Talk:Allama Prabhu

message: I have reverted certain edits by Ms. Sarah Welch in which Allama Prabhu is being projected as an advaitin. This is a fringe view that some books on Hinduism may be propagating. A.K. Ramanujan, an internationally recognized authority on medieval Kannada poetry, in his now classic anthology of vachanas Speaking of Shiva explains how Virashaivism was antagonistic to orthodox Brahminism, and how the Virashiava saints evolved their own metaphysical-philosophical system called Shatsthala Siddhanta. -Mohanbhan (talk) 09:11, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Which page number of Ramanujan are you referring to? Have you read the context and pages nearby? For a better understanding of Basava, Allama Prabhu and other Virashaivism thinkers on Vedas/Upanishads/Brahman, see [1] Leela Prasad (2012), Poetics of Conduct: Oral Narrative and Moral Being in a South Indian Town, Columbia University Press, , pages 104-105; [2] VN Rao and GH Roghair (2014), Siva's Warriors: The Basava Purana of Palkuriki Somanatha, Princeton University Press, , pages 7-8. If you believe these or the sources you removed along with the summary are fringe, please identify a few mainstream scholarly sources with page numbers that state what you allege. Please don't delete scholarly sources. Instead, for NPOV, let us summarize the various scholarly sides. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:02, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

text: ps: See pages 182-183 of Appendix II. He explicitly mentions "similarities with the monism" preached by Adi Shankara. I will read the whole Appendix of Ramanujan's Speaking of Siva again, then add a summary from it to the article. I await any specific page numbers from Ramanujan you find, in support of why you reverted this. Please do note what you reverted had nothing to do with Lingayat's described position about rituals and Brahmin priests in Ramanujan and elsewhere. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:19, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: @Sarah Welch: I have removed the Hindu leader infobox and the reference to Lingayatism as sect of Hinduism because it isn't. I have already mentioned a mainstream source in Ramanujan; the other source would be The Vigil of Rudra, the anthology of vachanas introduced and translated by H.S. Shivaprakash, published by Penguin. In Ramanujan see Appendix II titled "On Lingayat Culture" by Willian McCormack, page 175, and also Appendix I titled "The Six-phase System", p. 169. -Mohanbhan (talk) 17:56, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Again, see what you reverted here, and then again here. I do not see any support for this revert on page 169 or page 175, neither of which discuss Advaita or non-dualism. Which page number of The Vigil of Rudra should I look at, to see justification for your revert? While your alleged page numbers make no mention of Advaita non-dualism, I am puzzled why you are deleting sourced content and sources which explicitly discuss Allama Prabhu and that topic. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:28, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Sarah Welch, I asked you to read the two appendices, starting on p.169 and p.175, not only those two pages. (Please read my message above.) You have to read and understand before you add something. And please observe WP:Civil and stay calm while you discuss this. It does not mention Advaita because it has nothing to do with Advaita. This is like asking why there is no mention of Bhagavad Gita in Bible while some fringe source mentions it. Read the Introduction to The Vigil of Rudra to understand how Virashaivism is a distinct religion. There are other philosophies in India other than Advaita Vedanta and it is not a philosophical standard that you start describing all philosophies as "leaning towards" or "similar to" Advaita Vedanta. (Advaita vedanta is not equal to idealist monism, which is how you are using it.) Also note that Ramanujan and Shivaprakash are well-known authorities on Medieval Kannada poetry and Virashiavism, while the authors of your sources are not. -Mohanbhan (talk) 18:47, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

text: Also see this quote from the wiki article: "Allama Prabhu's poetic style has been described as mystic and cryptic, rich in paradoxes and inversions (bedagu mode), staunchly against any form of symbolism, occult powers (siddhis) and their acquisition, temple worship, conventional systems and ritualistic practices, and even critical of fellow Veerashaiva devotees and poets. However, all his poems are non-sectarian and some of them even use straight forward language.Shiva Prakash (1997), pp. 178–179" It is self-explanatory. -Mohanbhan (talk) 20:12, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: @Mohanbhan: Again, nothing to do with Advaita or non-dualism, which is what you reverted 1st time here, and 2nd time here. Remember, this dispute started with your 1st revert, where your edit summary alleged, "I know all your additions are sourced but they are WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE". I am still waiting for any source from you, leave aside few scholarly sources with page numbers, that establish the non-fringe mainstream position on Allama Prabhu, Advaita and non-dualism. Please stop this OR and lecturing with "it is self-explanatory", and just provide page number of a source(s) that has a relevant paragraph, that states what you allege is the mainstream position on Allama Prabhu, Advaita and non-dualism. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:50, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent edits

