Misplaced Pages

Talk:Adi Shankara: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 05:04, 12 September 2016 editØystein.Eide (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users504 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit Latest revision as of 12:47, 8 January 2025 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,303,087 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:Adi Shankara/Archive 3) (bot 
(494 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talk header|search=yes}} {{Talk header|search=yes}}
{{Vital article|level=3|topic=People|class=B}}
{{Indian English}}
{{Article history|action1=PR {{Article history|action1=PR
|action1date=15:07, 17 July 2006 |action1date=15:07, 17 July 2006
Line 19: Line 17:
|action3result=removed |action3result=removed
|action3oldid=392578501 |action3oldid=392578501

|action4=GAN
|action4date=12:09, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
|action4link=/GA1
|action4result=promoted
|action4oldid=933002840
|topic=Philosophy and religion


|maindate=October 7, 2006 |maindate=October 7, 2006
|currentstatus=FFA |currentstatus=GA
}} }}
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=GA|vital=yes|listas=Adi Shankara|blp=no|1=
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{WikiProject India|importance=mid|class=b|history=yes|portal=yes|kerala=yes|group-portal1=kerala|kerala-importance=top|history-importance=high|assess-date=May 2012}} {{WikiProject India|importance=mid|history=yes|portal=yes|kerala=yes |kerala-importance=top|history-importance=high|assess-date=May 2012}}
{{WikiProject Biography|living=no|class=B|listas=Adi Shankara}} {{WikiProject Biography}}
{{WikiProject Hinduism|class=B|phil=yes|importance=Top}} {{WikiProject Hinduism|phil=yes|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Religion|class=B|importance=Top|NRM=yes|NRMImp=Top}} {{WikiProject Religion|importance=Top|NRM=yes|NRMImp=Top}}
{{WikiProject Philosophy|class=B|importance=high|eastern=yes|religion=yes|medieval=yes|philosopher=yes}} {{WikiProject Philosophy|importance=High|eastern=yes|religion=yes|philosopher=yes|metaphysics=yes}}
{{WikiProject Yoga|class=B|importance=high}} {{WikiProject Yoga|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Theology|class=B|importance=Top}} {{WikiProject Theology|importance=Top}}
}}
{{Banner holder|collapsed=yes|
{{Indian English}}
{{Section sizes}}
{{Annual readership}}
}} }}
{{Prone to spam|date=September 2016}}
{{V0.5|class=start|category=Philrelig}}

{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|archive = Talk:Adi Shankara/Archive %(counter)d |archive = Talk:Adi Shankara/Archive %(counter)d
|algo = old(90d) |algo = old(90d)
|counter = 1 |counter = 3
|maxarchivesize = 200K |maxarchivesize = 200K
|minthreadsleft = 5 |minthreadsleft = 5
Line 45: Line 52:
}} }}


== Unreliable sources == == Adi Sankara Caste ==

{{yo|Soham321}} This book, ''What Is Living and What Is Dead in Indian Philosophy'', is not a reliable source. A ] has editorial oversight or is peer reviewed. Lets avoid unreliable sources, avoid fringe content, and include content that is widely accepted by scholars. If you believe your source is reliable, explain why you believe so. ] (]) 11:03, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
::On what basis is this book an unreliable source? It is true that the writer was a leftist. However, many people of his generation were leftists and even today many top Indian historians are leftists. These include people like D.N. Jha, D.D. Kosambi, and Romila Thapar who have done collaborative work with American scholars like Michael Witzel, D.H.H. Ingalls and others who were not leftists. This is the google page for Chattopadhyay's book: https://books.google.com/books/about/What_Is_Living_and_What_Is_Dead_in_India.html?id=LuYYAAAAIAAJ And this is his wikipedia biography: ]. A review of this book may be found here: http://philpapers.org/rec/RIEDCW And this is just to prove that Chattopadhyaya is not a fringe author: http://www.amazon.com/Philosophy-science-social-progress-Chattopadhyaya/dp/8170071208/ref=sr_1_fkmr0_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1435836138&sr=8-1-fkmr0&keywords=essays+in+honor+of+debiprasad+chattopadhyaya
::It is not a self published book as can be ascertained from the google books link. There is no evidence of any peer review having taken place for the books of Radhakrishnan, S.N. Dasgupta, Scherbatsky, etc. who are legendary figures in Indian philosophy. We will have to go for Dispute Resolution if you insist on excluding this book from the main article since it is definitely a reliable source and the author is a genuine scholar. ] (]) 11:25, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
:::@Soham321: People's Publishing House is an outlet for SPS. Your burden to prove that they have editorial oversight/peer review. Ignore Misplaced Pages pages on people, not RS. ] (]) 11:37, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
::::I have no idea what is SPS. The point is that the author is a genuine scholar as is evident from his wikipedia page. In fact Chattopadhyaya was a student of both Radhakrishnan and S.N. Dasgupta, the two legendary figures of Indian philosophy. This requirement of providing evidence of peer review has not been met for people like Mudgal, Dasgupta, Scherbatsky and others in the main article. You are seeking to cherry pick sources in accordance with your own bias which is not permissible. ] (]) 11:44, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
:::::@Soham321: See ]. Comments on People's Publishing House: . It is an unreliable quality outfit. Suggestion: if you want to keep this source in this wiki article, find a book review in a peer review journal for ''What Is Living and What Is Dead in Indian Philosophy''. ] (]) 11:52, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
::::::This is the wikipedia page of ]. As you can see, the Managing Director of this publishing group is the general secretary of a leftist political party in India. But consider the eminence of the people who are involved in this publishing group who are mentioned in the wiki article--people of the eminence of ] for example. Are you going to say that anything published by this publishing group is not to be considered a reliable source? Is this not cherry picking of sources which wikipedia specifically prohibits? Just to show you how silly your argument is, N Ram is also the Chairman of the Board of ''The Hindu'' newspaper which is a widely respected paper in India. N. Ram is also a self declared Leftist. His political proclivities does not mean we declare The Hindu to be an unreliable source. ] (]) 12:03, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
::::::People's Publishing House has also published the work of this gentleman: ] ] (]) 12:06, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
{{od}}
@Soham321: This talk page is not a forum, and I will ignore your discursive forum-style lectures. You can either provide a book review for that ] or take this to dispute resolution. ] (]) 12:29, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
::I did give a link to a review of this book by Dale Riepe in an earlier edit. ] (]) 12:45, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
:::I meant favorable book review. Alternatively you can provide a recent secondary source quoting or referring to the content that you are trying to add to this article. ] (]) 12:56, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
::::You realize the conditions you are attempting to impose were not fulfilled for Mudgal, Dasgupta, Scherbatsky and several other sources quoted in the main article. This cherry picking based on scholars you like and those your dislike needs to stop now. ] (]) 13:14, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
:::::I have asked @JJ to reconsider Stcherbatsky, and look at Isaeva's summary on Stcherbatsky. I haven't reviewed the others yet. ] (]) 13:23, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
::::::Please read ] again. You are wasting your time and mine. ] (]) 13:28, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
:::::::WP:Verifiability Policy: "In Misplaced Pages, verifiability means that anyone using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a '''reliable source'''." The SPS and some 100 year old texts are not reliable. The burden to provide reliable source – recent, majority or minority accepted scholarship – for any content you add, is yours. ] (]) 14:26, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
::::::::The book was not self-published. The same publishers have published ] and ]. The book was published in 1976 which makes it more recent than other books cited in this article and other Indian philosophy articles on wikipedia. Additionally there is no restriction on citing older sources. You are cherry picking sources in accordance with your bias and this is not permissible. If we we continue to remain in disagreement, we will just have to go for dispute resolution. ] (]) 18:42, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
{{od}}
@Soham321: The issue is not only that it is SPS, it is ], and you are adding Chattopadhyay's opinion along a polemics-style content you have been trying to add today to this article. Various editors have objected. Your edits have been disruptive and you have been revert warring with multiple editors. You want to , "Though he reinterprets Upanishadic idealism in a really advanced form, there is nothing practically worthwile in this reinterpretation that is not borrowed from the Mahayana Budhists. This fact of large scale borrowing is sought to be concealed by Shankara himself with the demonstration of a great deal of contempt for these Budhists, often accusing them of preaching precisely the same views which he himself wants to preach with great gusto." (your spelling)

