Talk:Adi Shankara/Archive 2

message: When a User reverts all my edits with no explanation but a childishly untrue claim in the edit summary that my own edit summary was inaccurate, I don't feel the need to explain my consequent revert, and I shan't in future.  If anyone wants to explain what they think is wrong with my attempts to improve the article, then I'll be happy to discuss the issue. --Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 21:18, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean that you reverted my edits because you object to my having this page on my Watchlist and trying to improve it and protect it from poor edits?  Well at least you're honest about your bad-faith editing, but that doesn't really make it any better. --Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 22:17, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad faith edits 

message: :I wonder if the two of you couldn't try to go through the items in dispute one by one and find agreement on at least some of them? For example, the first item is "Hindu scriptures" v. "Hindu scriptures". Now, I don't have a strong opinion about this, but it seems to me that since Hinduism is hyperlinked a few lines above, and that links in turn to Hindu, that might suffice. But then, that is just my opinion. 
:The next item is Namboothiri v. Namboodiri. The latter redirects to the former. So, I don't understand why this is in dispute. It should be Namboothiri. The discussion of the spelling of this name should be moved to the Namboothiri talk page so that the editors of that article can participate. 
:The third item is is v. are. Since the subject of the sentence, "traditional source", is singular, "is" is the correct word.
:Now, I notice that I've sided with Mel on the first two items, and Sam on the third, but I would caution both of you against drawing any conclusions from this. That is just how it happened to come out. The important thing is that if you can come to an agreement on any or all of these items, maybe some of the other items can be resolved as well. Even if you can't resolve all the items, finding agreement on some would be a big help if you do have seek arbitration to resolve the balance. Thank you both for trying to improve Wikipedea and best wishes. -Walter Siegmund (talk) 23:06, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sam, I appreciate very much your agreement with my opinion on the Namboothiri matter. I will proceed to make the change. I'd like to ask that Mel not revert the article to his version as long as progress in resolving the disputed items is occurring. I know that will be disagreeable to him because it is mostly Sam's version at this point, but I would be grateful for Mel's help in this regard. Now, the matter of whether Hinduism links to Hindu can be resolved, I think. The link that I found is just above the table of Contents of Hinduism: "See Hindu for more about a Hindu and different communities of Hindus." Now, I think that is bad style because it is easy to overlook. I had to search for it. I think it would be better if a place for Hindu could be found in the first two or three sentences. The wording of the sentence containing the link is bad too, because it is reminiscent of the See also section at the ends of article and breaks up the flow of the writing. But, perhaps we can agree to work with the other editors of Hinduism to improve the wording and to give Hindu more prominence. Thank you. Walter Siegmund (talk) 02:27, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

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

message: The article has been protected per the request at WP:RFP. And please don't accuse me of taking sides, Mel did not contact me and I'd have protected the wrong version either way. Once you've resolved your differences of opinion, it can be unprotected. FeloniousMonk 01:09, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL! What a joke, as soon as reasonable people start agreeing on what edits to make, a good friend of Mel (who has refused to participate in discussion) locks the page... shortly after Mel reverts! What a coincidence! Sam Spade 20:01, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Article protected

message: I had explained to SS why I'd made the edits that I had, and he refused to discuss the issue, merely making general comments about me and the edits (mainly in edit summaries).  I eventually (two days ago) asked for the page to be protected.  I'm currently struggling with a particularly heavy teaching load, so I'm a couple of days behind checking on my Watchlist (I'm now at 02:06 on 8 x 05, if anyone's interested), and I missed the current discussion.  I'm pleased that the intervention of a third party, Walter Siegmund, has finally brought SS to the discussion, but I'd asked for page protection before most of that discussion had taken place.
I agree with almost everything that Walter Siegmund said, and even where I don't I appreciate his calm and serious approach. I hope that he'll return to the Talk page. --Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 22:40, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  My position 

message: Sam Spade and Mel Etitis, thank you both for your kind words about my efforts. I've been thinking about how best to proceed given that Mel Etitis has little time to devote to this discussion at present and that it is in all of our interests to unblock the article promptly so that we and others can resume our efforts to improve it. Since you both have expressed confidence in my efforts and little inclination to examine my comments one by one, I wonder if a solution along the follow lines might be acceptable? 
*I will undertake to edit the disputed items consistent with my suggestions above. These have been accepted by Sam Spade and mostly agreed to by Mel Etitis. 
*I will edit the items not yet discussed in a manner that seems best to me. I will give prompt consideration and response to queries posted here regarding all edits.
*Both parties will agree to not make any further change(s) to the disputed items without proposing the change(s) here for comment one week prior to making the change(s). Each agrees to make the change(s) only if a clear consensus, or no dissent, occurs. 
*In the future, both parties agree to avoid criticizing one another or their actions in general terms. A well-reasoned comment on a specific edit is appropriate, however, and will be accepted as such by the recipient.
*Both parties agree not to revert the other in the future on this or any other article. But, if you edit anonymously, please don't complain if you are reverted by the other.
*Neither party is restrained by this agreement from reverting edits by third parties to this or other articles, as he sees fit, and in accordance with the policies of Wikipedia.
*Both parties agree that this is the full and final settlement of this dispute and agree not to rehash it henceforth. 
*Once both parties have accepted these terms (or as modified by subsequent discussion), Mel Etitis will request the block on the article be removed so that the other items can be accomplished.
*For the record, this is the difference page for the disputed items.
Thank you for your consideration of my proposal. -Walter Siegmund (talk) 19:47, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree to that, unless the agreement not to revert applies to pages other than this one, and w the stipulation that Mel (and I) not revert non-vandalism edits to this page w/o prior consensus. Sam Spade 21:34, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

