Talk:Adi Shankara: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 23:27, 4 April 2005

Latest revision as of 15:09, 7 May 2025

Line 1:

{{Talk header|search=yes}}

== Dates of Sankara's life ==

{{Article history|action1=PR

|action1date=15:07, 17 July 2006

|action1link=Wikipedia:Peer review/Adi Shankara/archive1

|action1result=reviewed

|action1oldid=64292242

|action2=FAC

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. [[User:Mporter|Mporter]] 05:31, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

|action2date=05:27, 28 August 2006

|action2link=Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Adi Shankara

|action2result=promoted

|action2oldid=72189550

|action3=FAR

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

|action3date=14:07, 25 October 2010

*[[Brian Carr]] 'Sankara', in ''A Companion to the Philosophers'' ed. Arrington (2001:Oxford, Blackwell) ISBN 0-631-22967-1

|action3link=Wikipedia:Featured article review/Adi Shankara/archive1

*[[Peter J. King]] ''One Hundred Philosophers'' (2004: Hove, Apple) ISBN 1-84092-462-4

|action3result=removed

*[[Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan]] 'Samkara', in ''History of Philosophy Eastern and Western'' vol.I (1952:London, Allen & Unwin)

|action3oldid=392578501

|action4=GAN

I know of no reputable source for B.C.E. dates. [[User:Mel Etitis|Mel Etitis (<font color="green">&Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf;</font>)]] 10:31, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

|action4date=12:09, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

|action4link=/GA1

|action4result=promoted

|action4oldid=933002840

|topic=Philosophy and religion

|maindate=October 7, 2006

--

|currentstatus=GA

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

}}

{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=GA|vital=yes|listas=Adi Shankara|blp=no|1=

{{WikiProject India|importance=mid|history=yes|portal=yes|kerala=yes |kerala-importance=top|history-importance=high|assess-date=May 2012}}

{{WikiProject Biography}}

{{WikiProject Hinduism|phil=yes|importance=Top}}

{{WikiProject Religion|importance=Top|NRM=yes|NRMImp=Top}}

{{WikiProject Philosophy|importance=High|eastern=yes|religion=yes|philosopher=yes|metaphysics=yes}}

{{WikiProject Yoga|importance=high}}

{{WikiProject Theology|importance=Top}}

}}

{{Banner holder|collapsed=yes|

{{Indian English}}

{{Section sizes}}

{{Annual readership}}

}}

{{User:MiszaBot/config

|archive = Talk:Adi Shankara/Archive %(counter)d

|algo = old(90d)

|counter = 3

|maxarchivesize = 200K

|minthreadsleft = 5

|minthreadstoarchive = 1

|archiveheader = {{aan}}

}}

== Adi Shankaracharya cast ==

::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 &mdash; 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 &mdash; especially the material about Shankara's interactions with Buddhism and Jainism. [[User:Mel Etitis|Mel Etitis]] ([[User talk:Mel Etitis|<font color="green">&Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf;</font>)]] 09:31, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Jagad Guru Adi Shankaracharya is a Mushari Brahmin of Vishwa Brahmin sect. It is mentioned in a book written in 1904 about the series of Vishwakarma that during the times when Jagad Guru Adi Shankaracharya lived, the titles of Brahmashree and Jagad Guru were entitled to the Vishwa Brahmin category which means that only technical wise Brahmins were chosen for such things. .Wikipedia checked the historical documents written since 2001 and made him a Namboothiri Brahmin. All such histories were written in India where he was intended to be a Namboothiri Brahmin and all of them belonged to the Brahmin community in India. But Alfred Edward Robert wrote this history in a country outside India in 1904. . I believe Wikipedia will correct this error. Adi Shankaracharya is a person who lived before Christ. None of the Namboothiri Brahmins of Kerala ever accept him as a Namboothiri Brahmin. [[User:Vipin Babu lumia|Vipin Babu lumia]] ([[User talk:Vipin Babu lumia|talk]]) 15:31, 9 November 2024 (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.

== Jagatguru aadi Shankaracharya surname ==

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.

Jagad Guru Adi Shankaracharya's full name is Jagadguru Adi Shankaracharya During the times when Jagadguru Adi Shankaracharya lived, only Vishwa Brahmins were entitled to use the title of Jagad Guru or Brahmashree in Maharajya India. But modern historians have corrected it and made him a Nambutiri Brahmin, that's why Wikipedia doesn't add Jagadguru in front of his name? In India, the Vishwa Brahmin community addresses him as Jagad Guru Athyana Shankaracharya. [[User:Vipin Babu lumia|Vipin Babu lumia]] ([[User talk:Vipin Babu lumia|talk]]) 14:46, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. (March 10 2005)

:See [[WP:HONORIFICS]], and [[WP:RS]], and please stop spamming this talkpage with trivia. [[User:Joshua Jonathan|<span style="font-family:Forte;color:black">Joshua Jonathan</span>]] - [[User talk:Joshua Jonathan|<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;color:black">Let's talk!</span>]] 16:05, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

