Talk:Adi Shankara/Archive 1

Dates of Sankara's life

It was claimed that Sankara's life ran from approximately 509-477 BC. This date appears to come from Theosophical scholarship (witness the link offered as evidence); it would make Sankara a predecessor of the Buddha, and it would place him over a thousand years before the advent of Islam in India, either of which makes a nonsense of his generally understood place in history. I see that there has already been a little edit war over this subject, on 1-2 February 2005, earlier on 22 November 2004, and perhaps earlier still. The dates 788-820 evidently reflect the mainstream scholarly consensus. Would the advocate(s) of the BC dates please post their arguments here, along with some explanation of Sankara's relationship to Buddhism and Indian Islam in their worldview. Mporter 05:31, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I've corrected the dates. Sources for C8th C.E.:

• Brian Carr 'Sankara', in A Companion to the Philosophers ed. Arrington (2001:Oxford, Blackwell) ISBN 0-631-22967-1
• Peter J. King One Hundred Philosophers (2004: Hove, Apple) ISBN 1-84092-462-4
• Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan 'Samkara', in History of Philosophy Eastern and Western vol.I (1952:London, Allen & Unwin)

I know of no reputable source for B.C.E. dates. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:31, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

-- Please refer to this (among others) for proof of B.C.E dates. http://www.kamakoti.org/peeth/origin.html Thanks. (March 9 2005)

The page doesn't offer proof; it's one source against the three above (and many others besides). Moreover, it cites unnamed scholars in support of its claim — so there's no way to check its sources. In the section concerning Shankara's founding of monasteries, etc., only one mention is made of a date; the reference is to a small and obscure 1959 work by O. (or D.) S. Triveda.

The dating seems to be based upon the dates of institutions which were founded, according to tradition, by Shankara. If we follow that reasoning, then Alfred the Great lived in the early sixteenth century, when Brasenose College (which tradition says that he founded) was built.

More importantly, the B.C.E. dates make no sense when placed against the content of the article — especially the material about Shankara's interactions with Buddhism and Jainism. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:31, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

In addition to the Kanchi Peetham, three of the other four peethams established by Adi Sankara subscribe to the B.C.E dates. http://www.easterntradition.org/original%20sankaracarya.pdf also offers proof for B.C.E dates. Bottom line is that this is one of these things which can't been proved based on modern historians. So I would go with the Mathams which were established by Adi Sankara himself. I'm not sure who else can be a better authority on Adi Sankara.

And the BCE dates do not contradict Buddhism/Jainism dates. A quick search on Wikipedia will should that both Gautama Buddha and Mahavira predate Adi Sankara by a few decades.

Thanks. (March 10 2005)

1. Please register and then sign your messages. Aside from anything else, you're likely to be taken more seriously by many users.
2. The point about Buddhism doesn't concern the lifetime of the Buddha, but the fact that, first, for Shankara to have travelled round the country debating with monks, there must have been a very widespread and established system of monasteries and the like, and secondly, the Buddhist views with which he was concerned would have had to have developed. Neither makes sense in the time-scale on offer. (If the claim had been that he had debated with the Buddha, that would have been a diferent matter.)
3. I stick to the point that foundtion dates (and details of founders), especially with regard to religious foundations, and especially when those foundations are old, are notoriously unreliable.
4. The standard (indeed, the unanimous) view, among the sources I've consulted, both published and personal, is the C8th C.E. dating. We should probably mention the minority tradition of a B.C.E. date, but it would have to be accompanied by an explanation as to why that's not accepted by most authorities. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:51, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Incidentally, and especially with regard to the claim that there's another person – 'Abhinava Shankara' – with whom this Shankara is being confused, see the Devasthanam discussion. The evidence is fully laid out there. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:53, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

1. I agree with you that both the dates be mentioned with explanations on why they can be accepted/not accepted. In fact, when I made the BCE date changes a while ago, I mentioned the AD dates too so as to allow the reader to make the call.

2. As to the Buddha dates, there are some schools which give Gautama Buddha an earlier date. So it is likely that by the time of Adi Sankaracharya, Buddhism was well rooted. http://www.encyclopediaofauthentichinduism.org/articles/52_the_dynasties_of.htm

3. I read the Sanskrit.org article about Abinava Sanakara. Though Abinava is a title, there was indeed an Abinava Sankara. The 38th Pontiff of the Kanchi Kamakoti Peetham was Abinava Sankarendra Saraswathi. The current pontiff is #70. http://www.kamakoti.org/peeth/origin.html

4. The same Sanskrit.org article also mentions that the Dwaraka and Puri mathas held on to the BC dates for Acharya. Though it also mentions that there is no recorded proof for those dates.

5. I'm not a regular contributor to Wikipedia (and thus have not registered) and got into this discussion to clarify why the dates were changed. (Not some random act of vandalism as one of the history comments say)

Thanks - SankaraBhaktan 12 Mar 2005

I am to change the page since :

The above dates have to be unbiased sice there has to be equal reference to the dates

The members of other religions have no idea of what a change of date would cause to ones religious belief.

History is always changing.

To balance the alliegance of all the mutts.

The dates would NEVER , mind NEVER be resolved since it is a matter of faith.

There is no physical proof that a man called Sankara existed the same as of other religious heads.

So, let it be a matter of faith and no non-hindu person should indulge in distorting the page, just as we dont distort, say a christian philosophers page.

Whatever said and done, he was one of the greatest philosophers in Hindu religion and allow his reputation to REST IN PEACE.

-A Hindu who will never touch this page or visit this website ANYMORE.

http://www.telegraphindia.com/1030121/asp/nation/story_1593957.asp A good source to include if any one wants to look at it.

It essentially says that religious authorities have agreed on a date. It waves a hand vaguely at "scientists and historians", but we're not told who they are. It doesn't really add anything to what's already been said here and elsewhere. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 2 July 2005 10:08 (UTC)

I guess Telegraph India is one of the worst sources in the world. So much for one of India's most popular newspaper. I guess your sources are either from the anti-hindu lobby or from Romila Thapar,the great historian [Marxist-Communist]. Give some weight to religious institutions and other historians and scientists, they are not idiots for backing the BCE date. By saying very approximately CE in the beginning and then disputing the date later, your article is purely biased. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 211.31.113.124 (talk • contribs) 06:06, 3 July 2005.

1. Newspapers are generally not good sources for scholarly informaion, and popularity is generally a contra-indication. In fact, however, I sadi nothing about the status of the paper, I merely described the nature of this particular article.
2. I've given three sources above, and there are many others; none is from any "anti-Hindu lobby".
3. I've yet to see, in any of the material offered in support of the BCE dates, one historian or scientists mentioned by name; religious institutions are notoriously unreliable when it comes to their claims concerning the dates of their foundations and of their founders. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 3 July 2005 10:09 (UTC)

If religious institutions are notoriously unreliable in giving dates concerning their founders birth, Then the kanchi, badrinath, dwaraka and puri mutts are right and sringeri mutt is wrong. Then i equally have a case to say "very approximately whaterver BCE". I guess I have no time to talk with you anymore. You seem to jobless and changing and rechanging articles almost hourly. I guess you are either a stupid unpaid wikipedia agent or an unemployed free lancer. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 211.31.113.124 (talk • contribs) 12:51, 3 July 2005.

Most of this is incomprehensible, and the rest seems to be a personal attack (based on a deep misunderstanding of Wikipedia). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 3 July 2005 14:09 (UTC)

Other issues

Deleting the following as I don't think it is NPOV:

>> had been almost smothered within the enticing entanglements of the Buddhistic philosophy and, consequently, the decadent Hindu society had come to be broken up and disunited into numberless sects and denominations, each championing a different viewpoint and mutually quarelling in endless argumentations. Each pundit, as it were, had his own followers, his own philosophy, his own interpretation. Each one was a vehement and powerful opponent of all other views. This intellectual disintegration, especially in the scriptural field, was never before so serious and so dangerously calamitous as in the times of Sankara.>>

kh7 08:14 Mar 28, 2003 (UTC)

--

The article says,"Shankara is said to have traveled throughout India... (apparently successfully, though no documentation exists) ...."

What about the "Shankara Digvijayas" written by Madhava Vidyaranya?

'आदि शंकराचार्य' is the originating word for the name, so it is 'Shankara' in the wide usage. 'Sankara' is used in Tamil as the letter 'sh' is absent in Tamil usage.

--Hpnadig 03:14, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

-- Dates and Mathas

(1) Dates section: The statement 'Some religious groups, however, ascribe B.C.E. dates to him' is not NPOV. The mathas which go with the BCE are legitimate institutions with almost 2500 of history behind them. It is denigrating to label them as some fly by night religious group.

(2) Mathas section: The statement 'However, there is no concrete evidence for the existence of these mathas before the 14th century, so the claim that Adi Shankara founded them is dubious at best' is plain inflammatory.

It appears that it is becoming futile to attempt to make any corrections anymore

- SankaraBhaktan April 09 2005

1. That you need to add derogatory comments to what's written in order to protest against it rather shows the weakness of your case. If the article referred to 'fly-by-night' religious groups, then of course you'd have a point; it doesn't.
2. I'm not responsible for that claim, but I've researched it, and found no-one to disagree with it. Similarly, the claim that modern Druidry is a primarily 18th- & 19th-century tradition, with only tenuous links to anything earlier is doubtless inflammatory to many, but no less true for all that. If, of course, you have concrete evidence for the existence of the mathas in question, then post it here and we can change the article. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:23, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

-- (1) What was derogatory in the comments? Sorry didn't understand your comment. My point is that just because the groups who claim the BCE dates are religious does not invalidate the case for BCE dates. If that is not the intent, maybe the article needs to be rephrased. (2) The proof is the Guru Parampara of the Mathas. What else are you looking for? - SB April 11 2005

1. 'Fly by night'.
2. If being religious invalidated their claim, they wouldn't be mentioned. However, international scholarship – including Hindu religious scholars – agrees on the 8th century C.E. dates; the minority opinion is mentioned in the article but not used in the summary.
3. I'm afraid that that's not what I (or most people) mean by proof. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:49, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. (1)Ok / (2) As I'd mentioned before, maybe that paragraph needs to be rephrased. I showed it a another group here, and they also felt that the paragraph was denigrating to the Mathas who claim BCE dates. Please keep in mind that 3 of the original Mathas went with the BCE dates.

(3) Almost every article you’ve used as proof for CE dates also talk about Sankara as establishing the Mathas. Any reason to doubt that Sankara established the Mathas is unfounded.

(4) I think that the dates section should also address the mystery over where Sankara attained siddhi – Kedaranath vs. Kanchi.

(5) In the end, the philosophy and works of Sankara are more important.

I prefer discussing issues over here than get into an unnecessary cycle of edits/reverts. (I see that its still going on) In fact, after writing about the dates, I waited a while before creating the section on dates. Appreciate your willingness for discussion.

- SB Apr 11 2005

1. I'm afraid that I don't see how the phrase 'religious' group' could be taken to be denigrating (except to an atheist group, I suppose).
2. It seems clear that Sankara founded Mathams; what's not certain is how many, which ones, and when. On one side of the debate we have tradition, on the other side, scholarship. Wikipedia (in common with other reference works) prefers to rely upon scholarship, but mentions the tradition.
3. First, the assumption that he gained siddhi (or that there is such a thing) is itself PoV, of course, so any discussion has to bear that in mind. Secondly, though, I don't see what connection it has with the issue of dates; why do you think that it should be placed there? I suppose that we could rename the section something like 'Areas of disagreement', or something like that; then the two issues would both be appropriate.
4. Please sign your messages (~~~~.
5. Why not create an account? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:09, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

(1) It appears as though the reason to reject the BCE dates is because it is supported by the 'religious groups'. (2) When it comes to Indian history one has to ALSO rely on tradition (if one is interested in the truth). Frankly, none of the sources which show as proof have any really credentials on this subject. These 'scholarly' works go by oral tradition as much as the proof laid out by religious groups. (3) 'Areas of mystery or something similar' is what I meant. While we are addressing the mystery over the dates, we may as well address the mystery over his attaining siddhi(where) too. (4) That Adi Sankara attained Siddhi is a fact - not an assumption. (5) I have been signing my name in the post. Thanks for sending the link for registration. As I had mentioned before I'm not a regular contributor. As a student of Sankara, I noticed some factual errors in this article and got into this discussion here. - SankaraBhaktan (SB) April 16, 2005

"Some religious groups" vs. "some Shankara authorities such as Shankara Mathams": It seems that describing Shankara Mathams as "shankara authorities" is not a particular point of view, but a statement of fact. After all, given that the mathams exist to study and propagate Shankara's thoughts and given that there are no other institutions solely dedicated to Shankara, it seems fair that the qualifier "Shankara authorities" be applied to Shankara Mathams. If there is disagreement, please give some examples of who else might be considered Shankara authorities. Please also indicate why the centuries' worth of work on Shankara by the mathams still do not qualify them as Shankara authorities.

--Poda 13:49, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

To Mel Etitis

I believe my contributions to Shankara's page on 22 August were significant in enhancing accuracy and adding new information, and I do not understand why you have reverted the page. After you don't allow my editing this page, then please allow me to delete the contributions which I made on 21 August as well.

Jayendra Saraswati

Uses of terms like persecution are best avoided. This should be a scholarly article, and not an invective.

--Satyadev

Worldbook encyclopedia?

An anon. user has just made an edit that appeals to only one authority by name : the 'Worldbook Encyclopedia'. My impression is that this isn't an authority at all (and the appeal to it looks a little silly in a proper reference work), but does anyone have any light to shed? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:48, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Are you refering to:

His Birth Date remains a disputed fact as Kanchi and Puri mutt follow the B.C.E date while the Sringeri mutt follows the C.E. date. The other two mutts at Badrinath and Dwaraka have broken lineages due to the various political problems due to external invasions. While the B.C.E date seems logical with respect to buddhism, the C.E. date seems to be inextricably linked to the disputed Aryan Invasion Theory when using the hindu cyclic calendar. It would probably remain a disputed fact in the future as it is a matter of faith for the followers of the respective mutts. The fact that remains undisputed is that he was the original head a of all the mutts and one of the greatest saints in Hindu culture and history.

? (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 11:14, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No, I was referring to the edit made on 11th March, containing a reference to the Worldbook Encyclopedia. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:28, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

OK, why was the above deleted? (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 11:30, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Because the dates aren't in fact particularly disputed, all the scholarship being agreed (roughly) on the 8th century C.E. The only objections come from a small group of religious believers, mostly from outside Hinduism. I added a link to an account of the debate, and the current consensus; that seemed to be enough. A minor disagreement shouldn't take up so much space in the summary, especially when it's covered adequately (and neutrally) in the document to which I linked. Moreover, no sources were provided for the claims, and it's certainly not undisputed that he was the original head of all the mutts, not even all those mentioned.

An anon user has been trying to change the dates for some considerable time, as the discussion above and the History will attest. This is just the latest attempt. on past form, he'll keep quite for a while, and then try to sneak it in again, with no explanation on the Talk page, and no acknowledgment that the matter is controversial (at best).Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:41, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well if anon is reading, providing a cite would be a good idea. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 12:55, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Saundarya lahari authorship

Saundarya lahari has been removed from the list of works authored by Shankara because it certainly was not. I know of no established Sanskrit scholar who thinks it is. Though this sounds lame to non-Sanskrit readers, it is clear to a Sanskrit reader that it is not the same author, as you are clear that Dickens and Austen are stylistically different without being told. More importantly, the siddhanta or conclusion is not compatible with the works that certainly *are* by Shankara, i.e. his commentaries (bhaa.sya) on the Brahma-sutra etc. (i.e. the prasthaana-traya). --Bhairava11

I have added Saundarya-lahari to the List of Works authored by Shankara because -

The great Adi Shankara is known as shan-mata-sthapaka, the founder of the six matas or devotional modes. They include six conceptions of the Supreme Being viz. Vishnu, Shiva, Shakti, Ganesha, Kartikeya and Surya.

He and other Acharyas in fact, were not mere intellectual gymnasts like many of the Western philosophers. It is only in the light of this peculiarity of the Indian spiritual tradition that we should try to understand how the Vedantic philosopher Sri Shankaracharya could also be the composer of great devotional hymns. The deities adored in this country are but personalized conceptions of one Supreme Brahman.