text: There's nothing in Walter Siegmund's proposal to which I could reasonably object, and I agree to all parts, and thank him for the time and thought that he's put in to this.  I'd rather not tie my hands with regard to edits by anyone else, though.  (For example, the insistence of certain religious groups to impose their non-standard views concerning Shankara's dates don't count as vandalism, but needs to be dealt with.) --Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 22:26, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

text: In that case I cannot agree, this entire problem is the result of a revert Mel made of an anon edit. I don't have major edits to be making to this article, but others do. Mel cannot be allowed to stand in their way. Sam Spade 00:37, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for giving serious consideration to my proposal.  I have found that fighting other people's battles is rarely rewarded or appreciated. But that is your decision. Perhaps you can understand my disinclination to put effort into resolving a dispute that seems certain to erupt again. Best wishes. Walter Siegmund (talk) 02:55, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Sam Spade, you deserve a more complete response than I've given. I am sorry. I don't think your proposal that you and Mel Etitis not revert non-vandalism edits to the article without prior consensus is workable. What is and is not vandalism is a matter of judgement. I think before long you would disagree and fall back into conflict. The POV date dispute, is not Vandalism, in my opinion. If that is correct, under your proposal, a consensus would have to be obtained before each such edit could be reverted. Surely, the ensuing delay would only encourage the POV advocates. I suppose that an exception could be made for that category, but that makes deciding when to seek consensus before reverting more complex and thereby open to criticism. -Walter Siegmund (talk) 04:44, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to resolve this dispute 

message: This article was protected weeks and weeks and weeks ago, and there are no ongoing discussions.  I've unprotected. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 08:52, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that if either party wishes to avoid resuming their reversion war, that it would be constructive to make the edits suggested by a third party (me) and agreed to by both parties  above. Admittedly, not all issues were addressed by that discussion, but perhaps the parties could resolve the few remaining differences amicably by following the guidelines and policies of Wikipedia, e.g., assume good faith, no personal attacks, etc., that are familiar to both disputants. Regarding the unresolved issue of the use of section headings, I think that the guideline is fairly clear. Mel Etitis' version hews somewhat closer to the guideline than that of Sam Spade, in my opinion. Please see Wikipedia:Guide_to_layout#Structure_of_the_article. Walter Siegmund (talk) 19:49, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

message: Wsiegmund: Please note that when there are differing views on the dates, then it must be stated that scholars have not agreed on the dates and not as you have reverted. What is modern scholarship? can you please define this? What is the sourse for saying that modern scholarship is agreed on the date of Adi Shankara as 7 or 8th Century A.D?
Appaiah 10:01, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Appaiah, thank you for your query. Please see Talk:Adi Shankara/Archive 1 for the discussion of the dates with sources. The article, as written, discusses the date controversy and those holding different views in the section, Shankara's dates. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 14:59, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modern scholars 

message: Animesh78 keeps linking to a poetry page which, though not very informative offers a number of links to poetry, only one of which is to poetry by Shankara.  When I change the link to point to the relevant page, he insists on reverting, apaprently under the impression that they're all by Shankara (despite the clear statement that they're by writers such as Tulsidas and Vasishtha.  I've changed the link again to point to the one poem by Shankara, "Five Cantos on Maya". --Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 20:49, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poetry link 

message: And why don't you navigate to POEMS link just below the mainpage of stutimandal dot com to see the poems by Adi Shankara? It seems Mel Etitis finds it hard to navigate, contrary to what I (and many visitors have thought so far).
I mean -- we have more than one poem to offer -- should we link all of them one by one?
Animesh78 01:18, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Of Poetry Links 

message: Theres a page on Nirvana Shatkam which I beleive was written by Adi Shankara. It would be great if someone here could check the page and see if its right and I've linked it to the right person. Cheers --Salix alba (talk) 21:23, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, I don't want to jump ahead and talk, but ... Yes Nirvana Shatkam has been written by Adi Shankara. But that poem is covered by one of the existing links at Adi Shankara's page (see stutimandal's poem list). The site in question has font in Telugu, and has too many advertizements as well; also it works *only* with Microsoft Internet Explorer. If you insist on a link, you can use stutimandal's link or sanskrit.gde.to's link. Both are ad-free pages and so-far dont have commercial intentions. Animesh78 01:00, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nirvana Shatkam - Sextet of Salvation 