This is polemics. Criticism of Adi Shankara is already mentioned in this article, in a balanced way. Your addition does not add anything new, nor balance, nor does it specify what is it that is "borrowed from Mahayana Buddhists" or how does Shankara "reinterpret Upanishadic idealism" or anything that informs or provide constructive specifics/details. Your content is "X says Shankara is a bad person / plagiarist / concealer / demon" style - that is ], not encyclopedic content. Such opinion about Shankara is not widely accepted by scholars. Take it to DRN, if you wish. I will join you there. ] (]) 19:42, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
:Chattopadhyay's book is not a primary source; it is a secondary source. Chattopadhyaya is a highly respected scholar--endorsed by the great Joseph Needham-- and he is adding clarity to the accusation directed against Shankara from medieval and modern scholars of Indian philosophy that Shankara engaged in surreptiously borrowing ideas from the Mahayana Buddhists and then seeking to conceal this. He is not the only person who makes this accusation; Schertbatsky is also making this accusation. And so is Dasgupta. The concern here is not Chattopadhyaya's quote since we can easily modify it, paraphrase it, summarize it. It is your unwillingness to let Chattopadhyaya be cited as a reference for this content. For this, we will have to go to dispute resolution because you are not permitted to cherry pick sources in accordance with your personal bias and prejudice which you are attempting to do. You also seem to have no idea about what is appropriate and what is not for an Encyclopedia; i have given an extract from the Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics which makes far more serious accusations against Shankara (where he is accused of being a demon, etc.). Basically your bias and prejudice is coming in the way of your editing on wikipedia. No doubt that is why you were seeking to target the publisher of Chattopadhyay's book earlier. Now that i have pointed out that the same publishers have published books by scholars of the eminence of D.D. Kosambi and Romila Thapar you seem to have nothing more to say about the publishers. ] (]) 20:01, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
::{{yo|Soham321}} Go ahead. DRN it is. ] (]) 20:10, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
:::All in good time, i am in no hurry. ] (]) 20:20, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
::::OK, here is a recent paper published in a respected journal which uses Chattopadhyaya's book as a reference: http://www.academia.edu/5167801/Roots_of_Indian_Materialism_in_Tantra_and_Pre-_Classical_Sāṃkhya ] (]) 21:38, 2 July 2015 (UTC)Here is an Op-Ed published in the ''Times of India'' which pronounces Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya to be "a renowned historian of philosophy": http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/life-style/The-gods-came-afterwards/articleshow/6014217.cms ] (]) 21:45, 2 July 2015 (UTC) Another reference to a peer reviewed academic source which considers Chattopadhyaya to be an authority on Indian philosophy: http://www.iep.utm.edu/indmat/ ] (]) 22:23, 2 July 2015 (UTC) Another reference: http://www.iep.utm.edu/sankhya/ Notice the name of the publisher of Chattopadhyaya's book which is regarded as an authoritative work by this peer reviewed philosophy academic resource. It is the same publisher which Sarah Welch was claiming is an untrustworthy publisher based on which Chattopadhyaya's book should not be considered a reliable source. ] (]) 22:30, 2 July 2015 (UTC) And Chattopadhyaya's book which is being considered an authoritative text by this peer reviewed philosophy academic resource was published in 1959. ] (]) 22:36, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

:::::@Soham321: None criticizes Adi Shankara. None discusses Shankara. None mentions the polemic quote you are trying to insert into this article. They discuss ], not Shankara. Ferenc Ruzca's article, one of your links, says, "Chattopadhyaya, Debiprasad: Lokāyata. A Study in Ancient Indian Materialism: A highly unorthodox approach utilizing anthropological and even archeological sources to understand the origins of philosophical thought." That is respectfully inclusive, but not a favorable review for Chattopadhyaya, even for Carvakas. Your response is discursive, but it does not address any of the many concerns I explained above. Your proposed content along the lines of "X says Shankara is a bad person / plagiarist / concealer / demon" is ], from an unreliable source on Adi Shankara, and of no encyclopedic value to this article. ] (]) 01:52, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

