Adi Shankara

Adi Shankara (Shri Shankaracharya, Adhi Shankaracharya; 'the first Shankara' in his lineage), reverentially called ''Bhagavatpada Acharya'' (the teacher at the feet of Lord) (very approximately 788–820 Common Era, but see #Shankara's dates) was the most famous Advaita philosopher, who had a profound influence on the growth of Hinduism through his monism philosophy. He advocated the greatness and importance of the important Hindu scriptures, the Vedas (most particularly on the Upanishads, also known as Vedanta), spoke to a spirituality founded on reason and without dogma or ritualism, and gave new life to Hinduism at a time when Buddhism and Jainism were gaining popularity. == Life == Shankara was born in Kalady, a small village in Kerala, India, to a Nambuthiri brahmin couple, Shivaguru and Aryamba. The traditional sources of accounts of his life are from the Shankara Vijayams, which are essentially hagiographies. The most important among them are the MadhavIya Shankaravijaya, the AnandagirIya Shankaravijaya, cidvilAsIya Shankaravijaya, and keralIya Shankaravijaya. What follows is the standard story of Shankara's life; much of it is clearly mythical in nature, but some may be historical. Shankara's parents had no child for a long time, and prayed at Vadakkumnathan (vRashAcala) temple in Thrissur, Kerala. Legend has it that the Lord Shiva appeared before the devout couple and offered them a choice: a mediocre son who would live a long life, or an extraordinary son who would not live long. The couple chose the latter. The son was named Shankara, in honour of the Lord Shiva. Shivaguru died while Shankara was very young. The child showed remarkable scholarship, and is said to have mastered the four Vedas by the age of eight. Following the common practice, Shankara stayed at a teacher's house. On one occasion, while begging for alms, he came upon a woman with nothing but one dried amlaka fruit, which she offered to him with devotion. Moved by her piety, he composed the Kanaka Dhara Stotram. On completion of the stotram, golden amlaka fruits were showered upon the woman by the goddess Lakshmi. On another occasion, Shankara was bathing in the river, when a crocodile caught him. He asked for his mother's permission to adopt ''sannyasa'' (the ascetic life), and when his mother agreed, the crocodile released him. Shankara then left Kerala and travelled thoroughout India. When he reached the banks of the river Narmada, he met Govinda Bhagavatpada, the disciple of the Advaitin Gaudapada. As his disciple, Shankara was initiated. Shankara travelled extensively, while writing commentaries on the Upanishads, Vishnu sahasranama, and the Bhagavad Gita. He engaged in a series of debates with Buddhist scholars, and with scholars of the Purva Mimamsa school, which helped in cementing his spiritual ascendancy. One of the most famous of these debates was with Mandana Mishra. His most famous encounter was not with the famed ritualist Mandana Mishra, however, but with an Dalit (outcaste). On his way to the Vishwanath temple in Kashi, he came upon an untouchable and his dog. When asked to move aside by Shankara's disciples, the untouchable asked: "Do you wish that I move my soul, the atman and ever lasting, or this body made of clay?" Seeing the untouchable as none other than the Lord Shiva, Shankara prostrated before Ishwara, composing five shlokas (Manisha Panchakam). Shankara is believed to have attained the Sarvajnapitha in Kashmir. After a while, he withdrew to Kedarnath and attained samadhi at the age of thirty-two. The Kamakshi Amman temple at Kanchipuram also has a vrindavanam where he is believed to have attained siddhi. (A variant tradition expounded by keralIya Shankaravijaya places his place of death as Vadakkumnathan (vRashAcala) temple in Thrissur, Kerala.) == Shankara's dates == Modern scholarship is agreed on dates in the 8th century C.E., though it has proved impossible to reach agreement on Shankara's precise dates of birth or death. Some religious groups, however, ascribe Common Era dates to him. If these dates were true, then much of what is claimed about his activities, especially his debates with Buddhists and Jains, is thrown into doubt. Of the major Shankara Mathams active today, the Kanchi, Dwaraka, and Puri ascribe the dates 509–477 B.C.E. to Shankara. The Sringeri Peetham, on the other hand, accepts the 788–820 C.E. dates. The Guru Parampara of the Kanchi Kamakoti Peetham can be found [http://www.kamakoti.org/peeth/origin.html here], and the Guru parampara of the Sringeri Sarada Peetham can be found [http://www.sringeri.org/guru-par.htm