you think it is a false belief thats your opinion. May I remind you that Wikipedia doesn't care whats right, they care what can be sourced from reliable sources. Many people believe this, and it should be mentioned alongside the Buddhist comparison you added. Why remove the paragraph down when you already inserted Buddhism into the lead? These relate intrinsically, and its what most people associate with both. If you want be to add further sources I will do so earnestly.

Regarding

Adi Sankara played a major role debating with Buddhist monks, and publicly defeated a few notable ones in theological debates.

This is a fact. JJNito197 (talk) 16:01, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

That's exactly the point: it's a popular belief, not a scholarly opinion. As such, you can add it to the article, when you've got reliable sources for it. Now you're trying to stuff your own misunderstandings into the article, using whatever source you can find that seems helpfull.

Sally Hovey was moved to the section on Shankara's life, where it belongs; it's WP:UNDUE for the lead. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:13, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

I have changed the wording around. I also think sally hovey should stay as it only makes contextual sense with that included alongside. JJNito197 (talk) 16:16, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Regarding your latest revert and your rewording, find WP:RS which state that "There is also a common belief that Adi Shankara played an important role in the decline of Buddhism in India.", instead of drawing this conclusion yourself from non-relaible and irrelevant sources; that's WP:OR. here's a starter. Add it first to the section on Shankara's Influence on Hinduism/Traditional view, instead of pushing it in the lead, with the appropriate context and balance of views. And don't ignore the fact that Notion Press is a self-publishing company. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:22, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:JJNito197 reported by User:Joshua Jonathan (Result: ). Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:39, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

• Frank Whaling (1979), Sankara and Buddhism, Journal of Indian Philosophy Vol. 7, No. 1 (MARCH 1979), pp. 1-42: "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."

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)

It's mentioned once in that aricle, yet not mentioned at all in this article. How does that work? Regardless, it is a common belief by Hindus, whether correct or not, that Adi Shankara drove Buddhism out of India. This being a Hindu topic the content should reflect accordingly.https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Explore_Hinduism/PT5h4IjBMk0C?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Adi+Shankaracharya+defeated+Buddhism&pg=PA15&printsec=frontcover JJNito197 (talk) 18:38, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Do you have sources that support this though? If it's a common belief, where is that reflected? When you say common belief, it is a "common belief" as in something believed by a minority but not accepted as true by wider consensus? Why call it a common belief and not just list the facts as given by reliable sources? - Aoidh (talk) 19:25, 26 July 2021 (UTC) - Aoidh (talk) 19:25, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

@Aoidh: I have removed 'common' and all the sources I added (and removed after Joshuas analysis) state this. The book I just cited states this aswell. This is not really an obscure position in Hindu thought, especially when it comes to Adi Shankara. Do you want me to provide more sources? There is already 5 sources added to support this position. JJNito197 (talk) 19:29, 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)

@Aoidh: You are reverting something that isn't there. I had removed common. This book says Shankara defeated Buddhism [16] This book says Shankara defeated scholars of Buddhism [17] this book says Shankara defeated Buddhist monks [18]... need I go on? I must ask, would you even cede even if I could prove this the case? You are interested in Buddhism alongside Joshua. Hindus do believe this. JJNito197 (talk) 19:45, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

That's what I'm saying, is this something that is believed by a group of people, or something that is true? "Defeated scholars" and "played an important role in the decline of Buddhism" are two very different things...some books saying one doesn't verify the other. - Aoidh (talk) 19:48, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

I understand the semantics are confusing, but the overall points are valid. Would it be better to say Shankara defeated Buddhism in India? or defeated Buddhist philosophy in India? I'm not sure. JJNito197 (talk) 19:52, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

The semantics aren't confusing, you're showing refs for Point A and claiming it verifies Point B. Get better sources that actually say what you're claiming. - Aoidh (talk) 23:12, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

No. I have provided plenty of sources regarding this matter, it doesn't take a scholar or wiki-indologist to confirm this is a view shared by Hindus. I advise you to look through the twenty+ sources provided, and come up with a adequate summary, otherwise I will do so per wikipedia rules and get adminstrator intervention. You don't really get to pick and choose reliable sources. There is clearly an issue here with Buddhist influences on Hindu articles. JJNito197 (talk) 23:20, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

You are welcome to get "administrator intervention", but you can't pick sources for Point A and claim they verify Point B, which at best is WP:SYNTH. Again, get better sources. - Aoidh (talk) 23:32, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Wow, thanks for nothing! JJNito197 (talk) 23:37, 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.