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

message: Hi,
Regarding this sentence:
"Adi Shankara is believed to be the founder of the Dashanami monastic order and the Shanmata tradition of worship".
I am changing it to"
"Adi Shankara is believed to be the organizer of the Dashanami monastic order and the founder of the Shanmata tradition of worship".
Please see the page Dashanami_Sampradaya. The dasanami / ekadandi tradition and their monastries have existed before the birth of Sri Adi Shankara. 
Adi Shankara founded a form of worship by merging various hindu beleifs / factions into the Shanmata tradition and founded four mutts to help organize the methodology of worship as well as provide an organized support base for hinduism. He did not found the dasanami / ekadandi tradition. The dasanamis / ekadandis have existed even in the Pallava and Pandya periods.
Thanks. --Illusion 06:26, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well alright, but that article is copy-pasted from some other site so it should really be deleted. Mitsube (talk) 06:29, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

text: Can you please clarify which article is copy-pasted from an other site? I have provided info from various books to show the existence of the Dasanamis / ekadandis before the birth of Sri Adi Shankara. And any reason why the article should be deleted? --Illusion 07:59, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Message to Mitsube

message: hi, this article is severely poor. im not sure if anyone has realised but the main text to which the information about sankara is credited Sankara-Dig-Vijaya is actually a mythological text written around 1600 AD called a hagiography that bears little or no relevance to the historicity of the life of sankara. as an example, it is seriously academically doubted that sankara founded the mathas - though this is accepted as hindu tradition it should be noted so and not as historical fact as this is far from the truth. indeed, even the dating here is innacurate. i'm a 2nd year indian civilisation student at the university of edinburgh, and am in the middle an essay on sankara so dont have time to edit the article myself, but i can point anyone interested in the direction of a number of academic works. 
a hagiography is a mythological/folk tale written around 1000 years after sankaras death to eulogise him in the face of contention from other religions. it is contextually reactive and other than indicating to one the reverence of sankara it has no historical value !
luke.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.112.72.23 (talk) 15:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Poorly Sourced & Consequentially Wildly Inaccurate

message: I noticed that the pronunciation of some Malayalam words are given in IAST system. I was wondering if IAST could transliterate Malayalam correctly too? Are all the sounds in Malayalam portray-able in IAST? -- thunderboltza.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK13:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: from: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Indic)--Babub→Talk 15:05, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, so I guess that means Malayalam can indeed be expressed in IAST. I had asked because there are a few sounds in Dravidian languages that do not exist in North Indian languages. -- thunderboltza.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK15:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

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

text:  आदि शंकर is incorrect ; ( ङ ) should be used instead of (.) . Bharatveer 06:29, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Bharatveer, Could you give the complete word with proper spelling, in devanagari? Thanks, --Babub→Talk 14:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

text: * Instead of coding  , ir can be written ആദി ശങ്കര directlyactivevoid 07:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Bharatveer for correcting the devanagiri spelling! Babub→Talk 13:19, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sanskrit and Malayalam 

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

message: My computer has indic enabled, yet I see the hindi/ devnagari spelling wrong in the article page. Can anyone explain why? Its comes ok here. Is unicode causing it to come out wrongly there? -- Lost(talk) 06:26, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Both come out okay for me, what do you see on the article? GizzaChat © 06:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see it just the way Indic template cautions against. Funnily, other articles with indic are ok. I see even the slokas just above works section wrongly. Can you suggest a remedy? Maybe I need to redo the indic procedure -- Lost(talk) 06:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mine kind of screws up weirdly too. I am unable to see the character "ṅ" in the article window, but I can see it fine in the edit pane. I can't say I have any experience with Indic scripts though.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  05:53, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  आदि शंकर 

message: This article is posted as a featured article.  What is not said is that the article as featured is edited.  I don't know how the editing is done, but leaving out the birth/death years makes the article very weak. Kdammers 06:13, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: what about the entire "dates" section? The man lived some time in the 8th or 9th century, that's about all that is known with any certainty. dab (ᛏ) 15:18, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  featured article editing 

message: Dear Hinduism Project members and others interested in Hindusim
There is a controversy on the Hinduism regarding Raja Yoga.  Please read the debate on the Hinduism  discussion page.  Your comments are requested on the Hinduism discussion page to help resolve the controversy.  Thank you. HeBhagawan 14:46, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Dear Hinduism Project members

message: If the modern scholarship is agreed on the 788 – 820 CE date, then shouldn't that be the date specified in the introduction? -Cibu 04:30, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dates 

