Talk:Adi Shankara/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Dates of Sankara's life

It was claimed that Sankara's life ran from approximately 509-477 BC. This date appears to come from Theosophical scholarship (witness the link offered as evidence); it would make Sankara a predecessor of the Buddha, and it would place him over a thousand years before the advent of Islam in India, either of which makes a nonsense of his generally understood place in history. I see that there has already been a little edit war over this subject, on 1-2 February 2005, earlier on 22 November 2004, and perhaps earlier still. The dates 788-820 evidently reflect the mainstream scholarly consensus. Would the advocate(s) of the BC dates please post their arguments here, along with some explanation of Sankara's relationship to Buddhism and Indian Islam in their worldview. Mporter 05:31, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I've corrected the dates. Sources for C8th C.E.:

I know of no reputable source for B.C.E. dates. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:31, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

-- Please refer to this (among others) for proof of B.C.E dates. http://www.kamakoti.org/peeth/origin.html Thanks. (March 9 2005)

The page doesn't offer proof; it's one source against the three above (and many others besides). Moreover, it cites unnamed scholars in support of its claim — so there's no way to check its sources. In the section concerning Shankara's founding of monasteries, etc., only one mention is made of a date; the reference is to a small and obscure 1959 work by O. (or D.) S. Triveda.
The dating seems to be based upon the dates of institutions which were founded, according to tradition, by Shankara. If we follow that reasoning, then Alfred the Great lived in the early sixteenth century, when Brasenose College (which tradition says that he founded) was built.
More importantly, the B.C.E. dates make no sense when placed against the content of the article — especially the material about Shankara's interactions with Buddhism and Jainism. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:31, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

In addition to the Kanchi Peetham, three of the other four peethams established by Adi Sankara subscribe to the B.C.E dates. http://www.easterntradition.org/original%20sankaracarya.pdf also offers proof for B.C.E dates. Bottom line is that this is one of these things which can't been proved based on modern historians. So I would go with the Mathams which were established by Adi Sankara himself. I'm not sure who else can be a better authority on Adi Sankara.

And the BCE dates do not contradict Buddhism/Jainism dates. A quick search on Wikipedia will should that both Gautama Buddha and Mahavira predate Adi Sankara by a few decades.

Thanks. (March 10 2005)

  1. Please register and then sign your messages. Aside from anything else, you're likely to be taken more seriously by many users.
  2. The point about Buddhism doesn't concern the lifetime of the Buddha, but the fact that, first, for Shankara to have travelled round the country debating with monks, there must have been a very widespread and established system of monasteries and the like, and secondly, the Buddhist views with which he was concerned would have had to have developed. Neither makes sense in the time-scale on offer. (If the claim had been that he had debated with the Buddha, that would have been a diferent matter.)
  3. I stick to the point that foundtion dates (and details of founders), especially with regard to religious foundations, and especially when those foundations are old, are notoriously unreliable.
  4. The standard (indeed, the unanimous) view, among the sources I've consulted, both published and personal, is the C8th C.E. dating. We should probably mention the minority tradition of a B.C.E. date, but it would have to be accompanied by an explanation as to why that's not accepted by most authorities. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:51, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Incidentally, and especially with regard to the claim that there's another person – 'Abhinava Shankara' – with whom this Shankara is being confused, see the Devasthanam discussion. The evidence is fully laid out there. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:53, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

1. I agree with you that both the dates be mentioned with explanations on why they can be accepted/not accepted. In fact, when I made the BCE date changes a while ago, I mentioned the AD dates too so as to allow the reader to make the call.

2. As to the Buddha dates, there are some schools which give Gautama Buddha an earlier date. So it is likely that by the time of Adi Sankaracharya, Buddhism was well rooted. http://www.encyclopediaofauthentichinduism.org/articles/52_the_dynasties_of.htm

3. I read the Sanskrit.org article about Abinava Sanakara. Though Abinava is a title, there was indeed an Abinava Sankara. The 38th Pontiff of the Kanchi Kamakoti Peetham was Abinava Sankarendra Saraswathi. The current pontiff is #70. http://www.kamakoti.org/peeth/origin.html

4. The same Sanskrit.org article also mentions that the Dwaraka and Puri mathas held on to the BC dates for Acharya. Though it also mentions that there is no recorded proof for those dates.

