Talk:Adi Shankara/Archive 1

message: I read somewhere that the present religious understanding is based on the lives of several (three?) different historical persons. Hence the figure of Shankara is a composite one. I dunno the source anymore. Does somebody have an idea for the source? Andries 22:35, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd understood that there were two people, but three wouldn't surprise me.  At one time, I think, it was suggested that we have separate articles on the two — but the religious people wouldn't give up their claim to everything, so it fell through (I doubt that it would have been workable anyway). --Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 10:07, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Composite person

message: I have read this article in response to a Request for Comments about the dates.  Maybe the question is not properly framed so that I understand it.  Is there a question only about the discussion on this talk page, or is there a question about the article itself?
If there is a question about the article itself, then I think that the article as written presents a neutral point of view.  The religious sources providing for a BCE date are a well-defined POV.  The modern scholarship is the more widely accepted POV.  The two POVs are presented objectively, with sources.  The fact that some religious authorities and institutions claim that he was a millennium earlier than is thought by modern scholarship is, in itself, a fact, and is worth presenting.
If there is a question about the discussion, then I am not sure what it is either.  I am new to WP, but not to electronic discourse (where I go back to the 1980's).  I do not see any violations of Wikiquette.  The discussion has been civil and reasonable.
I am not sure what the RfC was for.  It looks like a reasonable article, and reasonable discussion by reasonable Wikipedians.  Robert McClenon 22:00, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The RfC was for the article (though the Talk page is obviously relevant) — it's just that the new system requires a link to the Talk page for some reason.  Thanks for your comment (and I don't only say that because it accords with my view). --Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 10:05, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  An Outside Comment 

message: Under the section "Formal education", I propose that the following be added just before ...On completion of the stotram etc. 
"Legend has it that, "
Any thoughts? Syiem 04:19, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree (phrases like that need to be inserted in a number of places, in fact). --Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 13:10, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have changed that one. Syiem 07:57, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formal education 

message: please change http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adi_Shankaracharya#Mathas to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advaita#Advaita%20Mathas for only Shishya name on table.
117.237.194.209 (talk) 14:27, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I must be missing something....I don't see the text http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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! JguyTalkDone 18:05, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I've copied the info + the sources. greetings, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:50, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request on 15 May 2013 

message: 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)
thread_title: Ādi Śaṅkarācāri

message: My attention has recently been drawn once again to wild claims being made on Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Vishwakarma claim 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. —  (t • e • c) 01:28, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 6 March 2014 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  hello sir, 

message: Please change
Adi Shankara (pronounced [aːd̪i ɕəŋkəɾə]; early 8th century CE[2][note 1]) – 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.[1][5]
to 
Adi Shankara (pronounced [aːd̪i ɕəŋkəɾə]; early 8th century CE[2][note 1]) – 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.[1][5]
or, better still, to
Adi Shankara (pronounced [aːd̪i ɕəŋkəɾə]; early 8th century CE[2][note 1]) – 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.[1][5]
in order to clean up the grammar.
Dinesh.rv (talk) 04:38, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed "mystic"; anachronistic, and not in line with Shankara's works. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:57, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 11 May 2014 

message: 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)
replies: text: Done Sam Sailor Sing 19:00, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 12 March 2014 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Who is better in advaita vedanta than Shankara? 

message: Joshua, The hinduism-guide.com is not a reliable source. It discloses at the bottom of its page, "It uses material from the Wikipedia 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)
replies: text: Okay. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:57, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical context and quality of sources 

message: [[yo|Ms Sarah Welch}} although a well-known tradition, the identification of Maṇḍana Miśra with Sureśvara diff is rejected by several scholars diff. See also Talk:Sureśvara#Identification with Maṇḍana Miśra. I've moved the treatment of this topic to a note, since it may be too much off-topic. And I'm looking forward to your expertise and further nuance on this, of course. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:31, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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, , 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  JJ, I will work on this in a few days. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:04, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Identification of Maṇḍana Miśra with Sureśvara  

