From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Can anyone tell someone uninitiated like myself why an article about Srimanta Sankardeva is about someone (else??) called Mohapurux Srimonto Xonkordev? <KF> 15:46, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

It should have been just Saint Sankaradeva and this is the only name used in yesteryear Kamrupi scriptures. mahapursha (big man) or srimanta (handsome) were created by subsequent Assamese authors. Kurmaa (talk) 18:12, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

For more materials on Sankaradeva, consult :

Mahapurusha Srimanta Sankaradeva, Dr Sanjib Kumar Borkakoti, Bani Mandir, MMC Bhavan, Guwahati-781003 Unique contributions of Sankaradeva in religion and culture, Dr Sanjib Kumar Borkakoti, Srimanta sankaravea Sangha, HB Road, Nagaon-782001

Kar tala kamala[edit]

Please include the full verse: Kara Tala Kamala.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Devaine123 (talkcontribs) 08:00, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Vrindavani Vastra[edit]

-> he supervised the creations of the 60mx30m woven Vrindavani vastra, that depicted the playful activities of Krishna in Vrindavana. <-

  • Do you have a reference to cite that Saint Sankaradeva had supervised that project?

Kurmaa (talk) 18:16, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Sankaradeva or Sankaradeva ?[edit]

As I noticed the name is changed from Sankardeva to Sankaradeva by user Jrkalita, but the page title is still named as Srimanta Sankardeva. Google search result shows both name as correct. Now, what should we do with the name? Bishnu Saikia (talk) 14:40, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I feel we should stick to Sankardeva. In fact, Sankardev is the most appropriate one, phonetically, and it is widely used too. If we have a consensus, we should use that consistently. Chaipau (talk) 16:07, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
I too support "Sankardev" rather than "Sankaradeva" phonetically. It will be better to wait for Jrkalita's opinion for at least one day. Bishnu Saikia (talk) 17:39, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
User Jrkalita or anyone else did not replied to this thread till today, as we discussed above, I proposed the name of the article to be "Sankardev". --Bishnu Saikia 14:30, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
I concur with the move to Sankardev. Chaipau (talk) 18:26, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
From the point of transliteration, 'Sankaradeva' is the most appropriate. This is because

'Sankaradeva'(শংকৰদেৱ) is not, for instance, a name like 'Sankarsana' (শংকৰ্ষণ). The 'a' vowel sound is always there in the former after the ’ৰ’. Its a 'ra', mind you, not 'r' (ৰ্‌). Please notice the 'stroke' mark at the bottom of the character.

Therefore, 'Sankardev' is *not* correct, transliteratively speaking. That would have been correct had we written শংকৰ্দেৱ্‌ (again, please notice the strokes). *That* would be rendered in Latin as 'Sankardev'; For শংকৰদেৱ, therefore, the correct transliteration is Sankaradeva [ শ্ + অ = শ(Śa);ং(ṇ); ক্‌ + অ = ক(ka); ৰ্‌ + অ = ৰ(ra); দে(de); ৱ্‌ + অ = ৱ(va)]

Now, in pronunciation, what happens is that, as in the case of spoken Hindi which pronounces, for instance, the Sanskrit अर्जुन as 'Arjun' and not 'Arjuna', the vowel 'অ' sound is shortened so much that it is barely enunciated; therefore 'শংকৰদেৱ' appears as 'শংকৰ্দেৱ্‌'. But, while rendering the name in Latin (in Wikipedia and elsewhere), we must be careful to avoid mistake in transliteration.

Where the 'a (অ or अ)' is to be omitted after a consonant a stroke is added at the bottom of the Devanagari letter. That stroke is not added to any of 'Arjuna' or 'Bhima' and so these are the correct renditions in Roman script. In Hindi (wrt Sanskrit) we can also tell that final 'a' sounds are included where mantras are designated according to the number of syllables and in all cases the ' अ' is included in the number.

Therefore, considering all these factors, it is requested that the name of the Saint in the Wikipedia title as also in all other cases, be consistently applied as 'Sankaradeva'(শংকৰদেৱ) and not as 'Sankardev' ( শংকৰ্দেৱ্‌))) ) or 'Sankardeva' (শংকৰ্দেৱ). Past academicians like Dr Maheswar Neog, Dr SN Sarma had all written 'Sankaradeva'. The Srimanta Sankaradeva Sangha has also very correctly resolved on 'Sankaradeva' ( and so have other institutions like Srimanta Foundation for Culture (, Srimanta Sankaradeva Kalakshetra (, Srimanta Sankaradeva University of Health Sciences ( and others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:11, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

The spelling on Wikipedia follows the simplest of the three spellings: Sankardev AT, Sankardeva AT and Sankaradeva AT (the same newspaper uses all three spellings). In addition, this transliteration is the closest to the modern pronunciation of his name, which is as widely used. If we were to follow the transliteration from Sanskrit, the spelling would be "Shankaradeva" not "Sankaradeva". So, in keeping with Sankardev's own life's work and emphasis, it would be appropriate to keep the spelling as simple and as close to the current vernacular as possible: which would be "Sankardev". Chaipau (talk) 15:30, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I have been using 'Sankaradeva' and would like the same here too if you all concur. Drsanjib.borkakoti (talk) 15:45, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