{{od}}Sorry, no cigar. You were claiming earlier that Chattopadhyaya should not be considered an authority on Indian philosophy, and your claim has been shown to be hollow. That is all that i tried and succeeded in accomplishing. ] (]) 02:24, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

===Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya as a source for this article===
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 and . ] (]) 18:36, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

== Why similarities and differences with Buddhist lens? ==

Surprised Shankara is viewed with Buddhist lens? It should be the other way around... Shankara's understanding of vedanta stems from Brahma Samhita and other works and not on buddhist principles... When Shankara understood Brahma sutras, etc to espouse Vedanta, and did not learn Buddhism from Buddhist gurus to form the same... If anything, the similarity / differences should be attributed to Buddhism from a hinduism lens. Being that the case, it is very likey the similarity / differences between Buddhism and Advaita could be very well due to Buddhist principles borrowed heavily from Hindu text (How unlikely this could be given Gautama was a Hindu prince) Logic would say this... It is not appropriate to look Shankara in Buddhist lens... Buddhism, Jainism and other Indic religions should actually be looked at Hinduism lens which is the only way to look at it... May be the Buddhist / Jain / Other establishment would try to disown / disclaim Hindu canons / texts and may say they have nothing to do with Hindu like beliefs, but, any such claim (due to similarly in Buddhism / Jainism etc with Hinduism that can be clearly rooted to "source" texts like Vedas/Vedangas/Upanishads) should be totally unacceptable. The only thing that can be accepted from these religion is their right to disown or accept Hindu texts as cannon... The concepts proposed (Nirvana vs Moksha) could be easily verified in Hindu texts, even if they are interpreted and presented in different words (mere technicality and semantics), but a textual verification of concepts can be established. Then Adishankara's views can be ratified clearly by looking at Hindu text and any similarity between Advaita and Mahayana would clearly link Mahayana borrowing that concept from Hindu source text and not otherwise, could be established. Why so much talk and ambiguity? <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->

:Because what we today call "Hinduism," a synthesis of various Indian traditions, originated after Jainism and Buddhism. Shankara gave an Upanishadic/Vedantic base for key concepts which were borrowed from Buddhism. There's a widespread scholarly concensus on that. ] -] 14:00, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

My whole point is the impossibility of that comes actually from my question... Vedantic/Upanishidic/Brahmanas pre-date Buddhism and Jainism and the principles espoused by Shankara and other sages (both before and after) contained in Hindu texts... so, tt cannot be borrowed... The "scholarly" consensus have to re-looked (honestly, there is no "true" truth anywhere to be found even when things are this obvious) - of course, a lie can be said many times and it will become truth... Obviously, my point being on the principles of karma, soul, nirvana rebirth which existed in Hinduism in many texts (prior to Buddhism or Jainism). Things like caste, rituals obviously buddhism rejected... Instead of accepting the fact that Buddhism and other Indic religions shared / accepted similar views to Hinduism and differs obviously in the other aspects... But, elaborate effort is spent by other Indic religious establishment to paint Hinduism as the "borrower". Not sure, what is the harm in accepting this similarity with Hinduism, as that is only (counter argument to this would be true too, if that is the fact, but Hinduism borrowing will be anachronistic)... The only logical conclusion I can derive is that it will prove difficult for the establishment (of other Indic) to propagte the religion as people would question why this? if it is same as Hinduism isnt it? <small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 14:21, 31 December 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:@122.164.25.61: Welcome. Misplaced Pages summarizes reliable sources, striving for a neutral presentation of the different sides. As @Joshua Jonathan mentions, the "Shankara borrowed terminology and concepts from Buddhism" is indeed a broadly held view, and it must be included in this encyclopedic article on Shankara. There is another broadly held scholarly view that "Buddhism borrowed terminology and concepts from Vedic Hinduism", but that is off topic for this article. Similarly, the contesting views such as "Vedic Hinduism" of Michael Witzel, to Buddhism has been part of or an aspect of Hinduism, to Hinduism and Buddhism and Christianity are all ancient, or that all three are new words invented after 14th-century... all these are all interesting points of view, but not directly relevant to this article on Adi Shankara. Misplaced Pages is, at its best, a neutral encyclopedic summary of diverse viewpoints, and it is not a ]. So, please reread and reflect on what @Joshua Jonathan has to say above, and keep in mind the scope and focus of this article. ] (]) 15:33, 31 December 2015 (UTC)


What is Adi Sankara Caste
::My apologies if I sound harsh or rude; I've had too many arguments with POV-pushing editors before, so the kind of objections you;re making soon remind me of those discussions. And yes, of course it's also good to speak of "similarities" and "differences"; after all, Buddhis did not originate in a vacuum, but in an interpkay between various Indian traditions. Even better said: various traditions are partly off-shoots of the same developments in the shramanic movements. The more relevant info on Shankara is that he sort of "countered" the Buddhist influences, by using Vedic/Upanishadic sources. Though his concepts and themes are of course very recognisable for Buddhists. Don't forget that Buddhism existed for more than thousand years already when Shankara lived.
::What may be of interest to you may be the concepts of ] and ], and the Tibetan discussions on these two strands of thought, as reflected in ]-]. While Skankara states that "the" Buddhists reject the concpet of Atman, Buddhism ''does'' contain strands of thought which are evry akin to Advaita Vedanta - or Advaita Vedanta is very akin to those strands of thought; who will tell? and, at least Tantric ''Buddhism'' was "copied" from Tantric ''Hinduism''. So, there's a lot of nuance to this. Best regards, ] -] 08:28, 1 January 2016 (UTC)