'When Adi Shankaracharya uprooted the Buddhism from India'
'To the extent that Adi Shankaracharya checkmated Buddhism through resurgent Hinduism , and prevented India from turning predominantly Buddhist'
'Adi Shankaracharya walked the length and breadth of India, defeated scholars of Buddhism, Jainism and various alternate schools of thought in scholarly'
"with the rise of Advaita Vedanta, concepts of which were compiled by Adi Shankara, Buddhism declined in India."
'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.'
'Hindu revivelist Adi Shankaracharya sent Buddhism packing to Cambodia'
'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'
'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)

You really WP:DONTGETIT, do you? At best, that sentence can be split, and added to the body of the article, not to the lead, per WP:LEAD and WP:UNDUE. Regarding your sources, which you didn't even bother to format properly, bend as you are on proving your point:

• 1. nn 'When Adi Shankaracharya uprooted the Buddhism from India'- author, article-name?
• 2. Shashi Bhushan Sahai, The Hindu Civilisation: A Miracle of History'To the extent that Adi Shankaracharya checkmated Buddhism through resurgent Hinduism , and prevented India from turning predominantly Buddhist' - see chapter 4: an Indigenist. Not WP:RS
• 3. Dr. Sree Ranjani Sudhakar, Science of the Mystical: An Eye Opener to the Scientific Substratum in Spirituality 'Adi Shankaracharya walked the length and breadth of India, defeated scholars of Buddhism, Jainism and various alternate schools of thought in scholarly' - "The author, is a practicing physician, and with her deep understanding of Science, views that the ancient Indian scriptures are all scientific treatises" - definitely not WP:RS
• 4. Basant Pradan, Yoga and Mindfulness Based Cognitive Therapy: A Clinical Guide "with the rise of Advaita Vedanta, concepts of which were compiled by Adi Shankara, Buddhism declined in India." - Springer is a reputable publisher, but the author is not a specialist on the topic. Another cherrypicked source. And he does not write that Shankara drove out Buddhism. Irrelevant source.
• 5. Frank Whaling (1979), Sankara and Buddhism, Journal of Indian Philosophy Vol. 7, No. 1 (MARCH 1979), pp. 1-42</ref> '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.' -that's a decent source; ironically, brought in by me.
• 6. Om Gupta, Diplomacy: Initiatives and Responses 'Hindu revivelist Adi Shankaracharya sent Buddhism packing to Cambodia' - "Diplomacy: Initiatives and Responses," serious?
• 7. Parama Karuna Devi, Bhagavad Gita chapter 3 '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' -Lulu.co, self-published.
• 8. Arun R. Kumbhare, Women of India. Their status since the Vrdic times 'It was the coming of Adi Shankara that the influence of Buddhism subsided on the Indian subcontinent' -iUniverse, self-published.

The sentence itself, decline of Buddhism in India; Sankara played a major role is 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?

So, one descent source, provided by me, for a sentence that at best can be split, and added to the body of the article. It looks like you did a Google-search on "Adi Shankara Buddhist India" and selected everything that looked usefull to push your point of view. Not really usefull, as Aoidh noted before; see alone the self-published sources. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:20, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: Oh nooo I didn't format the links, the horror... I dont think you really get it, these sources are provided to show HINDUs believe this, not anything else. Regardless, you dont get to make BOLD controversial edits like you have done and not be called up on it. If you continue to make BOLD edits without coming to talk, you will be called up. I dont really buy this 'im just a wiki-indiologist dude', holier than though attitude you have. I believe you are coming across not NPOV in your edits. You made ridiculous edits to the page [19] that would stick unless someone called you up on them. The person that called you up on it was also banned by you two days ago. See below JJNito197 (talk) 08:35, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Could you just respond to the issues raised above? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:53, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

My only goal here is getting a source that will stick. Heres Another source [20] 'Bhatta had a role containing buddhism, followed by adi shankara' JJNito197 (talk) 09:03, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: can you show me the sources that are valid in your eyes, and I will make a sentence for it. JJNito197 (talk) 09:06, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Quoting Whaling, in the body of the article, suffices. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:23, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Debates with Buddhist monks

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.

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)

How is this incorrect? I will find further sources then. You don't seem to understand what UNDUE means either, seeing as you are the one stuffing up the lead with useless information covered in the body. Is it done for greater information and context? Doubt it... Why is the Buddhism reference that you added in the third paragraph though, can you explain you recent insertion of this in the lead. Not everybody is a scholar of multiple religons, why is the comparison in anyway benefical. Explain to us in talk how that is beneficial to the reader and why you added it into the third paragraph of the article... like you should have done. JJNito197 (talk) 08:35, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

You stated in your edit-summary that this addition was not discussed at the talkpage; that's incorrect; it already was.