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

message: The following is an extract from the Dig-Vijaya sub-section of this article: "He then defeated the Jainas at a place called Bahlika". The word "defeated" does not clearly indicate the nature of defeat of the Jainas. Were they defeated militarily or in a debate?  TathD 14:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, these wins talk about debates. Clarified in the article now. Thanks. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Defeating The Jainas

message: The article cites three books: by Swami Tapasyananda, by Keay and by Greaves. Most of the references are to the book by Tapasyananda and there is only one to Greave's book and none to Keay's. COuld somebody please explain why it is like that or add some more inline citations? Kkrystian 10:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources cited

message: Does anyone have the idea of Adi Shankara's Gotra?BalanceRestored 06:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Adi Shankara's Gotra

message: "Adi Shankaracharya was not only a saint of profound spiritual insight, but also helped develop scientific concepts. It is believed that Adi Shankara was the first mathematician to use the concept of Number Line (Ref: "Sankara Bhaashyam" (4-4-25) of the "Brihadaaranyaka Upanishad"), the idea of assigning a set of natural numbers to a straight line. As the number of elements in a set of natural numbers is infinite, it requires a symbol of infinity to represent them. A straight line can be considered to be infinitely long. Adi Shankara adopted a straight line as a symbol of infinity. A straight line can be divided to infinite number of parts and each of these parts can be assigned the value of a particular number. This is called number line. Though his concept lacks the perfection of modern number line theory, Sree Sankaran exhibited his intellectual ingenuity in conceiving such a novel idea.Namboothiri Websites Trust http://namboothiri.com/articles/contributions.htm
Yet another example for Sree Sankaran's unbiased and pure scientific pursuit of knowledge could be seen in the second "Slokam" (verse) of Soundarya Lahari (a collection of 100 Slokams in praise of Goddess Durga written by Adi Shankara). In the Slokam Thaneeyaamsam paamsum thava charana pankeruhabhavam, we can see a hint to the theory of inter-convertibility of mass and energy (the famous equation E = MC² put forward by Albert Einstein).Namboothiri Websites Trust http://namboothiri.com/articles/contributions.htm
In another context, Adi Shankara postulated that the diameter of Sun is 1 lakh "Yojanas". Later the modern scientific community calculated the diameter which agreed very closely with (just 3% error) the value provided by Adi Shankara.Namboothiri Websites Trust http://namboothiri.com/articles/contributions.htm"
Removed since the website is not WP:RS. The Namboothiri-trust website may tend to glorify members of it's community. The website does not list it's sources for it's assertions about Shankara's knoweledge of Maths and might be WP:OR.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 06:02, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Contribution to Mathematics

message: Is this really true? I know a movie, where he was given Brahmin status by another Brahmin. Please check this one. --Thirusivaperur (talk) 16:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shankara born as Brahmin? 

message: In the "Historical and cultural effect" section, it is stated that Shankara exhorted his followers to worship God. According to Schopenhauer's 
On the Will in Nature, in the "Sinology" chapter, Westerners are always trying to find their God in other religions. Steeped from childhood in the concept of a Judeo–Christian anthropomorphic God, Westerners can't understand how a religion can exist without such a being. Are we sure that Shankara's Vedanta refers to a humanoid God who created, supervises, and controls the universe? Is this presentation of God in Vedanta merely a Western European assumption?Lestrade (talk) 17:05, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I just learned that the concept of Ishvara relates to this important issue.Lestrade (talk) 13:19, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: God?

message: Adi Shankara begins his Gurustotram or Verses to the Guru with the following Sanskrit Sloka, that has become a widely sung Bhajan:
I wonder why this has been deleted by somebody. Is this information not true? or is there anybody who dislikes that kind of information?
:Austerlitz -- 88.75.193.211 (talk) 11:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Austerlitz -- 88.75.79.27 (talk) 11:32, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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

message: For clearer view of the consensus, please include your sign (* --~~~~) in the relevant section. Please continue the comments above.
====Include Devanagari====
* --Redtigerxyz  Talk  05:35, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Vote

message: * --Redtigerxyz  Talk  05:35, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Include Devanagari

message: Old debate to which I can only shake my head. The correct argument is of course that the article should be informative for the users of the encyclopedia, not conservative. If many readers are served by his name being written in Devanagari, then the name should be written in Devanagari. Same reasoning for Tamil and for Malayalam, irrespective of whether it was spoken at that time. ... said: Rursus (mbork³) 19:52, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean, somebody should add a Chinese script as well to serve as many people as possible? Sounds very stupid to me. --91.130.91.93 (talk) 17:52, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Bypassers comment

message: I have been trying to place a sentence in the Hindu meditation section of the 'meditation' article that Adi Shankara is generally regarded as a primary exponent and theoretician about Hindu meditation. These have been deleted by editor Mitsube with the comment that Shankara didn't write or practise meditation to any eminent degree within the Hindu tradition. Anyone who has read Shankara's books (not merely googled for references about him on- line, including biographies about him) must challenge this. I suspect it is part of an ideological agenda to claim that Hindu meditation began with the Buddha.Fauncet (talk) 14:10, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You are wrong on all counts. Mitsube (talk) 18:44, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference to Shankara in Hindu Meditation section of Meditation 