आचार्य शंकरो नाम त्वष्टा पुत्रों न संशयः' यह श्लोक है: आचार्य शंकरो नाम त्वष्टा पुत्रों न संशयः, विप्रकुल गुरू दीक्षा विश्वकर्मान्तु ब्राह्मणः. ] (]) 09:22, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
I think I am being on point only here.. 1) I am clear that Buddhism could have heavily borrowed in the first place - Which I don't know anybody can refute - Given the scriptures that talk about concepts of karma, rebirth etc. existed prior in Hinduism itself. 2) I am drawing from that to this point of discussion, that Shankara learned Hindu scriptures first and formulated Advaita and the similarities that is seen is similarity that Buddhism "borrowed" earlier and not the other way around... The resurgence of Hinduism happened during Sankara time mainly because of his clear cut alignment of his principles with Hindu sources (not Buddhist scriptures)... This is my main point on the thread and I have not deviated from that... But, as with anything Hinduism I suppose PR wise they lost... The "Scholars" have already agreed unfortunately... Anyway, I have nothing further to add here... Thanks for your discussion... Just want to keep it here for record. <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->


:Yes your correct ] (]) 16:11, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
:@122.164.25.61: Scholars have not agreed, and the article tries to present the different sides. Most scholars agree that there are major related differences between Buddhism and Hinduism traditions such as those championed by Adi Shankara. It will be un-encyclopedic to suppress information of either side, and the mutual influences/differences between Hinduism and Buddhism. We just need to stick to faithfully summarizing the reliable sources to the best of our abilities. ] (]) 12:28, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
::@] Use English: This is the English-language Misplaced Pages; discussions should normally be conducted in English. If using another language is unavoidable, try to provide a translation, or get help at ]. Do not expect readers to translate your content themselves, not even when modern browsers have machine translation built-in. {{Shortcut|WP:ENGLISHPLEASE}} ] (]) 03:36, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
:::Vishwakarma and his descendants by Alfred Edward Robert chapter number 3 please read it This book written in 1904 is an honest account but all the books considered by Misplaced Pages as evidence are from 2000 eras and they are all written with the intention of making Jagad Guru a Namboothiri Brahmin, therefore taking the history written by Alfred Edward Robert as a proof, pleads that Jagad Guru's caste should be Vishwa Brahmin. ] (]) 07:22, 9 November 2024 (UTC)


== Adi Shankara cast ==
== The Translation of Nirvana shaktam part in the box is totally wrong and mis-interpreted. ==


Acharya Shankaro Naam Tvashta Putron Na Sanshayah' This verse is: Acharya Shankaro Naam Tvashta Putron Na Sanshayah, Viprakula Guru Diksha Vishwakarmantu Brahmanah. This is Shankara Vijaya Sloka which means that Adi Shankara was the son of a bronze sculptor. ] (]) 15:21, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
"I am Thought, I am Joy, I am He, I am He."
'I am He, I am He.' ? he what ?
the Translation is totally wrong.


:We need to use a reliable reference for the sentence and for the translation you have given.{{Shortcut|WP:RS}} ] (]) 02:48, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
The first line from Nivrvana Shaktam itself is enough to prove it wrong i.e
::To make
::Brahmaya
::In verity this crown-making
::caste (the Visvakarma caste) is directly descended from
::Brahmaya.”
::Noi only were the five sons of Visvakarma Brahmins by
::birth, but all these who are by birth members of the Visva-
::karma caste have also a ‘claim to that origin and a right. to
::‘that name. As the Brahman sprang from Brahma’s mouth,
::as he was the first born, and as he possesses the Vedas, he is,
::by right the lord of the whole creation. (Manu I. 93, p. 25.)
::2
::The-name ‘“‘Jagatguru,” the teacher of the world, is a
::distinction to-which the people of the Visvakarma caste. alone
::‘are entitled. (Winslow’s Dictionary) When the world-
::famed Sankaracharya of Travancore, the founder of the
::Advaita School of Philosophy, which is Buddhism in dis-
::Suise, halted at Masulipatam, he styled himself seta oe
::The Dewakammalars of South India, who were very jealous
::of their title, incensed at an apparent imposter trying to
::ussume what was their own exclusive. property, questionted.
::his right to the distinction, when the celebrated philosopher
::sang the following lines :—-
::“Achiry6é Sankaré nama,
::“Twashta putrGé nasansaya,
::‘Viprakula gurérdiksha,
::“Visvakarmantu Brabsana.”
::“My name is Sankaraichdrya, T am a descendant of ‘ft apne
::l-have come here to teach the Vipras the right of ney Ur
::‘the sacred thread. I am a Brahmin of the Fapeatie
::caste.’ (Sankara Vijaya.) This is irrebutiable proof that
::the people of the Visvakarma caste are Brahmins.
::Vishwakarma and his descendants by Albert Edward Robert chapter number 3 first edition 1904 ] (]) 12:00, 3 November 2024 (UTC)


== Adi Shankaracharya caste ==
Sanskrit Sloka: मनोबुद्ध्यहङ्कार चित्तानि
Translation:Mind,Intellect,Ego,Memory I am __NOT__ he says.


To make
Then how ? This : "I am Thought, I am Joy, I am He, I am He."
Brahmaya
This is absurd, please let people who are well familiar with sanskrit and Vedanata philosophy take care of these topics mainly from India itself.
In verity this crown-making


Sanskrit Sloka: चिदानन्दरूपः is not ""I am Thought, I am Joy,"
It is : Chida = "Consciousness ", Ananda = Bliss (Sandhi Done if you know what it means), Rupah = Form.
Therefore he says : Consciousness, Bliss Form


caste (the Visvakarma caste) is directly descended from
Sanskrit Sloka: शिवोऽहम् Doesnot means "I am he" That would be in sanskrit "SahAham" where Sah = he, Aham = I.
The correct Translation is : Shivo = Siva(hindu god), Aham = I I.E "I am Shiva"


Please correct all the mistakes, let people familiar with Vedanata philosophy handle these all pages because they are knowers of these field.
you can contact with "Ramakrishna MUTT @ USA"'s Swamis for the correct information.


Brahmaya.”
Rest for now, correct these mistakes asap. :)


{{ping|User:Joshua Jonathan}} ping to JJ.


Noi only were the five sons of Visvakarma Brahmins by
<small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 13:36, 24 April 2016</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->
birth, but all these who are by birth members of the Visva-
karma caste have also a ‘claim to that origin and a right. to
‘that name. As the Brahman sprang from Brahma’s mouth,
as he was the first born, and as he possesses the Vedas, he is,
by right the lord of the whole creation. (Manu I. 93, p. 25.)