here]. External material supporting the 509–477 B.C.E. dates can be found [http://www.easterntradition.org/original%20sankaracarya.pdf here] and (non-Peetham) material supporting the 788–820 C.E. dates can be found [http://www.sanskrit.org/Shankara/shankar%20bio.html here]. == Philosophy and religious thought == At the time of Shankara's life, Hinduism had lost some of its appeal because of the influence of Buddhism and Jainism. Shankara stressed the importance of the Vedas, and his work helped Hinduism regain strength and popularity. Although he did not live long, he had travelled on foot to various parts of India to restore the study of the Vedas. Shankara's theology maintains that spiritual ignorance (''avidya'') is caused by seeing the self (''Atma'') where self is not. Discrimination needs to be developed in order to distinguish true from false and knowledge (''jnana'') from ignorance (''avidya''). Shankara proposed that, while the phenomenal universe, our consciousness and bodily being are certainly experienced, they are not true reality, but are rather Maya (Hinduism). He considered that the ultimate truth was ''Brahman'', the single divine foundation, which is beyond time, space, and causation. ''Brahman'' is Immanence and Transcendence, but not merely a pantheism concept. Indeed, while ''Brahman'' is the efficient and material cause for the cosmos, ''Brahman'' itself is not limited by self-projection, and transcends all binary opposites or dualities, especially such individuated aspects as form and being. We must pierce through a hazy lens to understand our true being and nature, which is not change and mortality, but unmitigated bliss for eternity. If we are to understand the true motive behind our actions and thoughts, we must become aware of the fundamental unity of being. How, he asks, can a limited mind comprehend the limitless Atman (Hinduism)? It cannot, he argues, and therefore we must transcend even the mind and become one with Soul-consciousness. Shankara denounced caste and meaningless ritual as foolish, and in his own charismatic manner exhorted the true devotee to meditate on god's love and to apprehend truth. His treatises on the Upanishads, Bhagavad Gita, and Vedanta Sutras are testaments to a keen and intuitive mind that did not want to admit dogma but advocated reason. His greatest lesson was that reason and abstract philosophising alone would not lead to ''moksha'' (liberation). It was only through selflessness and love governed by ''viveka'' (discrimination) that a devotee would realise his inner self. Charges that his philosophical views were influenced by Buddhism are unfounded, since Shankara vehemently opposed negation of being (''shunyata''), and believed that the unmanifest Brahman manifested itself as ''Ishwara'', the loving, perfect being on high who is seen by many as being Vishnu or Shiva or whatever their hearts dictate. Shankara is said to have travelled throughout India, from the south to Kashmir, preaching to the local populaces and debating philosophy (apparently successfully, though no documentation exists) with other Hindu and Buddhist scholars and monks along the way. His beliefs form the basis of the Smarta tradition, or Smartism. Even though he lived for only thirty-two years, his impact on India and on Hinduism cannot be stressed enough, as he countered the increasing sacerdotalism (the belief that priests can mediate between humans and god) of the masses, and reintroduced a purer form of Vedic civilization thought. He presented a face of Hinduism that could reasonably contend with Buddhist ideas and spread it, as well as reformist measures, across the land, travelling from as far up as Kashmir from areas in the South of India. His Hindu revival movement paved the way for the strict theistic movements of Ramanuja and Madhva, and helped lead to the decline of Buddhism in much of India. == Works == Books certainly written by Adi Shankara: * The "Crest-Jewel of Discrimination" or Viveka Chudamani, one of his most famous works, which summarises his ideas of non-dual Vedanta * The commentary Bhasya on the Brahma Sutra * The commentary on the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad * The commentary on the Taittiriya Upanishad * The commentary on the Bhagavad Gita * The Thousand Teachings or Upadesasahasri * A hymn to Krishna as the Herder of Cows, known as Bhaja Govindam * Benedictory invocation to Siva and Sakti, namely Sivanandalahari and Saundaryalahari respectively * Commentary on Vishnu Sahasranama Books he probably wrote are: * The commentary on Gaudapada's Karika