The reason for the use of Sankardev is given above. Chaipau (talk) 15:47, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
There has to be uniformity in spelling system. It is lacking here. For instance I saw 'Kusumvara', 'Chandivara', 'Rajadhara', 'Suryavara', 'Halayudha', 'Haladhara', 'Haricarana', 'Ramadasa' and 'Ramarama' here. All such spellings will need to be modified if 'Sankaradeva' is untenable. Drsanjib.borkakoti (talk) 15:12, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Pronunciation is not the sole criterion for the choice. Nevertheless, the other names can be easily changed to conform to their modern pronunciation. Chaipau (talk) 04:11, 28 May 2013 (UTC)


Copied text from my talk page

I am finding it difficult to use the notes-citation split. For example, on mouse over, I get the note; but on mouseover on the mouseover, I do not get the citation. I think it prudent to keep the notes and citations together. Chaipau (talk) 20:17, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I used the notes-citation split for make the citation more distinct. And as you wrote here, on mouseover, I am getting the citation like this "Sankardev#cite_note-4", which leads to the relevant citation. But, if think it prudent to keep the notes and citations together, then go on. But please think once more, and go though other good / featured article where this type of citation used. Sorry for the edit conflict. Bishnu Saikia 20:26, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
I dont't even see many featured articles splitting notes and references, let alone notes, citations and references. I like to do it because it is easier to edit when references are not in the text. Chaipau (talk) 20:32, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Well, all the things have two sides. As I said above, you can proceed as you like. One more thing, in some articles like Jack Hobbs, The Rite of Spring, using a different kind of citation style for notes which I found more difficult for the newcomers. For this reason, I selected the {{efn}} template. This is, all I have to say. Good night. Bishnu Saikia 20:44, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Let us go back to the old system for now. I am finding it difficult. Chaipau (talk) 22:53, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Furthermore, the Sankardev's picture that you have linked---he is shown wearing a sacred thread. Did Sankardev wear a sacred thread? He was a Kayastha (a Sudra). Chaipau (talk) 03:31, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
I have no any idea about Sankardev's clothing. I think, Dr. Sanjib Borkotoki can help us in this regard. I am copying this talks to Sankardev's talk page. Bishnu Saikia 15:46, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
My position is that Sankardev later discarded the Uttari which, as a Kayastha, he had been given in his childhood at five years of age as part of 'Sharakarma'. Drsanjib.borkakoti (talk) 00:24, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
I believe Sankaradeva did not discarded his Sacred Thread simply because it is compulsory for every Kayastha families in Assam, especially the Mahanta's to perform Upanaynana ceremony. If Sankaradeva would had discarded the Uttori, the Kayatha Gosain's wouldn't have wore. Even in the Kala Samhati Satras where Brahmanical rites are completely discarded the Gosains wear Uttari. As Uttari is not available everywhere people have started wearing Logun. Making Uttari is also expensive since it is made of Silk. The word Uttari is also mentioned in the Dhyan Varnan.[1] Even from a spiritual point of view I believe Sankaradeva did not discarded it since Krishna himself wore Uttari. --Jrkalita (talk) 08:30, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Sankari dance[edit]

The section added on Sankari dance looks original research to me. I have not seen Sattriya dance divided into Sankari and non-Sankari parts. Also, it seems to be ludicrous to name those parts created by Madhavdev as Sankari. I have deleted those parts. Chaipau (talk) 06:07, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

You do not delete matters with citation. Drsanjib.borkakoti (talk) 03:33, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Your citation has a WP:COI. Chaipau (talk) 04:14, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Removal of book from Sankardev[edit]

You removed the book "Sukhabilāsa Barmā (2004). Bhāwāiyā: Ethnomusicological Study. Global Vision Publishing Ho. pp. 74–. ISBN 978-81-8220- 070-8. Retrieved 30 May 2013" considering it a terrible book in the article Sankardev.

Can you please state the reasons for considering the book to be terrible? Padmanlp (talk) 09:21, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

It is a very bad book, unreliable. Please do not use it. There are many problems with that book. Chaipau (talk) 11:11, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

It's ok- I'l not use that book; but I would like you to pinpoint some reasons at least. Please give. Padmanlp (talk) 14:29, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Chaipau, I am asking you for the second time: give me some reasons for considering the said book to be terrible. You can't simply decide which book is good and which one is bad at your wish without any reason. Give me reasons. Padmanlp (talk) 11:27, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Barma is not an academic, but a politician (Congress) from North Bengal who had spent a good part of his career as a bureaucrat in Kolkata. That by itself is not a disqualification. But his book uses quotes from other works and uses them out of context. For example, even though this work is about the bhawaiya music (Goalpariya in Assam), he finds it very difficult to call the language Kamatapuri; and instead uses the name "Kamarupi"; and there is no explanation in the book why he uses such an unconventional name. The reason is not very difficult to guess---the name "Kamatapuri" is anathema in Kolkata. And this view pervades the entire book. So, if you want to use that book for Kamatapuri issues, or even music (I personally find Biren Dutta's PhD thesis much better informed and a more critical work and much more reliable in all matters Barma has touched), it might be better to hunt down the original work and quote that. I know it is easy to do a google search and hit on some text from this book---you need to just take the next step and quote from the original work. Chaipau (talk) 14:29, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Merge from Forum for Sankaradeva Studies[edit]

Oppose: Forum for Sankardeva Studies is a modern institution. This article is about a historical person. They cannot be merged. Chaipau (talk) 10:47, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

  1. ^ "Uroi Navaguna Pita Uttari", Dhyan Varnan 1st Kirtan