5. I'm not a regular contributor to Wikipedia (and thus have not registered) and got into this discussion to clarify why the dates were changed. (Not some random act of vandalism as one of the history comments say)

Thanks - SankaraBhaktan 12 Mar 2005

I am to change the page since :

The above dates have to be unbiased sice there has to be equal reference to the dates

The members of other religions have no idea of what a change of date would cause to ones religious belief.

History is always changing.

To balance the alliegance of all the mutts.

The dates would NEVER , mind NEVER be resolved since it is a matter of faith.

There is no physical proof that a man called Sankara existed the same as of other religious heads.

So, let it be a matter of faith and no non-hindu person should indulge in distorting the page, just as we dont distort, say a christian philosophers page.

Whatever said and done, he was one of the greatest philosophers in Hindu religion and allow his reputation to REST IN PEACE.

-A Hindu who will never touch this page or visit this website ANYMORE.

http://www.telegraphindia.com/1030121/asp/nation/story_1593957.asp A good source to include if any one wants to look at it.

It essentially says that religious authorities have agreed on a date. It waves a hand vaguely at "scientists and historians", but we're not told who they are. It doesn't really add anything to what's already been said here and elsewhere. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 2 July 2005 10:08 (UTC)

I guess Telegraph India is one of the worst sources in the world. So much for one of India's most popular newspaper. I guess your sources are either from the anti-hindu lobby or from Romila Thapar,the great historian [Marxist-Communist]. Give some weight to religious institutions and other historians and scientists, they are not idiots for backing the BCE date. By saying very approximately CE in the beginning and then disputing the date later, your article is purely biased. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 211.31.113.124 (talk • contribs) 06:06, 3 July 2005.

  1. Newspapers are generally not good sources for scholarly informaion, and popularity is generally a contra-indication. In fact, however, I sadi nothing about the status of the paper, I merely described the nature of this particular article.
  2. I've given three sources above, and there are many others; none is from any "anti-Hindu lobby".
  3. I've yet to see, in any of the material offered in support of the BCE dates, one historian or scientists mentioned by name; religious institutions are notoriously unreliable when it comes to their claims concerning the dates of their foundations and of their founders. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 3 July 2005 10:09 (UTC)

If religious institutions are notoriously unreliable in giving dates concerning their founders birth, Then the kanchi, badrinath, dwaraka and puri mutts are right and sringeri mutt is wrong. Then i equally have a case to say "very approximately whaterver BCE". I guess I have no time to talk with you anymore. You seem to jobless and changing and rechanging articles almost hourly. I guess you are either a stupid unpaid wikipedia agent or an unemployed free lancer. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 211.31.113.124 (talk • contribs) 12:51, 3 July 2005.

Most of this is incomprehensible, and the rest seems to be a personal attack (based on a deep misunderstanding of Wikipedia). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 3 July 2005 14:09 (UTC)

Other issues

Deleting the following as I don't think it is NPOV:

>> had been almost smothered within the enticing entanglements of the Buddhistic philosophy and, consequently, the decadent Hindu society had come to be broken up and disunited into numberless sects and denominations, each championing a different viewpoint and mutually quarelling in endless argumentations. Each pundit, as it were, had his own followers, his own philosophy, his own interpretation. Each one was a vehement and powerful opponent of all other views. This intellectual disintegration, especially in the scriptural field, was never before so serious and so dangerously calamitous as in the times of Sankara.>>

kh7 08:14 Mar 28, 2003 (UTC)

--

The article says,"Shankara is said to have traveled throughout India... (apparently successfully, though no documentation exists) ...."

What about the "Shankara Digvijayas" written by Madhava Vidyaranya?

'आदि शंकराचार्य' is the originating word for the name, so it is 'Shankara' in the wide usage. 'Sankara' is used in Tamil as the letter 'sh' is absent in Tamil usage.