Which 'Buddhism reference in the third paragraph' are you referring to? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:10, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

'Shankara's Advaita shows similarities with Mahayana Buddhism; opponents have even accused Shankara of being a "crypto-Buddhist,"' Why are you telling me I cant add any supplemental information to this small out of place paragraph in the lead. JJNito197 (talk) 09:17, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

If you are going to make a paragraph about buddhism, this should be mentioned alongside as debates did happen, and shankara won a few. This is rudimentary JJNito197 (talk) 09:25, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

See WP:LEAD, again; this sentence summarizes a whole section in the article. Your addition does not. Debates are already mentioned in the lead. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:28, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: How about YOU See WP:LEAD- 'As a general rule of thumb, a lead section should contain no more than four well-composed paragraphs and be carefully sourced as appropriate.' I suggest following this rule, we trim the lead to four paragraphs. JJNito197 (talk) 09:30, 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)

Oh yes, an exemption from rule you noticed, great. Don't spam my feed with WP:LEAD like you are following it fully. I can expand on the sentence 'Adi Sankara played a major role debating with Buddhist monks, and publicly defeated a few notable ones in theological debates' with further citations if you want. JJNito197 (talk) 09:44, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: I have found the page for ref 17 where you requested, Page 84. 'Adi 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 followers of ...' JJNito197 (talk) 10:15, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Further sources to support this, [21] '..He challenged through debate every opposing philosophy, Jains and Buddhists. Having defeated all his opponents' JJNito197 (talk) 10:48, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Coromandel looks good. A notable historian, as far asI can see, and he attributes the statements ("claim," etc.). It would fit at the section on the philosophical tour. That would give a doublure with Whaling at the historical impact-section, but that would be acceptable. Or Whaling could be used at the philosophical tour-section, thoughWhaling juxtaposes the 'driving out Buddhism' and the 'crypto-Buddhist' views. Have you got a fuller quote from Pandey? It's not clear if the referent is Shankara or Kumarila Bhatta, and what the context is. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:49, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Gotcha:

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.

That's from 2006, predating Pandey (2007); how come? And relevant context indeed. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:04, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

I dont really see this as a contentious issue; inasmuch as your edits regarding Shankaras alleged Crypto-Buddhism allegience, are so. This is clearly a belief held by some, not all, Hindus. You cannot be stringently neutral in these cases, lest it cause great offence to a great number of people, which im sure meant no malice even though you are fully aware of how zealous ip's can be regarding matters. There does need to be some authority on these matters from the Hindu side considering the elevation Shankara has in Hinduism. I propose a change to my edit for more neutrality.

Adi Sankara is known for debating Buddhist monks and Jains, and is said to have publicaly defeated a few in theological debates.

This would be neutral and would balance that paragraph also about its "similarities with Mahayana Buddhism" which is helpful, but also not a widespread belief outside of Buddhist circles, with its extremely controversial aspersions which I can forsee a great number people (and ip's) offence. JJNito197 (talk) 15:27, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, not on beliefs. The sentence is not good. "Known for" is a weasel-word. He is known for his Advaita-commentaries, not for his debates with Buddhist monks. And as Pande and Pandey write, he debated all kinds of philosophers, not just Buddhists. The similarities with Buddhism are not a Buddhist belief, but a scholarly notion with a broad support, in contrast to the idea that Shankara drove Buddhism out of India, which is a belief, propagated by "The more enthusiastic followers of the Advaita tradition," and incompatible with the historical facts, as Pandey (your source) notes. That Shankara was a "crypto-Buddhist" is a conviction of Vaishnavists, still used against Advaita in contemporary publications and websites by Vaishnavite organisations and Sampradayas. That you find those Buddhist influences 'extremely controversial' is hardly relevant; we don't WP:CENSOR Wikipedia based on personal beliefs. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:13, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Its not about being censored for personal belief, Its about treating the subject fairly and with respect. We are talking about Hinduism here as a religion and way of life for people, not some topic of intelectual stimulation. Adi Shankara is a a promient figure in Hinduism not Buddhism, to have Crypto-Buddhism in the third paragraph would assume that this is a widely guarded opinion, which is not. Scholary, you can investigate it further, but in summary its a fringe opinion. Adi Shankara regarded the Vedas as authority, a claim like he's a crypto-Buddhist or similarity between the schools with Buddhism without including further important information regarding the topic leads the reader under false pretenses. The relationship betweem Shankara and the Buddhists of the time was that of loggerheads, this should be reflected. Shankara has extensive treaties and works on this topic, this should be mentioned where Buddhism is mentioned. I dont know why you have a problem with 'known', this is common knowledge within his biography.