:This is stuff for ] and ]... ] -] 11:41, 24 April 2016 (UTC)


::Oh i see, Thank you.
::So.. {{ping|User:Ms Sarah Welch}} & {{ping|User:Ogress}}, Please take care of those silly mistakes :) and yes please consult Swamis of Ramakrishna Mutt, they're in US as well. ] (]) 11:54, 24 April 2016 (UTC)


:::{{ping|Demise1234}} The infobox does not state that this is the "first line" of the Nirvana Shaktam. It is hymns 3-6. Originally, the hymns 3-6 were with "I am Shiva", which is more accurate. But, we can't do WP:OR in wikipedia, we must rely on presenting what is in the sources. So, if you want changes in the infobox, you need to provide a published verifiable source, not ask us to contact "Ramakrishna MUTT @ USA"'s Swamis. {{ping|Joshua Jonathan}} I will restore the older 'I am Shiva', since I see support for it. ] (]) 12:00, 24 April 2016 (UTC)


::::{{ping|User:Ms Sarah Welch}} Source : http://greenmesg.org/mantras_slokas/brahman-nirvana_shatakam.php <-- With Translation when hovered ON slokas, you can look up for the meaning IN sanskrit dictionary as well, oh yes,one of the source already mentioned & is accepted by'you': http://www.svbf.org/journal/vol2no4/nirvana.pdf <-- I doubt if sources are checked before adding topics. Now, the reason why I used First line is to prove wrong the Statement i.e Wrong Translation "I am Thought, I am Joy" , if one(first) line denies i am not mind, intellect then how it can be later joy or thought :) , rest, Chida-anada = Consciousnes, Bliss, it is clearly mentioned in source i supplied as well as previously existed source in page as well. Next, why i said to contact Ramakrishna mutt? because at the end of the day, people should know what they are maintaining or into, so they have to go to masters of the field to "know" it, those swamis are masters so to speak in Vedanata philosophy as well as Sanatna Dharma, don't take it too personally lol, well for now, please correct those mistakes, that is the work to be done. :) ] (]) 12:06, 24 April 2016 (UTC)


2
:::::{{ping|User:Ms Sarah Welch}}Please also, REF: https://en.wikipedia.org/Atma_Shatkam , sounds OK, btw Atma Shatkam = Nirvana Shatkam. <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->
{{od}}
@Demise1234: Thanks, but greenmesg.org looks like a blog, not ]. We also have ] guidelines, and that the summary should reflect multiple sources. You are mixing mind, thought, consciousness, etc; but please, we must avoid forum-like discussion on this talk page, per ]. If you have any more WP:RS that should be considered, please share. I will check the published sources again whether, "I am Thought, I am Joy" should be changed to "I am Consciousness, I am Bliss" or Vivekananda-based "I am Knowledge, I am Bliss" etc. ] (]) 12:45, 24 April 2016 (UTC)


:{{ping|User:Ms Sarah Welch}} Mixing mind, thought ? thoughts are part of mind according to Advaita School therefore he says, i am not mind applies i am not thought no doubt in that, rest nevermind, i can expect these lines from person who is not familiar, secondly yes, good point,Consciousness or Knowledge, Both are correct, as Consciousness is only reality explained in Advaita therefore it is only the knowledge as well rest is Maya i.e Advidya i.e Not knowledge, this is the reason, you may find these statements(Consciousness or Knowledge) but since Knowledge is Secondary meaning given, therefore Word "Consciousness" or more precisely "Pure Consciousness" is taken into consideration like it is done here by Sringeri Peetham which was established by Adi ShankaraCharya(well indirectly, precisely by one of his disciples) this is the reason why i said at first place,"if you may discuss 'this' with 'learned swamis'", now, yes it do reflect multiple sources, leaving aside greenmsg, since you termed it under blog and is not acceptable, the pre-defined source : http://www.svbf.org/journal/vol2no4/nirvana.pdf & one of the wikipedia page itself : https://en.wikipedia.org/Atma_Shatkam, and here as well http://vedicyagyacenter.com/wp-content/themes/vedic/pdfs/NirvanaShatakamLyrics-withtranslation.pdf <- published by a Vedic Center, rest, you can confirm this by looking up meaning of Sanskrit words, Chida, Ananda, Aham for your own Convince. ] (]) 13:01, 24 April 2016 (UTC)


The-name ‘“‘Jagatguru,” the teacher of the world, is a
::{{ping|User:Ms Sarah Welch}} Ahem!, it's been almost a day since no action, this is not professionalism or does "check-ing the published sources again" do take this long? ] (]) 01:53, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
distinction to-which the people of the Visvakarma caste. alone
‘are entitled. (Winslow’s Dictionary) When the world-
famed Sankaracharya of Travancore, the founder of the
Advaita School of Philosophy, which is Buddhism in dis-
Suise, halted at Masulipatam, he styled himself seta oe
The Dewakammalars of South India, who were very jealous
of their title, incensed at an apparent imposter trying to
ussume what was their own exclusive. property, questionted.
his right to the distinction, when the celebrated philosopher
sang the following lines :—-