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Edit Request, June 5, 2015 

message: 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)
replies: text: As far as i am concerned, you have made the article worse by your editing. Soham321 (talk) 04:44, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a convincing argument; please explain your objections. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:05, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: See my detailed reply to Abecedare just above this section; the discussion is ongoing. Soham321 (talk) 05:07, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: 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 WP:OR. The term is also anachronistic. Please do discuss, instead of simply reverting. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:36, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: NB: we do agree on the Mahayana Buddhist influences; it's nice not to have to discuss that for a change. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:42, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Shankara's Vedanta and Mahayana Buddhism

message: Dear Joshua, please do not remove the header of this the previous section; it confuses the discussion taking place in the previous section and constitutes disruptive editing. Soham321 (talk) 05:45, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Soham321, do NOT revert talkpages and remove comments! And don't accuse me of being disruptive; especially when you're messing up in such amajor way. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:50, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, i could not give an editor summary for this revert. Essentially, Joshua is moving around his comments--which he has already made in this section to the previous section-- and it is making the whole discussion in the talk page very confusing. That is the sole reason for why i am reverting him. Soham321 (talk) 05:55, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: STOP MESSING AROUND!!! You've removed my comments twice now; stop it!!! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:00, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

text: Apparently not; see Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive_editing_by_Joshua_Jonathan. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:18, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I've restored your beloved header; could you now please address the issues we've raised? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:50, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: All right. In future please do not move edits from one header to another since that leads to confusion.Soham321 (talk) 10:38, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure. We'll take account of your preferences here, if that helps you not to become confused. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:28, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Headers

message: @JJ: Reconsider that note by Fyodor Stcherbatsky. It seems quoted out of context, misrepresents. See summary of Stcherbatsky's views in Natalia Isaeva's book on Shankara (pages 155-168). Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 11:29, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: This, together with your previous comment on Chattopadhyaya's book, looks like cherry picking of sources and POV pushing to me. Soham321 (talk) 11:33, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I just saw my copy of Isaeva, and thought that I should have a look. Soham321, Ms Sarah Welch is very good at Hindu stuff; lease threat her with respect. VictoriaGrayson, who has very little temper with people who fail to use WP:RS, does threat het with respect. That's a sure sign she's good at this stuff. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:41, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fyodor Stcherbatsky 

message: Incidentially, the great contempt of the Dvaita Vedantists for Advaita and Adi Shankara is not that well known. Encylopaedia of Religion and Ethics (ERE) volume 8 pages 232-233 contains some useful information in this regard. (the views in the encylopaedia are primarily based on two dvaita texts--"madhvavijaya"(mv), and "manimanjari"(mm)-- both of which were written by Narayana, a son of Trivikrama, who was a direct disciple of Madhava. Relevant extracts from the ERE are given below: 
I would suggest that a brief reference to this story can be included in the main article just to highlight the contempt of Dvaita Vedantists for Adi Shankara. I seek consensus. Soham321 (talk) 12:20, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Ehm... Those are Vishnuists, I guess? I figured something about it. What about Shankara's time? Were to so outspoken then too, or is this an issue from later times? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:32, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Manimanjari and Madhvavijaya were written by the son of a direct disciple of Madhvacharya; and we know Madhvacharya (also known as Madhva) was around in the 13th century AD. But the allegation of being a "disguised budhist" is repeated by quite a few people including Ramanuja, who was around in the 11th century AD. Ramanuja's commentary on the Vedanta Sutra (also known as Brahma Sutra) contains one of the longest critiques of a single philosopher (in this case, Adi Shankara) to be seen in the work by any Indian philosopher. Soham321 (talk) 12:44, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate source of information (particularly 100+ year old heresay mythology such as in Encylopaedia of Religion and Ethics first published in 1908). See WP:WWIN. Adding such summaries or quotes will weaken the article. A lot of new research on Adi Shankara has been published in recent years, and we now know that there are authentic and unauthentic publications of/about him. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:41, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: But this is not cancer research. In this case the data is the same because the manuscripts remain the same--the key difference between someone writing on Shankara in early 20th century and now is whether the writer is adopting a neutral perspective or a pro-Advaita perspective.Soham321 (talk) 12:46, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: As I wrote above, data and sources are changing. New texts in Indian philosophies are being translated and cross examined. A majority of Indian literature from Vedic and medieval era remains untranslated/unexamined (see Karl Potter's Encyclopedias and Bibliographies on Indian philosophies). Within the last 40 years, scholars have declared or generally accepted that several of the texts on Adi Shankara are unauthentic/unreliable (again, see Natalia Isaeva's book). Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:16, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: These are minor things. Shankara's commentaries on the Brahma Sutra (also known as Vedanta Sutra) remains his magnum opus, and his commentaries on the Upanishads and the Gita continue to be regarded as authoritative. These are the books in which Shankara has expounded his philosophy. These are the books where Shankara regards his reader to be an intellectual/scholar. The disputed works are minor works aimed for popular consumption usually comprising bhakti poetry. Their philosophical significance is nill. Soham321 (talk) 13:32, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