message: The debate about the Devanagari and Malayalam scripts was quite a while ago, but I just want to clarify something. Devanagari is not, and certainly was not in the past, "the" Sanskrit script. Sanskrit can be and has historically been written in all or most Brahmi-derived scripts. A Malayali is quite likely to use the Malayalam script to write in Sanskrit. However, neither of these scripts would have been around in Shankaracharya's time, so only the IAST is needed in an English Wikipedia article. If we must include some sort of Indic script, then Malayalam makes some sense because he was from what is now Kerala and probably spoke some sort of proto-Malayalam, whereas Devanagari has very little relevance. --137.205.75.53 (talk) 23:18, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Script 

message: Referring to the information as given under the para 'Historical and cultural impact', where it is stated that Adi Shankara believed that 
'the most important access to highest truth was Vedic texts, and that access to these liberating texts should be socially restricted to upper-caste males' 
and subsequently under the para 'Works', Adi Shankara quotes in the Taittiriya Upanishad that 
"it has been established that everyone has the right to the knowledge (of Brahman) and that the supreme goal is attained by that knowledge alone".
The two statements seem ironical to me and it appears that he is refuting his own belief in keeping the Vedic knowledge accessible to only the upper-caste males, by stating in Taittiriya Upanishad that everyone has the right to the knowledge (I am assuming that he is referring to the same knowledge in both of the statements).
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Only truth i shall seek (talk • contribs) 16:51, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Irony 

message: I have come across an alternative view expressed on Adi Shankara's works. It is quite well researched, though it's largely original research. Can I add a couple of sentences about this article? Thanks!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajesh shenoy (talk • contribs) 06:22, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: We already have "According to his philosophy, knowledge of brahman springs from inquiry into the words of the Upanishads, and the knowledge of brahman that shruti provides cannot be obtained in any other way.[39]  Moreover, Shankara was committed to the caste system.[40]  He also believed that the most important access to highest truth was Vedic texts, and that access to these liberating texts should be socially restricted to upper-caste males.[41]" Anything you want to add should be sourced to reliable secondary sources in accordance with WP:V. There are other criticisms of Shankara here. That source is a presentation of Christian philosophers, but it has been cited by some good academics works, so it could be used, I suppose. The author cites Hindu critiques of Shankara which might interest you. Mitsube (talk) 06:57, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternate viewpoint on Adi Shankara's works 

message: User:TheRingess  has been removing useful links to Shankaracharya's Peetha websites like kamakoti.org that are certainly relevant to the article. Should these links be kept or removed. Let the consensus decide.
--Hinduismispeace (talk) 08:33, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Reference to a complete analysis on Adi Sankara's date in history

message: Adi Shankara was born somewhere between 507-509 BCE please go through the following website http://www.indiadivine.org/audarya/hinduism-forum/187608-dating-adi-shankara.html for reference not this website alone but I have come across articles in print media giving that particular years as birth date correction of this particular aspect is very important.Though the dat mentioned in this article is different from the above mentioned but one interesting co-incidence is several websites and printed media have mentioned he has lived for 32 yrs just as mentioned in this article so a proper conclusion would be to mention both of these days untill a substantial evidence supporting any of these dates is given by historians.Midnghtchild (talk) 09:43, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: In his essay - Some Fixed points in the chronology of Bharata included in the book - Astronomical Dating of Events and Select Vignettes http://indicethes.org/PROC14.PS.pdf ,  Dr. B.N.Narahari Achar states that Gautama Buddha, son of Suddhodana, the 23rd king of Iksavaku dynasty, according to puranic records died in 1807 BCE. This date, calculated as 27/3/1807 BCE by Kota Venkatachelam, is supported by the independent Buddhist source, Samyutta Nikaya, which states that for three months before his death Buddha was staying in Sravasti when there occurred the winter solstice (5/1/1807 BCE), a lunar eclipse (26/1/1807 BCE) followed by a solar eclipse (10/2/1807 BCE). He has confirmed these date using the Planetarium Software. Thus, Buddha lived long before Adi Shankara (509-477 BCE) whose horoscope given by Citsukhacarya, a boyhood friend of Sankara, gives Sankara’s birthdate as Nandana of Kaliuga 2593 (509 BCE) in the month of Visakha, Suklapaksa, Panchami tithi, Punarvasu Nakshatra, Karkataka lagna, Abhijin nakshatra or 5/4/509 BCE also stands confirmed using Planetarium Software. Thus, Sankara, who lived long after Buddha, was in a position to contradict or reject Buddhist beliefs. 509 BCE has not been accepted because Sankara quotes Dharamakirti who is mentioned by Xuanzang about which quote I am in no position to comment not having studied in depth Shankara’s works.Aditya soni (talk) 04:53, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

text: I have removed the one date given at the very top as Sankara's birth and have added a text about three possible dates, with concise explanations as we should not elaborate very much in the lead section. Normally the lead should contain an even simpler statement (Date A or Date B), while explanations should be given in the section "Life", subsection "Birth and childhood". I will do this now, as the lead should only contain statements that are further elaborated in the article. Hoverfish Talk 10:39, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Corrigendum: 'Adi Shankara's birth' 

message: There are too many see also entries. So, as a result, the important entry like Vivekchuramani is at the end and may be easily overlooked. I suggest to keep only most relevant entries. --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 22:26, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Suggesting that for now one can re-sequence the list for importance.इति इतिUAनेति नेति  Humour Thisthat2011  07:25, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too many See also entries!  