--Hpnadig 03:14, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

-- Dates and Mathas

(1) Dates section: The statement 'Some religious groups, however, ascribe B.C.E. dates to him' is not NPOV. The mathas which go with the BCE are legitimate institutions with almost 2500 of history behind them. It is denigrating to label them as some fly by night religious group.

(2) Mathas section: The statement 'However, there is no concrete evidence for the existence of these mathas before the 14th century, so the claim that Adi Shankara founded them is dubious at best' is plain inflammatory.

It appears that it is becoming futile to attempt to make any corrections anymore

- SankaraBhaktan April 09 2005

  1. That you need to add derogatory comments to what's written in order to protest against it rather shows the weakness of your case. If the article referred to 'fly-by-night' religious groups, then of course you'd have a point; it doesn't.
  2. I'm not responsible for that claim, but I've researched it, and found no-one to disagree with it. Similarly, the claim that modern Druidry is a primarily 18th- & 19th-century tradition, with only tenuous links to anything earlier is doubtless inflammatory to many, but no less true for all that. If, of course, you have concrete evidence for the existence of the mathas in question, then post it here and we can change the article. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:23, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

-- (1) What was derogatory in the comments? Sorry didn't understand your comment. My point is that just because the groups who claim the BCE dates are religious does not invalidate the case for BCE dates. If that is not the intent, maybe the article needs to be rephrased. (2) The proof is the Guru Parampara of the Mathas. What else are you looking for? - SB April 11 2005

  1. 'Fly by night'.
  2. If being religious invalidated their claim, they wouldn't be mentioned. However, international scholarship – including Hindu religious scholars – agrees on the 8th century C.E. dates; the minority opinion is mentioned in the article but not used in the summary.
  3. I'm afraid that that's not what I (or most people) mean by proof. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:49, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Thanks. (1)Ok / (2) As I'd mentioned before, maybe that paragraph needs to be rephrased. I showed it a another group here, and they also felt that the paragraph was denigrating to the Mathas who claim BCE dates. Please keep in mind that 3 of the original Mathas went with the BCE dates.

(3) Almost every article you’ve used as proof for CE dates also talk about Sankara as establishing the Mathas. Any reason to doubt that Sankara established the Mathas is unfounded.

(4) I think that the dates section should also address the mystery over where Sankara attained siddhi – Kedaranath vs. Kanchi.

(5) In the end, the philosophy and works of Sankara are more important.

I prefer discussing issues over here than get into an unnecessary cycle of edits/reverts. (I see that its still going on) In fact, after writing about the dates, I waited a while before creating the section on dates. Appreciate your willingness for discussion.

- SB Apr 11 2005

  1. I'm afraid that I don't see how the phrase 'religious' group' could be taken to be denigrating (except to an atheist group, I suppose).
  2. It seems clear that Sankara founded Mathams; what's not certain is how many, which ones, and when. On one side of the debate we have tradition, on the other side, scholarship. Wikipedia (in common with other reference works) prefers to rely upon scholarship, but mentions the tradition.
  3. First, the assumption that he gained siddhi (or that there is such a thing) is itself PoV, of course, so any discussion has to bear that in mind. Secondly, though, I don't see what connection it has with the issue of dates; why do you think that it should be placed there? I suppose that we could rename the section something like 'Areas of disagreement', or something like that; then the two issues would both be appropriate.
  4. Please sign your messages (~~~~.
  5. Why not create an account? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:09, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

(1) It appears as though the reason to reject the BCE dates is because it is supported by the 'religious groups'. (2) When it comes to Indian history one has to ALSO rely on tradition (if one is interested in the truth). Frankly, none of the sources which show as proof have any really credentials on this subject. These 'scholarly' works go by oral tradition as much as the proof laid out by religious groups. (3) 'Areas of mystery or something similar' is what I meant. While we are addressing the mystery over the dates, we may as well address the mystery over his attaining siddhi(where) too. (4) That Adi Sankara attained Siddhi is a fact - not an assumption. (5) I have been signing my name in the post. Thanks for sending the link for registration. As I had mentioned before I'm not a regular contributor. As a student of Sankara, I noticed some factual errors in this article and got into this discussion here. - SankaraBhaktan (SB) April 16, 2005

"Some religious groups" vs. "some Shankara authorities such as Shankara Mathams": It seems that describing Shankara Mathams as "shankara authorities" is not a particular point of view, but a statement of fact. After all, given that the mathams exist to study and propagate Shankara's thoughts and given that there are no other institutions solely dedicated to Shankara, it seems fair that the qualifier "Shankara authorities" be applied to Shankara Mathams. If there is disagreement, please give some examples of who else might be considered Shankara authorities. Please also indicate why the centuries' worth of work on Shankara by the mathams still do not qualify them as Shankara authorities.