Of course, there seem to be radical differences between the Shakta philosophy and Sri Shankara’s philosophy, known in later times as kevala advaita. It is because of this basic difference in the philosophic outlook of the two systems that many modern critics hesitate to accept the tradition of Sri Shankaracharya’s authorship of Saundarya-lahari.

But, well, there are about 35 commentaries in Sanskrit by eminent scriptural exponents on the Saundarya-lahari. Unless the text had originated from a universally accepted and venerated authority it is difficult to explain how the commentators have quoted Shankara.

We also find weighty authorities of the past supporting Shankara’s authorship of Saundarya-lahari. Arthur Avalon, a name to be reckoned on matters of Shakti cult, considers many names of Southern and Eastern Pandits whose prominence has to be blindly set aside if anybody doubts seriously.

So in the absence of any other source of importance contradicting the traditional view, we shall be justified in accepting the tradition that Adi Shankara is the author of Saundarya-lahari, says Swami Tapasyananda, an erudite scholar on devotional hymns and past President of Sri Ramakrishna Math, Chennai.

VMO 16:39, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That 2,500-years' worth of philosophy from Europe, the Americas, Africa, Australia, etc., is dismissed as "intellectual gymnastics" says much about the chauvinism, arrogance, and ignorance of this person, but gives one little confidence as to the accuracy of his contributions. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:53, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am sorry that the term has offended you. It is not used in a derogatory sense. I have not brushed aside ALL the Western philosophers. We do have admiration for their contribution to the World's legacy.

VMO 01:00, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid that the context was enough to show that it was indeed meant derogatorily, and the word 'mere' serve to confirm that. Who are 'we', incidentally? Is that the royal 'we', or are you claiming to speak for a larger group? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:16, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm rather surprised that you'd blow up the 'intellectual gymanstics' part into something bigger that what the comment appears to be making. But yet when it suits you, you make sweeping conclusions such as 'Sankar's BC dates are only held by religious groups and so hold no merit'.. Come on man.. And if I may ask, I'm genuinely interested in knowing about your authority on the subject of Adi Sankara, esp. since you have overridden the mathas that were established by Sankara himself. And you questioning that Adi Sankar attained siddhi could be considered blasphemous by some. Since I’ve asked you for your authority on this subject, it is only fair to give you mine. As I had mentioned in previous messages, I’m a student of Sankara. Thank you. SankaraBhaktan(SB) May 5 2005 2:44 UTC

1. The comment is dismissive of a large part of human philosophical endeavour; it was unacceptable. If a Western philosopher wrote here saying "We shouldn't call all these Eastern writers 'philosophers', they're just engaged in semi-mystical gobble-de-gook", I supect that you'd be annoyed too.
2. I didn't write "BC dates are only held by religious groups and so hold no merit", or anything like it. That you have to invent words for me suggests that what I actually wrote can't be so easily criticised.
3. This is an encyclopædia, and accusations of blasphemy, even as sideways and insinuating as yours, are not acceptable. We are concerned to offer articles written from a neutral point of view; to state that a religious view is true is not allowed.
4. Your claim to be a student of Shankara is irrelevant here, and doesn't constu=itute authority to impose your point of view. A sa a matter of fact I have written and published in a minor way on Shanakara's philosophy, but that isn't relevant here either. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:41, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

To Mel Etitis:

• Well, your further queries seem to lead towards my personal attributes which I firmly believe, are NOT materially relevant to the topic of Adi Shankara’s authorship of Saundarya-lahari. Discerning readers will only be disgusted if we continue engaging in any sort of discussion on who am I and whom I represent etc. Likewise I would, albeit interesting, refrain here from discussing the English usage of 'mere' and 'we' in the other side of the globe.
• I pity that instead of contributing to the topic concerned you have accused me of being chauvinistic, arrogant and ignorant and also doubting my accuracy. Even after my expressly stating ‘sorry’ you stuck to your accusation. A learned wikipedian you are, you could have avoided ad hominem assault on user like me, who is just one month old here. However, I have taken all this in my stride considering your reaction as an impulsive outburst at the first reading. I am glad that I could learn something from you. Peace be unto you is my prayer.
• Of course, I would only welcome and request you to return to the topic that was before us.

To Sankarabhaktan

• Please take away the discussion on 'Dates' with Mel Etitis to elsewhere from Saundarya-lahari para. Thanks! For the admirers and lovers of Shankara: the birthday falls this year on the ensuing 13 May, one of the holiest tithis for Hindus.
• VMO 13:59, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

1. I didn't introduce the question of personal authority and qualifications, Sankarabhaktan did, and you weren't mentioned. Unless you're the same person...
2. There's a diffence between apologising for saying something and regretting that it had an effect; the use of the term 'sorry' is common to the two actions. All that passive-aggressive stuff is transparent, ineffective, and irrelevant. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:05, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Opinion on Spelling Correction

I find in this article some words like Siva, Sankara, Sivaguru are spelled both ways like Shiva/Siva, Shankara/Sankara etc. Homogeneity in spelling of Proper Nouns is an essential ingredient for smooth reading. The retroflex sibilants - the second SA as it is sometimes called, is generally transliterated into English as SHA. The spelling SA is used only when you transliterate with International diacritical marks over the letters. Since diacritical marks are dispensed with in English Wikipedia for Sanskrit words why can’t we use SHA in place of SA as in Shiva, Shankara and Shivaguru etc.? Any opinion please.

• VMO 11:35, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

I've changed a number, when I've noticed them, but the article needs a thorough copyedit. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:24, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

23 corrections (minor spellings) were done now! Yes, I do agree that a thorough copyediting will bring a whiff of fresh air to this article.

• VMO 16:58, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

But, pray, who is going to bell the cat? 61.0.164.218 08:19, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Rudraksham.com

• Yogis,Sadhus and of course the revered Shankracharyas have worn the Holy Rudraksha Bead since time immemorial for Self Empowerment and to lead a fearless life. Know all about these beads visit https://rudraksham.com

There actually is an appropriate page for this, Rudraksha. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 29 June 2005 15:38 (UTC)

Speaking of which, if by any chance you have any images of Rudraksha trees or seeds you would be willing to upload and donate, that would be awesome, I'd really appreciate it. Thanks, ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 29 June 2005 15:46 (UTC)

What counts as an authority?

Those pressing for the BCE dates have repeated on a number of occasions the claim that historians and sientists back them up, yet have refused time and again to give any names or details. Now religious institutions are being presented as "authorities"; is this because it's accepted that the scientists and historians don't in fact exist, or has the notion of an authority been changed? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:24, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

The claim at hand is not that historians and scientist back "them" up. It is simply that Shankara mathams are authorities on the life and work of Shankara. Describing Shankara Mathams as "shankara authorities" is not a particular point of view, but a statement of fact. After all, given that the mathams exist to study and propagate Shankara's thoughts and given that there are no other institutions solely dedicated to Shankara, it seems fair that the qualifier "Shankara authorities" be applied to Shankara Mathams. If there is disagreement, please indicate why the centuries' worth of work on Shankara by the mathams still do not qualify them as Shankara authorities. If there is an objective standard for qualifying someone as a Shankara authority, please list whom you cosider to be a Shankara authority and cite the sources that present evidence of their meeting these objective criteria. If, otherwise, one can more losely define Shankara authorities are those who are considered as such by a majority of Shankara followers, then the Mathams quality to be described as "authorities." (If an analogy is needed, what is being said isn't any different from saying that the Vatican is an authority on Catholicism; you may disagree with Vatican's interpretations, but that doesn't diminish their authority, since they are viewed as such by the majority of Catholics.)

Given that the mathams are dedicated to advaita, it seems kind of odd to describe them as religiuos groups. First of all, they are institutions; just as the Vatican is not a "group" but an "institution." Secondly, they are active centers of thought/inquiry/learning; thus the adjective religious doesn't do justice to the full range of their activities.

--Poda 13:49, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

1. They're not neutral. Many Christian institutions might well be described as existing to study and propagate Jesus' thought, but we don't simply accept what they say on the subject; for Wikipedia's purposes, their views are secondary to neutral, academic authorities. That applies to the Vatican, too.
2. I'm not sure why you think that "advaita" and "religious" rule each other out. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:58, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

The topic under discussion is not dates of Shankara. The topic is how best to describe Shankara Mathams.

(1) Though Harvard University has a medical school, Harvard isn't described best as a medical institution. Similarly, even if there were to be religious aspects to a Shankara Matham, it is not best described as a religious institution, since the Mathams concern themselves with all matters Shankara. (Another exaple: though one can describe the Vatican as “some religious institution,” a more informative description would be as "Catholic institution." Adjectives serve to specify.)

(2) The phrase "Shankara authority" was deleted without listing proper reasons: State why the Mathams do not qualify as authorities on Shankara or who else qualifies and how. Do not delete arbitrarily.

(3) What does it mean to say that the Mathams are not neutral when it comes to Shankara. It is a matter of fact that the oral traditions at the Mathams place Shankara at an earlier date than what some others believe. It is not an intentional misstatement of fact. It is a “differing point of view” and not a “not neutral point of view.” In the Wikipedia context, it is best to state that there is a disagreement and two points of views exist and present whatever evidence there is for both. Note that the issue here is not about the dates; it about how to accurately describe the Mathams, notwithstanding their point of view on the dates.

(4) Given all of the above, the phrase "Some religious institutions" is changed to “Shankara-proficient institutions."

--Poda 16:32, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

1. I've reverted that last edit simply because it isn't proper English.
2. Are you claiming that these mathams aren't religious institutions? Admittedly, the term "matham" doesn't appear in any of my books on Indian thought, philosophy, and religion – I've only come across it on the Web – but assuming that it's the same as "matha" that appears later in the article, how else would you describe it?
3. Speaking of which, if the two terms are the same, the usage needs to be made consistent. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:04, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

(1)There's nothing wrong with the phrase "Shankara-proficient." It means proficient in matters related to Shankara. I am reverting to the earlier version. It may not be common, but it is proper.

(2) Matha(m)s may or may not have religious aspects. But the best descriptor (i.e., more accurate and informative, as one would expect of an adjective) of a matham is not "religious." You could visit one or more of the mathams to learn what they do. If you're interested in Shankara (and not just in reverting the wikipedia page on Shankara), a visit to the mathams would prove very worthwhile.

(3) Describing a Shankara matha(m) as "religious" is akin to describing the Reagan Presidential Library as a "book institution." Sure there may be books involved, but a better and more informative descriptor is "Reagan-proficient insitution." This does not constitute a claim that the library has nothing to do with books; it is an attempt at meaningfully conveying what the institution is about.

(4) It is odd that you edit the descriptor of Matham, when you admit that your knowledge on the mathams is limited to what you have read on the web.

(5) Matham vs. Matha. What might in northern parts of India be called a "matha" is called a "matham" in the southern parts; this goes for any noun ("Rama" vs "Raman", "Kerala" vs. "Keralam", "Narayana" vs. "Narayanan", etc.)It is extremely odd that someone who isn't aware of this regional pronounciation variations of Sanskrit terms keeps reverting edits; if one don't know what they are called, it is very likely that one doesn't know what they do.

--Poda 12:36, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm not interested in your odd claim that one has to be an expert in a subject in order to edit an article on it. I am, however, an expert on English usage, and the odd phrase "Shankara-proficient institution" is virtually gobbledegook ("Reagan-proficient institution" is if anything even sillier). The article itself glosses a matha as a monasetry; a monastery is a religious institution. Of course other things go on there, but the key fact is thet religious institutions are by definition not neutral on matters pertaining to religion. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:34, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Going back to how best to describe the mathams:

(1)Terms such as "English-proficient" and "Computer-proficient" abound in present-day English. So your edit reversion make no sense. Meanwhile, it is good to know you consider yourself an expert on English usage. (My 1-year old dog considers herself to be an expert on punctuation; good thing she doesn't edit Wikipedia, hey?) In the spirit of moving towards a consensus, I shall instead amend the phrase to "institutions dedicated to Shankara." Since the Mathams dedicate themselves to Shankara and his body of work, this seems fair; but as we have seen on this page, a swift revert might yet block any accurate description of the Mathams from appearing on the Shankara page.

(2) I have neither the time nor the energy to enter a repeated revert process; please try to keep the focus on how best to describe the mathams. If the only thing you know about the Mathams is that someone else has parenthetically described them on the same page as "monasteries or religious orders," then you could learn more about the Mathams before reverting my edits.

(3) Do not confuse: I am not saying that Mathams know the truth about Sankara. I am simply trying to accurately describe the Mathams based on what they do.

(4) Since even minor edits on this page seem to evolve into a lengthy argumentative process involving Mel Etitis, I am weary to take up the following: To say the Mathams' claim that Sankara founded them is "dubious" is no doubt an opinion; and Wikipedia pages aren't supposed be editorials. Wouldn't it be more factual to say that "this oral-account backed claim is not substantiatted by historical documentsis" or perhaps that "this claim is not proven and hence disputed." Someone else interested in the life and work of Sankara could take this up.

--Poda 21:39, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I’ve been following this article for a while now through the many cycles of updates and reverts. It is clear that Mr. Etitis places too much value on pseudo secular version of Indian history rather than the version told by the Sankara schools. Reminds one of the Mamallapuram stories which the historians dismissed as myth until recently. It is also odd that subject matter expertise is not a requirement while editing an article. Even if English language proficiency were to be the only criteria for editing, don't non-English terms like Smartism, aatman, avidya sound gobbledegooky too?

The proof for BCE dates have been presented many times only to be dismissed as myths made up by religious institutions. If one were to be truly neutral, the proof for the CE dates should be dismissed as they come from the pseudo secular school of modern Indian history – Dwaraka and Mamallapuram being glaring examples of where the historians were grossly wrong.

Even if one wants to get beyond the prejudice surrounding the dismissal of BCE dates, statements such as, 'Sankara’s life... much of it is clearly mythical', 'Mathas... claim that he founded them is dubious as best' hardly qualify as NPOV.

An important point to keep in mind while dealing with Indian history is that much of it has been passed down generations by word of mouth. In the case of Sankara’s life, the various Sankara Mathas are the final authority.

So if I were to read/edit/write an article on Sankara, I would go pick a copy of his history as published by the Mathas rather than picking up a copy of Wren and Martin's book on English Grammar.

- SB 7/17/05

You assume rather too much about me, I'm afraid; the terms you cite are perfectly familiar to me; I'm a philosopher of religion. More importantly, what's needed is a grasp of both the general standards of proof, evidence, and authority, and the specific standards demanded by Wikipedia. No-one has provided any proof for the BCE dates; there have been claims that historians and scientists have argued for them, but when the question is raised as to their identity, no answer is forthcoming. In the end, there's only one source, and that's a specific religious one. The trouble is that there are severe internal contradictions in the claim, and most religious and secular authorities endorse the CE dates. I'm told by Indian friends (who are knowledgeable, but may be wrong; this only counts as hearsay) that the BCE dates are mainly asserted by non-Indian religious groups — by Hindus living in the West. Whether that's true or not, the article clearly states that most authorities believe that the CE dates are correct, but certain religious institutions disagree. That's an adequate account of the situation.

The various Sankara Mathams aren't the final authority — neither for Wikipedia nor outside it. (It's not even clear what "final authority" means here.) We're dealing with a religion and with philosophy; the former makes many claims that are not confirmable, and Wikipedia's policy is that we can't accept such claims, nor do we reject them outright. To give extra weight to the religious position as against the philosophical and historical positions would be to violate that policy.

Incidentally, I have no idea what "pseudo-secular" means here; is it secular or not? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:38, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

The "disclaimer" section is completely unacceptable, and deeply violates Wikipedia policy. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:43, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Composite person

I read somewhere that the present religious understanding is based on the lives of several (three?) different historical persons. Hence the figure of Shankara is a composite one. I dunno the source anymore. Does somebody have an idea for the source? Andries 22:35, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

I'd understood that there were two people, but three wouldn't surprise me. At one time, I think, it was suggested that we have separate articles on the two — but the religious people wouldn't give up their claim to everything, so it fell through (I doubt that it would have been workable anyway). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:07, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

An Outside Comment

I have read this article in response to a Request for Comments about the dates. Maybe the question is not properly framed so that I understand it. Is there a question only about the discussion on this talk page, or is there a question about the article itself?

