Talk:Advaita Vedanta/Archive 1

message: (Please add new topics at the foot of this page)
--------------
This page needs so much more. --LordSuryaofShropshire 16:20, Mar 26, 2004 (UTC)
:You are welcome to add it. -- Arvindn 17:04, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Question: Do we need two complete sections linking Advaita philosophy with current physics concepts? I personally feel that both these sections need references to appropriate sources, and the paragraph dealing with Unified Field Theory needs NPOV work. For instance the sentence "Advaita has been handed down to us thanks to the Supreme Science" seems like a strong assertion to me. I would like to rephrase this to something like "Some people believe that Advaita has been handed..." with a reference explaining who these people are, or even better, something like "(Insert names of such schools of thought here) believe that Advaita..." again followed by a reference. Also, the link  doesn't seem to exist, nor does . I would prefer avoiding links to blogspot.com and other similar sites - they don't add any credence to this article, and they have this feel of "A believes X and has written about it on his blog. News at 11." to them. I would prefer links to the official websites of such schools of thought (if such websites exist), or links to neutral descriptions of the beliefs (some University Department of Philosophy for instance). If we can't quote such references, we should probably delete the relevant section. I would like your comments. Thanks. --Brhaspati 10:05, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)
We have a section here "Advaita and Science" but there is nothing in Wikipedia about "Advaita." only Advaita Vedanta. I do  not know the languages of Advaita but maybe Wikipedia should clarify these words for its readers. --geepee 17:55, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Initial heading 

message: I feel that this article currently has the following problems:
* Uses ad hoc mix of spellings (Sankara, Shankara, Shankaracharya etc).
* Refers to terms without complete explanation of what they mean, such as "Adi (meaning First)". Yes, but in what language?
* Mixes historical fact with religious beliefs.
* Over-reliance on Adi Shankara.
I propose the following guidelines for this article.
* Use consistent names and spellings. Remember that the person reading this article may not be familiar with Sanskrit transliterated to English. We may add a section noting that "Shankara" may also be referred to as "Shankaracharya" and explaining what "Acharya" means in Sanskrit. The rest of the article should be consistent, ideally using the same spelling as those in other articles referred to from here.
* If you use a non-English word, please add a parenthetical note saying what it means and what language it is from. We may possibly over-explain some terms, but it's easier to delete unnecessary text later than to write new text. Please do not assume that "If someone is reading about Advaita, he/she probably knows Sanskrit roots" - they may have come here through a Google search for "Advaita" or some such term.
* We need to consciously maintain NPOV on this article. When describing someone's life for instance, please don't change modes from "A said X" to "The great master A said X". There may be readers who are critical of A, and changes like these are quite jarring to them. Also, when describing the philosophy itself, qualify the statements as much as possible with "A said", "B believed" etc. Otherwise it sounds like a blunt assertion about the nature of the universe :)
* The article in its current state describes Adi Shankara's contributions in detail, but subsequent thinkers are not described in enough detail. Specifically, we need things like "Adi Shankara believed X. The next major contribution to Advaita came from B, who modified X to X', on the grounds that (explanation). Subsequently, C added the concept of P to Advaita, so that (metaphysical paradox) could be resolved" and so on. This readily encapsulates Advaita's history and its various influences.
Please add your own guidelines to the list above. I would like your comments on how to improve this article.
Thanks --Brhaspati 11:23, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)
One guideline we could agree upon is a proper transliteration scheme, e.g. there is variable usage of 'sh' and 'ş' in Sanskrit words, e.g. moksha and mokşa. The standard transliteration for this sound is s-underdot, which is different from 'ş'.
I think it is also important to establish when a word should get fully transliterated and when its more widely used Roman script spelling should be used. For example, should we always go with Krishna or should we always use Kŗşņa? Or should we use either spelling, depending upon context?
Thanks, Vidyasankar 22:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding ş, look at IAST for the standard transliteration scheme. I agree that there a different symbol is mentioned. We'll have to change ş to that symbol. I'll get to this asap. Babub 06:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see guidelines for transliteration being discussed at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Indic). Imc 17:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed list of guidelines to improve this article 

message: Though Mel removed my refrences to God's Debris from this page, I feel that God's Debris is a good example of how Vedanta has influenced post modern philosphic thought. 
I request that the reference to God's Debris should be added back in the section titled "Influence of Vedanta". 
Thanks
--Ash.banerjee@gmail.com 06:51, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  God's Debris should find a reference here 

message: I moved the mahavakya to a new section cos I thought it didn't fit into "books and personalities". Babub 10:09, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mahavakya 

message: Would someone familiar with Advaita Vedanta please do some work on the Atman (Hinduism) article. As it is written it is not right. It says that atman and brahman are synonyms. This is not quite right. If they were simply synomyms then Adi Shankara would not have needed his arguments to arrive at the conclusion that atman is brahman. See discussion page for the article too. Chris 21:45, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requesting Article Help for Atman 

message: Alright, I added some essential sections regarding basics of advaita vedanta. This article needs a lot of editing in the "salient features" section. I feel a lot of it is redundant. I will go through it asap and also add a seperate section on "advaita vedanta today". Babub 12:50, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs more editing 