--Poda 13:49, 12 July 2005 (UTC)


To Mel Etitis

I believe my contributions to Shankara's page on 22 August were significant in enhancing accuracy and adding new information, and I do not understand why you have reverted the page. After you don't allow my editing this page, then please allow me to delete the contributions which I made on 21 August as well.

Jayendra Saraswati

Uses of terms like persecution are best avoided. This should be a scholarly article, and not an invective.

--Satyadev

Worldbook encyclopedia?

An anon. user has just made an edit that appeals to only one authority by name : the 'Worldbook Encyclopedia'. My impression is that this isn't an authority at all (and the appeal to it looks a little silly in a proper reference work), but does anyone have any light to shed? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:48, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Are you refering to:

His Birth Date remains a disputed fact as Kanchi and Puri mutt follow the B.C.E date while the Sringeri mutt follows the C.E. date. The other two mutts at Badrinath and Dwaraka have broken lineages due to the various political problems due to external invasions. While the B.C.E date seems logical with respect to buddhism, the C.E. date seems to be inextricably linked to the disputed Aryan Invasion Theory when using the hindu cyclic calendar. It would probably remain a disputed fact in the future as it is a matter of faith for the followers of the respective mutts. The fact that remains undisputed is that he was the original head a of all the mutts and one of the greatest saints in Hindu culture and history.

? (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 11:14, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No, I was referring to the edit made on 11th March, containing a reference to the Worldbook Encyclopedia. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:28, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
OK, why was the above deleted? (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 11:30, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Because the dates aren't in fact particularly disputed, all the scholarship being agreed (roughly) on the 8th century C.E. The only objections come from a small group of religious believers, mostly from outside Hinduism. I added a link to an account of the debate, and the current consensus; that seemed to be enough. A minor disagreement shouldn't take up so much space in the summary, especially when it's covered adequately (and neutrally) in the document to which I linked. Moreover, no sources were provided for the claims, and it's certainly not undisputed that he was the original head of all the mutts, not even all those mentioned.
An anon user has been trying to change the dates for some considerable time, as the discussion above and the History will attest. This is just the latest attempt. on past form, he'll keep quite for a while, and then try to sneak it in again, with no explanation on the Talk page, and no acknowledgment that the matter is controversial (at best).Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:41, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well if anon is reading, providing a cite would be a good idea. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 12:55, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Saundarya lahari authorship

Saundarya lahari has been removed from the list of works authored by Shankara because it certainly was not. I know of no established Sanskrit scholar who thinks it is. Though this sounds lame to non-Sanskrit readers, it is clear to a Sanskrit reader that it is not the same author, as you are clear that Dickens and Austen are stylistically different without being told. More importantly, the siddhanta or conclusion is not compatible with the works that certainly *are* by Shankara, i.e. his commentaries (bhaa.sya) on the Brahma-sutra etc. (i.e. the prasthaana-traya). --Bhairava11