message: From 'The History of Mayavada' published as Beyond Nirvana by GVP.
In Çaìkaräcärya’s Çariraka-bhañya, it is interesting to note that he
quoted verses from Bhagavad-gétä while commenting on the Vedänta-sütra
verse 1/2/5 beginning çabda viç sät. Noting this very unusual inconsistency
by Çaìkaräcärya way back in the 1200’s AD, Madhaväcärya the founder
of the Brahma Vaiñëava sampradäya wrote in his illustrious treatise Sri
Tattva-muktävalé verse 59 as follows:
småteç ca hetor api bhinna ätmä
naisargikaù sihyati bheda eva
na cet kathaà sevaka-sevya-bhävaù
kaëöhoktir eñä khalu bhäñyakartuh
In his commentary on the Vedänta-sütra, Çaìkaräcärya also
quoted verses from the Vedic scriptures that demonstrated the
nature and the difference between the Supreme Lord and the
individual soul. Indeed, if Çaìkaräcärya did not accept this
conception, then how could he utter this statement?
The verse that Çaìkaräcärya quoted was from Bhagavad-gétä, chapter 18,
çloka 61:
éçvaraù sarva-bhütänäà håd-deçe’rjuna tiñthati
bhrämayam sarva-bhütäni yanträrüòhäni mäyayä
The Supreme Lord is situated in the hearts of every living entity
O’ Arjuna, and is directing the movements of all living beings who
wander in the cycle of birth and death, by His mäyä, as if they are
mounted upon a machine.
It is ironic that Çaìkaräcärya should quote a verse that recognises the
supra-mundane majesty of the Supreme Lord, and which specifies in no
uncertain terms the clear and precise distinction between God and the
living entities. As such the verse completely contradicts his own Mäyäväda
hypothesis that the living entities and the Supreme Lord are one.
What is even more surprising is that Çaìkaräcärya also quotes from
the Gétä, chapter 18, verse 62:
tam eva çaraëaà gaccha / sarva-bhävena bharäta
tat prasädät paräm çäntià / sthänaà präpsyasi çäçvatam
O’ descendent of Bharata, exclusively surrender to that Éçvara in
every respect. By His grace, you will attain transcendental peace
and the supreme abode.
Concluding Words
126 Beyond Nirväëa
Both the above verses indicate that, contrary to what Çaìkaräcärya
may have propounded in his Mäyäväda hypothesis, he was clearly aware
that the Supreme Lord and the living entities existed in distinct
relationships, and that the path to salvation was complete surrender to
the Supreme Lord Kåñëa. Further evidence of this can be found in his
most revealing and extraordinary departure from the world, in a welldocumented
verse that Çaìkaräcärya spoke to his disciples prior to his
infamous submergence into the boiling cauldron of oil.
bhaja govindam bhaja govindam bhaja govindam müòha-mate /
sampräpte sannihite käle nahi rakñati òukån-karaëe
You fools! All your word jugglery will not protect you when the
time of death arrives; so just worship Govinda! Worship Govinda!
Worship Govinda!
Govinda is one of the confidential names of the Supreme Lord Kåñëa.
It was first revealed in the ancient poem called Brahmä Saàhita, the hymn
of Lord Brahmä, which was sung at the very beginning of the creation of
the material universe. One of the main verses repeated throughout the
Brahmä Saàhita is ‘govindam ädi puruñaà tam ahaà bhajämi’, which
translates as “I worship Govinda, who is the primeval Lord.” After being
lost for many hundreds of years, this exceptionally beautiful poem was
uncovered by Çré Caitanya Mahäprabhu, long after the departure of
Çaìkaräcärya. For Çaìkaräcärya to use the confidential name of the Lord
in this verse factually reveals his true position as an incarnation of Lord
Çiva, ‘the auspicious one’, who is eternally the greatest servitor of the
Lord. From examples like these it is clear that although Çaìkaräcärya
was executing his service by preaching the Mayavada hypothesis, he himself
was factually well aware of the actual truth.
Though I realise the necessity of presenting here the numerous Vaiñëava
arguments and reasons that have convincingly routed the theories of
Mäyävädism, I must defer due to the limited length of the essay. At the
same time I request the venerable readers to refer to the following books
for a clearer and more exhaustive explanation of these topics. 1
�� Ñaö-sandarbha, Krama.sandarbha and Sarvasaàvädiné, by Çréla
Jévä Gosvämé
�� Govinda Bhäñya, Siddhänta Ratnam, Prameya Ratnävalé,
Viñëusahasranäma Bhäñya, and Upaniñadä Bhäñya, by Çréla
Baladeva Vidyäbhüñaëa.
�� Also Çréla Bhaktisiddhänta Sarasvaté Prabhupäda’s, Caitanya
Caritämåta, Anubhäñya, Çrémad-Bhägavatam and Govinda
Bhäshya.
127
Section B
The concept of ‘Nirväëa’
What emerges as a consequence of discussing the biography of
Mäyävädism is that all historical facts and the entire range of its’ corner
stone principles can be refuted merely on the basis of ‘Aitihya-pramäna’
(evidence based on time-honoured precepts). Mäyävädism stands on very
weak logic, faulty arguments and faulty evidence. Hence, in open debates
or direct dialectical exchanges it has always known defeat. If in spite of
hearing the facts about Mäyävädism one still desires to pursue a path to
attain nirväna, then our advice is to not forget that nirväna, as enunciated
by the Mäyävädés, is a falsity and a figment of the imagination that
hazardously misleads and deceives the innocent. This statement is easily
substantiated by simple, traditional knowledge and without recourse to
further support from other readily available evidences. Nirväëa, the
concept of a liberation attained by merging into a void, is for the living
entity a factually non-existent condition of being or awareness that can
never be attained.
There is not a single instance or example of any monist or impersonalist
attaining the state of nirväëa. Of this we are certain, because if we scour
the biographies of Goudapäda, Govindapäda, Shankaräcärya or Mädhava,
we would be forced to conclude that none of them attained the state of
nirväëa, liberation. It is a well known fact that Çaìkaräcärya’s spiritual
master Goudapäda appeared to Çaìkara when he was in deep meditation
one day and said: “I have heard many praises about you from your guru
Govindapäda. Show me the commentary you have written to my
composition Maëòukya Kärikä.” Çaìkaräcärya handed him his
commentary and Goudapäda was extremely pleased and approved it. From
this story it thus appears that neither Goudapäda nor Govindapäda had
merged into void to be silenced forever. If both had attained nirväëa,
liberation, it would have been impossible for Govindapäda to speak to
Goudapäda. Furthermore, it would have been impossible for Goudapäda
to later appear before Çaìkaräcärya and describe his meeting with
Govindapäda – all of which took place after the physical demise of both.
The followers of Çaìkaräcärya will give no occasion to doubt the veracity
of this mystical event having taken place, and therefore the only intelligent
conclusion one may draw from it is that neither had forsaken their
individual identity and existence after their demise – nirvana is simply a
myth.
bv avadhoot maharaja Wcw108 (talk) 18:43, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Highly Important Information on the life of Shankaracharya 