message: Hi there, both of you. I'll have a look at the sourcesand the edits:
* 1a: diff1: removal of "Ishwaran states Allama was a strong exponent of Advaita non-dualism philosophy. (source: K Ishawaran (1992), Speaking of Basava: Lingayat Religion and Culture in South Asia, Westview Press, , pages 129-130)
* 1b: same diff: removal of  Nirguna
* 2: diff2: removal of "[sect Lingayat-:Shaivism] of Hinduism (source: Roshen Dalal (2011), The Religions of India: A Concise Guide to Nine Major Faiths, Penguin, , page 209)([sect Lingayat-:Shaivism] remains)
* 3: A.K. Ramanujan, Speaking of Shiva, Appendix II titled "On Lingayat Culture" by Willian McCormack, starting on page 175; Appendix I titled "The Six-phase System", starting on p. 169. Comment by Mohanbhan: "explains how Virashaivism was antagonistic to orthodox Brahminism, and how the Virashiava saints evolved their own metaphysical-philosophical system called Shatsthala Siddhanta." 
* 4: H.S. Shivaprakash, The Vigil of Rudra.
My comments:
* ad1: I only have snippet-view for this book, but to me the problem seems to be that thos elines may suggest that Allama Prabhu was a follower of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta, whereas Ishawaran speaks of a more generic "Advaita Philosophy," which has influenced many Indian traditions, for example also Kashmir Shaivism. Maybe this nuance/difference should be made clear;
* ad2: the problem lies with the term "Hinduism"? Of course there are good historical reasons not to use this term, but there are also good historical and conventional reasons to do use (incorrect English, I know; in Dutch one would say "wel gebruiken") this term in this respect. So, it's not clear why it should be removed.
* ad3: I can't accees this book; looks like a very interesting book, though; I've put it on my wish-list. Nevertheless, Mohanbhan's commentary may provide a clue to the removal of the term "Hinduism": if "Hinduism" is equated with "Brahmanism," or the "standard Brahmanical narrative," yeas, then I understand what your objections are. But conventionally, most people (at least outside India) don't have that Brahmanical association with the term "Hinduism," nor the sole association with "Advaita Vedanta."
* ad4: Shivaprakash's intriduction makes clear, right away, that the Bhakti-movement opposed the varna-system, which was upheld by the rulers who aupported the Brahmanical system. So, I see Mohanbhan's point of stating that Lingayatism is not Hinduism. But it's a fine nuance, which should be mentione din the article itself. For the infobox, a random reader, say a Japanese 17-year old kid, probably will find it usefull info: "Ah yes, India! Hinduism!"
Pffff.... Nuanced info required here! You both seem to be right here, in some respects. So, my "conclusion":  be nuanced about nondualism/Advaita, and use a qualified to make clear that this is not about Shankara's Advaita in a restrcited sense, but about Advaita in a broader sense. And regarding "Hinduism": I'd leave it in the text, since it is claryfying for most readers, but do make clear in the article itself how Lingayatism is positioned within "Hinduism."
Regarding "Hinduism" itself: I'm glad that there are editors whom are opposed to this all-too-easy "inclusivism," which so often is a mere whole-sale narrative of the glorious Vedic-Brahmanical past (and I don't mean that ms Sarah Welch is selling this story!) But the nuance itself also needs nuance; simply opposing all of it won't ork, I think; better try to provide additional info, which makes clear, at many places, that there are many nuances. All the best, to both of you, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:14, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: @JJ: Thanks. I will split this into two section, and discuss "Can Allama Prabhu be called Hindu / is Lingayatism a Hindu sect?" in Infobox Hindu Leader section of this talk page. My main concern has been the deletion of sourced content on Allama Prabhu, Advaita and non-dualism. I concur with you on this. I will make clear the nuance/difference, and include reliable sources. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 11:08, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Joshua, thanks for your comments. As I have mentioned below, pushing the term Advaita Vedanta would be fringe and undue when the Virashaiva mystics had their own system called Shatsthala Siddhanta. This is an article about a poet, and if it is going to talk about his metaphysical system at all then there should be a detailed exposition of Shatsthala siddhanta and how he was against ritualism and varna and caste systems associated with Brahminism and the Brahminical philosophy of Advaita Vedanta. -Mohanbhan (talk) 12:20, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: Question: "Should Allama Prabhu be called a Hindu leader? Is Lingayatism a Hindu sect? Is XYZ a Hindu sect/denomination?"
: Good points above. Frankly, most scholars and I too have struggled with that question. It is the same sort of controversy you find in other religions (e.g. was or is Sufi or Ahmadiyya or Bahai an Islamic sect?). The answer depends on the premises / presumptions / stereotypes. I have no particular preference about the classification, and what is or what isn't included in Hinduism (or some other religion).
The challenge for Shivaprakash and much of the literature about Indian medieval history is the authenticity of the documents they rely on. Most, if you dig deeper, are hagiographies full of myth and miracles, where multiple manuscripts exist, and each says different things. While @Mohanbhan calls "HS Shivaprakash is a well-known authority", this is irrelevant in an encyclopedia. Wiki articles are to be based on the "widely held scholarly views, that can be verified", and according to community agreed policies and guidelines. In this case, that does not mean we ignore Shivaprakash, it means we consider Shivaprakash and additional scholars.
Now, lets return to the above Question. In Shivaprakash's book, I do not see the conclusion anywhere, "Lingayatism is not a Hindu sect". I see a mention of Hinduism on page 3 of introduction of Shivaprakash book, the second para, where it also reads, "[At the time of Vijayanagara's resistance to Muslim invasion], Sharana movement was no more an immediate reality. It was glorious memory, a myth. They carried out a reinterpretation of the myth....". In The Context of Vachana Translations section of his introduction, 6th to 8th paragraph, I see a review by Shivaprakash, where he acknowledges "many" non-Virashaiva scholars, Brahmins in particular and others, presenting Virashaivism as "extension of Hinduism" and "reformatory Hinduism" (his words). Thus we do see support, "Lingayatism, to many non-Virashaiva scholars, is an extension/reform movement in Hinduism".
Now lets go beyond Shivaprakash, consider additional scholars, as summarized in tertiary literature. Here is the opening line in Encyclopedia Britannica's article on Lingayat:
::Lingayat, also called Virashaiva, member of a Hindu sect with a wide following in southern India that worships Shiva as the only deity.
:::– Lingayat, Hindu sect, Alternative title: Virashaiva article, Encyclopedia Britannica (2015)
The reliable sources are suggesting the answer to the above Question is Yes. However, I must also note my agreement with you (except that your wording may be conflating Brahmanism with "priestly class Brahmin-ism"?, as some others do). Scholars do question, what is Hinduism? and is Lingayat or Shaivism or Vaishnavism or Shaktism or Smartism or XYZ a distinct religion, if yes or no, how, since when, where, why?
The constructive approach here would be to "better try to provide additional info, which makes clear the nuances." @Mohanbhan's approach of picking a side, calling sources as fringe/undue, deleting the content and those sources, and then failing to provide mainstream source(s) with page numbers that actually say what he imagines/alleges they say, is not constructive, and does not help in "making clear the nuances". Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 11:08, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Infobox Hindu leader 