I have added Saundarya-lahari to the List of Works authored by Shankara because -
The great Adi Shankara is known as shan-mata-sthapaka, the founder of the six matas or devotional modes. They include six conceptions of the Supreme Being viz. Vishnu, Shiva, Shakti, Ganesha, Kartikeya and Surya.
He and other Acharyas in fact, were not mere intellectual gymnasts like many of the Western philosophers. It is only in the light of this peculiarity of the Indian spiritual tradition that we should try to understand how the Vedantic philosopher Sri Shankaracharya could also be the composer of great devotional hymns. The deities adored in this country are but personalized conceptions of one Supreme Brahman.
Of course, there seem to be radical differences between the Shakta philosophy and Sri Shankara’s philosophy, known in later times as kevala advaita. It is because of this basic difference in the philosophic outlook of the two systems that many modern critics hesitate to accept the tradition of Sri Shankaracharya’s authorship of Saundarya-lahari.
But, well, there are about 35 commentaries in Sanskrit by eminent scriptural exponents on the Saundarya-lahari. Unless the text had originated from a universally accepted and venerated authority it is difficult to explain how the commentators have quoted Shankara.
We also find weighty authorities of the past supporting Shankara’s authorship of Saundarya-lahari. Arthur Avalon, a name to be reckoned on matters of Shakti cult, considers many names of Southern and Eastern Pandits whose prominence has to be blindly set aside if anybody doubts seriously.
So in the absence of any other source of importance contradicting the traditional view, we shall be justified in accepting the tradition that Adi Shankara is the author of Saundarya-lahari, says Swami Tapasyananda, an erudite scholar on devotional hymns and past President of Sri Ramakrishna Math, Chennai.
VMO 16:39, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
That 2,500-years' worth of philosophy from Europe, the Americas, Africa, Australia, etc., is dismissed as "intellectual gymnastics" says much about the chauvinism, arrogance, and ignorance of this person, but gives one little confidence as to the accuracy of his contributions. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:53, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I am sorry that the term has offended you. It is not used in a derogatory sense. I have not brushed aside ALL the Western philosophers. We do have admiration for their contribution to the World's legacy.
VMO 01:00, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid that the context was enough to show that it was indeed meant derogatorily, and the word 'mere' serve to confirm that. Who are 'we', incidentally? Is that the royal 'we', or are you claiming to speak for a larger group? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:16, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm rather surprised that you'd blow up the 'intellectual gymanstics' part into something bigger that what the comment appears to be making. But yet when it suits you, you make sweeping conclusions such as 'Sankar's BC dates are only held by religious groups and so hold no merit'.. Come on man.. And if I may ask, I'm genuinely interested in knowing about your authority on the subject of Adi Sankara, esp. since you have overridden the mathas that were established by Sankara himself. And you questioning that Adi Sankar attained siddhi could be considered blasphemous by some. Since I’ve asked you for your authority on this subject, it is only fair to give you mine. As I had mentioned in previous messages, I’m a student of Sankara. Thank you. SankaraBhaktan(SB) May 5 2005 2:44 UTC

  1. The comment is dismissive of a large part of human philosophical endeavour; it was unacceptable. If a Western philosopher wrote here saying "We shouldn't call all these Eastern writers 'philosophers', they're just engaged in semi-mystical gobble-de-gook", I supect that you'd be annoyed too.
  2. I didn't write "BC dates are only held by religious groups and so hold no merit", or anything like it. That you have to invent words for me suggests that what I actually wrote can't be so easily criticised.
  3. This is an encyclopædia, and accusations of blasphemy, even as sideways and insinuating as yours, are not acceptable. We are concerned to offer articles written from a neutral point of view; to state that a religious view is true is not allowed.
  4. Your claim to be a student of Shankara is irrelevant here, and doesn't constu=itute authority to impose your point of view. A sa a matter of fact I have written and published in a minor way on Shanakara's philosophy, but that isn't relevant here either. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:41, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
To Mel Etitis:
  • Well, your further queries seem to lead towards my personal attributes which I firmly believe, are NOT materially relevant to the topic of Adi Shankara’s authorship of Saundarya-lahari. Discerning readers will only be disgusted if we continue engaging in any sort of discussion on who am I and whom I represent etc. Likewise I would, albeit interesting, refrain here from discussing the English usage of 'mere' and 'we' in the other side of the globe.
  • I pity that instead of contributing to the topic concerned you have accused me of being chauvinistic, arrogant and ignorant and also doubting my accuracy. Even after my expressly stating ‘sorry’ you stuck to your accusation. A learned wikipedian you are, you could have avoided ad hominem assault on user like me, who is just one month old here. However, I have taken all this in my stride considering your reaction as an impulsive outburst at the first reading. I am glad that I could learn something from you. Peace be unto you is my prayer.
  • Of course, I would only welcome and request you to return to the topic that was before us.
To Sankarabhaktan
  • Please take away the discussion on 'Dates' with Mel Etitis to elsewhere from Saundarya-lahari para. Thanks! For the admirers and lovers of Shankara: the birthday falls this year on the ensuing 13 May, one of the holiest tithis for Hindus.
  • VMO 13:59, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
  1. I didn't introduce the question of personal authority and qualifications, Sankarabhaktan did, and you weren't mentioned. Unless you're the same person...
  2. There's a diffence between apologising for saying something and regretting that it had an effect; the use of the term 'sorry' is common to the two actions. All that passive-aggressive stuff is transparent, ineffective, and irrelevant. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:05, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Opinion on Spelling Correction