I update the sentence as follows,

Sankara is recorded interacting and critquing various philosophical schools of thought of his day, including Buddhism, and is said to have defeated many in theological debates.

I have cleared it up, and nothing in that sentence is invalid or untrue. If you have a problem with this academically, you have to doubt the entire Sankara narrative and scripture passed down. The reason this is worded with Buddhism highlighted was because this was one of the main schools of Sankaras day, relates to the paragraph its in, and which he has extensive works on. JJNito197 (talk) 19:18, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

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)

I have changed the content around enough we can discard sources. I haven't looked into that Hovey source so that can be removed. That Pandey page number has changed to Page 94, where as Pandey states
'.. Adi Shankara preached to the local populace and debating philosophy with Hindu , Buddhist and other scholars and monks along the way.'
This would support the new sentence proposal. I can fetch more citations for these, as are they are not obscure statements but rather observations commonly recorded in bodies of work regarding Sanakara. That Coromandel cite will support the comment about 'defeat' and 'debate' and the rest is covered in the body of the article, much like the Buddhist third paragraph is. This new edit mentions Buddhism specifically in the context of that paragraph that had only summarized it briefly as 'difference between schools', and had not given a position from the Hindu side. This gives greater context and opposition to the statement crypto-Buddhist which refutation prior to this edit was not enough. JJNito197 (talk) 20:36, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

"Crypto-Buddhist" comes from Ramanuja, not from Buddhists; if you want to contextualize that you have to write someting about Ramanuja, not about debates with Buddhists. Buddhists were not the main opponents of Shankara. The lead also says "a qualification which is rejected by the Advaita Vedanta tradition, given the differences between these two schools"; so, that's a balanced representation. And again, the lead already says he debated philosophers from all schools. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:00, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Thats just semantics. The lay person like myself automatially assumes Buddhism not Ramanuja. Its in the name and also next to the a statement about Buddhism which you are made prior. Its clearly going to cause problems and if your willing to keep the paragraph about Buddhism this edit will mitigate the no doubt subsequent vandalism whilst providing accurate, accepted scholarly, neutral content to the reader. You say Buddhism was not an opponent of Shankara, well Sankara was an opponent to Buddhism. He made extenstive criticisms of Buddhism in his works and this is recorded extensively. JJNito197 (talk) 21:26, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Thats not a balanced argument though, no opposing statement was made in refutation. This is Adi Shankara we are talking about, iconic figure of Hinduism. You should approach this subject with a more considered attitude. Nothing I said most Hindus and scholars wouldn't object. This article should, out of respect for Hinduism and its 1 + billion practioners, respect that. JJNito197 (talk) 21:33, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

I just realised, you are the one that was linking crypto-Buddhism to Mahayana Buddhism in the first place. Anyway, I have clearly being trying to resolve this, i started at 'Adi Sankara played a major role debating with Buddhist monks, and publicly defeated a few notable ones in theological debates' to 'Sankara is recorded interacting and critquing various philosophical schools of thought of his day, including Buddhism, and is said to have defeated many in theological debates' which are both academically accepted. I have provided 5 citations for this statement. We have already accepted the validity of Shankara as a human being that did exist; through the pronouns and how this article is structured, any attempts to further find faults and investigate into commonly held beliefs or incidents compiled by religious authorities; historical texts, and scholars is disingenious in my opinion. JJNito197 (talk) 22:30, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

I updated the sentence for clarity. Changed said to believe. Regarding you infering that you have already covered debates from the second paragraph, 'interacting and critquing' is not 'propagation' and means just that. The sentence added provides context to the other side of Sankara who was critical of certain viewpoints, historically Buddhism and others, relating to the paragraph its in. Debates were also very common in ancient times and this how you would disseminate, discuss and argue your position. Adi Sankara is known for debates.

Shankara is recorded interacting with and critiquing various philosophical schools, including Buddhism,and is believed to have defeated many opponents in theological debates. JJNito197 (talk) 23:47, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

As noted several times before, almost the exact same sentence is already in the lead, summarizing the subsection on his philosophical tour; I have therefor merged your additiin into that sentence. I've also added a specification on "crypto-Buddhist" as being a Hindu Vaishnavist critique.