If there is a question about the article itself, then I think that the article as written presents a neutral point of view. The religious sources providing for a BCE date are a well-defined POV. The modern scholarship is the more widely accepted POV. The two POVs are presented objectively, with sources. The fact that some religious authorities and institutions claim that he was a millennium earlier than is thought by modern scholarship is, in itself, a fact, and is worth presenting.

If there is a question about the discussion, then I am not sure what it is either. I am new to WP, but not to electronic discourse (where I go back to the 1980's). I do not see any violations of Wikiquette. The discussion has been civil and reasonable.

I am not sure what the RfC was for. It looks like a reasonable article, and reasonable discussion by reasonable Wikipedians. Robert McClenon 22:00, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

The RfC was for the article (though the Talk page is obviously relevant) — it's just that the new system requires a link to the Talk page for some reason. Thanks for your comment (and I don't only say that because it accords with my view). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:05, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Any statistics?

Indeed, Srirangam is the most visited Hindu temple in the world, and Tirupati is the richest. Where can I find comparative statistics on the above claim in the article regarding visitors and richness?

• Apnavana 01:35, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Good point. Googling gives this citation for the former claim, and this citation for the latter, though with no statistics in either case. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:52, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the references!

• Apnavana 01:40, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Formal education

Under the section "Formal education", I propose that the following be added just before ...On completion of the stotram etc.

"Legend has it that, "

Any thoughts? Syiem 04:19, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree (phrases like that need to be inserted in a number of places, in fact). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:10, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I have changed that one. Syiem 07:57, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Edit request on 15 May 2013

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ādi Śaṅkarācāri

In Southern India Ādi Śaṅkarācārya is very commonly called Ādi Śaṅkarācāri. Since the edit was deleted [1] started this discussion. Please check Google books, Google search results to understand the same. Please check the following links [2], [3] Please google non IAST spellings like Sankaracari, Sankarachari, Sankarachary to understand its popularity. Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 11:58, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Vishwakarma claim

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Adi Shankara Caste

Both of you were warned in this very thread that I would collapse it if you continued to argue the toss about something that is based entirely on original research & often has little to do with this article. Please go read WP:TPG and take your discussion off-Wiki. - Sitush (talk) 17:39, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Shankaracharya himself stated that he was belong to Viswakarma community through his books. Then why is this debates? The sloka "Acharyo sankarao nama, Twostha putra nisamshaya, Viprakula gurordweeksha, Vishwakarman thu Brahmana." reveals the same! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Masterjith (talk • contribs) 20:43, 29 October 2013 (UTC) As a general rule, the reason why people want to see the caste of other people mentioned in Wikipedia articles is because it reflects well on themselves, not because it is particularly relevant. This is also the reason why the caste of "uncomplimentary" people (criminals, for example) often seems to be ignored. Caste is a social construct and in almost all cases has no bearing on why a person's life is significant, although there are well-known exceptions (eg: Ambedkar). I've no idea why Adi Shankara's caste has any bearing on his notability but I do know that the shloka and various other things have been and gone in this article. Can you find any modern reliable sources that mention his caste and explain why it is significant to his life? Members of the Vishwakarma community are among the most vociferous of POV-pushers here on Wikipedia, so the sources and rationale for inclusion will need to be impeccable. - Sitush (talk) 21:49, 29 October 2013 (UTC) I dont know, why people are considering only modern sources as a reliable one! To know about Sankaracharya, the oldest books are the reliable source because he was a historic person. The sloka "Acharyo sankarao nama, Twostha putra nisamshaya, Viprakula gurordweeksha, Vishwakarman thu Brahmana." is from ShankaraVijayam. It is written by himself. We cant produce more reliable one than Shankaras books. An auto biography or diary is more reliable than the words of others. If somebody is trying to study about Hinduism, he or she should study the Vedas. Because Vedas are the base of Hinduism. For this there modern books are nothing comparing with Vedas. Like that, To know about Shankaracharya, we should consider his own books. We should consider at least his names. From the ancient period itself, in his native place Kerala he is well known as 'Adi Shankarachari' or 'Adi Shankaracharya'. Both the surnames Achari and Acharya are the common surnames of Viswakarma Brahmins of Kerala.--Masterjith (talk) 20:03, 8 November 2013 (UTC) Please give shankara vijaya's page number and details — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gopalan Acharya (talk • contribs) 05:15, 30 November 2013 (UTC) Gopalan Acharyaji the Origial Shankara Vijaya by Anandagiri used to cite Shankara's birth place as Chidambaram and it has been edited to Kalady in subsequent editions? So are editings being done with the original texts? Shouldn't the originals be maintained as they are? The page 32 of "Kanchi Kamakoti Math, a Myth" by Varanasi Raj Gopal Sharma cites "Even the Kanchi Math in the re-edited text of Anandagiri Shankara Vijayam has taken off Chidambaram and named Khalati as the place of birth". Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 04:42, 13 January 2014 (UTC) All newly printed shankara vijays are not with the Original story, we have to find 100+ years old shankara vijaya to get real birth details of shankaracharya but it is difficult to find original one because there is lot of shankara vijaya written by historians and conspiracy theorists — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.15.211.73 (talk) 05:49, 13 January 2014 (UTC) Ganesh J. Acharya According to vedas and purana there is only one brahmin caste they are Vishwabrahmin but in wikipedia somebody trying to erase original history — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gopalan Acharya (talk • contribs) 11:18, 20 January 2014 (UTC) There is a snippet preview of the same available here Kanchi Kamakoti Math, a Myth,by Varanasi Raj Gopal Sharma [4] Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 15:41, 7 February 2014 (UTC) Snippet view here, too. Such views are not acceptable and, in any case, I doubt that source is reliable. I really do think that you lot should give up on this: it doesn't seem to be terribly important anyway, except perhaps for the purposes of reflected glory and your own vanity. - Sitush (talk) 15:56, 7 February 2014 (UTC) "except perhaps for the purposes of reflected glory and your own vanity." I am trying to bring up facts here. I guess a snippet preview helps visually seeing the actual source. Also since we just went through this ANI complaint User:Sitush_plus_a_group_is_possibly_trying_to_put_communities_in_India_to_a_fight I would rather avoid engaging you with discussions other then the source. Could you kindly point out why you think this source is not reliable other than going into other details? Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 16:36, 7 February 2014 (UTC) "Visually seeing" isn't what's important. What matters is reliable sources and the ability to take individual citations from them within the proper context. Using Google snippets, especially in contested articles, is not acceptable. I admit I find it very, very difficult to follow the discussion (because of sub-par punctuation and grammar in some of the contributions here by Masterjith and the IP editor), but questions of what's reliable or not are of the utmost importance and should, in the case of dispute, be answered at WP:RSN. Google snippets are never a substitute for the real thing. Ganesh, I suggest you stop linking to that now-closed ANI thread: it blew up in your face, and your use of the link as a tool to blackball Sitush is not acceptable. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 16:51, 7 February 2014 (UTC) If that ANI thread has blown my face I should be worried about it and not Sitush. Thanks for suggesting WP:RSN I will try and learn to use the same. Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 17:11, 7 February 2014 (UTC) Ganesh, the first half of this recent discussion at RSN may help you regarding snippets. The book that you link may be pseudo-history of the type peddled by Ishwar Sharan but in any event if no-one can see it then it is by default unreliable. I can find one citation of it - here - but it is not encouraging ("supposed" is vague and the point is not developed). Pseudo-history is a big problem with Indian authors who write of these ancient times. - Sitush (talk) 17:42, 7 February 2014 (UTC) Does wikipidia now require to publish entire page/books hereafter? That would be copyright violation. Which is why google books is only showing a snippet preview and not the entire page. So, what is that now wikipedians are expecting to do? As per the legal requirement one is not supposed to publish/quote more than the text that is actually required. If that snippet preview is not clarifying the context there is no way one can quote more than that or otherwise it is a legal violation. Curious wikipedians wanting to know the entire facts must buy the book. Again in this case the line on that "snippet" explains it well. Does anyone have any doubt that it can have other context then the one cited? If the source says "Even the Kanchi Math in the re-edited text of Anandgiri Shankara Vijayam has taken off. Chidambaram and named Kalati as the place of birth"? Editorial standards required one to read the source as a whole. This preview is presenting the whole context, what more is required? Sitush, time and again you have expressed such sentiments "except perhaps for the purposes of reflected glory and your own vanity.". If that is what it was I would have not fixed the above J.A.H.R.S. reference. Also, w.r.t to my vanity I am as anyone else in the world a progenitor of GOD thyself. So, don't worry about my vanity since GOD is the purest of all, the vanity will never taint. If at all I show any kind of bias it is my personal vanity that will effect. Also I thank to GOD that I could detect that before anyone else could. Also if a bias is introduced someone or the other will pick it up and it will only bring in Shame which I am well aware of. So, don't worry I would not introduce a bias deliberately for but obvious reasons. Also it is a request not to quote these and stick to the technicalities of the source or otherwise one is bound to clarify. Also when this is quoted in Rig Veda "Mighty in mind and power is Visvakarman, Maker, Disposer, and most lofty Presence. Their offerings joy in rich juice where they value One, only One, beyond the Seven Ṛṣis. Father who made us, he who, as Disposer, knoweth all races and all things existing" ... "What was the germ primeval which the waters received where all the Gods were seen together? The waters, they received that germ primeval wherein the Gods were gathefed all together. It rested set upon the Unborn's navel, that One wherein abide all things existing. Ye will not find him who produced these creatures: another thing hath risen up among you." http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/rigveda/rv10082.htm there is no way he will turn out someone else at all. Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 12:46, 8 February 2014 (UTC) Sankaracharya cannot be in Visvakarma caste because Viswakarma is a caste of recent origin. It was not in existence in the period of Sankara. Actually it is not a caste, it is a collection of castes - Thachans, Asaris, Kollans, Thattans etc. Earlier, these castes were collectively known as Kammalas in Kerala and Tamil Nadu. The people of these castes never enjoyed the Brahminical Status in the society. Visvakarma is fabricated caste. In the old texts, the term Visvakarma is not used as the name of a caste. It is used exactly in the same meaning of the word. Once again, I emphasis that the name Visvakarma is not used as the name of a Caste in the old Vedas, puranas, smiritis, and mahakavyas. Any claim based on the old texts are fake. Overall the Visvakarma Caste is a caste(collection of castes) of recent origin claiming Brahminical Status. It is also notable that a lot of educated people in the castes such as Kollans, Thattans are actually against the false and useless claim for Brahminical Status. --Prasanthnnamboothiri (talk) 17:24, 4 March 2014 (UTC) Prasanthnnamboothiri 1. please read "Ch. 67 -Original Cause of All Causes" as narrated by Potuluri Virabrahmendra Swami [5] to understand who the current Viswabrahmins are. 2. One name for Parabrahma is Visvakarma... so everyone born from Parabrahma should belong to Visvakarma Caste? You wrote "Viswakarma is a caste of recent origin"... from when since Visvakarma is of recent origin? Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 09:13, 9 March 2014 (UTC) This page is for discussion of improvements to this article, not some general back-and-forth about Vishwakarmas. Please can the pair of you drop this now. - Sitush (talk) 12:04, 9 March 2014 (UTC) Mr. Ganesh J. Acharya, I dont know from which place you belongs to . Whatever I told is true about Kerala. Theoretically or poetically you can interpret things in different ways like Parabrahma is Visvakarma... so everyone born from Parabrahma should belong to Visvakarma Caste . But it is not necessary to admit your interpretations by others. According to history of Kerala, and in the sense the term Caste is used by our present society there were no caste called Visvakarma. I am using the term "Caste" in the real sense - exactly in the same sense that our official documents, Government system, reservation system, etc. are using. (Not in the sense of "all human being belongs to the same caste" or based on your interpretations. If you want to make it in such a way, you have to change the whole society first and redefine the term "Caste" first. Then make such arguments). In the actual sense, there were no caste called Visvakama. It is a caste fabricated in 19th or 20th century to accommodate a cluster of castes. For saying this, I refer my Society itself. Nothing else is needed. If you have some doubts, come in Kerala and check up with people. You and I know what is reality. Then why this waste exercise to place Visvakarma as Brahmins. And, as if you are saying all are Brahmins, then why are you getting worried about the caste of Sankaracharya. All belongs to the same caste ..na? And now to you.. Sitush, I know this page is for discussion of improvements to this article. But what to do.. these so called Vivakarmans have started some Wikikarma to put Sankaracharya in to a caste named Visvakarma. They are little bothered about the historical and sociological reliability and importance of such articles. Bhagvan unhem satbuddhi deim.--Prasanthnnamboothiri (talk) 15:14, 11 March 2014 (UTC) Just ignore the POV pushing. If this thread continues as it has been doing, I'll collapse the entire thing. It's not as if anyone is even providing decent sources to support their positions. Go discuss it somewhere off Wikipedia. - Sitush (talk) 15:19, 11 March 2014 (UTC) User:Prasanthnnamboothiri All in this universe including Birds, Insects, Reptiles and all type of Living Beings Including the Humans are Vishwakarmas by caste, but all are not Brahmins. Shankaracharya was born a Brahmin? Any which ways I suspect you are an impostor and not at a Nambudiri as well. I have many Namboothiri friends and I know how gracefully they speak. Let it be a Brahmin, or any other respected Varna, it hardly matters until everyone is duty bound to Lord as until then everyone is equal and part of the same Purusha. I guess the Andhra Historical Research Society, Rajahmundry which contained the above query did not so far conclude anything about Alfred Edward Roberts' important reference "Visvakarma and his descendants", and on the other hand editor Sitush here started writing provoking comments without credible inferences? Who's pushing the POV? Also why did LORD Indra incur brahma-hatya (the sinful reaction for killing a brahmana;) on killing Viśvarūpa who was son of Twastha? Manu, Maya, Twastha, Shilpi and Visvajna are brothers and the fore fathers of the current Vishwakarmas who are also called Kammalans in both Tamil Nadu, Kerala. If you are a real Nambudiri and not a fake ID, and are actually reading the Shastras why are these queries in front of you? Shankaracharya was born a brahmana? Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 17:35, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 March 2014

Regarding the birth of Adi Sankara,information is missing with respect to his community, family and parents. There is enough evidence based on works and folklore to establish that he was born to Namboodiri Brahmin community. His father's name is Shivaguru and mother Arya; which is a very common name among Namboodiri women. His father's house name is Kaipilly Mana and mother's house name Melpazhoor Mana. The landlord Pana Mana Namboodiries of Kalady owned the Manickamangalam Durga Bhagavathy temple where Adi Sankara's father served as priest. Both Pana Mana family and Melpazhoor family got minor curse from Adi Sankara since they ignored him becuase of his early initiation to ascetism without entering Grihasthashrama.

Also Melpazhoor Namboothiries burnt their own padippura (gate house building) which had many works of Adi Sankara leading to the curse. Also Sankaracharya had met Chera Kulasekhara Emperor Rajasekhara. Chera kingdom being Tamil is also debatable. Chera was given control of Kerala by Parashurama who brought Namboodiries from north India. It is historically incorrect to think that malayalam as a spoken language came to existance only after 800 AD.It is now classified as classical language (2013)

Dear Jackmcbarn, sir, I want you to consider my request to edit "Childhood" from "Shankara was born in Kaladi in present day central Kerala, the ancient Tamil kingdom of the Cheras" to "Shankara was born in Kaladi in present day central Kerala during the days of Keralite Chera kingdom, to a Namboodiri Brahmin couple. His father's name is Shivaguru and mother Arya; which is a very common name among Namboodiri women. His father's house name is Kaipilly Mana and mother's house name Melpazhoor Mana. The landlord Pana Mana Namboodiries of Kalady owned the Manickamangalam Durga Bhagavathy temple where Adi Sankara's father served as priest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Achutki (talk • contribs) 14:04, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Dear Arjayay,

Sir,

Some proofs

http://www.chinfo.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=67

A research by the University of Wisconsin, Madison, USA (On adi sankara's mother's house)

http://www.chinfo.org/pdf.php?id=66

About Viswakarma Also, Viswakarma people are not Brahmins. They do not learn vedas. They do not follow any smarta tradition, dharma sootras, grihya and srouta traditio like Namboodiries. They are carpenter and sculptor castes. They may wear sacred thread in some occassion and learn the moola mantra of a God or Godess as they are idol makers , but that doesnt mean they are Brahmins. Namboodtiires follow Thyithireeya samhita, aranyaka and brahmnana of Krishna yajur veda, rig and sama vedas. Also follow the dharma , srouta , grihya traditions of Boudhayana, Vadhoolaka, Jaimini , Aswalayana and Koushitika. Namboodiries follow Vasishta seeksha in chanting yajur veda.None can be said about viswakarma Achutki (talk) 09:23, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Jackmcbarn (talk) 13:50, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: you will also need to cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to any article. - Arjayay (talk) 17:34, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 01:28, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

hello sir,

i have to know more about you and i have a demand.this my mail adress calliorg248@yahoo.com] name innocent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.190.3.131 (talk) 13:59, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry but I have no idea what it is that you are referring to. That said, it is never a good idea to divulge your email address on a talk page. If you would like it to be removed then drop me a note at User talk:Sitush and I'll see it that can be done using our REVDEL process. I can't do it myself but I know people who can and who might be amenable. - Sitush (talk) 22:56, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 April 2014

There are multiple versions on who headed the Amnaya Peethas established by Adi Sankara. I challenge the content presented in the page. The official site of Sri Singeri Sharada Peetham, one of the 4 Maths quoted in the page provides an information contradictory to what is seen in the page. Please refer to http://www.sringeri.net/history/amnaya-peethams

The version of Sri Sharada Peetham should also be acknowledged. 173.75.235.107 (talk) 13:13, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I apologise for the delay in responding to this. If there are multiple versions and those can be verified by reference to reliable sources then we are bound to show the various versions. not one or even two of them, but all that qualify. This accords with our policy of neutrality. Click on the blue links to read more about these issues.