to the Mandukya Upanishad * The commentary on the Bhagavad Gita, though there is no scholarly agreement on this. == Mathas (Monasteries) == Shankara is said to have founded four mathas (a matha is a monastery or religious order), which are important to this day. These are at Sringeri in Karnataka, in the south, Dwaraka in Gujarat in the west, Puri in Orissa in the east, and Jyotirmath (Joshimath) in Uttaranchal in the north. The heads of the mathas trace their authority back to him. However, there is no concrete evidence for the existence of these mathas before the 14th century, so the claim that Adi Shankara founded them is dubious at best. The matha at Kanchipuram or Kanchi in Tamil Nadu claims that it was also founded by Shankara. According to this matha, it was where he settled in his last days and attained mahaasamaadhi (i.e. left his body), but there are other, equally well-founded accounts which claim that he attained mahaasamadhi at Kedarnath. == External links == * [http://www.hinduweb.org/home/general_sites/kogee/adi.html The story of Sri Adi Shankara] * [http://www.kamakoti.org/souv/2-6.html American historian, Will Durant's article on Shankara's Vedanta] * [http://www.kamakoti.org/ Official website of the Kanchi Kamakoti Peetham] * [http://www.sanskrit.org/Shankara/shankar%20bio.html Biography of Adi Shankara] * [http://www.advaita-vedanta.org/ Advaita Vedanta Anusandhana Kendra] * [http://acharya.iitm.ac.in/mirrors/vv/literature/sankara/sankara.html Visit here to see some of Shankara's works] * [http://www.sringeri.org/ Website of the Shringeri Sharada Peetham] *[http://www.advaita-vedanta.org/avhp/sankara-life.html Brief life history of Adi Shankara with informative additional links] * [http://www.geocities.com/advaitavedant/shankarabio.htm Biography of Shankara at the Advaita Vedanta Library] * [http://www.atmajyoti.org/me_shankaracharya_on_om.asp Shankaracharya on OM] * [http://www.easterntradition.org/original%20sankaracarya.pdf Original Shankaracarya] * [http://www.exoticindia.com/article/shankaracharya/ Life of Shankaracharya — The Adventures of a Poet Philosopher] (by Nitin Kumar) * [http://users.ox.ac.uk/~worc0337/authors/shankara.html Adi Śańkara] — short introduction to his life & philosophy (by Peter J. King) * [http://www.dlshq.org/saints/sankara.htm Swami Shivananda's biography of Shankara] Hindu religious figures Indian religious figures Indian philosophers

Adi Shankara

== Dates of Sankara's life == It was claimed that Sankara's life ran from approximately 509-477 BC. This date appears to come from Theosophical scholarship (witness the link offered as evidence); it would make Sankara a predecessor of the Buddha, and it would place him over a thousand years before the advent of Islam in India, either of which makes a nonsense of his generally understood place in history. I see that there has already been a little edit war over this subject, on 1-2 February 2005, earlier on 22 November 2004, and perhaps earlier still. The dates 788-820 evidently reflect the mainstream scholarly consensus. Would the advocate(s) of the BC dates please post their arguments here, along with some explanation of Sankara's relationship to Buddhism and Indian Islam in their worldview. User:Mporter 05:31, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC) ::I've corrected the dates. Sources for C8th C.E.: *Brian Carr 'Sankara', in ''A Companion to the Philosophers'' ed. Arrington (2001:Oxford, Blackwell) ISBN 0-631-22967-1 *Peter J. King ''One Hundred Philosophers'' (2004: Hove, Apple) ISBN 1-84092-462-4 *Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan 'Samkara', in ''History of Philosophy Eastern and Western'' vol.I (1952:London, Allen & Unwin) I know of no reputable source for B.C.E. dates. Μελ_Ετητης)">User:Mel Etitis 10:31, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC) -- Please refer to this (among others) for proof of B.C.E dates. http://www.kamakoti.org/peeth/origin.html Thanks. (March 9 2005) ::The page doesn't offer proof; it's one source against the three above (and many others besides). Moreover, it cites unnamed scholars in support of its claim — so there's no way to check its sources. In the section concerning Shankara's founding of monasteries, etc., only one mention is made of a date; the reference is to a small and obscure 1959 work by O. (or D.) S. Triveda. ::The dating seems to be based upon the dates of institutions which were founded, according to tradition, by Shankara. If we follow that reasoning, then Alfred the Great lived in the early sixteenth century, when Brasenose College (which tradition