message: :Sarah Welch: You have stop saying the same things over and over again when explanation based on two mainstream sources has been provided to you. Allama Prabhu has nothing to do with Advaita Vedanta and there being no mention of it in mainstream sources on his poetry and Virashaivism should put your speculations at rest. The main system of Virashaivism is Shatsthala siddhanta, this has not been mentioned in the article; what they were against is the varna and caste system, this also has not been mentioned in the article; without mentioning the core principles of Virashiavism of which Allama Prabhu was a major poet and philosopher you are trying to promote the fringe view that he was a "Advaita Vedantist". Joshua also agrees that Advaita Vedanta has been used generically in Eknath Easwaran's text, to mean idealist monism, and this term cannot be used in this article (or any article in the generic sense) as it is associated with Adi Shankara. It is also strange that you are making the artificial distinction between Brahminism and "priestly class Brahminism" -- this is OR -- as Surendranath Dasgupta uses the word Brahminism to refer to the religion which considers Vedas, Upanishads etc as its core texts. You can also refer to Dasgupta's entry on Virashaivism in vol five of A History of Indian Philosophy. So I have now provided 3 mainstream sources 1. A.K. Ramanujan, 2. H.S. Shiva Prakash and 3 Sudrendranath Dasgupta which supports my view, and your sources are general surveys of Hinduism which do not deal specifically with Virashaivism or with the poet Allama Prabhu whose article we are editing. 
:PS: this is an article on a poet who was non-sectarian. Calling a literary figure who fought against sectarianism and sectarian identification a Hindu leader or a Vedantist is nothing but a travesty of truth. -Mohanbhan (talk) 12:09, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: @Mohanbhan: None of three sources support "your view". If they do reach the conclusions you allege, why don't you identify the page numbers where they make those conclusions about Allama Prabhu, Advaita Vedanta and monism? With @JJ input, I will now edit the article and summarize what the sources actually say. I invite @JJ and urge you to let @JJ provide a neutral check and revise any edits I make on Vedanta-related text. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:54, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: @JJ: [1] There are numerous other recent sources, which all state Lingayatism has been a "monism", "modified monism", or a "non-dualism" (advaita) philosophy. I haven't added them to this article because they do not explicitly link it to Allama Prabhu. [2] I would welcome a summary from any recent reliable source that states a different view on "Allama Prabhu, Non-dualism, Monism" than what is currently summarized in the article, but am unaware of any. I recall seeing a ~100 year source, that questioned whether Lingayats were monist, but it did not make a conclusion either way. It is a dated source, so I have not bothered to dig it out from my old notes archives. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:13, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Allama Prabhu, Advaita Vedanta, Monism