I find in this article some words like Siva, Sankara, Sivaguru are spelled both ways like Shiva/Siva, Shankara/Sankara etc. Homogeneity in spelling of Proper Nouns is an essential ingredient for smooth reading. The retroflex sibilants - the second SA as it is sometimes called, is generally transliterated into English as SHA. The spelling SA is used only when you transliterate with International diacritical marks over the letters. Since diacritical marks are dispensed with in English Wikipedia for Sanskrit words why can’t we use SHA in place of SA as in Shiva, Shankara and Shivaguru etc.? Any opinion please.

  • VMO 11:35, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
I've changed a number, when I've noticed them, but the article needs a thorough copyedit. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:24, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
23 corrections (minor spellings) were done now! Yes, I do agree that a thorough copyediting will bring a whiff of fresh air to this article.
  • VMO 16:58, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

But, pray, who is going to bell the cat? 61.0.164.218 08:19, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

rudralife.com

There actually is an appropriate page for this, Rudraksha. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 29 June 2005 15:38 (UTC)
Speaking of which, if by any chance you have any images of Rudraksha trees or seeds you would be willing to upload and donate, that would be awesome, I'd really appreciate it. Thanks, ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 29 June 2005 15:46 (UTC)

What counts as an authority?

Those pressing for the BCE dates have repeated on a number of occasions the claim that historians and sientists back them up, yet have refused time and again to give any names or details. Now religious institutions are being presented as "authorities"; is this because it's accepted that the scientists and historians don't in fact exist, or has the notion of an authority been changed? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:24, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

The claim at hand is not that historians and scientist back "them" up. It is simply that Shankara mathams are authorities on the life and work of Shankara. Describing Shankara Mathams as "shankara authorities" is not a particular point of view, but a statement of fact. After all, given that the mathams exist to study and propagate Shankara's thoughts and given that there are no other institutions solely dedicated to Shankara, it seems fair that the qualifier "Shankara authorities" be applied to Shankara Mathams. If there is disagreement, please indicate why the centuries' worth of work on Shankara by the mathams still do not qualify them as Shankara authorities. If there is an objective standard for qualifying someone as a Shankara authority, please list whom you cosider to be a Shankara authority and cite the sources that present evidence of their meeting these objective criteria. If, otherwise, one can more losely define Shankara authorities are those who are considered as such by a majority of Shankara followers, then the Mathams quality to be described as "authorities." (If an analogy is needed, what is being said isn't any different from saying that the Vatican is an authority on Catholicism; you may disagree with Vatican's interpretations, but that doesn't diminish their authority, since they are viewed as such by the majority of Catholics.)


Given that the mathams are dedicated to advaita, it seems kind of odd to describe them as religiuos groups. First of all, they are institutions; just as the Vatican is not a "group" but an "institution." Secondly, they are active centers of thought/inquiry/learning; thus the adjective religious doesn't do justice to the full range of their activities.


--Poda 13:49, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

  1. They're not neutral. Many Christian institutions might well be described as existing to study and propagate Jesus' thought, but we don't simply accept what they say on the subject; for Wikipedia's purposes, their views are secondary to neutral, academic authorities. That applies to the Vatican, too.
  2. I'm not sure why you think that "advaita" and "religious" rule each other out. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:58, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
The topic under discussion is not dates of Shankara. The topic is how best to describe Shankara Mathams.
(1) Though Harvard University has a medical school, Harvard isn't described best as a medical institution. Similarly, even if there were to be religious aspects to a Shankara Matham, it is not best described as a religious institution, since the Mathams concern themselves with all matters Shankara. (Another exaple: though one can describe the Vatican as “some religious institution,” a more informative description would be as "Catholic institution." Adjectives serve to specify.)
(2) The phrase "Shankara authority" was deleted without listing proper reasons: State why the Mathams do not qualify as authorities on Shankara or who else qualifies and how. Do not delete arbitrarily.
(3) What does it mean to say that the Mathams are not neutral when it comes to Shankara. It is a matter of fact that the oral traditions at the Mathams place Shankara at an earlier date than what some others believe. It is not an intentional misstatement of fact. It is a “differing point of view” and not a “not neutral point of view.” In the Wikipedia context, it is best to state that there is a disagreement and two points of views exist and present whatever evidence there is for both. Note that the issue here is not about the dates; it about how to accurately describe the Mathams, notwithstanding their point of view on the dates.
(4) Given all of the above, the phrase "Some religious institutions" is changed to “Shankara-proficient institutions."
--Poda 16:32, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
  1. I've reverted that last edit simply because it isn't proper English.
  2. Are you claiming that these mathams aren't religious institutions? Admittedly, the term "matham" doesn't appear in any of my books on Indian thought, philosophy, and religion – I've only come across it on the Web – but assuming that it's the same as "matha" that appears later in the article, how else would you describe it?
  3. Speaking of which, if the two terms are the same, the usage needs to be made consistent. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:04, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
(1)There's nothing wrong with the phrase "Shankara-proficient." It means proficient in matters related to Shankara. I am reverting to the earlier version. It may not be common, but it is proper.
(2) Matha(m)s may or may not have religious aspects. But the best descriptor (i.e., more accurate and informative, as one would expect of an adjective) of a matham is not "religious." You could visit one or more of the mathams to learn what they do. If you're interested in Shankara (and not just in reverting the wikipedia page on Shankara), a visit to the mathams would prove very worthwhile.
(3) Describing a Shankara matha(m) as "religious" is akin to describing the Reagan Presidential Library as a "book institution." Sure there may be books involved, but a better and more informative descriptor is "Reagan-proficient insitution." This does not constitute a claim that the library has nothing to do with books; it is an attempt at meaningfully conveying what the institution is about.
(4) It is odd that you edit the descriptor of Matham, when you admit that your knowledge on the mathams is limited to what you have read on the web.
(5) Matham vs. Matha. What might in northern parts of India be called a "matha" is called a "matham" in the southern parts; this goes for any noun ("Rama" vs "Raman", "Kerala" vs. "Keralam", "Narayana" vs. "Narayanan", etc.)It is extremely odd that someone who isn't aware of this regional pronounciation variations of Sanskrit terms keeps reverting edits; if one don't know what they are called, it is very likely that one doesn't know what they do.
--Poda 12:36, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm not interested in your odd claim that one has to be an expert in a subject in order to edit an article on it. I am, however, an expert on English usage, and the odd phrase "Shankara-proficient institution" is virtually gobbledegook ("Reagan-proficient institution" is if anything even sillier). The article itself glosses a matha as a monasetry; a monastery is a religious institution. Of course other things go on there, but the key fact is thet religious institutions are by definition not neutral on matters pertaining to religion. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:34, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Going back to how best to describe the mathams:
(1)Terms such as "English-proficient" and "Computer-proficient" abound in present-day English. So your edit reversion make no sense. Meanwhile, it is good to know you consider yourself an expert on English usage. (My 1-year old dog considers herself to be an expert on punctuation; good thing she doesn't edit Wikipedia, hey?) In the spirit of moving towards a consensus, I shall instead amend the phrase to "institutions dedicated to Shankara." Since the Mathams dedicate themselves to Shankara and his body of work, this seems fair; but as we have seen on this page, a swift revert might yet block any accurate description of the Mathams from appearing on the Shankara page.
(2) I have neither the time nor the energy to enter a repeated revert process; please try to keep the focus on how best to describe the mathams. If the only thing you know about the Mathams is that someone else has parenthetically described them on the same page as "monasteries or religious orders," then you could learn more about the Mathams before reverting my edits.
(3) Do not confuse: I am not saying that Mathams know the truth about Sankara. I am simply trying to accurately describe the Mathams based on what they do.
(4) Since even minor edits on this page seem to evolve into a lengthy argumentative process involving Mel Etitis, I am weary to take up the following: To say the Mathams' claim that Sankara founded them is "dubious" is no doubt an opinion; and Wikipedia pages aren't supposed be editorials. Wouldn't it be more factual to say that "this oral-account backed claim is not substantiatted by historical documentsis" or perhaps that "this claim is not proven and hence disputed." Someone else interested in the life and work of Sankara could take this up.