Websites are often not great sources for this type of thing (anyone can write anything on a website and it is not necessarily peer-reviewed) but if you care to list the versions and provide decent sources then that would be very useful. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 23:02, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 May 2014

Please change

Adi Shankara (pronounced [aːd̪i ɕəŋkəɾə]; early 8th century CE[2][note 1]) – also known as (Adi) Shankaracharya and Shankara Bhagavatpada, spelled variously as Sankaracharya, (Ādi) Śaṅkarācārya, Śaṅkara Bhagavatpāda, Śaṅkara Bhagavatpādācārya – was one of the most revered Hindu mystic and philosopher from India who consolidated the doctrine of advaita vedānta.[1][5]

to

Adi Shankara (pronounced [aːd̪i ɕəŋkəɾə]; early 8th century CE[2][note 1]) – also known as (Adi) Shankaracharya and Shankara Bhagavatpada, spelled variously as Sankaracharya, (Ādi) Śaṅkarācārya, Śaṅkara Bhagavatpāda, Śaṅkara Bhagavatpādācārya – was one of the most revered Hindu mystics and philosophers from India who consolidated the doctrine of advaita vedānta.[1][5]

or, better still, to

Adi Shankara (pronounced [aːd̪i ɕəŋkəɾə]; early 8th century CE[2][note 1]) – also known as (Adi) Shankaracharya and Shankara Bhagavatpada, spelled variously as Sankaracharya, (Ādi) Śaṅkarācārya, Śaṅkara Bhagavatpāda, Śaṅkara Bhagavatpādācārya – was a revered Hindu mystic and philosopher from India who consolidated the doctrine of advaita vedānta.[1][5]

in order to clean up the grammar.

Dinesh.rv (talk) 04:38, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Removed "mystic"; anachronistic, and not in line with Shankara's works. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:57, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 March 2014

sir, I want you to consider my request to edit "Childhood" from "Shankara was born in Kaladi in present day central Kerala, the ancient Tamil kingdom of the Cheras" to "Shankara was born in Kaladi in present day central Kerala during the days of Keralite Chera kingdom, to a Namboodiri Brahmin couple.His father's house name is Kaipilly Mana/Illam and mother's house name Melpazhoor Mana/Illam."

Some proofs

http://www.chinfo.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=67

A research by the University of Wisconsin, Madison, USA (On adi sankara's mother's house)

http://www.chinfo.org/pdf.php?id=66

His father's name is Shivaguru and mother Arya; which is a very common name among Namboodiri women. Achutki (talk) 08:33, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Done Sam Sailor ^Sing 19:00, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Remove this wrong information above added by Achutki chinfo.org is not reliable source, check who is details of this website http://who.is/whois/chinfo.org Adi shankara was not born in Namboodiri caste, there is no academical evidence for this... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gopalan Acharya (talk • contribs) 11:40, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Who is better in advaita vedanta than Shankara?

Anyone knows better in Advaita vedanta in the history? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.160.66.154 (talk) 00:31, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Historical context and quality of sources

Joshua, The hinduism-guide.com is not a reliable source. It discloses at the bottom of its page, "It uses material from the Wikipedia article "Hinduism". A list of the wikipedia authors can be found here." Prima facie WP:WPNOTRS? Other blog-like sources with unclear editorial supervision are also of questionable reliability. On historical context section you just added, I wonder why and how you consider it relevant to this article? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:50, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

I moved the "historical context" sub-section into historical impact section. It fits there, because the context would add more depth to the discussion of his subsequent influence. A general discussion of Hinduism's history, and speculations about unspecified Buddhism influences on Hinduism is offtopic in this article, unless you mention something specific, and add Adi Shankara's role in that something specific. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:41, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Okay. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:57, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Identification of Maṇḍana Miśra with Sureśvara

[[yo|Ms Sarah Welch}} although a well-known tradition, the identification of Maṇḍana Miśra with Sureśvara diff is rejected by several scholars diff. See also Talk:Sureśvara#Identification with Maṇḍana Miśra. I've moved the treatment of this topic to a note, since it may be too much off-topic. And I'm looking forward to your expertise and further nuance on this, of course. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:31, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

There indeed are at least two major schools of scholars on this. Isaeva, Potter, etc acknowledge and side with the tradition. Hiriyanna, Sastri etc express their doubts and do not side with the tradition. Both sides need to be summarized in this article. The Sharma book, whom you added as a source, summarizes the situation well by presenting both the sides and adding, on page 292, that Mandana could have become a devoted disciple of Shankara, and yet evolved his thinking later. Let us also remember that the authenticity of some of the works attributed to Shankara is highly doubtful, so works and doctrines attributed to Shankara's contemporary Mandana may also be of doubtful authenticity. We should not take sides and overemphasize Hiriyanna/Sastri's views, for NPOV. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:13, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Note that Isaeva, in her conclusions, also threats them as two separate authors. Where does Potter side with the tradition? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:02, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

All of them, including Isaeva, Potter, Sharma, etc acknowledge the confusion. Potter states there is "little firm historical information about Suresvara; tradition holds Suresvara is same as Mandanamisra". See Karl Potter (2008), Encyclopedia of Indian Philosophies: Advaita Vedānta up to Śaṃkara and his pupils, Vol 3, Motilal Banarsidass, ISBN 978-8120803107, pages 420-423. Isaeva, on pages 79-80, states, "More plausible though was an Advaita conversion of another well known Mimamsaka – Madanamisra; (...) Vedantic tradition identifies Mandanamisra as Suresvara". But she too, as you note, acknowledges the confusion in earlier pages (chapter 2, particularly pages 65-66). The current summary is mostly okay, but needs wordsmithing to more clearly acknowledge the confusion about Mandanamisra. Similarly, the Madanamisra discussion in the article would improve if a few sentences are added that summarize Isaeva's pages 62-66, on the ways Madanamisra's views were same and different from Shankara's views on Advaita. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:43, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Would you have a suggestion for those "few sentences"? I'm learning while I'm reading; this info is till very new for me. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:13, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

JJ, I will work on this in a few days. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:04, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Edit Request, June 5, 2015

May I suggest adding these resources:

Published Sources: Charles Johnston (2014), The Vedanta Philosophy of Sankaracharya, Kshetra Books

External links: http://www.universaltheosophy.com/bios/sri-sankaracharya/ and http://www.universaltheosophy.com/legacy/movements/ancient-east/advaita-vedanta/

24.85.208.12 (talk) 18:26, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Not done: Thanks, but the Amazon edition of this book is published by CreateSpace, which leads me to fear that this is a self-published book. Accordingly, I'm afraid we can't depend upon this book as a reliable reference. Altamel (talk) 23:46, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Shankara's Vedanta and Mahayana Buddhism

Interesting quotes; thanks. I've removed the term "plagiarism," though; I expect this term to be offending for Hindus, which we should try to avoid when possible.
"Practice" may actually be more interesting than "philosophy;" see Joël André-Michel Dubois, The Hidden Lives of Brahman. I just acquired this book and have to read it yet, but it gives a detailed exposition on the practice of Shankara's Vedanta. Maybe the differences are bigger than a comparison of their respective philosophies shows - or they are smaller; I don't know yet. But I can really recommend this book. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:29, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

As far as i am concerned, you have made the article worse by your editing. Soham321 (talk) 04:44, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a convincing argument; please explain your objections. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:05, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

See my detailed reply to Abecedare just above this section; the discussion is ongoing. Soham321 (talk) 05:07, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks; I just read them. Amazing: your edits are targeted rigth-away, yet you simply revert. I agree with Abecedare on the term "plagiarism;" it's WP:OR. The term is also anachronistic. Please do discuss, instead of simply reverting. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:36, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

NB: we do agree on the Mahayana Buddhist influences; it's nice not to have to discuss that for a change. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:42, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Headers

Dear Joshua, please do not remove the header of this the previous section; it confuses the discussion taking place in the previous section and constitutes disruptive editing. Soham321 (talk) 05:45, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Soham321, do NOT revert talkpages and remove comments! And don't accuse me of being disruptive; especially when you're messing up in such amajor way. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:50, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, i could not give an editor summary for this revert. Essentially, Joshua is moving around his comments--which he has already made in this section to the previous section-- and it is making the whole discussion in the talk page very confusing. That is the sole reason for why i am reverting him. Soham321 (talk) 05:55, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

STOP MESSING AROUND!!! You've removed my comments twice now; stop it!!! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:00, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I have dropped a note at Soham's talkpage about this (before I saw this section). Hopeing we can keep the discussion here focused on the content and sources. Abecedare (talk) 06:09, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

@Abecedare: Apparently not; see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive_editing_by_Joshua_Jonathan. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:18, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I've restored your beloved header; could you now please address the issues we've raised? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:50, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

All right. In future please do not move edits from one header to another since that leads to confusion.Soham321 (talk) 10:38, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Sure. We'll take account of your preferences here, if that helps you not to become confused. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:28, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Fyodor Stcherbatsky

@JJ: Reconsider that note by Fyodor Stcherbatsky. It seems quoted out of context, misrepresents. See summary of Stcherbatsky's views in Natalia Isaeva's book on Shankara (pages 155-168). Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 11:29, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

This, together with your previous comment on Chattopadhyaya's book, looks like cherry picking of sources and POV pushing to me. Soham321 (talk) 11:33, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I just saw my copy of Isaeva, and thought that I should have a look. Soham321, Ms Sarah Welch is very good at Hindu stuff; lease threat her with respect. VictoriaGrayson, who has very little temper with people who fail to use WP:RS, does threat het with respect. That's a sure sign she's good at this stuff. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:41, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Shankara and Buddhism

Quick comments on some recent edits:

• The additional content and sources are good but belong in the Philosophy and practice section (in particular the Similarities with Madhyamaka Buddhism section that already existed and could be expanded and retitled if necessary), and not in the Historical and cultural impact section. Also the primary focus should be explaining the similarities and differences between Shankara and Buddhist philosophy, rather than speculating on Shankara's motives (the latter can be mentioned briefly with attribution).
• There is no benefit in including extended quotes from the sources, instead of summarizing their main point. See WP:QUOTEFARM
• The added gloss, "...it is suggested that Shankara was attempting to conceal his plagiarism" is hilariously anachronistic and unsupported by the cited sources;
• Not sure, why a well-written summary citing Mudgal was deleted as superfluous, especially since that is the proper way to write encyclopedic content and the source was both on-point and more recent than the newly added sources.
• (minor) When citing books, one should always cite the publisher and (if available) ISBN.

To editor Soham321: can you try reworking the material you added to take the above concerns into account, or comment if you disagree with any of the points I made? I will abstain from editing the article right at the moment to avoid edit-conflicts, but can help later in the day. Abecedare (talk) 04:19, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. My reply: All the books from which i have cited are available for viewing through google books (the caveat being that whether you can view the contents of the book or not depends on the country in which you are located). So these are the references: Dasgupta, Shcherbatsky, Encylopaedia of Religion and Ethics, Volume 8 . I don't have the ISBN numbers right now, but i am sure this can be looked up.

I thought extended quotes from reputed scholars was necessary instead of summarizing or paraphrasing because the content, with the plagiarism accusation, was highly controversial. My statement "it is suggested that Shankara was attempting to conceal his plagiarism" is evident if one reads the Shcherbatsky quote carefully. Let me repeat the quote so as to help us be on the same page:

"Shankara accuses them of disregarding all logic and refuses to enter in a controversy with them. The position of Shankara is interesting because, at heart, he is in full agreement with the Madhyamikas, at least in the main lines, since both maintain the reality of the One-without-a-second, and the mirage of the manifold. But Shankara, as an ardent hater of Budhism, could never confess that. He therefore treats the Madhyamika with great contempt [...] on the charge that the Madhyamika denies the possibility of cognizing the Absolute by logical methods (pramana). Vachaspati Mishra in the Bhamati rightly interprets this point as referring to the opinion of the Madhyamikas that logic is incapable to solve the question about what existence or non-existence really are. This opinion Shankara himself, as is well known, shares. He does not accept the authority of logic as a means of cognizing the Absolute, but he deems it a privilge of the Vedantin to fare without logic, since he has Revelation to fall back upon. From all his opponents, he requires strict logical methods... Sriharsa, in his Khandan-Khada-khadya [...] openly confesses that there is but little difference between Buddhism and Vedanta, a circumstance which Shankara carefully conceals. Shankara, in combating Buddhist idealism, resorts to arguments of which he himself does not believe a word since they are arguments which the most genuine realist would use.}} I can also cite other authorities for the plagiarism statement but i do not have access to the source material right now."

Regarding Mudgal, he or she is an unknown writer of Indian philosophy compared to S.N. Dasgupta and Shcherbatsky who are legendary figures when it comes to studying Indian philosophy. Mudgal is not adding to anything that Dasgupta and Shcherbatsky have not already said. There is therefore no use to cite her or him. I still think that the Plagiarism heading is a better heading since this is a serious accusation. Shankara is the only major philosopher of India who has faced this accusation not just from medieval scholars but also from modern scholars. Soham321 (talk) 04:43, 2 July 2015 (UTC) The fact that it was Shankara borrowing, and not the other way around, is also pointed out by Dasgupta in the quote i gave. Incidentally, Dasgupta also comments at greater detail about the fact that Advaita Vedanta is practically the same as Mahayana Buddhism elsewhere in his book: Dasgupta. Shankara is believed to have been either the direct disciple of Gaudapada or else the disciple of a direct disciple of Gaudapada. Although Shankara conceals his intellectual debt to the Buddhists, he does not do the same for Gaudapada--on several occasions he acknowledges and refers to Gaudapada's writings. But if Gaudapada is found to be articulating views that are not different from views of the Mahayana Buddhists, as Dasgupta points out, then....? Soham321 (talk) 04:57, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Some additional material for this section. This is from Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya's book 'What is Living and What is Dead in Indian Philosophy' (pages 42-43):

"The great prestige of Advaita Vedanta in later history is associated with the activities of Shankara, who is either a disciple or a direct disciple of Gaudapada. Born in a village in Kerela, he extensively travels in India and founds four monastic establishments in four corners of the country, the heads of which still bear the title Shankaracharya ...In founding these monastaries, Shankara follows the organizational principles of the famous Budhist monastaries...the establishment of these monastaries is surely an evidence of his exceptional organizational abilities, inclusive of his ability of mobilising huge financial support for the purpose. Such organizational activities apart, his literary output is is undoubtedly volumnious, just as the literary quality of his writings is extremely high. For sheer charm of lucid Sanskrit prose, none in Indian philosophy perhaps ever equals Shankara. And yet Shankara does not live a very long life. Born in AD 788, he dies at the age of thirty two. Judged by sheer personal gifts, therefore, this young philosopher has indeed a very imposing stature in the cultural history of the country. What is really not so indisputable about him is his actual philosophical ability. Though he reinterprets Upanishadic idealism in a really advanced form, there is nothing practically worthwile in this reinterpretation that is not borrowed from the Mahayana Budhists. This fact of large scale borrowing is sought to be concealed by Shankara himself with the demonstration of a great deal of contempt for these Budhists, often accusing them of preaching precisely the same views which he himself wants to preach with great gusto. He contemptuously remarks that it is no use discussing philosophy with the representatives of the Sunya vada, for they do not believe in any source of valid knowledge and how can he discuss philosophy with those who have no respect for logic! At the same time, the denial of the validity of any source of valid knowledge and of logic in general is one of the fundamental points of Shankara himself. He even opens his philosophical magnum opus with the declaration that all the pramanas or sources of valid knowledge are quite useless from the standpoint of the philosophical wisdom he himself represents. Again, he indignantly remarks that the Vijnana Vadins are as shameless as those that want to prove the barrenness of their own mothers, in as much as they subsist on food while denying the reality of food itself. From his own philosophical standpoint, however, the food that the philosophers eat -- like everything else in the material world--is nothing but a phantom conjured up by the mortal illusion. It has no more reality for him than for the Vijanana Vadins. All this cannot but be reminiscent of "the advice of the charlatan in Turgenev: denounce most of all those vices which you yourself possess." The usual defense of Shankara by his modern admirers is that he admits the truth or logic as well as of the material things from the standpoint of practical life: but this very distinction between "two truths" is an innovation of the Mahayana Budhists, from whom Shankara borrows it only with some terminological alteration.It needs to be added, however, that a few centuries after Shankara the strong sectarian animosity against the Mahayana Budhist gradually fades out among the followers of the Advaita Vedanta, when Sriharsa (circa 12th century A.D.), for example, revives and reinforces the negative dialectics of Nagarjuna for a better defense of Advaita philosophy, "acknowledging that there is but an insignificant divergence between his views and those of the Sunya vadis."