message: Hi Gopala nadar1234, Sadasiva nadar 2323, Narayana nadar2232, Sasi sharma123, Sambanda nadar123, Sasi pillai7272, and possibly more, can you please state your concerns about the article so we can work out a solution. The result of such edits are that even if you have a good reason, or a positive contribution, it is bound to get reverted. Thanks. Hoverfish Talk 12:57, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  To a multiple account user 

message: 1. Shankara was born in a Viswa-Brahmin family
2. Please change Viswa-Brahmin to Nambudiri Brahmin 
3. http://www.hindupedia.com/en/Adi_Shankaracharya
SitaChaturvedula (talk) 11:09, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Vacationnine 17:12, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Out of common knowledge Adi Shankara's father was a Vishwakarma and Mother a Nambudiri or Vice versa. So, both versions (i.e. he being a Vishwakarma and/or Nambudri) may stand true. As per certain citations that I have read ADI Shankara and his widowed mother initially had difficulties from both the communities but later he over come them. Again, as far as citations from Shankara Vijaya is concerned Adi Shankara himself has cited he belongs to Vishwakarma caste. Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 09:20, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Alas, common knowledge is of no use here. On the other hand, citations can be useful and it would be great if you could provide any that you may have. Please be aware that it is perfectly ok for us to show both points of view and, indeed, that is the correct procedure when reliable sources differ. In other words, what Hoverfish said. There is another argument, which has been raised on several occasions at WT:INB: if there is uncertainty and the person's caste is not actually relevant to their notability, then simply do not state it. - Sitush (talk) 10:20, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

text: Considering what both Ganesh J. Acharya and Sitush have stated, I have included both castes (with a "citation needed" template on the second), and I have moved the text supporting the Vishwakarma version inside the Andhra Historical Research Society reference. This way the caste issue does not take undue weight in the intro to "Life". However this intro is in need of some cleanup. Can some of the information be moved to appropriate sections? Hoverfish Talk 11:33, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

text: I find no indication that Adi Shankara's spoken or written language was Tamil. His works are not mentioned in Tamil literature but neither in Sanskrit literature, which is an ommission IMO. In this article, in Adi Shankara bibliography, as well as in Wikisource, the original text is stated to be and given in Sanskrit. Until this issue is made clear here, I remove the statement as contradictory to the rest of the article. Hoverfish Talk 14:35, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

text: I do not know any ancient texts directly citing Shankara was born to a Nambudiri. But locals will always know history of people who were born and brought up in their locality which is why I wrote above "Out of common knowledge". There are many sources that cite he being a Nambudiri as well. So, I guess both should be presented and we should wait for other contributors to come up with sources. With regards to 3.a if his mother is a Nambudri and father a Vishwabrahmin or vice versa as it is commonly said, then his gotra from father's side could be from a pancha rishi brahmana and from mother's side could be a "Sapta rishi" brahmana. Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 06:09, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