says that he founded) was built. ::More importantly, the B.C.E. dates make no sense when placed against the content of the article — especially the material about Shankara's interactions with Buddhism and Jainism. User:Mel Etitis (Μελ_Ετητης)">User talk:Mel Etitis 09:31, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC) In addition to the Kanchi Peetham, three of the other four peethams established by Adi Sankara subscribe to the B.C.E dates. http://www.easterntradition.org/original%20sankaracarya.pdf also offers proof for B.C.E dates. Bottom line is that this is one of these things which can't been proved based on modern historians. So I would go with the Mathams which were established by Adi Sankara himself. I'm not sure who else can be a better authority on Adi Sankara. And the BCE dates do not contradict Buddhism/Jainism dates. A quick search on Wikipedia will should that both Gautama Buddha and Mahavira predate Adi Sankara by a few decades. Thanks. (March 10 2005) ::#''Please'' register and then sign your messages. Aside from anything else, you're likely to be taken more seriously by many users. ::#The point about Buddhism doesn't concern the lifetime of the Buddha, but the fact that, first, for Shankara to have travelled round the country debating with monks, there must have been a very widespread and established system of monasteries and the like, and secondly, the Buddhist views with which he was concerned would have had to have developed. Neither makes sense in the time-scale on offer. (If the claim had been that he had debated with the Buddha, that would have been a diferent matter.) ::#I stick to the point that foundtion dates (and details of founders), especially with regard to religious foundations, and especially when those foundations are old, are notoriously unreliable. ::#The standard (indeed, the unanimous) view, among the sources I've consulted, both published and personal, is the C8th C.E. dating. We should probably mention the minority tradition of a B.C.E. date, but it would have to be accompanied by an explanation as to why that's not accepted by most authorities. User:Mel Etitis (Μελ_Ετητης)">User talk:Mel Etitis 09:51, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC) :::Incidentally, and especially with regard to the claim that there's another person – 'Abhinava Shankara' – with whom this Shankara is being confused, see the [http://www.sanskrit.org/Shankara/shankar2.html Devasthanam] discussion. The evidence is fully laid out there. User:Mel Etitis (Μελ_Ετητης)">User talk:Mel Etitis 10:53, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC) 1. I agree with you that both the dates be mentioned with explanations on why they can be accepted/not accepted. In fact, when I made the BCE date changes a while ago, I mentioned the AD dates too so as to allow the reader to make the call. 2. As to the Buddha dates, there are some schools which give Gautama Buddha an earlier date. So it is likely that by the time of Adi Sankaracharya, Buddhism was well rooted. http://www.encyclopediaofauthentichinduism.org/articles/52_the_dynasties_of.htm 3. I read the Sanskrit.org article about Abinava Sanakara. Though Abinava is a title, there was indeed an Abinava Sankara. The 38th Pontiff of the Kanchi Kamakoti Peetham was Abinava Sankarendra Saraswathi. The current pontiff is #70. http://www.kamakoti.org/peeth/origin.html 4. The same Sanskrit.org article also mentions that the Dwaraka and Puri mathas held on to the BC dates for Acharya. Though it also mentions that there is no recorded proof for those dates. 5. I'm not a regular contributor to Wikipedia (and thus have not registered) and got into this discussion to clarify why the dates were changed. (Not some random act of vandalism as one of the history comments say) Thanks - SankaraBhaktan 12 Mar 2005 I am to change the page since : The above dates have to be unbiased sice there has to be equal reference to the dates The members of other religions have no idea of what a change of date would cause to ones religious belief. History is always changing. To balance the alliegance of all the mutts. The dates would NEVER , mind NEVER be resolved since it is a matter of faith. There is no physical proof that a man called Sankara existed the same as of other religious heads. So, let it be a matter of faith and no non-hindu person should indulge in distorting the page, just as we dont distort, say a christian philosophers page. Whatever said and done, he was one of the greatest philosophers in Hindu religion and allow his reputation to REST IN PEACE. -A Hindu who will never touch