text: I see the above para not adding any value to the main article other than imbalancing the article and proving superiority of one over the other and giving way to fringe theories ! Shrikanthv (talk) 13:26, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the od tag which was making it appear that Shrikanthv had replied to my edit which begins with "These are minor things"; in fact he had not done so. By "above para" he was referring to the extract from the Encyclopedia that i had given. Soham321 (talk) 19:08, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

text: It may seem strange but the books Manimanjari and Madhvavijaya, both of which were written by Narayana Panditacharya, are considered authoritative texts in Dvaita Vedanta. Soham321 (talk) 13:38, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The polemics between Shankaraists and Dvaitists may be interesting an sch, but maybe it belongs at the Advaita Vedanta page. And I think that Ms Sarah Welch is right: a lot of recent research is available. Personally I've got the impression that a lot of simplistic views on Shankara and Advaita Vedanta are circulating, both pro and con. Shankara's vedanta may, in some respects be even closer to Mahayana Buddhism than Shankaraists are willing, or comfortable, to admit. And in some respects it may be completely different. And in yet another aspect, this may be quite irrelevant; what's much more interesting is the practice of Advaita vedanta, the studying and repetition of texts to make them 'come alive'. See The Hidden Lives of Brahman, as noted before. It's much more interesting to find out how Advaita Vedanta "works," instead of engaging in polemics. And yes, of course Shankara's Advaita Vedanta is strongly influenced by Mahayana Buddhism, especially Madhyamaka. So what? This dooes not mean that Shankara is a Mahayanist; on the contrary. It means that the Madhyamakas came up with a powerfull insight, which was also useful for other "schools" of thought. Maybe it's universal, or just plain human: everything changes, nothing remains the same; then what do we actually "know"? Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:00, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: If the polemics between Dvaita and Advaita would have been confined to the philosophical level (Dvaitins calling Advaitins disguised budhists for instance) i would have agreed with you. But the fact that the Dvaitins are making a personal attack on Adi Shankara himself makes it relevant for mentioning in Shankara's talk page. In Udupi, Karnataka, which is the stronghold of the priestly community of Dvaitins, the books Manimanjari and Madhvavijaya are required (compulsory) reading for those training to be priests. I'll try to find online references for this information. Soham321 (talk) 18:48, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a lot we westerners don't know about Advaita Vedanta. My favorite "spiritual" bokstore in Utrecht has a great collection of books published by Motilall Banarsidass, but also a few meters of "Advaita Vedanta" - that is, neo-Advaita, Andrew Cohen and the like. The bookstore-owners don't like it, but it sells. Au Bot du Monde, another "spiritual" bookstore, in Amtserdam, has "banned" neo-Advaita to a separate shelve (shelf?). But neither stores has any serious publication on Adi Shankara or Advaita Vedanta. Truly a pity. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:08, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