text: The following is clearly mentioned in Journal of the Andhra Historical Society, Volumes 14-17. Andhra Historical Research Society, 1953. p. 161. "According to the Shankara Vijaya, when Adi Shankara visited Masulipatam, the Devakammalars became angry at his claim of being a Jagatguru believing an impostor was trying to assume a title that was their own exclusive property. Questioning Shankara his right to the distinction, he sang in reply: Acharyo Sankaranama Twashta putro nasansaya Viprakula Gourordiksha Visvakarmantu Brahmana: I am a decendent of Twashter, ... I am a Brahmin of the Vishwakarma Caste". So, he is a Vishwakarma beyond any doubt. Again, no one here is far more knowledgeable than Adi Shankara himself. When he has himself said that... the matter ends.Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 06:09, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Since we are not supposed to make Original Research in Wikipedia, I have placed a template requesting a relevant citation from the "ancient hagiographies as well as contemporary write ups on the same". If no citation is offered within a month or so, I think the claims of gotra, sutram and Nambudiri should be removed. Hoverfish Talk 09:44, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

text: This websites are not registered by any research center, these websites have no relation with any government organization or academy, we cant trust articles in third party websites, they may used contents from past wikipedeia article.
1, http://www.who.is/whois/outlookindia.com
2, http://www.who.is/whois/exoticindiaart.co.in
3, http://www.who.is/whois/advaita-vedanta.org
4, http://www.who.is/whois/sringeri.net
5, http://www.who.is/whois/jstor.org  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raghu chandran (talk • contribs) 07:14, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Very much eager to know exact verses from the hagiography sources regarding this matter in concern.Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 14:37, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request on 20 November 2012 

message: the WP:LEAD summarizes the article, so this removal is unwarranted, even more because with your next edit you re-inserted Shankara's view on the difference between the Advaita and Buddhist views. A view which, by the way, is misinformed; Buddhism has had it's own discussions on essentialism, see :Rangtong-Shentong; and Advaita's view on the self-luminosity of awareness, which you removed diff from the lead of :Advaita Vedanta as being "contentious terminology" diff, was taken over from Yogacara.
Just two days ago, I've had the same discussion about the lead summarizing the article with another editor, who's now blocked, so I'd appreciate it not to repeat that discussion. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:34, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not a scholar on Buddhism, nor do I want to be. I'm adressing you on Advaita on the talk page over there. JJNito197 (talk) 14:53, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Buddhist influences 

message: name of Adi sankara in Malyalam:ശ്രീ ശങ്കരാചാര്യ OusephMathai (talk) 17:58, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Melmann 21:33, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 13 August 2021 

message: I check pages listed in :Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of :Adi Shankara's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "lexicon":
From Panchayatana puja: 
From Advaita Vedanta: The Four Denominations of Hinduism, Basics of Hinduism, Kauai Hindu Monastery
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 20:16, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphaned references in [[:Adi Shankara]] 

message: The first word under the "Dating" section is obviously meant to be "Reliable" but is misspelled "Eeliable". That is all. 2601:981:4400:5B10:F96D:C511:3E59:93D2 (talk) 23:34, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. JJNito197 (talk) 23:48, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice neologism. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:43, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 24 January 2022 

message: Koller 2013, pp. 100–101: "Atman, which is identical to Brahman, is ultimately the only reality and [...] the appearance of plurality is entirely the work of ignorance [...] the self is ultimately of the nature of Atman/Brahman [...] Brahman alone is ultimately real." 
need to removed from Notes,This book is to defame and spread lie about Adi Shankaracharya Xhimanshuz (talk) 14:26, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the  template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:56, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 28 April 2022 (3) 

message: I feel the article can be a lot more detailed and more clear. 
When we write, , are we casting doubt on the factual accuracy of Adi Shankara establishing Mathas? Or are we claiming that the hagiographies are uncertain about this episode i.e. employing a roundabout way of telling that they are internally inconsistent? TrangaBellam (talk) 16:03, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Doubting the factual accuracy. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 03:42, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

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

message: Born	Shankara c. 700 CE Kalady, Chera Kingdom (present-day Kochi in Kerala, India)
to
Born	Shankara c. 507 BCE Kalady, Chera Kingdom (present-day Kochi in Kerala, India) Xhimanshuz (talk) 07:33, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ji11720 (talk) 18:51, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 28 April 2022 

message: 14.139.240.85 (talk) 20:54, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Happy Editing--IAmChaos 21:08, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 18 May 2022 

message: In the section “Moksha - liberating knowledge of Brahman”, The word “mahavykas” is the wrong word and the link is also not there. the correct word should be “Mahavakyas” and the link should be this one “https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahāvākyas” 2601:647:4001:8560:68C5:DEE0:7489:EFB7 (talk) 03:43, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 26 September 2022