Soham321 (talk) 05:16, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Soham, neither the sources nor any of the editors here are disagreeing that Shankara's philosophy was greatly influenced by and similar to Mahayana Buddhism. What we are objecting to is the use of the word "plagiarism" that you introduced, which does not make any sense when applied to classical philosophical ideas and is not used by any of the sources you quote. In fact, I would love to see a source that uses the word when speaking of Adi Shankara and Nagarjuna. As for extended quotes: again see WP:QUOTEFARM. The content you added to the article and quoted above can be easily paraphrased and summarized; I'll take a stab at it later today (unless you or JJ beat me to it). And, finally, Dasgupta and Shcherbatsky are indeed well-respected scholars, but their writing is almost a century old and I am pretty sure that their are more modern sources available, such as the one JJ points to below. Abecedare (talk) 05:26, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I am truly amazed that you are unable to see the plagiarism accusation. I would have imagined Chattopadhyaya at least makes the point very clear. I am glad i am giving the full quotes of these scholars instead of giving summaries or paraphrasing, so that at least other editors can see what you claim you are unable to see. Soham321 (talk) 05:31, 2 July 2015 (UTC) Dasgupta died in 1952, Stcherbatsky in 1942, Chattopadhyay in 1993, but the point remains that this is not rocket science where the source material or data is changing. The data is remaining the same. Any difference between these scholars and a modern scholar of today can be due to whether one is adopting a neutral point of view or whether one is adopting a hindu apologist point of view.Soham321 (talk) 05:43, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Very dated source (~100 years old). Recent scholarship has discarded all this. See Natalia Isaeva's book cited in this article. Data and sources are changing, as new texts in Indian philosophies are translated and cross examined. A majority of Indian Sanskrit/Pali literature remains untranslated/unexamined (see Karl Potter's Encyclopedias and Bibliographies on Indian philosophies). Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:10, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Accusation of being a Demon

Incidentially, the great contempt of the Dvaita Vedantists for Advaita and Adi Shankara is not that well known. Encylopaedia of Religion and Ethics (ERE) volume 8 pages 232-233 contains some useful information in this regard. (the views in the encylopaedia are primarily based on two dvaita texts--"madhvavijaya"(mv), and "manimanjari"(mm)-- both of which were written by Narayana, a son of Trivikrama, who was a direct disciple of Madhava. Relevant extracts from the ERE are given below:

"In the Vana-Parvana(mm iii.11,661f.)it is related that Bhima attacked certain Yaksas or Raksasas, belonging to the country beyond the Himalaya, and killed their leader,Manimat.Manimat had earlier offerred a filthy insult to the Indian sage Agastya (the apostle of Southern India)....The narrative of the events in the Kaliyuga, or present age of the world, commences in the 5th sarga of mm. at first, the knowledge of the Vedas, as taught by Krsna and Bhima(mm v.1), reigns supereme. Then the Asuras conspired to spread false doctrines. The demon Sakuni...points out that other heresies...had all failed (9-15). Therefore Manimat, who alone had enough skill, must become incarnate as a brahman ascetic, and must destroy the Vedanta under cover of explaining it (15ff.). Manimat is dispatched with instructions to abolish the Vedas and Puranas, to ridicule the theory that Visnu has gunas, or qualities, and to establish the identity of the soul with Brahman. [note that, according to Dvaita, Brahman is endowed with all the auspicious attributes ("saguna"), while according to Advaita, Brahmana is devoid of any attributes ("nirguna")] Here (29), the story digresses to tell how at that time the whole Earth was under the sway of Budhism, and to describe the efforts of Sabara and Kumarila to refute it by the aid of the Purva Mimansa.... the 6th Sarga continues this, narrating the success of Kumarila... at this stage of affairs, Manimat is born as a widow's bastard (mm v1.3, mv i.46). He is hence named Samkara (the Madhva books uniformly change the great Samkara's[represented in the encyclopaedia with a dot over the s] name to Samkara [no dot over the s])The object is plain. Samkara [with dot over the s] means "auspicious", but Samkara [with no dot] "misbegotten" or "rubbish". He is brought up in great poverty, and (as a slap at the monism subsequently taught by him), it is related that in his boyhood he could count only one thing at a time, never being able to see a second(mm, v1.10).He is taken to Saurastra, where...he quickly masters the sacred books. He then goes from teacher to teacher, but is turned off by them for his heretical views. He invents his doctrine, described as "sunya-marga" and "nirgunatva" and is hailed by the demons as their savior (24).On their advice he joins the Budhists and teaches Budhism under cover of Vedantism. He makes the Vedas without meaning, and equates Brahman with nothingness ("sunyatva") (46).He becomes a Sakta, and messenger of Bhairavi, who confers upon him a magic spell (51). The 7th sarga describes further disgraceful events in Samkara's life. He seduces the wife of his brahman host (1ff.). He makes converts by magic arts. He falls sick and dies. His last words are instructions to his disciples to uproot the learned Satyaprajna, the last of the great teachers of the Vedic doctrine. In the 8th sarga we have the doings of Samkara's followers. They persecute their opponents, burning down monasteries, destroying cattle-pens, and by magic arts killing women and children (2). They forcibly convert one of their chief opponents, Prajnatirtha, and compel him and his disciples to adopt the "maya" system (5). These, however, still secretly adhere to the true religion.......The book[mm] ends with a brief account of Madhva's work, specially mentioning that he composed a commentary on the "Vedanta-sutra" utterly destroying that made by the thief Manimat-Samkara."

I would suggest that a brief reference to this story can be included in the main article just to highlight the contempt of Dvaita Vedantists for Adi Shankara. I seek consensus. Soham321 (talk) 12:20, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Ehm... Those are Vishnuists, I guess? I figured something about it. What about Shankara's time? Were to so outspoken then too, or is this an issue from later times? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:32, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Manimanjari and Madhvavijaya were written by the son of a direct disciple of Madhvacharya; and we know Madhvacharya (also known as Madhva) was around in the 13th century AD. But the allegation of being a "disguised budhist" is repeated by quite a few people including Ramanuja, who was around in the 11th century AD. Ramanuja's commentary on the Vedanta Sutra (also known as Brahma Sutra) contains one of the longest critiques of a single philosopher (in this case, Adi Shankara) to be seen in the work by any Indian philosopher. Soham321 (talk) 12:44, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate source of information (particularly 100+ year old heresay mythology such as in Encylopaedia of Religion and Ethics first published in 1908). See WP:WWIN. Adding such summaries or quotes will weaken the article. A lot of new research on Adi Shankara has been published in recent years, and we now know that there are authentic and unauthentic publications of/about him. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:41, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

But this is not cancer research. In this case the data is the same because the manuscripts remain the same--the key difference between someone writing on Shankara in early 20th century and now is whether the writer is adopting a neutral perspective or a pro-Advaita perspective.Soham321 (talk) 12:46, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

As I wrote above, data and sources are changing. New texts in Indian philosophies are being translated and cross examined. A majority of Indian literature from Vedic and medieval era remains untranslated/unexamined (see Karl Potter's Encyclopedias and Bibliographies on Indian philosophies). Within the last 40 years, scholars have declared or generally accepted that several of the texts on Adi Shankara are unauthentic/unreliable (again, see Natalia Isaeva's book). Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:16, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

These are minor things. Shankara's commentaries on the Brahma Sutra (also known as Vedanta Sutra) remains his magnum opus, and his commentaries on the Upanishads and the Gita continue to be regarded as authoritative. These are the books in which Shankara has expounded his philosophy. These are the books where Shankara regards his reader to be an intellectual/scholar. The disputed works are minor works aimed for popular consumption usually comprising bhakti poetry. Their philosophical significance is nill. Soham321 (talk) 13:32, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I see the above para not adding any value to the main article other than imbalancing the article and proving superiority of one over the other and giving way to fringe theories ! Shrikanthv (talk) 13:26, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I removed the od tag which was making it appear that Shrikanthv had replied to my edit which begins with "These are minor things"; in fact he had not done so. By "above para" he was referring to the extract from the Encyclopedia that i had given. Soham321 (talk) 19:08, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

It may seem strange but the books Manimanjari and Madhvavijaya, both of which were written by Narayana Panditacharya, are considered authoritative texts in Dvaita Vedanta. Soham321 (talk) 13:38, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

The polemics between Shankaraists and Dvaitists may be interesting an sch, but maybe it belongs at the Advaita Vedanta page. And I think that Ms Sarah Welch is right: a lot of recent research is available. Personally I've got the impression that a lot of simplistic views on Shankara and Advaita Vedanta are circulating, both pro and con. Shankara's vedanta may, in some respects be even closer to Mahayana Buddhism than Shankaraists are willing, or comfortable, to admit. And in some respects it may be completely different. And in yet another aspect, this may be quite irrelevant; what's much more interesting is the practice of Advaita vedanta, the studying and repetition of texts to make them 'come alive'. See The Hidden Lives of Brahman, as noted before. It's much more interesting to find out how Advaita Vedanta "works," instead of engaging in polemics. And yes, of course Shankara's Advaita Vedanta is strongly influenced by Mahayana Buddhism, especially Madhyamaka. So what? This dooes not mean that Shankara is a Mahayanist; on the contrary. It means that the Madhyamakas came up with a powerfull insight, which was also useful for other "schools" of thought. Maybe it's universal, or just plain human: everything changes, nothing remains the same; then what do we actually "know"? Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:00, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

If the polemics between Dvaita and Advaita would have been confined to the philosophical level (Dvaitins calling Advaitins disguised budhists for instance) i would have agreed with you. But the fact that the Dvaitins are making a personal attack on Adi Shankara himself makes it relevant for mentioning in Shankara's talk page. In Udupi, Karnataka, which is the stronghold of the priestly community of Dvaitins, the books Manimanjari and Madhvavijaya are required (compulsory) reading for those training to be priests. I'll try to find online references for this information. Soham321 (talk) 18:48, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

There's a lot we westerners don't know about Advaita Vedanta. My favorite "spiritual" bokstore in Utrecht has a great collection of books published by Motilall Banarsidass, but also a few meters of "Advaita Vedanta" - that is, neo-Advaita, Andrew Cohen and the like. The bookstore-owners don't like it, but it sells. Au Bot du Monde, another "spiritual" bookstore, in Amtserdam, has "banned" neo-Advaita to a separate shelve (shelf?). But neither stores has any serious publication on Adi Shankara or Advaita Vedanta. Truly a pity. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:08, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

There is a reference to the Encyclopedia extract given above in Dasgupta's book: https://books.google.com/books?id=Ml2H_z0E7bAC&pg=PA52&lpg=PA52&dq=manimat+manimanjari+narayana&source=bl&ots=nZFLWm4Vmz&sig=60xJaOlWpOu8iyCp2LS83CF-m1o&hl=en&sa=X&ei=do2VVdKqDMuyggS9wqjwCQ&ved=0CCQQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=manimat%20manimanjari%20narayana&f=false Incidentally, the reason for Madhva's intense hostility for Advaita (which made him coin the word Manimat for Shankara and declare that Manimat had been a demon) was that Madhva had faced persecution from contemporary Advaita Vedantists. The Advaitins had stolen his library of books, and Madhav was only able to retrieve them after appealing to the local king for help. Additionally, the Advaitins (according to Dvaitins) subjected Madhva to assorted harassment which is why he counter-attacked by declaring Shankara (held in high regard by all Advaitins) to be a demon. Soham321 (talk) 19:19, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: This Dasgupta's book came out about 100 years ago. I am puzzled why @Soham321 considers opinions in such dated sources as reliable. Same discussion in the Unreliable sources and other sections above. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:52, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Any source which is giving information that is not in agreement with Sarah Welch's personal bias seems to become an unreliable source on one ground or another (in the case of Chattopadhyaya it was because the publisher was untrustworthy--this was before i pointed out that the same publisher had published books by Romila Thapar and D.D. Kosambi). Soham321 (talk) 20:06, 2 July 2015 (UTC) Here is a recent paper published in a respected journal which uses Dasgupta's book as a reference: http://www.academia.edu/5167801/Roots_of_Indian_Materialism_in_Tantra_and_Pre-_Classical_Sāṃkhya Soham321 (talk) 21:40, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

@Soham321: Any source that is ~100 year old, or even ~50 on Adi Shankara needs to be reconsidered, no matter whether it praises or criticizes or discusses the ideas previously thought to be of Adi Shankara. The latest link from Marwaha does not discuss "Adi Shankara is a demon" accusation, anywhere. Actually, it does not discuss Shankara at all. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:24, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Take a look at this peer reviewed academic resource on Indian philosophy: link Notice that this resource considers as an authority a book published in 1959 by the same publisher about whom you were complaining about earlier. The latest link is just to show that this paper written recently is accepting Dasgupta as an authoritative source. Soham321 (talk) 01:48, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

@Soham321: Your latest link mentions Shankara twice. It reads, "Śaṅkarācārya’s Jaya-Maṅgalā — this Gauḍapāda and Śaṅkarācārya are generally thought to be different from the famous Advaitins of the same name". I do not see a discussion on "Adi Shankara is a demon" accusation, anywhere. Focus on the content, the date of publication, peer-review / editorial oversight of publisher, and reliability of the source. Not the fame of the author for that source. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 02:06, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

The latest link link Link to a peer reviewed resource of Indian philosophy was a response to your constant refrain about not not using older resources. As you mentioned earlier, even 50 year old resources are not acceptable to you. And Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya, as you said earlier was not acceptable to you as an authoritative source. But the peer reviewed resource at the link i gave has one reference to a 1959 book by Chattopadhyaya and another to a 1951 book by another writer. Soham321 (talk) 02:18, 3 July 2015 (UTC) And here is a link to the same peer reviewed resource which considers S.N. Dasgupta's History of Indian Philosophy, first published in 1922, as an authoritative work: http://www.iep.utm.edu/yoga/ Soham321 (talk) 02:22, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Let's get back to the story; I like it. But what does it tell us about those times? Advaita Vedanta only rose to prominence at the start of the Muslim era, the same time when this story apparently was written. So, what does it tell us about those times? That's interesting! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:14, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

one important conclusion to be made about the relationship between Advaita Vedanta and early Muslim invaders in India is this. The argument goes that the widespread popularity of Advaita Vedanta for various reasons (why the Advaita Vedanta rose to prominence in India is also an important question to answer--we can have another discussion on this point) resulted in weakening the indian psyche. Advaita preaches that the world is ultimately unreal, and individuality is unkillable. When these kind of ideas start taking root in the popular imagination, it can lead to a weakening of the fighting spirit. One becomes passive. After all, why fight when the world is unreal and when nothing exists other than the all pervading Brahman(God) which is defined as pure consciousness without any attributes by Adi Shankara and other Advaitins. This point made by Shankara--about the world being ultimately unreal-- is something that has been very harshly criticized by many Indian philosophers almost from the beginning. By the way, there is one interesting corollary to Shankara's statement that the world(and everything in it) is ultimately unreal. The clear implication of this statement is that the Vedas are also ultimately unreal (since Brahman is the only reality). But he is making this statement on the basis of his interpretation of the Veda which makes it a chicken and egg kind of situation. Soham321 (talk) 04:37, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Does Shankara state that the world is unreal, as in non-existing? This may be polemical misrepresentation of Shankara. For what I know, Shankara regards the world to be real and existing, but not ultimately real, that is, unchanging etc. It's really interesting where does presentations and interpretations of Shankara do come from. By the way, those criticisms remind me very much of criticisms directed against Buddhism. See also Zen at War. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:55, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

By the way, I can't imagine Shankara stating that the Vedas are unreal; on the contrary. The Vedas are the revelation of Brahman; they are Brahman. Interesting note: the concept/insight/understanding of sunyata also influenced Vaishnavism; see Śūnyatā#In_other_Hindu_sects. Read Susan Kahn; she really made me understand sunyata, after studying Buddhism for 25 years! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:01, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Shankara does say that the world is ultimately unreal. Please do some reading/research on the following topics: theory of two truths, three levels of reality, definition of maya in Advaita, and definition of Brahman in Advaita. Soham321 (talk) 05:21, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

I do not see that Shankara was too far off from Buddhisim, but the main similarties with both of them was the concept of world being a "MAYA" and difference was that Shakaracharya believed the concept of a "witness" or the Atman a stable personality behind human, while the buddhists rejected this concept as well terming the mere concept initself was a "MAYA" but we have to know that both hated each other! , regarding terming an 100 year old source reliable or the new "western" interpretatin of the sanskrit scripts as "reliable" really makes no sense, we have to know the subject in itself is a philo and a man sees it according to which " floor " he is standing on and offcourse allways try to connect and make sense from his point in time so I do not see on validating something to be right or wrong Shrikanthv (talk) 05:40, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

" main currents of modern Indian thought"

I have removed the following text from the lead:

... from whose doctrines the main currents of modern Indian thought are derived.