:::If "professionalism" means "delivering on command," than you may pay a professional salary. Otherwise, checking the sources carefully may take some time. Please show some due respect; your learned swamis probably have more respect for the depth of knowledge of Ms sarah Welch than for someone who ignorantly writes "i can expect these lines from person who is not familiar" without knowing what she knows. ] -] 05:14, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
::::Regarding the text/translation itself: it's not the complete text yet, is it?
::::Regarding "cidAnandarupa": ] has more meanings than just "consciousness"; when we translate it as "consciousness," it's like some sort of reification, turning consciousness as a 'verb' into consciousness as an 'object' (English is not my native language, so I'm searching for the right words to express what I mean; my apologies if it's not clear enough). "Pure consciousness" may indeed be better, with the emphasis on "pure," as in the Buddhist Yogacara alajavijnana and the ]. "Cit" may also be understood as not representing a metaphysical or ontological principle, but a 'psychological c.q. phenomenological insight' into the workings of the mind, and the 'emptiness' which 'remains' when concepts and names are deconstructed. But, alas, I'm a "Buddhist," ain't I, so what can you expect?
::::Regarding the whole translation: isn't there a copyright free translation available?
::::Best regards, ] -] 07:10, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
:::::PS: why "śivo'ham," and not "Brahmaham"? ] -] 07:49, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
::::::@JJ: I expected ], found in their ancient Upanishads, such as the ]. Yet, the versions on internet read Shivo'ham. I haven't checked the archived original manuscripts. The phrasing is from ], and I don't think "pure X" makes it more clear, rather raises what is "impure X" and the difference between the two? WP:RS just go with truth-consciousness-bliss or similar. There are, indeed, a lot of parallels between Buddhism-Hinduism-Jainism. Each is beautiful, fascinating in its own way. ] (]) 22:20, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
{{od}}
"Truth-consciousness-bliss" seems to be one-dimensional to me. "Sat" has a much deeper connotation! I'd read it as 'the bliss of being aware of the essence of being', or some"thing" like that. Still, why Shiva, and not Brahman? ] -] 04:08, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
:May be ]? I will have to dig into this, to offer more than a guess. ] (]) 04:27, 27 April 2016 (UTC)


“Achiry6é Sankaré nama,
== Indian? ==
“Twashta putrGé nasansaya,
‘Viprakula gurérdiksha,
“Visvakarmantu Brabsana.”


What is this 'Indian' mentioned all over Wikipeidia? Was there any India before the creation of British-India?


“My name is Sankaraichdrya, T am a descendant of ‘ft apne
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 . <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 15:45, 6 September 2016 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
l-have come here to teach the Vipras the right of ney Ur
‘the sacred thread. I am a Brahmin of the Fapeatie
caste.’ (Sankara Vijaya.) This is irrebutiable proof that
the people of the Visvakarma caste are Brahmins. ] (]) 12:57, 3 November 2024 (UTC)


== Misra's wife == == Adi shagarajarya cast ==


Vishvakarma And His Descendents by Alfred Edward robert 1904 chapter number 3 page 12 please read it adi shagarajarya is vishwakarma cast ] (]) 10:31, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
@Nihoyari: Why is Misra's wife and the claimed Saraswati incarnation ] in this article? ] (]) 16:06, 7 September 2016 (UTC)


:You are very right, this is a history written before the Namboothiris in Kerala walked in sandals, it was in 1904 but the histories considered by Misplaced Pages today are all from 2000 onwards. All of them were written only to depict Jaganguru Adi Shankaracharya as a Namboothiri Brahmin. Even the period of life given by them is different. When there is a dispute between two parties, historical articles written by a third party outside India should be checked. ] (]) 14:21, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
@Nihoyari: I have the content you added to this article, because it was largely unsourced, undue, and unencyclopedic per ]. The two sources you added are not ]. We cannot present discredited hagiographies as historical facts, or anything that appears in blogs or personal commentaries / propaganda / opinions in some newspapers. ] (]) 21:56, 8 September 2016 (UTC)


== Adi Shankaracharya cast ==
<small>Comment: Thanks @JJ for adding the linking. I should have done it. ] (]) 13:53, 9 September 2016 (UTC) </small> <br>
@Ms Sarah Welch :
Before Adding Economic Times-Times of India , Outlook India, The Hindu and Indian Express Links, you removed the content. These are the most reliable links:<br>
http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2013-04-19/news/38674414_1_referee-mithila-debate <br/>
http://www.outlookindia.com/website/story/oh-but-you-do-get-it-wrong/262511 <br/>
http://www.business-standard.com/article/beyond-business/the-management-trinity-116061401189_1.html<br/>
http://www.thehindu.com/2001/08/21/stories/1321017c.htm<br/>
http://www.newindianexpress.com/nation/Buddhist-Path-a-Way-to-Asian-Century-PM-Modi/2015/09/03/article3008470.ece <br/>


Jagad Guru Adi Shankaracharya is a Mushari Brahmin of Vishwa Brahmin sect. It is mentioned in a book written in 1904 about the series of Vishwakarma that during the times when Jagad Guru Adi Shankaracharya lived, the titles of Brahmashree and Jagad Guru were entitled to the Vishwa Brahmin category which means that only technical wise Brahmins were chosen for such things. .Misplaced Pages checked the historical documents written since 2001 and made him a Namboothiri Brahmin. All such histories were written in India where he was intended to be a Namboothiri Brahmin and all of them belonged to the Brahmin community in India. But Alfred Edward Robert wrote this history in a country outside India in 1904. . I believe Misplaced Pages will correct this error. Adi Shankaracharya is a person who lived before Christ. None of the Namboothiri Brahmins of Kerala ever accept him as a Namboothiri Brahmin. ] (]) 15:31, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
These tell in detail about one of the most celebrated ddebate between Ubhaya Bharati and Adi Shankara in 8th Century A.D
The other links of Firstpost and Mid-Day are equally reliable:<br>
http://www.firstpost.com/politics/as-pm-modi-goes-to-darbhanga-a-look-at-history-of-a-land-which-forced-the-shankaracharya-to-learn-kamasutra-2491768.html <br/>
http://www.mid-day.com/articles/transplant-this-soul-in-that-body/16565180 <br/>
http://www.mid-day.com/articles/devdutt-pattanaik-agree-disagree-argue/16954167 <br/>
--] (]) 14:37, 9 September 2016 (UTC)


== Jagatguru aadi Shankaracharya surname ==
:@Nihoyari: Please see ] 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 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 ]. ] (]) 15:49, 9 September 2016 (UTC)