message: The following sentence is weird:
:"Allama suggested the path of devotion (bhakti marga) as the path of liberating knowledge." source: Subramanian (2005), pages 15-16
Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:37, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not what the source says. I've removed changed it. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:41, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bhakti as liberating knowledge? 

message: "William McCormack, quoting Ramanujan", source "AK Ramanujan (1973)" - now who's the source? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:47, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: @JJ: McCormack wrote the Appendix, Ramanujan attached it to his book. Confusing? Yes. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 11:10, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  McCormack - Ramanujan 

message: Regarding "Tag-team": please read the lead to that policy:
:"Tag teaming (sometimes also called a "Travelling Circus" or "Factionalism") is a controversial[1] form of meatpuppetry in which editors coordinate their actions to circumvent the normal process of consensus. As with meatpuppetry, editors may be accused of coordinating their actions to sidestep policies and guidelines (such as 3RR and NPOV). Unlike "meatpuppetry", the phrase may be applied to otherwise legitimate editors. The phrase comes from professional wrestling "tag teams", where teams of two or more wrestlers take turns in the ring, and one brings in his teammate by tagging him.
:Wikipedia encourages and depends on cooperative editing to improve articles, and most editors who work together are not a tag team. Assume good faith, and keep in mind that in almost all cases it is better to address other editors' reasoning than it is to accuse them of being on a team.
:Unsubstantiated accusations of tag teaming are uncivil. Care should be taken to frame assertions in an appropriate way, citing evidence in the appropriate venues, following our dispute resolution process."
* "coordinate their actions to circumvent the normal process of consensus": Ms Sarah Welch and I don't coordinate our actions; we simply agree. That's a form of concencus.
* "editors may be accused of coordinating their actions to sidestep policies and guidelines (such as 3RR and NPOV)": we're not sidestepping policies, on the contrary; we're discussing your edits. As you may have noted, I've even reverted her. I'm also trying to compromise toward your concerns about Advaita Vedanta; the whole note is a result of taking your concerns seriously, just like these modifications of that note,
* "most editors who work together are not a tag team": that speaks for itself.
* "Assume good faith, and keep in mind that in almost all cases it is better to address other editors' reasoning than it is to accuse them of being on a team": yep, indeed. Address the reasoning.
Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:04, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Tag-team

message: I've rephrased the intro to the note, stating clearly that Allama Prabhu and Lingayatism is not Advaita vedanta. I've also added additional info on the current popularity of Advaita Vedanta, to make clear that this interpretation of Indian religiosity is quite dominant. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:17, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Note