text: This Dasgupta's book came out about 100 years ago. I am puzzled why @Soham321 considers opinions in such dated sources as reliable. Same discussion in the Unreliable sources and other sections above. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:52, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Any source which is  giving information that is not in agreement with Sarah Welch's personal bias seems to become an unreliable source on one ground or another (in the case of Chattopadhyaya it was because the publisher was untrustworthy--this was before i pointed out that the same publisher had published books by Romila Thapar and D.D. Kosambi). Soham321 (talk) 20:06, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: @Soham321: Any source that is ~100 year old, or even ~50 on Adi Shankara needs to be reconsidered, no matter whether it praises or criticizes or discusses the ideas previously thought to be of Adi Shankara. The latest link from Marwaha does not discuss "Adi Shankara is a demon" accusation, anywhere. Actually, it does not discuss Shankara at all. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:24, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Take a look at this peer reviewed academic resource on Indian philosophy: link Notice that this resource considers as an authority a book published in 1959 by the same publisher about whom you were complaining about earlier. The latest link is just to show that this paper written recently is accepting Dasgupta as an authoritative source. Soham321 (talk) 01:48, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: @Soham321: Your latest link mentions Shankara twice. It reads, "Śaṅkarācārya’s Jaya-Maṅgalā — this Gauḍapāda and Śaṅkarācārya are generally thought to be different from the famous Advaitins of the same name". I do not see a discussion on "Adi Shankara is a demon" accusation, anywhere. Focus on the content, the date of publication, peer-review / editorial oversight of publisher, and reliability of the source. Not the fame of the author for that source. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 02:06, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

text: Let's get back to the story; I like it. But what does it tell us about those times? Advaita Vedanta only rose to prominence at the start of the Muslim era, the same time when this story apparently was written. So, what does it tell us about those times? That's interesting! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:14, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: one important conclusion to be made about the relationship between Advaita Vedanta and early Muslim invaders in India is this. The argument goes that the widespread popularity of Advaita Vedanta for various reasons (why the Advaita Vedanta rose to prominence in India is also an important question to answer--we can have another discussion on this point) resulted in weakening the indian psyche. Advaita preaches that the world is ultimately unreal, and individuality is unkillable.  When these kind of ideas start taking root in the popular imagination, it can lead to a weakening of the fighting spirit. One becomes passive. After all, why fight when the world is unreal and when nothing exists other than the all pervading Brahman(God) which is defined as pure consciousness without any attributes by Adi Shankara and other Advaitins. This point made by Shankara--about the world being ultimately unreal-- is something that has been very harshly criticized by many Indian philosophers almost from the beginning. By the way, there is one interesting corollary to Shankara's statement that the world(and everything in it) is ultimately unreal. The clear implication of this statement is that the Vedas are also ultimately unreal (since Brahman is the only reality). But he is making this statement on the basis of his interpretation of the Veda which makes it a chicken and egg kind of situation. Soham321 (talk) 04:37, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Does Shankara state that the world is unreal, as in non-existing? This may be polemical misrepresentation of Shankara. For what I know, Shankara regards the world to be real and existing, but not ultimately real, that is, unchanging etc. It's really interesting where does presentations and interpretations of Shankara do come from. By the way, those criticisms remind me very much of criticisms directed against Buddhism. See also :Zen at War. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:55, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: By the way, I can't imagine Shankara stating that the Vedas are unreal; on the contrary. The Vedas are the revelation of Brahman; they are Brahman. Interesting note: the concept/insight/understanding of sunyata also influenced Vaishnavism; see Śūnyatā#In_other_Hindu_sects. Read Susan Kahn; she really made me understand sunyata, after studying Buddhism for 25 years! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:01, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

text:  I do not see that Shankara was too far off from Buddhisim, but the main similarties with both of them was the concept of world being a "MAYA" and difference was that Shakaracharya believed the concept of a "witness" or the Atman a stable personality behind human, while the buddhists rejected this concept as well terming the mere concept initself was a "MAYA" but we have to know that both hated each other! , regarding terming an 100 year old source reliable or the new "western" interpretatin of the sanskrit scripts as "reliable" really makes no sense, we have to know the subject in itself is a philo and a man sees it according to which " floor " he is standing on and offcourse allways try to connect and make sense from his point in time so I do not see on validating something to be right or wrong Shrikanthv (talk) 05:40, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accusation of being a Demon 

message: I have removed the following text from the lead:
It's a very bold claim, to state that the "main currents of modern Indian thought" are derived from Shankara's "doctrines". First, what is "modern Indian thought"? Some monolithic entity without differentiation? And second, are the "main currents" of this modern thought derived from one person?
* Sharma and Deepak Chopra were added as sources to the lead at 29 march 2012, to support the statement "Adi Shankara[...] (788 CE - 820 CE) [...] was an Indian sage from Kalady in present day Kerala who consolidated the doctrine of advaita vedānta." That's a quite different statement.
* This edit changed
::"is a widely studied and influential Hindu philosopher and theologian from India who consolidated the doctrine of Advaita Vedanta."
:into
::"was a Hindu philosopher and theologian from India, most renowned exponent of the Advaita Vedanta school of philosophy, from whose doctrines the main currents of modern Indian thought are derived."
:with the following edit-summary: "small correction"
It's clear that the last part of this line is not a "small correction." Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:09, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: @JJ: I recall struggling with that sentence. Glad you changed it. His role in Hinduism is significant and deserves a place in the lead. I added a sentence with sources. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 04:16, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: So, there are even sources for that statement... Nevertheless, it's a dubious statement; thanks for the precious way you solved it. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:00, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  " main currents of modern Indian thought" 

message: Chattopadhyaya is a potential though dated source for this article. Given concerns expressed in scholarly reviews of his publications, lets cross check and supplement his Marxist-interpretations and POV with recent scholarly sources on Shankara. For more reasons why Chattopadhyaya publications are best used with care and in conjunction with more recent scholarship, see the related parallel discussion and comments of various wikipedia editors here and here. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:36, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya as a source for this article

message: What is this 'Indian' mentioned all over Wikipeidia? Was there any India before the creation of British-India?  
All these great philosophies are at best some kind of intellectual past-time of a minor group of people somewhere in the subcontinent or even outside. A sample of the real people of the subcontinent, and also from where Sri Sankara is said to have originated can be seen on this link.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.214.28.24 (talk) 15:45, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indian?  

message: @Nihoyari: Why is Misra's wife and the claimed Saraswati incarnation WP:Due in this article? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:06, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: @Nihoyari: Please see WP:HISTRS guidelines, then explain why are these reliable? Adi Shankara's life and works have been well studied by scholars and religion historians, who specialize in this area. This encyclopedic article must rely on the related scholarship. We should not base this article on gossip or op-ed columns of Indian or non-Indian tabloids and newspapers. Your allegation of "the most celebrated ddebate [sic] between Ubhaya Bharati and Adi Shankara in 8th Century A.D" is strange. Because the scholarly sources cited in this article state the confusion whether Misra and Suresvara were the same person; even the birth year of Adi Shankara is uncertain. Your claims are thus neither based on relevant scholarship, nor consistent with it. Further it is WP:Undue. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:49, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:11, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misra's wife 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Adi Shankara. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120508091224/http://www.sanskrit.org/www/Shankara/shankar4.html to http://www.sanskrit.org/www/Shankara/shankar4.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:56, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: It is written that vidyaranya was a minister. That is totally wrong. Vidyaranya was never a minister in vijayanagara empire 15.219.201.75 (talk) 10:57, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.  —  IVORK Discuss 11:34, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

text: Please add :Category:Hindu saints in this article39.50.180.42 (talk) 14:35, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 24 May 2017 

message: diff. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:46, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry I'm not logged in. As I think about it, it was probably a typo. Shankara founded the matha tradition, aka the four mutts (at least, he is credited with founding them, although it is dubious/unproven). Very different than the naths.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.191.143.194 (talk) 17:07, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh wow. Good catch . I see what happened now as I look at the edit. Some fast and loose rearranging took an accurate statement that described his influence on the naths and made it an inaccurate claim that he founded the naths. I still wonder to what degree that can be credited to the cited sources with all the intermediate edits. Yikes things get messy with so many cooks in the kitchen. Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 20:35, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nath-tradition 

message: In regards to similarities between Mahayana Buddhism and Shankara's philosophy, it is erroneous to suggest at all that sunyata originates with Buddhism.
Nagajuna has brought this word into Buddhism, however he is said to have had it revealed by the Goddess Tara, while Shunya Bindhu is a Shakta concept relating to that which is beyond Adi Para Shakti. Buddha never actually uses the word at all, however it is valid to suggest this is the same as Nirguna Brahman, since Shakti is the the energy pervading all things, while Brahman is beyond all things (nirguna means without attributes, thus prior to appearances).
It is actually more likely that Mahayana Buddhism is the result of incorporating Hindu thought into Buddhism via Nalanda and perhaps Gandhara, rather than the other way around and this becomes more pronounced when we look at the Tibetan Buddhist traditions.
For me, the whole section on the similarities should be either removed or re-written to reflect a more valid interpretation of events.
Presently it is simply misinformed, bordering on ignorant. FrankPrajna (talk) 23:12, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Scholarship disagrees with you. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 03:57, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 18 May 2018 

message: What Buddha has called "anatta", for the Vedantist is called "jivanmukti".
There is no actual difference, both speak of dharma. 98.165.4.159 (talk) 14:28, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: You're confusing several concepts here. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:45, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 22 May 2018 

message: Until British came to India, Indian history was using Yudhistira yuga or Salivahana saka etc not Christian Era to record dates. Irrespective of the dates, one unquestionable fact is Adi Sankaracharya’s establishment of 4 peethas at 4 sides of India i.e., Sringeri in South, Dwaraka in West, Gowardhana Math in East and Jyothir Math in North. Kanchi math is another one setup by Sankaracharya. Their traditional lineage lists (guru-parampar a) give the names and usually the dates of each successive pontiff of that particular matha. The list of the Dwaraka Peetha in the West gives for the birth of Sankara the date 2631 of the Yudhisthira era, corresponding to 509 BC. The list of the Sarada matha (at Kanchi) in the South gives the date 2593 of the Kali Yuga era, also corresponding to 509 BC. It is significant that two different lineage lists from two widely separated mathas, having 77 and 68 successors respectively, both go back in an unbroken line to 509 BC. The Goverdhana Matha (East) maintains the list of 144 acharyas but not the dates. Only Goverdhana Matha has Grihasta’s becoming head of peetha whereas other mathas have a Brahmachari at a young age becomes head. Sringeri Math maintains an imperfect record of Acharyas with many years of gaps in between. Sringeri math somehow started accepting western scholars’ date of 788 AD as the birth date of Adi Sankara. It is interesting to note that there was one Abhinava Sankaracharya who was the 38th pontiff of Sarada Math, Kanchi who lived around 788 AD and this Acharya was extremely popular during his time.
There is also epigraphic evidence supporting the date of 509 BC for Sankara’s birth. This is a copper plate inscription addressed to Sankara by King Sudhanvan of Dwaraka, dated 2663 of the Yudhisthira era, corresponding to 477 BC, the year of Sankara’s death. Since Sankara died at the age of 32, this places his birth in 509 BC.
Why are western scholars motivated to place the date birth in AD not in BC? The traditional western religious scholars, most of whom are Christian missionaries from time immemorial have been trying to change the dates of any philosophy to AD i.e., post creation of Christianity. With this manipulated date information they want to create another theory that Sankara’s philosophy was influenced by Bible & Christian teachings. Had Sankara was born in 788 AD, it would have taken him not more than a week to denounce the entire Christian teachings which have taken root in his native culture (kerala). Please note that Adi Sankara was born in Kerala and the first Indian Christian roots are also in Kerala. Adi Sankara traveled length and breadth of India to debate and convert non-Vedic thoughts so he wouldn’t have let off Christian groups near his place of birth. Sushilschoolkumar (talk) 07:08, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 29 June 2018 