Regarding his influence, see also Advaita Vedanta#Influence on Hindu nationalism and Devdutt Pattanaik (Aug 30, 2020), Who is a Hindu? - What they don’t tell you about Advaita, Mumbai Mirror. Advaita was favored by 19th century Indian nationalists, as it seemed to provide a unifying religious frame for India; and by western scholars, who were attracted to it's monism. It's thanks to them that everybody niw thinks that Advaita is the summum of Indian philosophy and religion, a stance not shared and appreciated by Vaishnavists, naturally. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:07, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't have any problems with your edits. You are right about it being suited better in the second paragraph. JJNito197 (talk) 09:36, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm glad we reached an agreement. Regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:17, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 August 2021

name of Adi sankara in Malyalam:ശ്രീ ശങ്കരാചാര്യ OusephMathai (talk) 17:58, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Melmann 21:33, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Adi Shankara

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":

• From Panchayatana puja: "The Four Denominations of Hinduism". Himalayan Academy. Basics of Hinduism. Kauai Hindu Monastery.
• From Advaita Vedanta: The Four Denominations of Hinduism, Basics of Hinduism, Kauai Hindu Monastery

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 January 2022

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)

Done. JJNito197 (talk) 23:48, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Nice neologism. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:43, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 April 2022 (2)

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)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 09:22, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

From Govardhan Matha official website

https://govardhanpeeth.org/en/about-us-en/adi-shankaracharya

Govardhan Matha, Puri is established by Adi Shankaracharya on 486 BCE.

For indisputable evidence this book tells the time.

https://archive.org/details/AmitKalarekha Xhimanshuz (talk) 11:45, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 April 2022 (3)

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)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:56, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 May 2022

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)

From Govardhan Matha official website

https://govardhanpeeth.org/en/about-us-en/adi-shankaracharya

Govardhan Matha, Puri is established by Adi Shankaracharya on 486 BCE.

For indisputable evidence this book tells the time.

https://archive.org/details/AmitKalarekha Xhimanshuz (talk) 11:08, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

• NOTE: This edit request originated as a question on Reddit. See https://www.reddit.com/r/wikipedia/comments/ujbxwr/how_to_edit_semi_protected_page_on_wikipedia/. SchreiberBike | ⌨  15:10, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Nothing is indisputable in science. Also, organisational websites are not a reliable source. — kashmīrī ^TALK 18:23, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Terasail^[✉️] 17:30, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Details

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)

Doubting the factual accuracy. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 03:42, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Good catch. The sentence is ungrammatical, too ("credited during his tours"?). — kashmīrī ^TALK 21:15, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 April 2022

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)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ji11720 (talk) 18:51, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 May 2022

14.139.240.85 (talk) 20:54, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Happy Editing--IAmChaos 21:08, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 September 2022

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)

Born and died section looks incomplete

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)

According to the bagiographies which were written centuries after his death, and which are, therefor, not historically reliable. In other words, we don't know where he was born or where he died. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:41, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Just because the biographies were written several centuries later does not mean that they will be historically incorrect in every aspect. Oral traditions were dominant in those days and thus the history was preserved through the disciple chain. And, to be honest, these are widely known facts in India, such as he being born in Kalady, Kerala and learned at a very young age, traveling to different parts of the country and debating openly with opponents, and at the early age of thirty-two, he died. Regarding his date of birth, yes the date varies (mainly due to iconographical factors) like Kanchi Peetham - 509-477 BC, or Sringeri Sarada Peetham him to be born at 788. About, modern sources, it assumes Shankara to have lived in particular period of time like between 700 ce to 750 ce, and it is nearly impossible to know his 100% correct date of birth. Moreover, the sources mention these like see, [22], [23]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.206.207.70 (talk) 12:05, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Be sure that those "oral traditions" are derived from 14th century and later hagiographies. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 14:41, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Not necessarily, even Hagiographers took the oral tradition to write the accounts, There is common historicity to some fact among most of them even if we disregard all mthical accounts. Moreover, I think it is most important to mention what is believed, what the tradition concludes, etc. rather than what one belives which could be temporary..Hence, it will be better if you relook at the current edits.

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.228.233.180 (talk) 22:08, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Birthplace and place of dying according to the hagiographies are mentioned in the body of the article. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 04:16, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

It should be mentioned in infobox as well(even after adding in notes) and also traditional years of his period at what age he died, should also be added which is removed, I guess.

Thanks!