this page or visit this website ANYMORE. ==Other issues== Deleting the following as I don't think it is NPOV: >> had been almost smothered within the enticing entanglements of the Buddhistic philosophy and, consequently, the decadent Hindu society had come to be broken up and disunited into numberless sects and denominations, each championing a different viewpoint and mutually quarelling in endless argumentations. Each pundit, as it were, had his own followers, his own philosophy, his own interpretation. Each one was a vehement and powerful opponent of all other views. This intellectual disintegration, especially in the scriptural field, was never before so serious and so dangerously calamitous as in the times of Sankara.>> User:Kh7 08:14 Mar 28, 2003 (UTC) -- The article says,"Shankara is said to have traveled throughout India... (apparently successfully, though no documentation exists) ...." What about the "Shankara Digvijayas" written by Madhava Vidyaranya? 'आदि शंकराचार्य' is the originating word for the name, so it is 'Shankara' in the wide usage. 'Sankara' is used in Tamil as the letter 'sh' is absent in Tamil usage. --User:Hpnadig 03:14, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC) -- Dates and Mathas (1) Dates section: The statement 'Some religious groups, however, ascribe B.C.E. dates to him' is not NPOV. The mathas which go with the BCE are legitimate institutions with almost 2500 of history behind them. It is denigrating to label them as some fly by night religious group. (2) Mathas section: The statement 'However, there is no concrete evidence for the existence of these mathas before the 14th century, so the claim that Adi Shankara founded them is dubious at best' is plain inflammatory. It appears that it is becoming futile to attempt to make any corrections anymore - SankaraBhaktan April 09 2005 ::#That you need to add derogatory comments to what's written in order to protest against it rather shows the weakness of your case. If the article referred to 'fly-by-night' religious groups, then of course you'd have a point; it doesn't. ::#I'm not responsible for that claim, but I've researched it, and found no-one to disagree with it. Similarly, the claim that modern Druidry is a primarily 18th- & 19th-century tradition, with only tenuous links to anything earlier is doubtless inflammatory to many, but no less true for all that. If, of course, you have concrete evidence for the existence of the mathas in question, then post it here and we can change the article. User:Mel Etitis (Μελ_Ετητης)">User talk:Mel Etitis 09:23, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC) -- (1) What was derogatory in the comments? Sorry didn't understand your comment. My point is that just because the groups who claim the BCE dates are religious does not invalidate the case for BCE dates. If that is not the intent, maybe the article needs to be rephrased. (2) The proof is the Guru Parampara of the Mathas. What else are you looking for? - SB April 11 2005 :#'Fly by night'. :#If being religious invalidated their claim, they wouldn't be mentioned. However, international scholarship – including Hindu religious scholars – agrees on the 8th century C.E. dates; the minority opinion is mentioned in the article but not used in the summary. :#I'm afraid that that's not what I (or most people) mean by ''proof''. User:Mel Etitis (Μελ_Ετητης)">User talk:Mel Etitis 17:49, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC) Thanks. (1)Ok / (2) As I'd mentioned before, maybe that paragraph needs to be rephrased. I showed it a another group here, and they also felt that the paragraph was denigrating to the Mathas who claim BCE dates. Please keep in mind that 3 of the original Mathas went with the BCE dates. (3) Almost every article you�ve used as proof for CE dates also talk about Sankara as establishing the Mathas. Any reason to doubt that Sankara established the Mathas is unfounded. (4) I think that the dates section should also address the mystery over where Sankara attained siddhi � Kedaranath vs. Kanchi. (5) In the end, the philosophy and works of Sankara are more important. I prefer discussing issues over here than get into an unnecessary cycle of edits/reverts. (I see that its still going on) In fact, after writing about the dates, I waited a while before creating the section on dates. Appreciate your willingness for discussion. - SB Apr 11 2005 :#I'm afraid that I don't see how the phrase 'religious' group' could be taken to be denigrating (except to an atheist group, I suppose). :#It seems clear that Sankara founded Mathams; what's not certain is how many, which ones, and when. On one side of the debate we have tradition, on the other side, scholarship. Wikipedia (in common with other reference works) prefers to rely upon scholarship, but mentions the tradition. :#First, the assumption that he gained ''siddhi'' (or that there is such a thing) is itself PoV, of course, so any discussion has to bear that in mind. Secondly, though, I don't see what connection it has with the issue of dates; why do you think that it should be placed there? I suppose that we could rename the section something like 'Areas of disagreement', or something like that; then the two issues would both be appropriate. :#''Please'' sign your messages (~~~~. :# Why not Special:Userlogin? User:Mel Etitis (Μελ_Ετητης)">User talk:Mel Etitis 09:09, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC) (1) It appears as though the reason to reject the BCE dates is because it is supported by the 'religious groups'. (2) When it comes to Indian history one has to ALSO rely on tradition (if one is interested in the truth). Frankly, none of the sources which show as proof have any really credentials on this subject. These 'scholarly' works go by oral tradition as much as the proof laid out by religious groups. (3) 'Areas of mystery or something similar' is what I meant. While we are addressing the mystery over the dates, we may as well address the mystery over his attaining siddhi(where) too. (4) That Adi Sankara attained Siddhi is a fact - not an assumption. (5) I have been signing my name in the post. Thanks for sending the link for registration. As I had mentioned before I'm not a regular contributor. As a student of Sankara, I noticed some factual errors in this article and got into this discussion here. - SankaraBhaktan (SB) April 16, 2005 == Jayendra Saraswati == Uses of terms like ''persecution'' are best avoided. This should be a scholarly article, and not an invective. --User:Satyadev == Worldbook encyclopedia? == An anon. user has just made an edit that appeals to only one authority by name : the 'Worldbook Encyclopedia'. My impression is that this isn't an authority at all (and the appeal to it looks a little silly in a proper reference work), but does anyone have any light to shed? User:Mel Etitis (Μελ_Ετητης)">User talk:Mel Etitis 10:48, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC) Are you refering to: :His Birth Date remains a disputed fact as Kanchi and Puri mutt follow the B.C.E date while the Sringeri mutt follows the C.E. date. The other two mutts at Badrinath and Dwaraka have broken lineages due to the various political problems due to external invasions. While the B.C.E date seems logical with respect to buddhism, the C.E. date seems to be inextricably linked to the disputed Aryan Invasion Theory when using the hindu cyclic calendar. It would probably remain a disputed fact in the future as it is a matter of faith for the followers of the respective mutts. The fact that remains undisputed is that he was the original head a of all the mutts and one of the greatest saints in Hindu culture and history. ? (User:Sam Spade | user_talk:Sam Spade | Special:contributions/Sam Spade) 11:14, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC) ::No, I was referring to the edit made on 11th March, containing a reference to the Worldbook Encyclopedia. User:Mel Etitis (Μελ_Ετητης)">User talk:Mel Etitis 11:28, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC) :OK, why was the above deleted? (User:Sam Spade | user_talk:Sam Spade | Special:contributions/Sam Spade) 11:30, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC) ::Because the dates aren't in fact particularly disputed, all the scholarship being agreed (roughly) on the 8th century C.E. The only objections come from a small group of religious believers, mostly from outside Hinduism. I added a link to an account of the debate, and the current consensus; that seemed to be enough. A minor disagreement shouldn't take up so much space in the summary, especially when it's covered adequately (and neutrally) in the document to which I linked. Moreover, no sources were provided for the claims, and it's certainly not undisputed that he was the original head of all the mutts, not even all those mentioned. ::An anon user has been trying to change the dates for some considerable time, as the discussion above and the History will attest. This is just the latest attempt. on past form, he'll keep quite for a while, and then try to sneak it in again, with no explanation on the Talk page, and no acknowledgment that the matter is controversial (at best).User:Mel