Jagad Guru Adi Shankaracharya's full name is Jagadguru Adi Shankaracharya During the times when Jagadguru Adi Shankaracharya lived, only Vishwa Brahmins were entitled to use the title of Jagad Guru or Brahmashree in Maharajya India. But modern historians have corrected it and made him a Nambutiri Brahmin, that's why Misplaced Pages doesn't add Jagadguru in front of his name? In India, the Vishwa Brahmin community addresses him as Jagad Guru Athyana Shankaracharya. ] (]) 14:46, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
::Indeed. ] -] 18:11, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
:See ], and ], and please stop spamming this talkpage with trivia. ] - ] 16:05, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
::I read your reply. The history written in the royal period which you say is obsolete is the true history. But all the histories written in the modern period are made by distorting the history written in the royal period. Does Misplaced Pages say that all the writings in the royal periods are wrong? ] (]) 09:08, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
:::The articles written about the Ashari community in the Misplaced Pages pages are all written in the Emperor period, why they were accepted by Misplaced Pages and rejected by me as writings from the Emperor period. ] (]) 09:12, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 12:47, 8 January 2025

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Adi Shankara article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 3 months 
Former featured articleAdi Shankara is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Good articleAdi Shankara has been listed as one of the Philosophy and religion good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 7, 2006.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 17, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
August 28, 2006Featured article candidatePromoted
October 25, 2010Featured article reviewDemoted
December 29, 2019Good article nomineeListed
Current status: Former featured article, current good article
This  level-3 vital article is rated GA-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
WikiProject iconIndia: Kerala / History Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Kerala (assessed as Top-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Indian history workgroup (assessed as High-importance).
Note icon
This article is a selected article on the India portal, which means that it was selected as a high quality India-related article.
Note icon
This article was last assessed in May 2012.
WikiProject iconBiography
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
WikiProject iconHinduism: Philosophy Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hinduism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HinduismWikipedia:WikiProject HinduismTemplate:WikiProject HinduismHinduism
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Philosophy task force (assessed as Top-importance).
WikiProject iconReligion: New religious movements Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by New religious movements work group (assessed as Top-importance).
WikiProject iconPhilosophy: Philosophers / Metaphysics / Religion / Eastern High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Misplaced Pages.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Associated task forces:
/ 
Taskforce icon
Philosophers
Taskforce icon
Metaphysics
Taskforce icon
Philosophy of religion
Taskforce icon
Eastern philosophy
WikiProject iconYoga High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Yoga, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Yoga, Hatha yoga, Yoga as exercise and related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.YogaWikipedia:WikiProject YogaTemplate:WikiProject YogaYoga
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconTheology Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Theology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Theology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TheologyWikipedia:WikiProject TheologyTemplate:WikiProject TheologyTheology
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
          Other talk page banners
This article is written in Indian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, analysed, defence) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
Section sizes
Section size for Adi Shankara (49 sections)
Section name Byte
count		 Section
total
(Top) 7,013 7,013
Dating 321 6,440
Matha datings 3,802 3,802
Scholarly datings 1,756 1,756
Other datings 561 561
Traditional and historical views on Shankara 187 31,458
Traditional views of Shankara 1,912 1,912
Prominence of Maṇḍana Miśra (until 10th century) 4,245 4,245
Vaishnavite Vedanta (10th-14th century) 1,619 1,619
Vijayanagara Empire and Vidyaranya (14th century) - creation of traditional (hagiographic) views 3,995 3,995
Hagiographies: Digvijaya - "The conquests of Shankara" (14th-17th century) 633 9,754
Sources 2,573 2,573
Early life 1,465 1,465
Sannyasa 2,088 2,088
Travels (Digvijaya) and disciples 2,322 2,322
Death 673 673
Hagiographies: attribution of Mathas and Smarta tradition (14-17th century) 362 7,698
Dashanami Sampradaya and mathas 2,741 2,741
Smarta Tradition 4,595 4,595
Neo-Vedanta (19-20th century) 521 521
21st century 1,527 1,527
Works 806 9,644
Authentic works 4,265 4,265
Works of doubtful authenticity or not authentic 4,573 4,573
Philosophy and practice 3,809 38,795
Historical context 4,129 4,129
Systematizer of Advaita 2,236 2,236
Moksha - liberating knowledge of Brahman 1,736 1,736
Pramanas - means of knowledge 3,467 12,015
Logic versus revelation 3,428 3,428
Anubhava 689 689
Yoga and contemplative exercises 2,906 2,906
Samanvayat Tatparya Linga 1,525 1,525
The Mahāvākyas - the identity of Ātman and Brahman 988 13,162
Mahāvākyas 2,494 2,494
That you are 3,819 3,819
Meditation on the Mahāvākya 2,162 2,162
Renouncement of ritualism 3,699 3,699
Īśvara 1,708 1,708
Influences of Mahayana Buddhism 1,190 4,653
Similarities and influences 2,492 2,492
Differences 971 971
Films 2,113 2,113
See also 845 845
Notes 6,366 6,366
References 30 30
Sources 16,970 16,970
Further reading 2,929 2,929
External links 2,468 2,468
Total 129,724 129,724

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 Misplaced Pages; discussions should normally be conducted in English. If using another language is unavoidable, try to provide a translation, or get help at Misplaced Pages:Embassy. Do not expect readers to translate your content themselves, not even when modern browsers have machine translation built-in. Shortcut KingParijata (talk) 03:36, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
Vishwakarma and his descendants by Alfred Edward Robert chapter number 3 please read it This book written in 1904 is an honest account but all the books considered by Misplaced Pages as evidence are from 2000 eras and they are all written with the intention of making Jagad Guru a Namboothiri Brahmin, therefore taking the history written by Alfred Edward Robert as a proof, pleads that Jagad Guru's caste should be Vishwa Brahmin. Vipin Babu lumia (talk) 07:22, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Adi Shankara cast

Acharya Shankaro Naam Tvashta Putron Na Sanshayah' This verse is: Acharya Shankaro Naam Tvashta Putron Na Sanshayah, Viprakula Guru Diksha Vishwakarmantu Brahmanah. This is Shankara Vijaya Sloka which means that Adi Shankara was the son of a bronze sculptor. 2409:4073:497:A104:B705:6546:3E8B:F421 (talk) 15:21, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

