Talk:Vivekacūḍāmaṇi

Page move

I will moving the page title to Vivekachudamani from Viveka Chudamani. The former is the correct usage.[1] --Nvineeth (talk) 03:47, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Nvineeth Hey, you were the person who created my talk page, you were editing Sanskrit articles then, are you around? --AmritasyaPutra^T 17:16, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Citation request

I am removing the citation request on the summary of the Vivekachudamani in the contents section. No citation is needed since that is what the subject is about. only citation that can be given is Vivekachudamani itself rams81 (talk) 07:26, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

But as per wikipedia policy, we need to cite sources, to avoid original research. Anyway, I will be writing this section with reliable sources. --Nvineeth (talk) 08:01, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

nVineeth, I don't contend the wikipedia policy. As the editor who wrote that particular section being questioned, the answer is I expanded the list of main sections of Vivekachudamani. So there can really be no "original research" on it. This is very much like someone describing the structure of Indian National Anthem as it begins with a salutation to the King of /Indian destiny , and then it lists the regions comprising India and so on... rams81 (talk) 23:32, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

When I added the tags, I did not intend to "question", my intention was to find a citation from reliable sources. You and I might be sure that this is correct, but not all readers view it that way, and without a citation, they still consider it as original research. --Nvineeth (talk) 05:02, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Authorship

@Iṣṭa Devatā: how about the Vivekachudamani? I don't believe it that Shankara was the author; what I've read of him is deeply scholastic, while the Vivekachudamani is kind of a 'pop' condensation. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:13, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
I've got my answer. John Grimes (2004), p.23:

Modern scholars tend to reject its authenticity as a work by Shankara. Traditionalists tend to accept it.

Quite different from this:

The authorship and origin of Vivekachudamani has witnessed a discussion. The broad consensus, according to John Grimes, is to credit the text to Adi Sankara.

References

Better said, not at al what Grimes write... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:46, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: Indeed, the above quote from page 23 of Grimes strengthens this article. Why restore the rest? Reza Shah-Kazemi, for example, is known for his Ismaili and Sufi studies, not for his views on Hinduism / Buddhism / Jainism, or Advaita / etc. Grimes does not cite Reza Shah-Kazemi, nor do other peer-reviewed scholarly publications that discuss Vivekachudamani or Adi Shankara. Thoughts? I added Comans, Isayeva and Mayeda's comments, are you okay if we delete the note that refers to website forums etc? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:04, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch: I'll take a look at it later; just hopped out of bed for a moment, but not ready to wake-up yet. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 03:12, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the additions. Regarding Reza Shah-Kazemi, I found his comment helpfull:

it is "so closely interwoven into the spiritual heritage of Shankara that any analysis of his perspective which fails to consider [this work] would be incomplete".

See also James Madaio (2017), Rethinking Neo-Vedānta: Swami Vivekananda and the Selective Historiography of Advaita Vedānta, Religions 2017, 8(6), 101; https://doi.org/10.3390/rel8060101. He argues that the criticism of Neo-Vedanta ignores the medieaval developments of Advaita vedanta, incorporating (aspects of) other Indian traditions. It's a relevant argument; if one focuses on Shankara's classical AV, one might go to great lengths to either attribute the Viveka to Shankara, or to dismiss it as an aberration. But in the light of the tradition as a whole, neither position does justice to this extended tradition. It also means, by the way, that there's still work waiting to be done on the history of AV, and on Neo-Vedanta.

Regarding the websites, I's like to keep them, because both of them refer to scholarly sources, and give a quick overview. They're not references, but notes, giving additional info.

Best regards, and thanks for the raising the Wiki-standards back to a good and challenging level again. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:46, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

@JJ: Do you have a second source for Reza Shah-Kazemi's view, preferably a peer-reviewed scholarly one? If yes, let us cite it. If no, let us take it out since the other paras do cite good sources, thanks to you catching this earlier. Those sources also clarify the controversy better and in a clearer manner. Instead of email list-blogs and websites, I would prefer that we check into the cited scholarly sources therein, then summarize what we find appropriate and due from those scholarly sources. I am fine with notes, but a note should also avoid questionable sources unless we can verify the author is RS and the website is peer-reviewed / maintained by a reputable editor. In the current case, neither seems true. If you don't have access to any mentioned sources, let me know. I will check into them when time permits. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 02:33, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

(ps) Indeed, we should add in more about the significance of this text to the Advaita tradition and a summary of Vivekachudmani text's relevance/discussion with respect to Neo-Vedanta. Given its significance, maybe we should bulk up the contents section too. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 03:23, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

arshabodha.org, Sri Sankara’s Vivekachudamani, p.4, The Question of Authorship of Vivekachudamani, quoting Dayananda Saraswati:

As Swami DayanandaSaraswati, a preeminent modern teacher of Vedanta, has observed: "I do not think we lose anything even if the authorship is attributed to any other Sankaracharya of one of the various Sankara-mathas." (1997, p. 1)

Not exactly peer-reviewed, but an authoritative voice in itself. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:10, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

JJ: Indeed, a diversity of views are worthy of inclusion, but we must find RS. Relying on websites/email-list/blogs is dangerous because it may not be accurate, and because other websites can be a questionable source of all sorts of weird POV-pushing / fake propaganda. We should be able to find such significant views in RS, and for similar content that is WP:Due. I will try to work on the content section in the coming weeks. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:18, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch: thanks; good work. Some additional point if interest:

• Nirvikalpa samadhi points to a later medieaval dating, when yogic tgought was integrated into 'greater Advaita Vedanta'. Is it possible to add some info on this link, the consequences for the dating, and the relevance within the development of 'greater Advaita Vedanta'?
• Did Shankara write about the koshas? When did they became a more prominent element in AV thought? This also gives a hint about dating, and the development of 'greater Advaita Vedanta'.
• Those other manuals, are they dated? And are there any web-links available?

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:59, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

JJ: Yoga is there in the early Advaita texts, dated much earlier than Adi Shankara. Savikalpa Samadhi and Nirvikalpa Samadhi ideas also appear early. Many scholars root it to Patanjali. For example, see this (pages 84-86) and this (pages 149-150) (professor Forrest Baird is RS). I sense you have the Vivekananda version in mind. Of course, Vivekananda had his own interpretation and caused some confusion. Ian Whicher questioned it and discussed it, for example here (pages 160-161). Kosha appears in early Upanishads such as the Anand Valli chapter of Taittiriya Upanishad. Adi Shankara wrote a bhasya on it and others. So, indeed yes. It gained prominence in the 1st millennium BCE. I will look for weblinks of manuscript you request, and/or if possible email you a few for your review. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:21, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Collinson et al. only explains Patanjali; Baird does not give a date for when (Advaita?) Vedanta interpreted nirvikalpa as Atman, let alone when or how it was influenced by Patanjali. In contrast, Comans states that Shankara gives minimal attention to samadhi practices; one of the sources I recently found for the later medieaval history of AV states that later medieaval, or "greater" AV, was influenced by yogic ideas. So, it seems to me that this does give a hint about the dating of the Viveka, in line with later developments wihtin the AV-tradition. And, of course, Patanjali was influenced by Buddhism... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 03:21, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

JJ: May be I misunderstand you, but Baird is not stating that "(Advaita?) Vedanta interpreted nirvikalpa as Atman". In some of these texts, nirvikalpa samadhi is suggested to be a means to the spiritual truths such as realizing atman. Such samadhi is taught in some of these etxts to be a means to refrain from or end all duality (plurality)-style thinking, end subject-object style instinctive thinking, leading to a complete absorption (enstasy) and insights into spiritual truths.

Indeed, one theory is that Buddhism influenced Vedanta and everyone else. But, there is a problem with that hypothesis: the earliest Buddhist texts lack this foundation and the little you do find in the texts of the different schools of early Buddhism further complicate the situation. What early Buddhism does consistently teach, interesting ideas such as anatta are unique and different from the non-Buddhists, but that is far from Patanjali. If we avoid anachronistic presumptions, if we rely on what the objective, verifiable textual/archaeological evidence is actually supporting, the situation is unclear. Perhaps, Buddhism and particularly Mahayana's emergence was likely influenced in part by non-Buddhists. Or perhaps, the influence was not one particular way, it was multidirectional (Buddhism <-> Hinduism <-> Jainism <-> etc). On Vivekachudmani dating, it is likely a 1st millennium CE text if we cross-reference the various pedagogical texts. John Grimes and GC Pande provide a good discussion of what we know and what we don't. Let us return this talk page's focus on how to improve this article further, and move other discussions to emails. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 10:47, 6 July 2018 (UTC)