Etitis (Μελ_Ετητης)">User talk:Mel Etitis 12:41, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC) Well if anon is reading, providing a cite would be a good idea. (User:Sam Spade | user_talk:Sam Spade | Special:contributions/Sam Spade) 12:55, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC) == Saundarya lahari authorship == Saundarya lahari has been removed from the list of works authored by Shankara because it certainly was not. I know of no established Sanskrit scholar who thinks it is. Though this sounds lame to non-Sanskrit readers, it is clear to a Sanskrit reader that it is not the same author, as you are clear that Dickens and Austen are stylistically different without being told. More importantly, the siddhanta or conclusion is not compatible with the works that certainly *are* by Shankara, i.e. his commentaries (bhaa.sya) on the Brahma-sutra etc. (i.e. the prasthaana-traya). --Bhairava11 :I have added Saundarya-lahari to the List of Works authored by Shankara because - :The great Adi Shankara is known as ''shan-mata-sthapaka'', the founder of the six ''matas'' or devotional modes. They include six conceptions of the Supreme Being viz. ''Vishnu, Shiva, Shakti, Ganesha, Kartikeya and Surya''. :He and other ''Acharyas'' in fact, were not mere intellectual gymnasts like many of the Western philosophers. It is only in the light of this peculiarity of the Indian spiritual tradition that we should try to understand how the Vedantic philosopher Sri Shankaracharya could also be the composer of great devotional hymns. The deities adored in this country are but personalized conceptions of one Supreme Brahman. :Of course, there seem to be radical differences between the ''Shakta'' philosophy and Sri Shankara�s philosophy, known in later times as ''kevala advaita''. It is because of this basic difference in the philosophic outlook of the two systems that many modern critics hesitate to accept the tradition of Sri Shankaracharya�s authorship of Saundarya-lahari. :But, well, there are about 35 commentaries in Sanskrit by eminent scriptural exponents on the Saundarya-lahari. Unless the text had originated from a universally accepted and venerated authority it is difficult to explain how the commentators have quoted Shankara. :We also find weighty authorities of the past supporting Shankara�s authorship of Saundarya-lahari. ''Arthur Avalon'', a name to be reckoned on matters of ''Shakti'' cult, considers many names of Southern and Eastern Pandits whose prominence has to be blindly set aside if anybody doubts seriously. :So in the absence of any other source of importance contradicting the traditional view, we shall be justified in accepting the tradition that Adi Shankara is the author of Saundarya-lahari, says Swami Tapasyananda, an erudite scholar on devotional hymns and past President of Sri Ramakrishna Math, Chennai. :User:Swami Vimokshananda 16:39, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC) ::That 2,500-years' worth of philosophy from Europe, the Americas, Africa, Australia, etc., is dismissed as "intellectual gymnastics" says much about the chauvinism, arrogance, and ignorance of this person, but gives one little confidence as to the accuracy of his contributions. User:Mel Etitis (Μελ_Ετητης)">User talk:Mel Etitis 20:53, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC) :::I am sorry that the term has offended you. It is not used in a derogatory sense. I have not brushed aside ALL the Western philosophers. We do have admiration for their contribution to the World's legacy. :::User:Swami Vimokshananda 01:00, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC) I'm afraid that the context was enough to show that it was indeed meant derogatorily, and the word 'mere' serve to confirm that. Who are 'we', incidentally? Is that the royal 'we', or are you claiming to speak for a larger group? User:Mel Etitis (Μελ_Ετητης)">User talk:Mel Etitis 10:16, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC) I'm rather surprised that you'd blow up the 'intellectual gymanstics' part into something bigger that what the comment appears to be making. But yet when it suits you, you make sweeping conclusions such as 'Sankar's BC dates are only held by religious groups and so hold no merit'.. Come on man.. And if I may ask, I'm genuinely interested in knowing about your authority on the subject of Adi Sankara, esp. since you have overridden the mathas that were established by Sankara himself. And you questioning that Adi Sankar attained siddhi could be considered blasphemous by some. Since I�ve asked you for your authority on