We need to use a reliable reference for the sentence and for the translation you have given.Shortcut KingParijata (talk) 02:48, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
To make
Brahmaya
In verity this crown-making
caste (the Visvakarma caste) is directly descended from
Brahmaya.”
Noi only were the five sons of Visvakarma Brahmins by
birth, but all these who are by birth members of the Visva-
karma caste have also a ‘claim to that origin and a right. to
‘that name. As the Brahman sprang from Brahma’s mouth,
as he was the first born, and as he possesses the Vedas, he is,
by right the lord of the whole creation. (Manu I. 93, p. 25.)
2
The-name ‘“‘Jagatguru,” the teacher of the world, is a
distinction to-which the people of the Visvakarma caste. alone
‘are entitled. (Winslow’s Dictionary) When the world-
famed Sankaracharya of Travancore, the founder of the
Advaita School of Philosophy, which is Buddhism in dis-
Suise, halted at Masulipatam, he styled himself seta oe
The Dewakammalars of South India, who were very jealous
of their title, incensed at an apparent imposter trying to
ussume what was their own exclusive. property, questionted.
his right to the distinction, when the celebrated philosopher
sang the following lines :—-
“Achiry6é Sankaré nama,
“Twashta putrGé nasansaya,
‘Viprakula gurérdiksha,
“Visvakarmantu Brabsana.”
“My name is Sankaraichdrya, T am a descendant of ‘ft apne
l-have come here to teach the Vipras the right of ney Ur
‘the sacred thread. I am a Brahmin of the Fapeatie
caste.’ (Sankara Vijaya.) This is irrebutiable proof that
the people of the Visvakarma caste are Brahmins.
Vishwakarma and his descendants by Albert Edward Robert chapter number 3 first edition 1904 2409:4073:4E3E:8090:590C:12E1:7545:46AC (talk) 12:00, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Adi Shankaracharya caste

To make Brahmaya In verity this crown-making


caste (the Visvakarma caste) is directly descended from


Brahmaya.”


Noi only were the five sons of Visvakarma Brahmins by birth, but all these who are by birth members of the Visva- karma caste have also a ‘claim to that origin and a right. to ‘that name. As the Brahman sprang from Brahma’s mouth, as he was the first born, and as he possesses the Vedas, he is, by right the lord of the whole creation. (Manu I. 93, p. 25.)



2


The-name ‘“‘Jagatguru,” the teacher of the world, is a distinction to-which the people of the Visvakarma caste. alone ‘are entitled. (Winslow’s Dictionary) When the world- famed Sankaracharya of Travancore, the founder of the Advaita School of Philosophy, which is Buddhism in dis- Suise, halted at Masulipatam, he styled himself seta oe The Dewakammalars of South India, who were very jealous of their title, incensed at an apparent imposter trying to ussume what was their own exclusive. property, questionted. his right to the distinction, when the celebrated philosopher sang the following lines :—-


“Achiry6é Sankaré nama, “Twashta putrGé nasansaya, ‘Viprakula gurérdiksha, “Visvakarmantu Brabsana.”


“My name is Sankaraichdrya, T am a descendant of ‘ft apne l-have come here to teach the Vipras the right of ney Ur ‘the sacred thread. I am a Brahmin of the Fapeatie caste.’ (Sankara Vijaya.) This is irrebutiable proof that the people of the Visvakarma caste are Brahmins. 2409:4073:4E3E:8090:590C:12E1:7545:46AC (talk) 12:57, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Adi shagarajarya cast

Vishvakarma And His Descendents by Alfred Edward robert 1904 chapter number 3 page 12 please read it adi shagarajarya is vishwakarma cast 2409:4073:48C:F64D:0:0:5CB:58A0 (talk) 10:31, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

You are very right, this is a history written before the Namboothiris in Kerala walked in sandals, it was in 1904 but the histories considered by Misplaced Pages today are all from 2000 onwards. All of them were written only to depict Jaganguru Adi Shankaracharya as a Namboothiri Brahmin. Even the period of life given by them is different. When there is a dispute between two parties, historical articles written by a third party outside India should be checked. Vipin Babu lumia (talk) 14:21, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Adi Shankaracharya cast

Jagad Guru Adi Shankaracharya is a Mushari Brahmin of Vishwa Brahmin sect. It is mentioned in a book written in 1904 about the series of Vishwakarma that during the times when Jagad Guru Adi Shankaracharya lived, the titles of Brahmashree and Jagad Guru were entitled to the Vishwa Brahmin category which means that only technical wise Brahmins were chosen for such things. .Misplaced Pages checked the historical documents written since 2001 and made him a Namboothiri Brahmin. All such histories were written in India where he was intended to be a Namboothiri Brahmin and all of them belonged to the Brahmin community in India. But Alfred Edward Robert wrote this history in a country outside India in 1904. . I believe Misplaced Pages will correct this error. Adi Shankaracharya is a person who lived before Christ. None of the Namboothiri Brahmins of Kerala ever accept him as a Namboothiri Brahmin. Vipin Babu lumia (talk) 15:31, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Jagatguru aadi Shankaracharya surname

Jagad Guru Adi Shankaracharya's full name is Jagadguru Adi Shankaracharya During the times when Jagadguru Adi Shankaracharya lived, only Vishwa Brahmins were entitled to use the title of Jagad Guru or Brahmashree in Maharajya India. But modern historians have corrected it and made him a Nambutiri Brahmin, that's why Misplaced Pages doesn't add Jagadguru in front of his name? In India, the Vishwa Brahmin community addresses him as Jagad Guru Athyana Shankaracharya. Vipin Babu lumia (talk) 14:46, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

See WP:HONORIFICS, and WP:RS, and please stop spamming this talkpage with trivia. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 16:05, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
I read your reply. The history written in the royal period which you say is obsolete is the true history. But all the histories written in the modern period are made by distorting the history written in the royal period. Does Misplaced Pages say that all the writings in the royal periods are wrong? 2409:4073:114:CAD4:EE0B:E647:C8D0:DCA2 (talk) 09:08, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
The articles written about the Ashari community in the Misplaced Pages pages are all written in the Emperor period, why they were accepted by Misplaced Pages and rejected by me as writings from the Emperor period. 2409:4073:114:CAD4:EE0B:E647:C8D0:DCA2 (talk) 09:12, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
Categories: