Talk:Adi Shankara: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 05:42, 2 July 2015 editJoshua Jonathan (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers107,019 edits →Shankara and Buddhism: add cmt← Previous edit		Revision as of 05:43, 2 July 2015 edit undoSoham321 (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users6,262 edits Reverted to revision 669587931 by Soham321 (talk): Sorry, Joshua, you cannot change the header of the talk page now. Makes it too confusing to follow what is going on. (TW)Next edit →
Line 265:		Line 265:

	: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: , , . I don't have the ISBN numbers right now, but i am sure this can be looked up.		: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: , , . 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: {{Quote\|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.
	: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. ] (]) 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: . 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....? ] (]) 04:57, 2 July 2015 (UTC)		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. ] (]) 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: . 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....? ] (]) 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):{{Quote\|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''." }} ] (]) 05:16, 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''."''

	:] (]) 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 ]. 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. ] (]) 05:26, 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 ]. 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 05:31, 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. ] (]) 05:31, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

	{{od}}
			== 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.<br>		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.<br>
	"Practice" may actually be more interesting than "philosophy;" see Joël André-Michel Dubois, ''''. 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, ] -] 04:29, 2 July 2015 (UTC)		"Practice" may actually be more interesting than "philosophy;" see Joël André-Michel Dubois, ''''. 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, ] -] 04:29, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
	:As far as i am concerned, you have made the article worse by your editing. ] (]) 04:44, 2 July 2015 (UTC)		:As far as i am concerned, you have made the article worse by your editing. ] (]) 04:44, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
	::~~] is not a convincing argument; please explain your objections. ] -] 05:05, 2 July 2015 (UTC)~~		::] is not a convincing argument; please explain your objections. ] -] 05:05, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
	:::See my detailed reply to Abecedare just above this section; the discussion is ongoing. ] (]) 05:07, 2 July 2015 (UTC)		:::See my detailed reply to Abecedare just above this section; the discussion is ongoing. ] (]) 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 ]. The term is also anachronistic. Please ''do'' discuss, instead of simply reverting. ] -] 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, ] -] 05:42, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Revision as of 05:43, 2 July 2015

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Adi Shankara article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3

Template:Vital article

This article is written in Indian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, analysed, defence) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Adi Shankara is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.

This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 7, 2006.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
July 17, 2006	Peer review	Reviewed
August 28, 2006	Featured article candidate	Promoted
October 25, 2010	Featured article review	Demoted

Current status: Former featured article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

India: Kerala / History Mid‑importance

	India portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Kerala (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by the Indian history workgroup (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is a selected article on the India portal, which means that it was selected as a high quality India-related article.
	This article was last assessed in May 2012.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Biography

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Hinduism: Philosophy Top‑importance

	Hinduism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hinduism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HinduismWikipedia:WikiProject HinduismTemplate:WikiProject HinduismHinduism
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Philosophy task force (assessed as Top-importance).

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Religion: New religious movements Top‑importance

	Religion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by New religious movements work group (assessed as Top-importance).

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Philosophy: Philosophers / Religion / Eastern / Medieval High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Misplaced Pages.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Philosophers
	Philosophy of religion
	Eastern philosophy
	Medieval philosophy

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Yoga High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Yoga, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Yoga, Hatha yoga, Yoga as exercise and related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.YogaWikipedia:WikiProject YogaTemplate:WikiProject YogaYoga
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Theology Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Theology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Theology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TheologyWikipedia:WikiProject TheologyTemplate:WikiProject TheologyTheology
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:V0.5

Edit request on 15 May 2013

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

please change http://en.wikipedia.org/Adi_Shankaracharya#Mathas to http://en.wikipedia.org/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/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! _Talk 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 started this discussion. Please check Google books, Google search results to understand the same. Please check the following links , 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 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 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 Misplaced Pages. - 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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 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 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 Misplaced Pages. - 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

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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}} 01:28, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 March 2014

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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 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)

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

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please change

Adi Shankara (pronounced ; early 8th century CE) – 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.

Adi Shankara (pronounced ; early 8th century CE) – 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.

or, better still, to

Adi Shankara (pronounced ; early 8th century CE) – 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.

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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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

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

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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 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)

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)

] 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)

Categories: