Talk:Adi Shankara

Prediction of Adi Shankaracharya .

@Joshua Jonathan Plz read this,

Another interesting prediction is that Lord Shiva, one of the great demigods, would appear in Kali-yuga as Shankaracharya. In the Padma Purana (6.236.5-12) Shiva explains to his wife, Parvati, that he will appear in the age of Kali to proclaim that the Buddhist doctrine is a false religion and illusory. He also said that he would propound the mayavada or impersonalist philosophy, emphasizing the indefinable nature of the Brahman, the great, impersonal spiritual force. He explained, "The philosophy of Maya (mayavada) is a wicked doctrine and is pseudo-Buddhist. In the form of a brahmana, I proclaim this doctrine in Kali-yuga. It makes the words of the holy Vedic texts meaningless and is condemned in the world. In this doctrine it recommends giving up one's duties of life [in order to be free of karma], which is said to be religiousness for those who have fallen from their duties. I will propound the identity of the Supreme Soul and the individual soul to be the [one and the same] Brahman in nature, without qualities. O goddess, I have conceived this mayavada (impersonalist) doctrine, which resembles a purport of the Ve das, for deluding people in this age of Kali [to mislead them toward atheism by denying the personal form of God]." 2409:4071:2104:311C:827B:8D73:BE76:E78 (talk) 17:18, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

That part is highly interpolated .that part of padma puran is. considered interpolated....Even there is written demon name madhu will come to say against shiva ......these type of thing all are interpolated ....In padma puran the deluding incarnation is said for vaam. Margi kapalik because there is written he will carry bone and ashes ...iskcon guys funny Redop1 (talk) 07:42, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

"Interpolation" the magic wand of master handwavers used to support their position. 67.204.247.30 (talk) 20:27, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Dating

Moved from User talk:Joshua Jonathan

Could I know why my edit was reverted? I had provided reference from a very authentic book ever written on Adi Shankaracharya Useless3078 (talk) 01:32, 9 August 2024 (UTC) Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 03:20, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

@Useless3078: your edit diff added a date based on a traditional source, Sastry Narayana (1916), The Age of Sankara, giving the dating of Kanchipuram matha. This does not belong in the "Scholarly datings"-section, nor does it add new info to the "Matha datings"-section. Apart from that, you gave a direct link to the source, instead of using <ref></ref> tags. Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 03:32, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 August 2024

In the first line of article -

Edit - "...Indian Vedic Scholar and Teacher of Advaita Vedanta..." to "...Indian Philosopher, Vedic Scholar and Teacher of Advaita Vedanta..." DiptenK (talk) 11:45, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks. Rasnaboy (talk) 12:33, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan I saw you reverted Rasnaboy's edit for this request for adding "Philosopher". I sort of agree with this request to add "philosopher" - isn't Shankara considered a "philosopher" based on definition of a "philosopher"? - Assuming when you say "..with little original thought" refers to general view that Shankara's thought were also by others before him, but Shankara is the key in synthesizing these ideas, giving Advaita Vedanta. He also wrote commentaries on the three key texts. I think he refuted/debated/challenged other Indian philosophical thoughts (Mimamsa, Buddhism etc) at that time? In short, he may not be the "innovator", but I guess defender/expander/clarifier? Asteramellus (talk) 13:40, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

What's the defiition of a philosopher? Philosophy to which philosopher redirects, says:

Philosophy ('love of wisdom' in Ancient Greek) is a systematic study of general and fundamental questions concerning topics like existence, reason, knowledge, value, mind, and language. It is a rational and critical inquiry that reflects on its own methods and assumptions.

What Shankara did was commenting on Upanishadic texts, referring to commentators before him. Compare this text in the article:

Mayeda further notes that Shankara was primarily concerned with moksha, "and not with the establishment of a complete system of philosophy or theology,"[155] following Potter, who qualifies Shankara as a "speculative philosopher."[156] Lipner notes that Shankara's "main literary approach was commentarial and hence perforce disjointed rather than procedurally systematic [...] though a systematic philosophy can be derived from Samkara's thought."[157]

So, yes, Potter calls him a philosopher, but a "speculative philosopher." But Merriam-Ebster has an interesting definition, which you could use:

1. a person who seeks wisdom or enlightenment : scholar, thinker; a student of philosophy
2. a person whose philosophical perspective makes meeting trouble with equanimity easier; an expounder of a theory in a particular area of experience
one who philosophizes

I don't know if Shankara is the "key" in synthesizing Advaita ideas; he only came to be regarded so centuries centuries after his death, ironically by a strand of Advaita which incorporated yogic ideas in their writings, simething Shankara opposed. What he's especially 'influential' for is as an iconic defender of traditional Hinduism - but this, too, is a portrait which emerged only centuries later. Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 16:00, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan yes thanks - did read that definition in Merriam-Webster before I replied earlier.

Regarding what you have said, I have not come across sources that call Sankara "speculative philosopher" - I will read this source and the sources under that section for "Systematizer of Advaita" later when I have time – so I can't "speculate" to say why Potter uses those words. I assumed it is a common knowledge in academia that Shankara is a philosopher. Anyway, I guess instead of us cherry-picking sources for one side or the other and spending time digging through sources to prove something so trivial, I want to see what other editors here says, and what @Rasnaboy thinks. Also, just for reference here - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy says "Sankara was an exegete, philosopher, and teacher". It also says "Nonetheless, he was an original philosopher who constructed novel arguments". Asteramellus (talk) 18:44, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, and he was the greatest advaitin of all time etc. Looks like something was lost on Neil Dalal; he's repeating all the cliches. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 19:49, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

@Asteramellus The person removing 'philosopher' has a history of edits on Hinduism and related topics with inflammatory edits and remarks. Sometimes they cherry-pick low-quality sources and quotes, and sometimes they rely solely on their own understanding of the subject, as seen here. The continuous POV pushing and stubbornness to engage in edit wars confidently on Hinduism-related topics, Indo-Aryan migration-related topics, South Asia-related topics, etc., suggest that the person might have strong backing (or at least they think so). Their extreme anti-Brahmin bigotry was also exposed in the past when they commented on Brahmins being hungry all the time and performing pujas for others just to eat food. Not only that, the user attempts to insert Hindu nationalism and Hindutva anywhere there is opposition to their views or worldview, as if labeling someone a Hindu nationalist would diminish their credibility. They are currently also engaged in other POV pushing on the Michael Witzel page. This person should be banned from all India and Hinduism-related topics. Every day there is a slow edit war and civil POV pushing on pages related to these topics. Unilateral decisions are being made everywhere.. 2409:4089:AD98:4C14:BDEF:534D:4327:107C (talk) 01:10, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Ah, the IP again, oblivious of the endless right-wing pov-pushing on India-related pages. Asteramellus, let me explain a little bit more. This narrative of Shankara being the greatest Indian philosopher is a cliche, repeated over and over again. As scholars have explained, he wasn't that influential in his own time; it was only around 1400, in the Vijanagara-empire, that he was chosen as an emblem of Hindu-religiosity and values. That's where his main attraction lies. This narrative was picked-up by western scholars in the 19th century who wanted to chart Indian religiosity (usefull knowledge when you have to suppress conquered people), and were mostly informed by Brahmins; it was further reinforced by Indian nationalists and neo-Vedantins, who used this one-sided image against Christianity: a hero on a par with Christian dominance.
Think about it: what this narrative also says is that, in the 1200 years following Shankara, nothing comparable to Shankara's works was produced. With other words: India declined, no present author is as smart or good as Shankara. That's how we want to look at India? To make a comparison: have you ever read "Talks with Ramana Maharshi"? A dazzling knowledge of Indian 'mystical' literature, from all kinds, not just Advaita Vedanta. But incomparable to Shankara, according to this narrative.
If I'm cynical, I'd say that some people insist on the predicate "philosopher" to make Shankara comparable to western philosophy - with western philosophy implicitly taken as the measure-stick. What a pity.... Define Indian thought on it's own merits; where in western thought do we find meditation and yoga? To speak for myself: I have a few dozen books on western philosophy, but hundreds on Buddhism, Hinduism and meditation.
Regarding Shankara's originality, or the lack thereof, what strikes me as original in his writings are his statements on the liberative power of (understanding) the mahavakyas; that's where I sense a personal 'power', experience. Not in his commentaries; the commentaries on the Upanishads are uninspiring... But in his emphasis on direct apprehension he's elevated - direct apprehension, which is in contradiction with Advaita Vedanta lore! Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 03:28, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

@Asteramellus: I've been thinking further over 'philospher yes or no', and I suddenly realized that usually we associate 'philosopher' with 'sustained rational thought to arrive at a logical conclusion'. That's typically not the essence of what Skankara did; what he did was explaining and interpreting sacred texts, to arrive at an intuitive insight of Brahman. Now, there may be an implicit assumption that 'sustained rational thought' is better, but here the opposite seems to be true: liberating insight is attained by intuitive insight. When we try to frame Shankara in the (supposedly!) suoerior western frame, we actually lose sight of what he did and of the means to emulate his endeavors. That may make sense in a culture war where Shankara is the prototypcal Indian spiritual hero, but it does not make sense in terms of this spirituality itself. By 'elevating' him to the status of 'philosopher', we actually lose Shankara himself... Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 14:47, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan Thanks so much for the thoughts here and sorry for not getting back sooner. I guess it's like many sanskrit terms which don't have exact translations. But going back to the usage of "Philosopher", it seems it is quite commonly used for many such "ancient" scholars. e.g. look at Dharmakirti : "Dharmakīrti, a profound and rigorous philosopher of Indian Buddhism" and Sriharsa: "Śrīharṣa was an Indian philosopher and poet" and "..The Indian philosopher Śaṃkara". Asteramellus (talk) 21:08, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