::I read your reply. The history written in the royal period which you say is obsolete is the true history. But all the histories written in the modern period are made by distorting the history written in the royal period. Does Wikipedia say that all the writings in the royal periods are wrong? [[Special:Contributions/2409:4073:114:CAD4:EE0B:E647:C8D0:DCA2|2409:4073:114:CAD4:EE0B:E647:C8D0:DCA2]] ([[User talk:2409:4073:114:CAD4:EE0B:E647:C8D0:DCA2|talk]]) 09:08, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

:::The articles written about the Ashari community in the Wikipedia pages are all written in the Emperor period, why they were accepted by Wikipedia and rejected by me as writings from the Emperor period. [[Special:Contributions/2409:4073:114:CAD4:EE0B:E647:C8D0:DCA2|2409:4073:114:CAD4:EE0B:E647:C8D0:DCA2]] ([[User talk:2409:4073:114:CAD4:EE0B:E647:C8D0:DCA2|talk]]) 09:12, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

== Semi-protected edit request on 3 March 2025 ==

::#''Please'' register and then sign your messages. Aside from anything else, you're likely to be taken more seriously by many users.

::#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.)

::#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.

::#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. [[User:Mel Etitis|Mel Etitis]] ([[User talk:Mel Etitis|<font color="green">&Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf;</font>)]] 09:51, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

{{edit semi-protected|Adi Shankara|answered=yes}}

:::Incidentally, and especially with regard to the claim that there's another person &ndash; 'Abhinava Shankara' &ndash; with whom this Shankara is being confused, see the [http://www.sanskrit.org/Shankara/shankar2.html Devasthanam] discussion. The evidence is fully laid out there. [[User:Mel Etitis|Mel Etitis]] ([[User talk:Mel Etitis|<font color="green">&Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf;</font>)]] 10:53, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Under the section "Early life" the birth place is cited as Kaladi, which is not correct. Shankara was born at Veliyanad, in Ernakulam district. He has born in his mother's ancestral home called "Melpazhur Mana". It is also said that he had his vidyarambha(initiation to formal education) and upanayana(thread ceremenony)

Change required in birth place from '''Kaladi''' to '''Veliyanad'''. [[User:Ponoth|Ponoth]] ([[User talk:Ponoth|talk]]) 09:47, 3 March 2025 (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.

{{Not done}}: please provide [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources|reliable sources]] that support the change you want to be made.<!-- Template:ESp --> [[User:PianoDan|PianoDan]] ([[User talk:PianoDan|talk]]) 22:59, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

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

== Semi-protected edit request on 13 March 2025 ==

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

{{edit semi-protected|Adi Shankara|answered=yes}}

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.

आचार्यः शंकरो नाम त्वष्टा पुत्रो न संशयः ।

विप्र कुले गुरु दीक्षा विश्वकर्मन्तु ब्राह्मण ॥

(शंकरा विजया)

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)

अर्थात - " मेरा नाम शंकर आचार्य है और मै एक त्वस्टा (विश्वकर्मा) का पुत्र हू, मै विप्र अर्थात ब्राह्मण कुल को पुरोहित के रुप मे सभी संस्कारो के साथ गुरु की दिक्षा देता हूँ और मै विश्वकर्मा कुल में जन्मा एक ब्राह्मण हूँ। " जिन्हें अब के भारत में विश्वकर्मा वैदिक ब्राह्मण / विश्व-ब्राह्मण / विश्वकर्मा वैदिक शिल्पी ब्राह्मण / अथर्ववेदीय विश्वकर्मा ब्राह्मण कहा जाता है। प्रमाण क्या कहते है इसके लिये रॉयल एशियाटिक सोसाइटी (श्रीलंका) के सिलोन शाखा के सदस्य, सिलोन द्वीप के सुप्रीम कोर्ट के प्रोक्टर अल्फ्रेड एडवर्ड रॉबर्ट्स (Alfred Edward Roberts) की लिखी पुस्तक '

Thanks - SankaraBhaktan 12 Mar 2005

Vishwakarma and his descendant ' जो 1909 में छपी थी जिसके पृष्ठ 28 ( नया संस्करण) में आदि शंकराचार्य के विश्वकर्मा वैदिक ब्राह्मण त्वष्टा कुल के होने की पुष्टि की है।

Source Link: https://archive.org/details/vishvakarma-and-his-descendents/page/n1/mode/1up [[Special:Contributions/106.222.159.124|106.222.159.124]] ([[User talk:106.222.159.124|talk]]) 17:08, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

==Other issues==

{{not done}}:<!-- Template:ESp --> As this is the English language Wikipedia, edit requests need to be made in English. [[User:PianoDan|PianoDan]] ([[User talk:PianoDan|talk]]) 17:21, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