this subject, it is only fair to give you mine. As I had mentioned in previous messages, I�m a student of Sankara. Thank you. SankaraBhaktan(SB) May 5 2005 2:44 UTC #The comment is dismissive of a large part of human philosophical endeavour; it was unacceptable. If a Western philosopher wrote here saying "We shouldn't call all these Eastern writers 'philosophers', they're just engaged in semi-mystical gobble-de-gook", I supect that you'd be annoyed too. #I didn't write "BC dates are only held by religious groups and so hold no merit", or anything like it. That you have to invent words for me suggests that what I actually wrote can't be so easily criticised. #This is an encyclopædia, and accusations of blasphemy, even as sideways and insinuating as yours, are not acceptable. We are concerned to offer articles written from a Wikipedia:NPOV; to state that a religious view is true is not allowed. #Your claim to be a student of Shankara is irrelevant here, and doesn't constu=itute authority to impose your point of view. A sa a matter of fact I have written and published in a minor way on Shanakara's philosophy, but that isn't relevant here either. User:Mel Etitis (Μελ_Ετητης)">User talk:Mel Etitis 08:41, 5 May 2005 (UTC) ::To Mel Etitis: ::*Well, your further queries seem to lead towards my personal attributes which I firmly believe, are NOT materially relevant to the topic of Adi Shankara�s authorship of Saundarya-lahari. Discerning readers will only be disgusted if we continue engaging in any sort of discussion on who am I and whom I represent etc. Likewise I would, albeit interesting, refrain here from discussing the English usage of 'mere' and 'we' in the other side of the globe. ::*I pity that instead of contributing to the topic concerned you have accused me of being chauvinistic, arrogant and ignorant and also doubting my accuracy. Even after my expressly stating �sorry� you stuck to your accusation. A learned wikipedian you are, you could have avoided [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_hominem ad hominem] assault on user like me, who is just one month old here. However, I have taken all this in my stride considering your reaction as an impulsive outburst at the first reading. I am glad that I could learn something from you. Peace be unto you is my prayer. ::*Of course, I would only welcome and request you to return to the topic that was before us. ::To Sankarabhaktan ::*Please take away the discussion on 'Dates' with Mel Etitis to elsewhere from Saundarya-lahari para. Thanks! For the admirers and lovers of Shankara: the birthday falls this year on the ensuing 13 May, one of the holiest ''tithi''s for Hindus. ::*User:Swami Vimokshananda 13:59, 6 May 2005 (UTC) #I didn't introduce the question of personal authority and qualifications, Sankarabhaktan did, and you weren't mentioned. Unless you're the same person... #There's a diffence between apologising for saying something and regretting that it had an effect; the use of the term 'sorry' is common to the two actions. All that passive-aggressive stuff is transparent, ineffective, and irrelevant. User:Mel Etitis (Μελ_Ετητης)">User talk:Mel Etitis 14:05, 6 May 2005 (UTC) ==Opinion on Spelling Correction== I find in this article some words like Siva, Sankara, Sivaguru are spelled both ways like Shiva/Siva, Shankara/Sankara etc. Homogeneity in spelling of Proper Nouns is an essential ingredient for smooth reading. The retroflex sibilants - the second SA as it is sometimes called, is generally transliterated into English as SHA. The spelling SA is used only when you transliterate with International diacritical marks over the letters. Since diacritical marks are dispensed with in English Wikipedia for Sanskrit words why can�t we use SHA in place of SA as in Shiva, Shankara and Shivaguru etc.? Any opinion please. *User:Swami Vimokshananda 11:35, 7 May 2005 (UTC) :I've changed a number, when I've noticed them, but the article needs a thorough copyedit. User:Mel Etitis (Μελ_Ετητης)">User talk:Mel Etitis 12:24, 7 May 2005 (UTC) ::23 corrections (minor spellings) were done now! Yes, I do agree that a thorough copyediting will bring a whiff of fresh air to this article. ::*User:Swami Vimokshananda 16:58, 8 May 2005 (UTC) But, pray, who is going to bell the cat? User:61.0.164.218 08:19, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

See other meanings of words starting from letter:

A

AB | AC | AD | AE | AF | AG | AH | AI | AJ | AK | AL | AM | AN | AO | AP | AR | AS | AT | AU | AW | AX | AY | AZ |

Words begining with Adi_Shankara:

Adi_Shankara
Adi_Shankara
Adi_Shankaracharya