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 editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 05:04, 12 September 2016 editØystein.Eide (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users504 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit Revision as of 03:21, 28 September 2016 edit undoSro23 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators53,146 editsm Reverted 1 edit by Øystein.Eide (talk) to last revision by Joshua Jonathan. (TW)Next edit →
Line 32: Line 32:
{{WikiProject Theology|class=B|importance=Top}} {{WikiProject Theology|class=B|importance=Top}}
}} }}
{{Prone to spam|date=September 2016}}
{{V0.5|class=start|category=Philrelig}} {{V0.5|class=start|category=Philrelig}}


Revision as of 03:21, 28 September 2016

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 

Template:Vital article

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.
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.
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
Current status: Former featured article
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
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.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
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
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
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).
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
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).
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconPhilosophy: Philosophers / Religion / Eastern / Medieval 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
Philosophy of religion
Taskforce icon
Eastern philosophy
Taskforce icon
Medieval philosophy
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
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.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
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.

Template:V0.5

Unreliable sources

@Soham321: This book, What Is Living and What Is Dead in Indian Philosophy, is not a reliable source. A reliable source 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. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 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: Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya. 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. Soham321 (talk) 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. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 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. Soham321 (talk) 11:44, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
@Soham321: See WP:SPS. Comments on People's Publishing House: 1. 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. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 11:52, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
This is the wikipedia page of LeftWord Books. 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 N._Ram 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. Soham321 (talk) 12:03, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
People's Publishing House has also published the work of this gentleman: D.D. Kosambi Soham321 (talk) 12:06, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

@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 WP:SPS or take this to dispute resolution. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:29, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I did give a link to a review of this book by Dale Riepe in an earlier edit. Soham321 (talk) 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. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 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. Soham321 (talk) 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. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:23, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Please read WP:Verifiability again. You are wasting your time and mine. Soham321 (talk) 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. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:26, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
The book was not self-published. The same publishers have published D.D. Kosambi and Romilla Thapar. 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. Soham321 (talk) 18:42, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

@Soham321: The issue is not only that it is SPS, it is WP:Primary, 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 add, "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 WP:Soap, 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. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 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. Soham321 (talk) 20:01, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
@Soham321: Go ahead. DRN it is. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:10, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
All in good time, i am in no hurry. Soham321 (talk) 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 Soham321 (talk) 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 Soham321 (talk) 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/ Soham321 (talk) 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. Soham321 (talk) 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. Soham321 (talk) 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 Cārvāka, 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 WP:Soap, from an unreliable source on Adi Shankara, and of no encyclopedic value to this article. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:52, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

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. Soham321 (talk) 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 here and here. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 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? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.164.25.61 (talk • contribs)

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. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 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? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.164.25.61 (talk) 14:21, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

@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 WP:Soapbox. So, please reread and reflect on what @Joshua Jonathan has to say above, and keep in mind the scope and focus of this article. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:33, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
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 sunyata and Buddha-nature, and the Tibetan discussions on these two strands of thought, as reflected in Rangtong-Shentong. 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, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:28, 1 January 2016 (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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.164.25.61 (talk • contribs)

@122.164.25.61: Scholars have not agreed, and the article tries to present the different sides. Most scholars agree that there are major Atman-Anatta 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. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:28, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

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

"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.

The first line from Nivrvana Shaktam itself is enough to prove it wrong i.e

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

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

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

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.

Rest for now, correct these mistakes asap. :)

@Joshua Jonathan: ping to JJ.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Demise1234 (talk • contribs) 13:36, 24 April 2016

This is stuff for Ms sarah Welch and Ogress... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:41, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Oh i see, Thank you.
So.. @Ms Sarah Welch: & @Ogress:, Please take care of those silly mistakes :) and yes please consult Swamis of Ramakrishna Mutt, they're in US as well. Demise1234 (talk) 11:54, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
@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 added 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. @Joshua Jonathan: I will restore the older 'I am Shiva', since I see support for it. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:00, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
@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. :) Demise1234 (talk) 12:06, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
@Ms Sarah Welch:Please also, REF: https://en.wikipedia.org/Atma_Shatkam , sounds OK, btw Atma Shatkam = Nirvana Shatkam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Demise1234 (talk • contribs)

@Demise1234: Thanks, but greenmesg.org looks like a blog, not WP:RS. We also have WP:Copyvio 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 WP:TPNO. 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. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:45, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

@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. Demise1234 (talk) 13:01, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
@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? Demise1234 (talk) 01:53, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
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. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:14, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Regarding the text/translation itself: it's not the complete text yet, is it?
Regarding "cidAnandarupa": cit 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 Buddha-nature. "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, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:10, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
PS: why "śivo'ham," and not "Brahmaham"? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:49, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
@JJ: I expected So'ham, found in their ancient Upanishads, such as the Isha Upanishad. Yet, the versions on internet read Shivo'ham. I haven't checked the archived original manuscripts. The phrasing is from satcitananda, 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. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:20, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

"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? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:08, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

May be poetic meter? I will have to dig into this, to offer more than a guess. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 04:27, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Indian?

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

All these great philosophies are at best some kind of intellectual past-time of a minor group of people somewhere in the subcontinent or even outside. A sample of the real people of the subcontinent, and also from where Sri Sankara is said to have originated can be seen on this link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.214.28.24 (talk) 15:45, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Misra's wife

@Nihoyari: Why is Misra's wife and the claimed Saraswati incarnation WP:Due in this article? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:06, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

@Nihoyari: I have once again removed the content you added to this article, because it was largely unsourced, undue, and unencyclopedic per WP:WWIN. The two sources you added are not WP:RS. We cannot present discredited hagiographies as historical facts, or anything that appears in blogs or personal commentaries / propaganda / opinions in some newspapers. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:56, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Comment: Thanks @JJ for adding the linking. I should have done it. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:53, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
@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:
http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2013-04-19/news/38674414_1_referee-mithila-debate
http://www.outlookindia.com/website/story/oh-but-you-do-get-it-wrong/262511
http://www.business-standard.com/article/beyond-business/the-management-trinity-116061401189_1.html
http://www.thehindu.com/2001/08/21/stories/1321017c.htm
http://www.newindianexpress.com/nation/Buddhist-Path-a-Way-to-Asian-Century-PM-Modi/2015/09/03/article3008470.ece

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:
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
http://www.mid-day.com/articles/transplant-this-soul-in-that-body/16565180
http://www.mid-day.com/articles/devdutt-pattanaik-agree-disagree-argue/16954167
--Nihoyari (talk) 14:37, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

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