--Poda 21:39, 2 August 2005 (UTC)


I’ve been following this article for a while now through the many cycles of updates and reverts. It is clear that Mr. Etitis places too much value on pseudo secular version of Indian history rather than the version told by the Sankara schools. Reminds one of the Mamallapuram stories which the historians dismissed as myth until recently. It is also odd that subject matter expertise is not a requirement while editing an article. Even if English language proficiency were to be the only criteria for editing, don't non-English terms like Smartism, aatman, avidya sound gobbledegooky too?

The proof for BCE dates have been presented many times only to be dismissed as myths made up by religious institutions. If one were to be truly neutral, the proof for the CE dates should be dismissed as they come from the pseudo secular school of modern Indian history – Dwaraka and Mamallapuram being glaring examples of where the historians were grossly wrong.

Even if one wants to get beyond the prejudice surrounding the dismissal of BCE dates, statements such as, 'Sankara’s life... much of it is clearly mythical', 'Mathas... claim that he founded them is dubious as best' hardly qualify as NPOV.

An important point to keep in mind while dealing with Indian history is that much of it has been passed down generations by word of mouth. In the case of Sankara’s life, the various Sankara Mathas are the final authority.

So if I were to read/edit/write an article on Sankara, I would go pick a copy of his history as published by the Mathas rather than picking up a copy of Wren and Martin's book on English Grammar.

- SB 7/17/05

You assume rather too much about me, I'm afraid; the terms you cite are perfectly familiar to me; I'm a philosopher of religion. More importantly, what's needed is a grasp of both the general standards of proof, evidence, and authority, and the specific standards demanded by Wikipedia. No-one has provided any proof for the BCE dates; there have been claims that historians and scientists have argued for them, but when the question is raised as to their identity, no answer is forthcoming. In the end, there's only one source, and that's a specific religious one. The trouble is that there are severe internal contradictions in the claim, and most religious and secular authorities endorse the CE dates. I'm told by Indian friends (who are knowledgeable, but may be wrong; this only counts as hearsay) that the BCE dates are mainly asserted by non-Indian religious groups — by Hindus living in the West. Whether that's true or not, the article clearly states that most authorities believe that the CE dates are correct, but certain religious institutions disagree. That's an adequate account of the situation.
The various Sankara Mathams aren't the final authority — neither for Wikipedia nor outside it. (It's not even clear what "final authority" means here.) We're dealing with a religion and with philosophy; the former makes many claims that are not confirmable, and Wikipedia's policy is that we can't accept such claims, nor do we reject them outright. To give extra weight to the religious position as against the philosophical and historical positions would be to violate that policy.
Incidentally, I have no idea what "pseudo-secular" means here; is it secular or not? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:38, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

The "disclaimer" section is completely unacceptable, and deeply violates Wikipedia policy. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:43, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Composite person

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)

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)

An Outside Comment

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)

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)

Any statistics?

Indeed, Srirangam is the most visited Hindu temple in the world, and Tirupati is the richest. Where can I find comparative statistics on the above claim in the article regarding visitors and richness?

Good point. Googling gives this citation for the former claim, and this citation for the latter, though with no statistics in either case. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:52, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the references!

Formal education

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)

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)
I have changed that one. Syiem 07:57, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/d/i/Talk%7EAdi_Shankara_Archive_1_3f8e.html"