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

== Semi-protected edit request on 7 May 2025 ==

>> 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.>>

{{edit semi-protected|Adi Shankara|answered=yes}}

[[User:Kh7|kh7]] 08:14 Mar 28, 2003 (UTC)

Under dasanami sampradaya, we found a great error -"Sankaracharya was a Vaishnavite." , This is not true. Vaishnavites are those who follow the Pancharatra Agama text and write commentary based on this. But this is clearly not seen in Sanaracharya's work. In his commentary, he even said Pancharatra as "Ved virudha" (against the Vedas)but accepted Narayan as supreme being (as he is both material and efficient cause according sankara vishnu sahasranama commentary, Bhagvad geeta commentary, some pancharatic text and Mahabharata ) He also didn't accept Pasupata Agama (he gave the reason that in this agama, Brahman is not both a material and efficient cause, but didn't even raise the question against the supremacy of deity in this agama, which is normal for Vaishanava ). He even mentions worship of jabalas in his text and says how it is superior to the worship of the image of Vishnu. Well, here he tries to show how worship of nirguna brahman is very much higher than any saguna worship. We find it very interesting that he even mentions the Upanishad, which mentions avimukta residing in Varanasi as the supreme being, but according to his commentary, this avimukta is vaishvanara. Sankara many times uses Ishvara or Parameshvara for lord shiva. We can see such a thing in his Kena Vakya Bhasya and Kena Pada Bhasya, which have Sri Anadagiri Tika too. Here, Sankara equates Yaksha with Shiva and Vidya Maya with Uma Haimavati. His devotion to Uma Haimavati is seen in even the Upanishad Bhasya. He equates nirguna brahman with Shiva in Mandukya Karika 1.29. Even his commentary on text like vishnu sahasranama shows equal devotion to shiva and vishnu (He even proves how every name of vishnu is of shiva too by quoting Mahabharata, which is not accepted by vaishnava ), While explaining the term Rudra in vishnu sahasranama he quotes linga purana (the shloka equates Rudra with shiva and calls shiva as supreme cause ), Now, some advaitins have shown conclusion that in some pancharatra text Brahman is both material and efficient cause, so partially sankaracharya accepted that. In the same way, the Mahabharata also supports the singularity of the self and refutes the plurality of the soul, which is favourable smriti for Sankara. Sankara students like Sri Sureshvaracharya wrote a commentary called Manasollasa for Sankara's Dakshinamurti stotram, another student, Padmapadacharya commentary on Panchakshari of Sankara, and most importantly, Prapanchasara tantra proves the authenticity of hymns written for all 5 deities or panchadeva. I wrote all this because many Western scholars' conclusions are against the traditional Sankarite. So these are very basic refutations for them. [[User:Rajhoou|Rajhoou]] ([[User talk:Rajhoou|talk]]) 11:07, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:What thd text says is "Shankara was a Vaishnavite who came to be presented as an incarnation of [[Shiva]] in the 14th century." The sources given are:

--

:* {{Citation | last =Clark | first =Matthew | year =2006 | title =The Daśanāmī-saṃnyāsīs. The Integration Of Ascetic Lineages Into An Order | publisher =BRILL | url =https://archive.org/details/dasanamisamnyasi0000clar}}, p.218, 220, 224

:* {{Cite web|url=http://www.sanskrit.org/www/Shankara/shankar4.html|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120508091224/http://www.sanskrit.org/www/Shankara/shankar4.html|url-status=dead|title=Sankara Acarya Biography – Monastic Tradition|archive-date=8 May 2012}}

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

:That seems to solidly sourced. [[User:Joshua Jonathan|<span style="font-family:Forte;color:black">Joshua Jonathan</span>]] - [[User talk:Joshua Jonathan|<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;color:black">Let's talk!</span>]] 12:17, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

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

'&#2310;&#2342;&#2367; &#2358;&#2306;&#2325;&#2352;&#2366;&#2330;&#2366;&#2352;&#2381;&#2351;' 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.

--[[User:Hpnadig|Hpnadig]] 03:14, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

== Jayendra Saraswati ==

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

--[[User:Satyadev|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? [[User:Mel Etitis|Mel Etitis]] ([[User talk:Mel Etitis|<font color="green">&Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf;</font>)]] 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.

? ([[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade]] | [[user_talk:Sam Spade|talk]] | [[Special:contributions/Sam Spade|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. [[User:Mel Etitis|Mel Etitis]] ([[User talk:Mel Etitis|<font color="green">&Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf;</font>)]] 11:28, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

:OK, why was the above deleted? ([[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade]] | [[user_talk:Sam Spade|talk]] | [[Special:contributions/Sam Spade|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).[[User:Mel Etitis|Mel Etitis]] ([[User talk:Mel Etitis|<font color="green">&Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf;</font>)]] 12:41, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well if anon is reading, providing a cite would be a good idea. ([[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade]] | [[user_talk:Sam Spade|talk]] | [[Special:contributions/Sam Spade|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).