References

It's a very bold claim, to state that the "main currents of modern Indian thought" are derived from Shankara's "doctrines". First, what is "modern Indian thought"? Some monolithic entity without differentiation? And second, are the "main currents" of this modern thought derived from one person?

• Sharma and Deepak Chopra were added as sources to the lead at 29 march 2012, to support the statement "Adi Shankara[...] (788 CE - 820 CE) [...] was an Indian sage from Kalady in present day Kerala who consolidated the doctrine of advaita vedānta." That's a quite different statement.
• This edit changed

"is a widely studied and influential Hindu philosopher and theologian from India who consolidated the doctrine of Advaita Vedanta."

into

"was a Hindu philosopher and theologian from India, most renowned exponent of the Advaita Vedanta school of philosophy, from whose doctrines the main currents of modern Indian thought are derived."

with the following edit-summary: "small correction"

It's clear that the last part of this line is not a "small correction." Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:09, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

@JJ: I recall struggling with that sentence. Glad you changed it. His role in Hinduism is significant and deserves a place in the lead. I added a sentence with sources. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 04:16, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

So, there are even sources for that statement... Nevertheless, it's a dubious statement; thanks for the precious way you solved it. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:00, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Unreliable sources

@Soham321: This book, What Is Living and What Is Dead in Indian Philosophy, is not a reliable source. A reliable source has editorial oversight or is peer reviewed. Lets avoid unreliable sources, avoid fringe content, and include content that is widely accepted by scholars. If you believe your source is reliable, explain why you believe so. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 11:03, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

On what basis is this book an unreliable source? It is true that the writer was a leftist. However, many people of his generation were leftists and even today many top Indian historians are leftists. These include people like D.N. Jha, D.D. Kosambi, and Romila Thapar who have done collaborative work with American scholars like Michael Witzel, D.H.H. Ingalls and others who were not leftists. This is the google page for Chattopadhyay's book: https://books.google.com/books/about/What_Is_Living_and_What_Is_Dead_in_India.html?id=LuYYAAAAIAAJ And this is his wikipedia biography: Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya. A review of this book may be found here: http://philpapers.org/rec/RIEDCW And this is just to prove that Chattopadhyaya is not a fringe author: http://www.amazon.com/Philosophy-science-social-progress-Chattopadhyaya/dp/8170071208/ref=sr_1_fkmr0_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1435836138&sr=8-1-fkmr0&keywords=essays+in+honor+of+debiprasad+chattopadhyaya

It is not a self published book as can be ascertained from the google books link. There is no evidence of any peer review having taken place for the books of Radhakrishnan, S.N. Dasgupta, Scherbatsky, etc. who are legendary figures in Indian philosophy. We will have to go for Dispute Resolution if you insist on excluding this book from the main article since it is definitely a reliable source and the author is a genuine scholar. Soham321 (talk) 11:25, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

@Soham321: People's Publishing House is an outlet for SPS. Your burden to prove that they have editorial oversight/peer review. Ignore Wikipedia pages on people, not RS. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 11:37, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea what is SPS. The point is that the author is a genuine scholar as is evident from his wikipedia page. In fact Chattopadhyaya was a student of both Radhakrishnan and S.N. Dasgupta, the two legendary figures of Indian philosophy. This requirement of providing evidence of peer review has not been met for people like Mudgal, Dasgupta, Scherbatsky and others in the main article. You are seeking to cherry pick sources in accordance with your own bias which is not permissible. Soham321 (talk) 11:44, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

@Soham321: See WP:SPS. Comments on People's Publishing House: 1. It is an unreliable quality outfit. Suggestion: if you want to keep this source in this wiki article, find a book review in a peer review journal for What Is Living and What Is Dead in Indian Philosophy. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 11:52, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

This is the wikipedia page of LeftWord Books. As you can see, the Managing Director of this publishing group is the general secretary of a leftist political party in India. But consider the eminence of the people who are involved in this publishing group who are mentioned in the wiki article--people of the eminence of N._Ram for example. Are you going to say that anything published by this publishing group is not to be considered a reliable source? Is this not cherry picking of sources which wikipedia specifically prohibits? Just to show you how silly your argument is, N Ram is also the Chairman of the Board of The Hindu newspaper which is a widely respected paper in India. N. Ram is also a self declared Leftist. His political proclivities does not mean we declare The Hindu to be an unreliable source. Soham321 (talk) 12:03, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

People's Publishing House has also published the work of this gentleman: D.D. Kosambi Soham321 (talk) 12:06, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

@Soham321: This talk page is not a forum, and I will ignore your discursive forum-style lectures. You can either provide a book review for that WP:SPS or take this to dispute resolution. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:29, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I did give a link to a review of this book by Dale Riepe in an earlier edit. Soham321 (talk) 12:45, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I meant favorable book review. Alternatively you can provide a recent secondary source quoting or referring to the content that you are trying to add to this article. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:56, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

You realize the conditions you are attempting to impose were not fulfilled for Mudgal, Dasgupta, Scherbatsky and several other sources quoted in the main article. This cherry picking based on scholars you like and those your dislike needs to stop now. Soham321 (talk) 13:14, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I have asked @JJ to reconsider Stcherbatsky, and look at Isaeva's summary on Stcherbatsky. I haven't reviewed the others yet. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:23, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Please read WP:Verifiability again. You are wasting your time and mine. Soham321 (talk) 13:28, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

WP:Verifiability Policy: "In Wikipedia, verifiability means that anyone using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source." The SPS and some 100 year old texts are not reliable. The burden to provide reliable source – recent, majority or minority accepted scholarship – for any content you add, is yours. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:26, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

The book was not self-published. The same publishers have published D.D. Kosambi and Romilla Thapar. The book was published in 1976 which makes it more recent than other books cited in this article and other Indian philosophy articles on wikipedia. Additionally there is no restriction on citing older sources. You are cherry picking sources in accordance with your bias and this is not permissible. If we we continue to remain in disagreement, we will just have to go for dispute resolution. Soham321 (talk) 18:42, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

@Soham321: The issue is not only that it is SPS, it is WP:Primary, and you are adding Chattopadhyay's opinion along a polemics-style content you have been trying to add today to this article. Various editors have objected. Your edits have been disruptive and you have been revert warring with multiple editors. You want to add, "Though he reinterprets Upanishadic idealism in a really advanced form, there is nothing practically worthwile in this reinterpretation that is not borrowed from the Mahayana Budhists. This fact of large scale borrowing is sought to be concealed by Shankara himself with the demonstration of a great deal of contempt for these Budhists, often accusing them of preaching precisely the same views which he himself wants to preach with great gusto." (your spelling)

This is polemics. Criticism of Adi Shankara is already mentioned in this article, in a balanced way. Your addition does not add anything new, nor balance, nor does it specify what is it that is "borrowed from Mahayana Buddhists" or how does Shankara "reinterpret Upanishadic idealism" or anything that informs or provide constructive specifics/details. Your content is "X says Shankara is a bad person / plagiarist / concealer / demon" style - that is WP:Soap, not encyclopedic content. Such opinion about Shankara is not widely accepted by scholars. Take it to DRN, if you wish. I will join you there. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:42, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Chattopadhyay's book is not a primary source; it is a secondary source. Chattopadhyaya is a highly respected scholar--endorsed by the great Joseph Needham-- and he is adding clarity to the accusation directed against Shankara from medieval and modern scholars of Indian philosophy that Shankara engaged in surreptiously borrowing ideas from the Mahayana Buddhists and then seeking to conceal this. He is not the only person who makes this accusation; Schertbatsky is also making this accusation. And so is Dasgupta. The concern here is not Chattopadhyaya's quote since we can easily modify it, paraphrase it, summarize it. It is your unwillingness to let Chattopadhyaya be cited as a reference for this content. For this, we will have to go to dispute resolution because you are not permitted to cherry pick sources in accordance with your personal bias and prejudice which you are attempting to do. You also seem to have no idea about what is appropriate and what is not for an Encyclopedia; i have given an extract from the Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics which makes far more serious accusations against Shankara (where he is accused of being a demon, etc.). Basically your bias and prejudice is coming in the way of your editing on wikipedia. No doubt that is why you were seeking to target the publisher of Chattopadhyay's book earlier. Now that i have pointed out that the same publishers have published books by scholars of the eminence of D.D. Kosambi and Romila Thapar you seem to have nothing more to say about the publishers. Soham321 (talk) 20:01, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

@Soham321: Go ahead. DRN it is. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:10, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

All in good time, i am in no hurry. Soham321 (talk) 20:20, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

OK, here is a recent paper published in a respected journal which uses Chattopadhyaya's book as a reference: http://www.academia.edu/5167801/Roots_of_Indian_Materialism_in_Tantra_and_Pre-_Classical_Sāṃkhya Soham321 (talk) 21:38, 2 July 2015 (UTC)Here is an Op-Ed published in the Times of India which pronounces Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya to be "a renowned historian of philosophy": http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/life-style/The-gods-came-afterwards/articleshow/6014217.cms Soham321 (talk) 21:45, 2 July 2015 (UTC) Another reference to a peer reviewed academic source which considers Chattopadhyaya to be an authority on Indian philosophy: http://www.iep.utm.edu/indmat/ Soham321 (talk) 22:23, 2 July 2015 (UTC) Another reference: http://www.iep.utm.edu/sankhya/ Notice the name of the publisher of Chattopadhyaya's book which is regarded as an authoritative work by this peer reviewed philosophy academic resource. It is the same publisher which Sarah Welch was claiming is an untrustworthy publisher based on which Chattopadhyaya's book should not be considered a reliable source. Soham321 (talk) 22:30, 2 July 2015 (UTC) And Chattopadhyaya's book which is being considered an authoritative text by this peer reviewed philosophy academic resource was published in 1959. Soham321 (talk) 22:36, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

@Soham321: None criticizes Adi Shankara. None discusses Shankara. None mentions the polemic quote you are trying to insert into this article. They discuss Cārvāka, not Shankara. Ferenc Ruzca's article, one of your links, says, "Chattopadhyaya, Debiprasad: Lokāyata. A Study in Ancient Indian Materialism: A highly unorthodox approach utilizing anthropological and even archeological sources to understand the origins of philosophical thought." That is respectfully inclusive, but not a favorable review for Chattopadhyaya, even for Carvakas. Your response is discursive, but it does not address any of the many concerns I explained above. Your proposed content along the lines of "X says Shankara is a bad person / plagiarist / concealer / demon" is WP:Soap, from an unreliable source on Adi Shankara, and of no encyclopedic value to this article. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:52, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, no cigar. You were claiming earlier that Chattopadhyaya should not be considered an authority on Indian philosophy, and your claim has been shown to be hollow. That is all that i tried and succeeded in accomplishing. Soham321 (talk) 02:24, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya as a source for this article

Chattopadhyaya is a potential though dated source for this article. Given concerns expressed in scholarly reviews of his publications, lets cross check and supplement his Marxist-interpretations and POV with recent scholarly sources on Shankara. For more reasons why Chattopadhyaya publications are best used with care and in conjunction with more recent scholarship, see the related parallel discussion and comments of various wikipedia editors here and here. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:36, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Why similarities and differences with Buddhist lens?

Surprised Shankara is viewed with Buddhist lens? It should be the other way around... Shankara's understanding of vedanta stems from Brahma Samhita and other works and not on buddhist principles... When Shankara understood Brahma sutras, etc to espouse Vedanta, and did not learn Buddhism from Buddhist gurus to form the same... If anything, the similarity / differences should be attributed to Buddhism from a hinduism lens. Being that the case, it is very likey the similarity / differences between Buddhism and Advaita could be very well due to Buddhist principles borrowed heavily from Hindu text (How unlikely this could be given Gautama was a Hindu prince) Logic would say this... It is not appropriate to look Shankara in Buddhist lens... Buddhism, Jainism and other Indic religions should actually be looked at Hinduism lens which is the only way to look at it... May be the Buddhist / Jain / Other establishment would try to disown / disclaim Hindu canons / texts and may say they have nothing to do with Hindu like beliefs, but, any such claim (due to similarly in Buddhism / Jainism etc with Hinduism that can be clearly rooted to "source" texts like Vedas/Vedangas/Upanishads) should be totally unacceptable. The only thing that can be accepted from these religion is their right to disown or accept Hindu texts as cannon... The concepts proposed (Nirvana vs Moksha) could be easily verified in Hindu texts, even if they are interpreted and presented in different words (mere technicality and semantics), but a textual verification of concepts can be established. Then Adishankara's views can be ratified clearly by looking at Hindu text and any similarity between Advaita and Mahayana would clearly link Mahayana borrowing that concept from Hindu source text and not otherwise, could be established. Why so much talk and ambiguity? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.164.25.61 (talk • contribs)

Because what we today call "Hinduism," a synthesis of various Indian traditions, originated after Jainism and Buddhism. Shankara gave an Upanishadic/Vedantic base for key concepts which were borrowed from Buddhism. There's a widespread scholarly concensus on that. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:00, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

My whole point is the impossibility of that comes actually from my question... Vedantic/Upanishidic/Brahmanas pre-date Buddhism and Jainism and the principles espoused by Shankara and other sages (both before and after) contained in Hindu texts... so, tt cannot be borrowed... The "scholarly" consensus have to re-looked (honestly, there is no "true" truth anywhere to be found even when things are this obvious) - of course, a lie can be said many times and it will become truth... Obviously, my point being on the principles of karma, soul, nirvana rebirth which existed in Hinduism in many texts (prior to Buddhism or Jainism). Things like caste, rituals obviously buddhism rejected... Instead of accepting the fact that Buddhism and other Indic religions shared / accepted similar views to Hinduism and differs obviously in the other aspects... But, elaborate effort is spent by other Indic religious establishment to paint Hinduism as the "borrower". Not sure, what is the harm in accepting this similarity with Hinduism, as that is only (counter argument to this would be true too, if that is the fact, but Hinduism borrowing will be anachronistic)... The only logical conclusion I can derive is that it will prove difficult for the establishment (of other Indic) to propagte the religion as people would question why this? if it is same as Hinduism isnt it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.164.25.61 (talk) 14:21, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

@122.164.25.61: Welcome. Wikipedia summarizes reliable sources, striving for a neutral presentation of the different sides. As @Joshua Jonathan mentions, the "Shankara borrowed terminology and concepts from Buddhism" is indeed a broadly held view, and it must be included in this encyclopedic article on Shankara. There is another broadly held scholarly view that "Buddhism borrowed terminology and concepts from Vedic Hinduism", but that is off topic for this article. Similarly, the contesting views such as "Vedic Hinduism" of Michael Witzel, to Buddhism has been part of or an aspect of Hinduism, to Hinduism and Buddhism and Christianity are all ancient, or that all three are new words invented after 14th-century... all these are all interesting points of view, but not directly relevant to this article on Adi Shankara. Wikipedia is, at its best, a neutral encyclopedic summary of diverse viewpoints, and it is not a WP:Soapbox. So, please reread and reflect on what @Joshua Jonathan has to say above, and keep in mind the scope and focus of this article. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:33, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

My apologies if I sound harsh or rude; I've had too many arguments with POV-pushing editors before, so the kind of objections you;re making soon remind me of those discussions. And yes, of course it's also good to speak of "similarities" and "differences"; after all, Buddhis did not originate in a vacuum, but in an interpkay between various Indian traditions. Even better said: various traditions are partly off-shoots of the same developments in the shramanic movements. The more relevant info on Shankara is that he sort of "countered" the Buddhist influences, by using Vedic/Upanishadic sources. Though his concepts and themes are of course very recognisable for Buddhists. Don't forget that Buddhism existed for more than thousand years already when Shankara lived.