message: He belongs to  viswakarma caste. 
"Acharya Sankaro nama 
"Twashta putro nasanyasa, 
"Viprakula gurordiksha, 
"Visvakarmantu Brahmana"
"My name is Shankaracharya, I am a descendant of Twashtar, I have come here to teach the Vipras the right of wearing the sacred thread, I am a Brahmana of the Vishvakarma Caste." (Shankaracharya Vijaya) Vb manchery (talk) 05:08, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you provide source or proof to substantiate your claim? Sreeking (talk) 11:20, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: He was a Namboothiri Brahmin from Kaipilly Mana. The direct descendants of this family exist today. This needs to be mentioned in the article175.34.178.120 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 06:59, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Direct descendands of most families of people featured in Wikipedia exist today. Nothing unusual. I bet direct descendants of Aristotle's family also exist today. — kashmīrī TALK 11:05, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Caste of adi sankaran 

message: As is now:
Nevertheless does Grimes argue that "there is still a likelihood that
Following reads easier:
Nevertheless Grimes argues, "there is still a likelihood that NoonSol (talk) 11:22, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor edit 

message: There is very direct evidence to date Adi Sankaracharya in the year 2000 BCE. Adi Sankaracharya spoke of the North Pole star as Thuban. If this was to happen as per the 26000 year precision cycle of the Earth's wobble around it's axis, then the year has to be 2000 BCE. Currently, the North Pole star is Dhruva. Thuban belongs to the Sisumara constellation ( Draco constellation ).
Adi Shankaracharya quoted Vedic text Taittirīya Āraṇyaka  (2.19)  5000 BCE  to  explain  that  Viṣhṇu  resides  at  the  navel  of  the  Sisumara  figure  regulating  the  26000 year precession wheel  of  the  nakṣhatras.  He  also  mentions  that  the  star named Dhruva  as Thuban  is  stationed at  the tail  end of the Sisumara constellation ( Draco constellation ).  Orion rises in the south, while Draco descends in the north. The cycle is about 13 thousand years long. Then Orion descends, and Draco rises. This cycle is everlasting, and this is written in the ancient Vedas and puranas.
The Earth wobbles on its axis. It takes about 26,000 years to make one full wobble, and in that time, the north pole points to different stars. At the time of Adi Sankaracharya, Thuban was the North Pole star.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lyanhnan (talk • contribs) 09:21, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:FORUM and WP:FRINGE. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:39, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adi Sankaracharya's period in history 

message: Looks like the devanagari version of the name is incorrect. It is given as “शङ्कराआचार्य” which in IAST would be “śaṅkarāācārya” but should be “शङ्कराचार्य” which in IAST is the correct “śaṅkarācārya”. There's no need for the extra आ in there, due to the sandhi rules.
Also, please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the technical correct spelling “शंकराचार्य” (śaṃkarācārya), where the anusvara takes on the pronunication of ṅ, but this is not the same as writing out the letter ṅ?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.245.240.162 (talk) 20:17, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, you are correct on both counts, this looks really weird.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.76.140.13 (talk) 07:12, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sanskrit incorrect 

message: I wanted to add images of Adi Shankaracharya from our temple in Atlanta, Georgia, USA. Kindly allow me to edit the page. Regu400 (talk) 21:39, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you.. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 01:02, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 17 February 2021 

message: I don't disagree with your revert. Maybe I had misunderstood the phrase "consequent devastation of India". But is this sentence "The historical fame and cultural influence of Shankara may have grown centuries later after his death, particularly during the era of Muslim invasions and consequent devastation of India." is in line with WP:NPOV? What does the phrase consequesnt devastation of India actually mean? Mosesheron (talk) 18:37, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: That the Muslim conquests were devastating for India, from the point of view pf, and for the position of, the Hindu population and rulers. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:41, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  The article does not say "Muslim conquests were devastating for India, from the point of view pf, and for the position of, the Hindu population and rulers". It states, in the language of Wikipedia, that "Muslim invasions" were "devastating" for India. You think this description is in line with WP:NPOV? Mosesheron (talk) 18:53, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: See Adi Shankara#Critical assessment, and reference #13 (Paul Hacker). The point here is that the Musloim consquests were devastating for the Hindu empires, and that Adi Shankara was elevated to a new position of high authority when a new narrative on Hindu-religion was created. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:09, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  I do not dispute the facts that "Muslim conquests" or "invasions" (say whatever you like) were devastating for the Hindu empires. After all, they are historical events. However, saying that "Muslim conquests" or "invasions" were devastating for India as a whole is not the same as saying they were disastrous for Hindu/Buddhist empires. India as it exists today must not be confused with the Hindu or Buddhist empires that ruled at the time of Muslim conquests and invasions. Many distinct empires ruled over the land. That is why the prhase "consequent devastation of India" I think is wrong at its core. What are your thoughts on this? Mosesheron (talk) 19:46, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ah I see. didn't notice this. I think that solves the issue. Thank you. Mosesheron (talk) 20:01, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV issue 

message: Add the following details, (as the already established fact of forming four monasteries has been slightly distorted by favouring another monastery which was not formed intitially - that is Kanchi Mutt) :
Shankara was said to have established four mathas at strategic points in India as bulwarks for Hindu missionary activity and as centres for the 10 religious orders (Dasanami Sampradaya) of his group: the Govardhana Matha in Puri on the east coast for the Aranya and Vana orders; the Jyotih Matha, near Badrinath in the Himalayas, for the Giri, Parvata, and Sagara orders; the Sarada Matha in Dvaraka on the west coast for the Tirtha and Asrama orders; and the Srngeri Matha in South India for the Bharati, Puri, and Sarasvati orders. A fifth matha, the Saradapitha in Kancipuram near Madras, arose later. 103.147.209.231 (talk) 13:24, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs)  02:09, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 16 June 2021 

message: Copied from [[User talk:Joshua Jonathan#Adi Shankara
I dont understand why you deleted the content? Adi Shankara, born in my native place and I know more than what you know. You people trying to prove thatAdi Shankara was born in CE 588? what a rubbish? Then what abouth the temples he built? What about the books which was written in BCE??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kjrajesh (talk • contribs) 6 November 2018 (UTC)
: well, I self-reverted. After all, that section also pays attention to non-scholarly opinions and local beliefs. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:08, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I re-self-reverted; the whole addition is unsourced, but obviously comes from this, or a similar page. WP:NOTHERE. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:17, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dates 

message: regarding this repeated move of sourced info from the lead into the main body of the article, 
* diff, edit-summary 
* diff, edit-summary , removing
:
there is a section :Adi Shankara#Critical assessment (you put that oiece of info right above it diff; looks like you didn't pay attention tot the structure of the article when moving it). The WP:LEAD summarizes the article; per WP:NPOV the fact (not "opinion") that his fame is alter development is most relevant, given the unbalanced prominence given to him by certain sections of Hindu-thinkers, not all Hindu-thinkers. See also WP:CENSOR. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:28, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The information is certainly relevant, but it should be placed in it's own section rather than in the introduction of article. Avdmoh (talk) 13:42, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: It has it's own section; and it's summarized in the lead. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:19, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Influence