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)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 May 2024

Change “Born 700 CE. Disputed” to “Born circa 700 CE. Kalady, Kerala, India.”

There is no dispute about the birthplace and it is equally corroborated in historical records and hagiographies alike. It’s glaring that the very fact known most about Adi Shankara in India is his birthplace, and that should be omitted. Also starting an article with the word disputed strewn everywhere when he is known to have written so many authoritative commentaries and texts on the Vedas and Upansihads is quite puzzling. It’s not like he is a character as old as Abraham whose stature is almost mythological with no actual text written by him available to us now. But Wikipedia’s entry on him doesn’t mention the word disputed anywhere. Unlike Abraham, Adi Shankara is very much contemporaneous through his living breathing works in Sanskrit. Skanda2020 (talk) 14:32, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Maybe you should read the article. Which historical records state that he was born in Kalady? The word "disputed" is used only two times, for his birth- and death-date; and actually, there is not somuch to dispute about, unless you take the hagiographic tales as historical recordings, and believe that Adi Fankara was born 500 BCE. Regarding Abraham: "Most scholars view the patriarchal age, along with the Exodus and the period of the biblical judges, as a late literary construct that does not relate to any particular historical era,[10] and after a century of exhaustive archaeological investigation, no evidence has been found for a historical Abraham.[11]." Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 15:19, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 July 2024

Adi Sankara was not vaishna ,he didn't follow vaishnav agama .his main teaching itself is hari har abhed,both shiva and vishnu as one .In tile dasanami ,there is written sankara is vaishnava . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redop1 (talk • contribs) 07:21, July 13, 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Charliehdb (talk) 07:08, 17 July 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)