message: The shivayoga.net is not RS, and I will remove it, but leave the text for now. Perhaps you can find a better source for the text? The lead needs to have nondualism in the lead somewhere, as it is important and well supported. Yes, I too interpret nondualism in the broadest way, but we need to respect what three sources are saying, and we have yet to come across a scholarly source that denies what these sources are stating or claims "Allama was proponent of dualism".
:#"Ishwaran states Allama was a strong exponent of non-dualism (advaita) philosophy, and persuaded Siddharama [an early scholar of Lingayatism], that "God was within him". Source: K Ishawaran (1992), Speaking of Basava: Lingayat Religion and Culture in South Asia, Westview Press, , pages 129-130, Quote: "'Allama Prabhu, a staunch exponent of non-dualism (advaita), convinced Siddharama that God was within himself. He chided him by saying, 'you who presume to place Him before you and converse with Him, do not have any understanding of Him!";
:#"Indeed, according to the Lingayat Sanskrit scholar, Dr SC Nandimath, there are philosophical similarities with the monism preached by the eighth-century Vedantin, Sankaracharya." (source: Ramanujan 1973, p.182-183)
:#"Surendranath Dasgupta: "It will be easy for us to show that Allama-Prabhu, the teacher of Basava, was thoroughly surcharged with the Vedantism of the Śaṇkara school." (Surendranath Dasgupta (1951), A History of Indian Philosophy, Volume 5: Southern Schools of Saivism, Motilal Banarsidass (2012 Reprint), , page 50)"
I am fine without advaita, just nondualism will do. Please add it somewhere. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 09:36, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The term "nondualism" alone is not sufficient; it's too fuzzy (actually, it's a hopeless term). I think it's okay the way it is now: nondualism/"advaita"/nondual consciousness of Self and Shiva, though the last term could be replcaed with another description. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:46, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: @JJ: May be embed nondualism/advaita and the quotes into a note? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:18, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nondualism in lead and shivayoga.net 

message: We have the lead paragraph claiming that Allama Prabhu was "one of the celebrated poets of the Bhakti movement in south India". I don't believe that is a correct interpretation of the cited source, which only says that (emphasis added):
And even more to the point D.R. Nagaraj specifically says that Allama Prabhu was not a Bhakti poet (sorry for the longish quote, which though is necessary to understand the argument being made; not reprodcing the footnotes and diacritics)):
The Bhakti movement and Virashaiva's (and the associated bhakti and vachana literatures) being contemporaries are no doubt discussed in close proximity (as in first quote above), or even sometimes confused (as Nagaraj says), but we should be careful not to perpetuate the "error" in wikipedia's voice. Instead, if there are scholars who argue that Prabhu was indeed a bhakti poet, cite and attribute their view, and cite the counter-arguments. Abecedare (talk) 15:17, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the detailed note! Additional work is waiting for us... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:50, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: @A:, @JJ: That is in part why I had taken "bhakti movement" out from lead yesterday here. The other reason was WP:V.  There is some support though elsewhere; for example, in Michael Downes's Jonathan Harvey: Song Offerings and White as Jasmine, , pages 76-77; where Vacanas are called bhakti poems, and Allama Prabhu is mentioned. I will leave it to you @JJ, whether such sources justify mentioning "bhakti" in the lead. My preference would be to move 'bhakti'-related summary to the main article, and definitely mention that he is "not" considered as bhakti poet by some scholars, with reasons. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:15, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

text: Also Molly Daniels (2004), The Oxford India Ramanujan, Oxford University Press, , pages 331-334; Quote: "Four bhakti poets from the Kannada-speaking region in Ramanujan's Speaking of Siva were among the foremost of those who wrote vacanas (short sayings) expressing their devotion to Siva." Allama Prabhu is one of the four. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:45, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Jonathan Harvey: Song Offerings and White as Jasmine is a book on the British music composer Jonathan Harvey and talks about two of his compositions titled 'Song Offerings' (1985), and 'White as Jasmine' (1999). Molly Daniels has edited Ramanujan's Oxford anthology not because she is a scholar (she is the director of a creative writing school at Chicago university) but because she is Ramanujan's ex-wife. Her statements have no scholarly standing. -Mohanbhan (talk) 09:23, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  I haven't examined the sources mentioned in any detail, but given that Nagarah devotes so much effort and space to counter the argument that Prabhu wrote Bhakti poetry, I would expect there to be sources that (casually) classify him as a Bhakti poet. If so, we can easily handle it by saying something along the lines, "Allama Prabhu has sometimes been referred to as a Bhakti poet. However, D.R. Nagaraj, a scholar of Kannada literature, has argued on aesthetic grounds that his works were ..." etc. Abecedare (talk) 15:39, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  On checking, I see that something like this has already been added Allama Prabhu#Viraisava and the vacanakaras (thanks to whoever did this!). Also saw the semi-protection: haven't followed the heavy edit traffic on the page, but come on y'all... you all are better than this. A little more collaborative editing, and little less battleground conduct will make both the article and the experience of editing it better for all. Abecedare (talk) 15:44, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: @Abecedare: Indeed. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:08, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bhakti?