@Asteramellus: I guess we should add it, given Merriam-Webster's first definition: 'a seeker of wisdom, enlightenment'. Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 01:52, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 September 2024

I simply want to add the birthplace of the person. Also want to add the fact that the date of Adi Shankara is a matter of dispute as far as history is concerned.

Dating Adi Shankaracharya is based almost entirely of relative dating methods, but the date with who his dates are relatively fixed itself are disputed. Porulubayasiga (talk) 14:44, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

There's already an explanatory note for the birth- and death-date. With which date are his dates fixed? And the actual birthplace, or the legendary birthplace? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 15:12, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

This reply could've been much more detailed, however, I wish to be as concise as possible.

Surēśvara, a contemporary and direct discile of Śrī Ādi Śaṅkarāćārya (hereby referred to as ASA), refers to him as Drāviḍa. A clear reference that indicates that ASA was most defntely fom the geographic region of what is popularly known as "Tamiḻakam". [1]

Ćitsukha, a contemporary of of ASA, tells us that ASA's native was situated in th modern day Indian state of Kerala. This was also where ASA was born, we're told. [2]

Tradition and practically all later biographies are universally consistent is asserting that ASAP was indeed a native of Tamiḻakam. (A majority of them state that he was from from the village Kalady in Kerala, while one or two say that he was from Chidambaram, in the neighbouring states of Tamil Nadu). Nevertheless, he was most definitely from Tamiḻakam. Nowhere have I ever come across a contradiction to this assertion. And really, there is no reason I know of to doubt it. [3][4]

P.S:

Also lastly, I noticed your appellation contrasting "legendary birth place" and "actual birth place". I'm not sure how exactly we are going to contrast these two in this situation. The region being referred to in all cases is a very real "geographical location", so I don't understand how it can be called "legendary". In the case of Patanjali, for example, the birth place would be called "legendary" because the places mentioned in regards with his birth is truly somewhat "legendary", which is clearly not the case with ASA.

If this is somehow too "legendary" (as ridiculously fictional as the very idea might be) for wikipedia, Wikipedia should go ahead and strip the place of birth and place of death locational markers from Siddhartha Gautama, Mahavira, etc, which are all conspicuously what should be referred to as "legendary" if at all we're are to look at it that way.

[1] Surēśvara's Naiṣkarmya-siddhi 4.44

[2] “Sankara Vijayas : Arun Kumar Upadhyay : Free download, borrow, and streaming : Internet Archive,” Internet Archive, Apr. 30, 2020. p. 41 https://archive.org/details/sankara-vijayas

[3] “Sankara Vijayas : Arun Kumar Upadhyay : Free download, borrow, and streaming : Internet Archive,” Internet Archive, Apr. 30, 2020. p. 108 https://archive.org/details/sankara-vijayas

[4]H. Sankaracarya, The Saundaryalahari or Flood of beauty. 1958. p.25. doi:10.4159/harvard.9780674432659. Porulubayasiga (talk) 17:16, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

WP:OR. We summarize WP:RS, not our own analysis. Shankara's 'biographies' were written centuries after his life; they are utterly unreliable. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 19:33, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Bowler the Carmine | talk 05:17, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Adi Sankara Caste

What is Adi Sankara Caste

आचार्य शंकरो नाम त्वष्टा पुत्रों न संशयः' यह श्लोक है: आचार्य शंकरो नाम त्वष्टा पुत्रों न संशयः, विप्रकुल गुरू दीक्षा विश्वकर्मान्तु ब्राह्मणः. Prabhatv01 (talk) 09:22, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes your correct 2409:4073:497:A104:BE54:E931:4881:48D8 (talk) 16:11, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

@Prabhatv01 Use English: This is the English-language Wikipedia; discussions should normally be conducted in English. If using another language is unavoidable, try to provide a translation, or get help at Wikipedia:Embassy. Do not expect readers to translate your content themselves, not even when modern browsers have machine translation built-in.

KingParijata (talk) 03:36, 30 October 2024 (UTC)