What may be of interest to you may be the concepts of sunyata and Buddha-nature, and the Tibetan discussions on these two strands of thought, as reflected in Rangtong-Shentong. While Skankara states that "the" Buddhists reject the concpet of Atman, Buddhism does contain strands of thought which are evry akin to Advaita Vedanta - or Advaita Vedanta is very akin to those strands of thought; who will tell? and, at least Tantric Buddhism was "copied" from Tantric Hinduism. So, there's a lot of nuance to this. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:28, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

I think I am being on point only here.. 1) I am clear that Buddhism could have heavily borrowed in the first place - Which I don't know anybody can refute - Given the scriptures that talk about concepts of karma, rebirth etc. existed prior in Hinduism itself. 2) I am drawing from that to this point of discussion, that Shankara learned Hindu scriptures first and formulated Advaita and the similarities that is seen is similarity that Buddhism "borrowed" earlier and not the other way around... The resurgence of Hinduism happened during Sankara time mainly because of his clear cut alignment of his principles with Hindu sources (not Buddhist scriptures)... This is my main point on the thread and I have not deviated from that... But, as with anything Hinduism I suppose PR wise they lost... The "Scholars" have already agreed unfortunately... Anyway, I have nothing further to add here... Thanks for your discussion... Just want to keep it here for record. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.164.25.61 (talk • contribs)

@122.164.25.61: Scholars have not agreed, and the article tries to present the different sides. Most scholars agree that there are major Atman-Anatta related differences between Buddhism and Hinduism traditions such as those championed by Adi Shankara. It will be un-encyclopedic to suppress information of either side, and the mutual influences/differences between Hinduism and Buddhism. We just need to stick to faithfully summarizing the reliable sources to the best of our abilities. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:28, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

The Translation of Nirvana shaktam part in the box is totally wrong and mis-interpreted.

"I am Thought, I am Joy, I am He, I am He." 'I am He, I am He.' ? he what ? the Translation is totally wrong.

The first line from Nivrvana Shaktam itself is enough to prove it wrong i.e

Sanskrit Sloka: मनोबुद्ध्यहङ्कार चित्तानि Translation:Mind,Intellect,Ego,Memory I am __NOT__ he says.

Then how ? This : "I am Thought, I am Joy, I am He, I am He." This is absurd, please let people who are well familiar with sanskrit and Vedanata philosophy take care of these topics mainly from India itself.

Sanskrit Sloka: चिदानन्दरूपः is not ""I am Thought, I am Joy," It is : Chida = "Consciousness ", Ananda = Bliss (Sandhi Done if you know what it means), Rupah = Form. Therefore he says : Consciousness, Bliss Form

Sanskrit Sloka: शिवोऽहम् Doesnot means "I am he" That would be in sanskrit "SahAham" where Sah = he, Aham = I. The correct Translation is : Shivo = Siva(hindu god), Aham = I I.E "I am Shiva"

Please correct all the mistakes, let people familiar with Vedanata philosophy handle these all pages because they are knowers of these field. you can contact with "Ramakrishna MUTT @ USA"'s Swamis for the correct information.

Rest for now, correct these mistakes asap. :)

@Joshua Jonathan: ping to JJ.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Demise1234 (talk • contribs) 13:36, 24 April 2016

This is stuff for Ms sarah Welch and Ogress... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:41, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Oh i see, Thank you.

So.. @Ms Sarah Welch: & @Ogress:, Please take care of those silly mistakes :) and yes please consult Swamis of Ramakrishna Mutt, they're in US as well. Demise1234 (talk) 11:54, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

@Demise1234: The infobox does not state that this is the "first line" of the Nirvana Shaktam. It is hymns 3-6. Originally, the hymns 3-6 were added with "I am Shiva", which is more accurate. But, we can't do WP:OR in wikipedia, we must rely on presenting what is in the sources. So, if you want changes in the infobox, you need to provide a published verifiable source, not ask us to contact "Ramakrishna MUTT @ USA"'s Swamis. @Joshua Jonathan: I will restore the older 'I am Shiva', since I see support for it. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:00, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch: Source : http://greenmesg.org/mantras_slokas/brahman-nirvana_shatakam.php <-- With Translation when hovered ON slokas, you can look up for the meaning IN sanskrit dictionary as well, oh yes,one of the source already mentioned & is accepted by'you': http://www.svbf.org/journal/vol2no4/nirvana.pdf <-- I doubt if sources are checked before adding topics. Now, the reason why I used First line is to prove wrong the Statement i.e Wrong Translation "I am Thought, I am Joy" , if one(first) line denies i am not mind, intellect then how it can be later joy or thought :) , rest, Chida-anada = Consciousnes, Bliss, it is clearly mentioned in source i supplied as well as previously existed source in page as well. Next, why i said to contact Ramakrishna mutt? because at the end of the day, people should know what they are maintaining or into, so they have to go to masters of the field to "know" it, those swamis are masters so to speak in Vedanata philosophy as well as Sanatna Dharma, don't take it too personally lol, well for now, please correct those mistakes, that is the work to be done. :) Demise1234 (talk) 12:06, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch:Please also, REF: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atma_Shatkam , sounds OK, btw Atma Shatkam = Nirvana Shatkam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Demise1234 (talk • contribs)

@Demise1234: Thanks, but greenmesg.org looks like a blog, not WP:RS. We also have WP:Copyvio guidelines, and that the summary should reflect multiple sources. You are mixing mind, thought, consciousness, etc; but please, we must avoid forum-like discussion on this talk page, per WP:TPNO. If you have any more WP:RS that should be considered, please share. I will check the published sources again whether, "I am Thought, I am Joy" should be changed to "I am Consciousness, I am Bliss" or Vivekananda-based "I am Knowledge, I am Bliss" etc. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:45, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch: Mixing mind, thought ? thoughts are part of mind according to Advaita School therefore he says, i am not mind applies i am not thought no doubt in that, rest nevermind, i can expect these lines from person who is not familiar, secondly yes, good point,Consciousness or Knowledge, Both are correct, as Consciousness is only reality explained in Advaita therefore it is only the knowledge as well rest is Maya i.e Advidya i.e Not knowledge, this is the reason, you may find these statements(Consciousness or Knowledge) but since Knowledge is Secondary meaning given, therefore Word "Consciousness" or more precisely "Pure Consciousness" is taken into consideration like it is done here[6] by Sringeri Peetham which was established by Adi ShankaraCharya(well indirectly, precisely by one of his disciples) this is the reason why i said at first place,"if you may discuss 'this' with 'learned swamis'", now, yes it do reflect multiple sources, leaving aside greenmsg, since you termed it under blog and is not acceptable, the pre-defined source : http://www.svbf.org/journal/vol2no4/nirvana.pdf & one of the wikipedia page itself : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atma_Shatkam, and here as well http://vedicyagyacenter.com/wp-content/themes/vedic/pdfs/NirvanaShatakamLyrics-withtranslation.pdf <- published by a Vedic Center, rest, you can confirm this by looking up meaning of Sanskrit words, Chida, Ananda, Aham for your own Convince. Demise1234 (talk) 13:01, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch: Ahem!, it's been almost a day since no action, this is not professionalism or does "check-ing the published sources again" do take this long? Demise1234 (talk) 01:53, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

If "professionalism" means "delivering on command," than you may pay a professional salary. Otherwise, checking the sources carefully may take some time. Please show some due respect; your learned swamis probably have more respect for the depth of knowledge of Ms sarah Welch than for someone who ignorantly writes "i can expect these lines from person who is not familiar" without knowing what she knows. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:14, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the text/translation itself: it's not the complete text yet, is it?

Regarding "cidAnandarupa": cit has more meanings than just "consciousness"; when we translate it as "consciousness," it's like some sort of reification, turning consciousness as a 'verb' into consciousness as an 'object' (English is not my native language, so I'm searching for the right words to express what I mean; my apologies if it's not clear enough). "Pure consciousness" may indeed be better, with the emphasis on "pure," as in the Buddhist Yogacara alajavijnana and the Buddha-nature. "Cit" may also be understood as not representing a metaphysical or ontological principle, but a 'psychological c.q. phenomenological insight' into the workings of the mind, and the 'emptiness' which 'remains' when concepts and names are deconstructed. But, alas, I'm a "Buddhist," ain't I, so what can you expect?

Regarding the whole translation: isn't there a copyright free translation available?

Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:10, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

PS: why "śivo'ham," and not "Brahmaham"? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:49, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

@JJ: I expected So'ham, found in their ancient Upanishads, such as the Isha Upanishad. Yet, the versions on internet read Shivo'ham. I haven't checked the archived original manuscripts. The phrasing is from satcitananda, and I don't think "pure X" makes it more clear, rather raises what is "impure X" and the difference between the two? WP:RS just go with truth-consciousness-bliss or similar. There are, indeed, a lot of parallels between Buddhism-Hinduism-Jainism. Each is beautiful, fascinating in its own way. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:20, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

"Truth-consciousness-bliss" seems to be one-dimensional to me. "Sat" has a much deeper connotation! I'd read it as 'the bliss of being aware of the essence of being', or some"thing" like that. Still, why Shiva, and not Brahman? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:08, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

May be poetic meter? I will have to dig into this, to offer more than a guess. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 04:27, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Indian?

What is this 'Indian' mentioned all over Wikipeidia? Was there any India before the creation of British-India?

All these great philosophies are at best some kind of intellectual past-time of a minor group of people somewhere in the subcontinent or even outside. A sample of the real people of the subcontinent, and also from where Sri Sankara is said to have originated can be seen on this link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.214.28.24 (talk) 15:45, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Misra's wife

@Nihoyari: Why is Misra's wife and the claimed Saraswati incarnation WP:Due in this article? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:06, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

@Nihoyari: I have once again removed the content you added to this article, because it was largely unsourced, undue, and unencyclopedic per WP:WWIN. The two sources you added are not WP:RS. We cannot present discredited hagiographies as historical facts, or anything that appears in blogs or personal commentaries / propaganda / opinions in some newspapers. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:56, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Comment: Thanks @JJ for adding the linking. I should have done it. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:53, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
@Ms Sarah Welch : Before Adding Economic Times-Times of India , Outlook India, The Hindu and Indian Express Links, you removed the content. These are the most reliable links:
http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2013-04-19/news/38674414_1_referee-mithila-debate
http://www.outlookindia.com/website/story/oh-but-you-do-get-it-wrong/262511
http://www.business-standard.com/article/beyond-business/the-management-trinity-116061401189_1.html
http://www.thehindu.com/2001/08/21/stories/1321017c.htm
http://www.newindianexpress.com/nation/Buddhist-Path-a-Way-to-Asian-Century-PM-Modi/2015/09/03/article3008470.ece

These tell in detail about one of the most celebrated ddebate between Ubhaya Bharati and Adi Shankara in 8th Century A.D The other links of Firstpost and Mid-Day are equally reliable:
http://www.firstpost.com/politics/as-pm-modi-goes-to-darbhanga-a-look-at-history-of-a-land-which-forced-the-shankaracharya-to-learn-kamasutra-2491768.html
http://www.mid-day.com/articles/transplant-this-soul-in-that-body/16565180
http://www.mid-day.com/articles/devdutt-pattanaik-agree-disagree-argue/16954167
--Nihoyari (talk) 14:37, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

@Nihoyari: Please see WP:HISTRS guidelines, then explain why are these reliable? Adi Shankara's life and works have been well studied by scholars and religion historians, who specialize in this area. This encyclopedic article must rely on the related scholarship. We should not base this article on gossip or op-ed columns of Indian or non-Indian tabloids and newspapers. Your allegation of "the most celebrated ddebate [sic] between Ubhaya Bharati and Adi Shankara in 8th Century A.D" is strange. Because the scholarly sources cited in this article state the confusion whether Misra and Suresvara were the same person; even the birth year of Adi Shankara is uncertain. Your claims are thus neither based on relevant scholarship, nor consistent with it. Further it is WP:Undue. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:49, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:11, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Adi Shankara. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120508091224/http://www.sanskrit.org/www/Shankara/shankar4.html to http://www.sanskrit.org/www/Shankara/shankar4.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:56, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 May 2017

It is written that vidyaranya was a minister. That is totally wrong. Vidyaranya was never a minister in vijayanagara empire 15.219.201.75 (talk) 10:57, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — IVORK _Discuss 11:34, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Please add Category:Hindu saints in this article39.50.180.42 (talk) 14:35, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Problem with the dates surrounding his lifespan.

Adi Shankara was an 8th century Hindu philosopher. On his personal template in the page somebody edited that he lived from 509 BC to 477 BC. This is just straight up false and couldn't be further from the 8th century. I need somebody to fix that since the article won't let me fix this as I don't have an account. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.70.97.14 (talk) 23:00, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Indeed. I reverted the vandalism a few weeks ago. Welcome to wikipedia, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 23:36, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

With much Indian history, accurate dating is a major difficulty, due to non-uniform ancient Indian dating systems. Shankara's lifespan date has not been determined with certainty, and to represent otherwise is inaccurate. One passer by (talk) 07:08, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

There's a difference between 'accurate dating is a diffuculty' on the one hand, and "accurate dating is a major difficulty" and suggesting that Sharma and Comans state that there is "some uncertainty remains regarding the accuracy of this [8th century] date" on the other hand. The article says:

modern scholarship accepts the VikramAditya as being from the Chalukya dynasty of Badami, most likely Vikramaditya II (733–746 CE), [...] The popularly accepted dating places Adi Shankara to be a scholar from the first half of the 8th century CE.

Please summarize the article correctly, also in the details, instead of suggesting an uncertainty which in not the main view on this topic.

References

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:26, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Nath-tradition

@Iṣṭa Devatā: diff. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:46, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Sorry I'm not logged in. As I think about it, it was probably a typo. Shankara founded the matha tradition, aka the four mutts (at least, he is credited with founding them, although it is dubious/unproven). Very different than the naths. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.191.143.194 (talk) 17:07, 22 April 2018 (UTC) Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 20:31, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Oh wow. Good catch @Joshua Jonathan:. I see what happened now as I look at the edit. Some fast and loose rearranging took an accurate statement that described his influence on the naths and made it an inaccurate claim that he founded the naths. I still wonder to what degree that can be credited to the cited sources with all the intermediate edits. Yikes things get messy with so many cooks in the kitchen. Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 20:35, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 May 2018

In regards to similarities between Mahayana Buddhism and Shankara's philosophy, it is erroneous to suggest at all that sunyata originates with Buddhism.