message: I think there should be an addition on these subject to this and the Shankara article. To ignore the impact that they had on Shankara and the intellectual context that he lived in limits the scope of the article.
:Wikipedia doesn't allow original research. See WP:OR. All information entered must have authentic sources and must be published. --Babub | Talk 11:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nagarjuna and Madhyamaka 

message: The whole article needs referencing. I'll get to it slowly--Babub→Talk 15:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs referencing 

message: The article says that shankara was the first in the advaita tradition. From what I know the founder of advaita was badarayana. Also there were other rishis associated with advaita like dattatreya, ashtavakra etc...Shankaras guru gaudapada himself is part of that guru parampara. In my opinion saying shankara was the first would be a mistake:)
:"First in the tradition to formulate the siddhanta in his works". This is true. But I agree that he was not the first in the tradition itself.--Babub→Talk 12:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Founder of advaita 

message: I would love to hear shankara's teachings on the actual path or way to moksha. I know what contemporary teachers have to say, but am clueless about Shankara's views on the matter. Sethie 04:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A request 

message: The following statement may not be completely true.  
"Each of the later 4 Vedanta schools are successively more theistic along the lines of an anthropomorphic god. Advaita rejuvenated much of Hindu thought and also spurred on debate that led to the expounding of Vishishtadvaita (qualified nondualism) and Dvaita (dualism)."
It is very true that Shankara "rejuvenated" i.e. revived Hindu thought. However, it cannot be said that Vishishtadvaita and Dvaita were schools successively theistic
1. For instance, Ramanuja traces the line of Vishishtadvaitic thinking to Bodhayana (400 BC??)
Even regardless of that, the main force driving Vishishtadvaita were the devotional vaishnavite aalwars (2 AD - 8 AD) and the philosophic thought can be found in their works. The works were in tamil and consequently they were not well known. 
2. Shankara in his Bhashya, refutes the doctrine of both the Bhagavatas and Pasupatas, showing that they were indeed existent at that time.
Philosopher4 06:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Impact of Advaita 

message: :Image:Sankara.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 04:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair use rationale for Image:Sankara.jpg 

message: Madhusoodana Saraswati, Vidyaranyar and Bhagavannama Bhodendrar were prominent Advaitic saints of the past who have written profound commentaries in Advaita Vedanta
99.144.243.220 (talk) 00:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Madhusoodana Saraswati, Vidyaranyar and Bhagavannama Bhodendrar - Prominent advaita Saints of the Past 

message: I am adding a criticism of the concept of illusion and other concepts as  section(s) to the article. Its critical to maintaining NPOV as the AV went through centuries of critical relationship with other schools of Vedanta. Wikidās ॐ 15:17, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concept of illusion  - NPOV 

message: Shouldn't the pronunciation be ? -- Q Chris (talk) 18:13, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation? 

message: Fails B criteria:
* The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations where necessary.
: Tags.Redtigerxyz (talk) 11:08, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject Hinduism reassessment: C 

message: The theory of creation in advaitic vedanta incorporated here is incomplete and needs more study, creation of universe is incorporated in the vivekachudamani by Shankara, these should be mentioned.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.94.10.34 (talk) 06:09, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Theory of creation 

message: I have simplified the heading as it was becoming difficult to read.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sindhian (talk • contribs) 08:08, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Simplified Heading 

message: Refer to the following sentence in the first paragraph….
"Advaita" refers to the identity of the Self (Atman) and the Whole (Brahman).[2]
Should it be clarified to state that Advaita does not see a duality between the two?
"Advaita" refers to the identity of the Self (Atman) and the Whole (Brahman)[2] as a continuum and not separate  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Radisesh (talk • contribs) 22:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Implication is that there is duality 

message: Clinical Atmanology
Especially the second part is important.
Please read.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by N33 (talk • contribs).
I have a problem with the first sentence:
"Advaita (literally, non-duality) is more often than not interpreted as monism/monistic system of thought."
In my personal experience and search I have come to the conclusion that there is a VERY DEFINATE difference between non-dualism and monism. My perception leads me to differentiate the two as monism being an affirmative statement and non-dualism being more along the line of "neti neti" (I'm not sure what it is, but I know it isn't dualism.)
I leave the clarification for the experts on Hinduism. Dave ©¿©¬ (talk) 07:49, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article explains the "difference" between buddhism and advaita vedanta 

message: Regarding the following sentence in the article:
″Since monotheism is the basis of the three semitic religions which have dominated the religio-politico-cultural history in past millenium, scholars have not been able to see Advaita Vedanta in its own and true perspective.″
The ideas presented here are unclear and possibly West-centric. Has monotheism dominated India, China, Japan and other Asian nations for the past 1000 years? Also, which scholars are referred to? Western ones? Eastern ones? If Eastern or Hindu, why has monotheism prevented them from seeing the Advaita Vedanta in its own and true perspective?
Lindamulder (talk) 01:06, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, I have removed the offending sentence. My guess is they mean in Judao-Christian-Islamic countries, but even this is dubious and original research. -- Q Chris (talk) 13:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  West-centric confusion.