Nagajuna has brought this word into Buddhism, however he is said to have had it revealed by the Goddess Tara, while Shunya Bindhu is a Shakta concept relating to that which is beyond Adi Para Shakti. Buddha never actually uses the word at all, however it is valid to suggest this is the same as Nirguna Brahman, since Shakti is the the energy pervading all things, while Brahman is beyond all things (nirguna means without attributes, thus prior to appearances).

It is actually more likely that Mahayana Buddhism is the result of incorporating Hindu thought into Buddhism via Nalanda and perhaps Gandhara, rather than the other way around and this becomes more pronounced when we look at the Tibetan Buddhist traditions.

For me, the whole section on the similarities should be either removed or re-written to reflect a more valid interpretation of events.

Presently it is simply misinformed, bordering on ignorant. FrankPrajna (talk) 23:12, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Scholarship disagrees with you. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 03:57, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 May 2018

What Buddha has called "anatta", for the Vedantist is called "jivanmukti".

There is no actual difference, both speak of dharma. 98.165.4.159 (talk) 14:28, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

You're confusing several concepts here. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:45, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 June 2018

Until British came to India, Indian history was using Yudhistira yuga or Salivahana saka etc not Christian Era to record dates. Irrespective of the dates, one unquestionable fact is Adi Sankaracharya’s establishment of 4 peethas at 4 sides of India i.e., Sringeri in South, Dwaraka in West, Gowardhana Math in East and Jyothir Math in North. Kanchi math is another one setup by Sankaracharya. Their traditional lineage lists (guru-parampar a) give the names and usually the dates of each successive pontiff of that particular matha. The list of the Dwaraka Peetha in the West gives for the birth of Sankara the date 2631 of the Yudhisthira era, corresponding to 509 BC. The list of the Sarada matha (at Kanchi) in the South gives the date 2593 of the Kali Yuga era, also corresponding to 509 BC. It is significant that two different lineage lists from two widely separated mathas, having 77 and 68 successors respectively, both go back in an unbroken line to 509 BC. The Goverdhana Matha (East) maintains the list of 144 acharyas but not the dates. Only Goverdhana Matha has Grihasta’s becoming head of peetha whereas other mathas have a Brahmachari at a young age becomes head. Sringeri Math maintains an imperfect record of Acharyas with many years of gaps in between. Sringeri math somehow started accepting western scholars’ date of 788 AD as the birth date of Adi Sankara. It is interesting to note that there was one Abhinava Sankaracharya who was the 38th pontiff of Sarada Math, Kanchi who lived around 788 AD and this Acharya was extremely popular during his time.

There is also epigraphic evidence supporting the date of 509 BC for Sankara’s birth. This is a copper plate inscription addressed to Sankara by King Sudhanvan of Dwaraka, dated 2663 of the Yudhisthira era, corresponding to 477 BC, the year of Sankara’s death. Since Sankara died at the age of 32, this places his birth in 509 BC.

Why are western scholars motivated to place the date birth in AD not in BC? The traditional western religious scholars, most of whom are Christian missionaries from time immemorial have been trying to change the dates of any philosophy to AD i.e., post creation of Christianity. With this manipulated date information they want to create another theory that Sankara’s philosophy was influenced by Bible & Christian teachings. Had Sankara was born in 788 AD, it would have taken him not more than a week to denounce the entire Christian teachings which have taken root in his native culture (kerala). Please note that Adi Sankara was born in Kerala and the first Indian Christian roots are also in Kerala. Adi Sankara traveled length and breadth of India to debate and convert non-Vedic thoughts so he wouldn’t have let off Christian groups near his place of birth. Sushilschoolkumar (talk) 07:08, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

•  Not done You have not specified what changes you want to be made to the article. — kashmīrī ^TALK 08:18, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Caste of adi sankaran

He belongs to viswakarma caste.

"Acharya Sankaro nama "Twashta putro nasanyasa, "Viprakula gurordiksha, "Visvakarmantu Brahmana"

"My name is Shankaracharya, I am a descendant of Twashtar, I have come here to teach the Vipras the right of wearing the sacred thread, I am a Brahmana of the Vishvakarma Caste." (Shankaracharya Vijaya) Vb manchery (talk) 05:08, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Can you provide source or proof to substantiate your claim? Sreeking (talk) 11:20, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

He was a Namboothiri Brahmin from Kaipilly Mana. The direct descendants of this family exist today. This needs to be mentioned in the article175.34.178.120 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:59, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Direct descendands of most families of people featured in Wikipedia exist today. Nothing unusual. I bet direct descendants of Aristotle's family also exist today. — kashmīrī ^TALK 11:05, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Minor edit

As is now: Nevertheless does Grimes argue that "there is still a likelihood that

Following reads easier: Nevertheless Grimes argues, "there is still a likelihood that NoonSol (talk) 11:22, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Adi Sankaracharya's period in history

There is very direct evidence to date Adi Sankaracharya in the year 2000 BCE. Adi Sankaracharya spoke of the North Pole star as Thuban. If this was to happen as per the 26000 year precision cycle of the Earth's wobble around it's axis, then the year has to be 2000 BCE. Currently, the North Pole star is Dhruva. Thuban belongs to the Sisumara constellation ( Draco constellation ).

Adi Shankaracharya quoted Vedic text Taittirīya Āraṇyaka (2.19) 5000 BCE to explain that Viṣhṇu resides at the navel of the Sisumara figure regulating the 26000 year precession wheel of the nakṣhatras. He also mentions that the star named Dhruva as Thuban is stationed at the tail end of the Sisumara constellation ( Draco constellation ). Orion rises in the south, while Draco descends in the north. The cycle is about 13 thousand years long. Then Orion descends, and Draco rises. This cycle is everlasting, and this is written in the ancient Vedas and puranas.

The Earth wobbles on its axis. It takes about 26,000 years to make one full wobble, and in that time, the north pole points to different stars. At the time of Adi Sankaracharya, Thuban was the North Pole star. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lyanhnan (talk • contribs) 09:21, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

See WP:FORUM and WP:FRINGE. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:39, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Sanskrit incorrect

Looks like the devanagari version of the name is incorrect. It is given as “शङ्कराआचार्य” which in IAST would be “śaṅkarāācārya” but should be “शङ्कराचार्य” which in IAST is the correct “śaṅkarācārya”. There's no need for the extra आ in there, due to the sandhi rules.

Also, please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the technical correct spelling “शंकराचार्य” (śaṃkarācārya), where the anusvara takes on the pronunication of ṅ, but this is not the same as writing out the letter ṅ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.245.240.162 (talk) 20:17, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct on both counts, this looks really weird. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.76.140.13 (talk) 07:12, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Adi Shankara/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 15:30, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

This is a detailed and well-structured article and I expect to have only minor comments to make. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:30, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Minor comments

• Ātman is normally capitalised, it seems.

• The lead has "Shankara travelled": why don't we name him "Shankara" throughout, except for the first time when we give the name in full?

• "He is also known as Adi Shankaracharya, Shankara Bhagavatpada, ...": this isn't needed in the lead. It could be a footnote immediately after the name at the top of the lead.

Done.

• Do not need to say " Comans (aka Vasudevacharya)" repeatedly, nor should there be a redlink in the parentheses even once.

• "Adi Shankara has been varyingly called as influenced by Shaivism and Shaktism". Perhaps ".. has been described as .." would be better.

• "one of the most cited Shankara hagiography by Anandagiri" - needs rewording.

• "by scholars such as Max Müller, ... , and others." Either drop the "such as" or the "and others".

• I wikilinked Madhyamika.

• I wikilinked 'Smarta tradition' to the article of that name.

• I removed some terms already linked in the text from 'See also'.

Comments

"Adi Sankara is believed to have died aged 32" in 'Death' clashes with the much vaguer discussion in 'Birth-dates' which actually gives death-dates also. Suggest merging (and renaming) the sections.

One small question: an editor recently removed "although some texts suggest the birthplace to be Chidambaram in Tamil Nadu.{{sfn|Isaeva|1993|pp=69–82}}{{sfn|Pande|2011|pp=75–76}}" calling this an "improper citation", though there are 2 citations here and both appear to be well-formed. Should it go back in or be explained further?

Images

All licensed (one is due to be transferred to Commons) and appropriate for article.

On Buddhist link

Please do not say Adi Shankara has copied Buddhism, this is a very ignorant assertion.

First, starting with Nagarjuna saying Tara has given him his wisdom, it is clear the Shakta tradition has entered Buddhism... and of course this is where the concept of Sunyata comes in. Second, in Tibetan Buddhism, things like Yidam and Rigpa show the extent of the return to Hindu philosophy. Yidam relates to the concept Shankara championed called Ishta Deva, the preferred deity of the practitioner... rigpa is essentially atman, so we can see how far from Buddhas teachings this school has become...

Of course, as a practitioner of the Dharma, I consider such unification a beautiful thing. Rather than the Western notions of clear distinction between schools, the reality is the Dharma lines happily interact and learn from each other. I don't think, however, that Adi Shankara's page is the place to discuss this. I think the correct solution is just to remove this section entirely because you're giving voice to uneducated people. If you do not care about the pages contents enough to research such matters perhaps you should pass it off to someone else? You have to understand that many rely on wikipedia to draw conclusions, so it is really very damaging as it stands now... you simply discredit a genius without valid basis.

Rigveda 10.125.3 – 10.125.8 shows clearly the Hindu origin of Shaktism/Tantra... it has no basis in Buddhist thought...

It reads:

I am the Queen, the gatherer-up of treasures, most thoughtful, first of those who merit worship. Thus gods have established me in many places with many homes to enter and abide in. Through me alone all eat the food that feeds them, – each man who sees, breathes, hears the word outspoken. They know it not, yet I reside in the essence of the Universe. Hear, one and all, the truth as I declare it. I, verily, myself announce and utter the word that gods and men alike shall welcome. I make the man I love exceedingly mighty, make him nourished, a sage, and one who knows Brahman. I bend the bow for Rudra [Shiva], that his arrow may strike, and slay the hater of devotion. I rouse and order battle for the people, I created Earth and Heaven and reside as their Inner Controller. On the world's summit I bring forth sky the Father: my home is in the waters, in the ocean as Mother. Thence I pervade all existing creatures, as their Inner Supreme Self, and manifest them with my body. I created all worlds at my will, without any higher being, and permeate and dwell within them. The eternal and infinite consciousness is I, it is my greatness dwelling in everything.

This is upwards of a thousand years earlier than Buddha...— Preceding unsigned comment added by FrankPrajna (talk • contribs) 07:51, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

If you do not care about the pages contents enough to research such matters - see the WP:RS used in this article. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:46, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

You are quoting people that don't actually understand that Buddha Nature - the defining characteristic of Mahayana - is actually just Atman again.

The similarities come from this agreement, yet the Theravada - sticking to Buddha's teachings - reject this notion outright.

You have decided to bring this up on Shankara's page, but it essentially makes Shankara look like a fraud.

This is wrong.

Hello. It seems you are concerned that Shankara is being accused here of "copying Buddhism". I have read through the article and I cannot find what you are referring to, unless you mean the section comparing Shankara's thought to Mahayana Buddhism.

While I disagree that the discussion there amounts to an attack on Shankara's character, I will say it seems out of place and may be better suited to another article instead of a biographical page.

Furthermore, while no one would argue Tantric Buddhism originates with Vedic religions, I don't think it is quite right to say there is no basis for it in Buddhist thought. The developments of esotericism within Buddhism -as well as the differences of the religious terms you casually say are all just Atman - are well attested on relevant pages, of which this is not one.

Issekinicho (talk) 00:53, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 February 2021

I wanted to add images of Adi Shankaracharya from our temple in Atlanta, Georgia, USA. Kindly allow me to edit the page. Regu400 (talk) 21:39, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you.. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 01:02, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

POV issue

@Joshua Jonathan: I don't disagree with your revert. Maybe I had misunderstood the phrase "consequent devastation of India". But is this sentence "The historical fame and cultural influence of Shankara may have grown centuries later after his death, particularly during the era of Muslim invasions and consequent devastation of India." is in line with WP:NPOV? What does the phrase consequesnt devastation of India actually mean? Mosesheron (talk) 18:37, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

That the Muslim conquests were devastating for India, from the point of view pf, and for the position of, the Hindu population and rulers. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:41, 27 May 2021 (UTC) Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:41, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: The article does not say "Muslim conquests were devastating for India, from the point of view pf, and for the position of, the Hindu population and rulers". It states, in the language of Wikipedia, that "Muslim invasions" were "devastating" for India. You think this description is in line with WP:NPOV? Mosesheron (talk) 18:53, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

See Adi Shankara#Critical assessment, and reference #13 (Paul Hacker). The point here is that the Musloim consquests were devastating for the Hindu empires, and that Adi Shankara was elevated to a new position of high authority when a new narrative on Hindu-religion was created. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:09, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: I do not dispute the facts that "Muslim conquests" or "invasions" (say whatever you like) were devastating for the Hindu empires. After all, they are historical events. However, saying that "Muslim conquests" or "invasions" were devastating for India as a whole is not the same as saying they were disastrous for Hindu/Buddhist empires. India as it exists today must not be confused with the Hindu or Buddhist empires that ruled at the time of Muslim conquests and invasions. Many distinct empires ruled over the land. That is why the prhase "consequent devastation of India" I think is wrong at its core. What are your thoughts on this? Mosesheron (talk) 19:46, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: Ah I see. didn't notice this. I think that solves the issue. Thank you. Mosesheron (talk) 20:01, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 June 2021

Add the following details, (as the already established fact of forming four monasteries has been slightly distorted by favouring another monastery which was not formed intitially - that is Kanchi Mutt) :

Shankara was said to have established four mathas at strategic points in India as bulwarks for Hindu missionary activity and as centres for the 10 religious orders (Dasanami Sampradaya) of his group: the Govardhana Matha in Puri on the east coast for the Aranya and Vana orders; the Jyotih Matha, near Badrinath in the Himalayas, for the Giri, Parvata, and Sagara orders; the Sarada Matha in Dvaraka on the west coast for the Tirtha and Asrama orders; and the Srngeri Matha in South India for the Bharati, Puri, and Sarasvati orders. A fifth matha, the Saradapitha in Kancipuram near Madras, arose later. 103.147.209.231 (talk) 13:24, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:09, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Dates

Copied from [[User talk:Joshua Jonathan#Adi Shankara

I dont understand why you deleted the content? Adi Shankara, born in my native place and I know more than what you know. You people trying to prove thatAdi Shankara was born in CE 588? what a rubbish? Then what abouth the temples he built? What about the books which was written in BCE??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kjrajesh (talk • contribs) 6 November 2018 (UTC)

@Kjrajesh: well, I self-reverted. After all, that section also pays attention to non-scholarly opinions and local beliefs. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:08, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

End of copied part

Well, I re-self-reverted; the whole addition is unsourced, but obviously comes from this, or a similar page. WP:NOTHERE. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:17, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Adi shankara was born in 508 bce (before Christ). You can confirm it from shardamath which was established by adi shankara in West india. Yathg (talk) 16:00, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

This a propaganda of English people, so that they can prove their fake Aryan Invasion theory. Even we have Ram Setu and Dwarka Desh under sea is already physically discovered. Xhimanshuz (talk) 06:11, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Influence

@Avdmoh: regarding this repeated move of sourced info from the lead into the main body of the article,

• diff, edit-summary This information is to excessive and unrelated for the introduction of article. Should be placed in it's own seperate section. Introduction should be brief and concise.
• diff, edit-summary As I said earlier, this information is too subjective and opinionated. This information has no direct relevance to the introduction of article, which should be brief and concise. Introduction of article should contain objective facts, not opinions., removing

The historical fame and cultural influence of Shankara may have grown centuries later after his death, particularly during the era of Muslim invasions and consequent devastation of Hindu empires, establishing Shankara as a rallying symbol of Hindu values.

References

there is a section Adi Shankara#Critical assessment (you put that oiece of info right above it diff; looks like you didn't pay attention tot the structure of the article when moving it). The WP:LEAD summarizes the article; per WP:NPOV the fact (not "opinion") that his fame is alter development is most relevant, given the unbalanced prominence given to him by certain sections of Hindu-thinkers, not all Hindu-thinkers. See also WP:CENSOR. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:28, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

The information is certainly relevant, but it should be placed in it's own section rather than in the introduction of article. Avdmoh (talk) 13:42, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

It has it's own section; and it's summarized in the lead. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:19, 19 July 2021 (UTC)