Talk:Kanchi Kamakoti Peetham

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Changes[edit]

I've made a number of changes to this page.

  • Removed quotes from 'influential institutions'. I can't see that there is any doubt about its influence. That's one of the reasons for the controversies around it.
  • Removed the following text, because the first is arguable (see history later), and the second irrelevant here;
The Mutt has a long established history of saints and was reverred all over India.Sri Chandrashekarendra Saraswathi Swamigal was a saint who lived for 100 ears and was popular all over India for his simple life and humility. He refused to meet Indira Gandhi at the time of Emergency.
  • Removed and simplified much of the history paragraph, to state only the formal claim to being founded by Sankara, and to the dispute as to Sankara's place of death The other claims, (e.g. that the courts support the matha's official history) need references and to be clearly written if they are to be included in the article. The existing references only support the statements now on the page.

Imc 19:29, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Imc:many o

The source http://www.advaita-vedanta.org/avhp/alt_hindu_msg.html does not qualify as a primary or secondary reliable sources according to wiki guidelines : "Personal websites as primary sources" "Personal websites and blogs may never be used as secondary sources". This link is to a email letter written to some organisation. This may be therefore deleted.

Appaiah 12:53, 26 December 2005 (UTC


Sorry Appaiah, I disagree, both with your above statement, and the same reason that was given for your edit of 19th Feb.
  • First, the original posting was to a mailing list. A mailing list is not a 'blog', by any stretch of the imagination, nor is it a personal website. I agree only that it was an email, and that it was to a mailing list. Also the content was not 'from a blog' (as stated previously), it was from a person to the mailing list. Such posts are regularly quoted in scholarly circles, providing the content itself meets similar criteria to those that Wikipedia sets. An article does not have to be published in article format to be reputable and quoted.
  • Second, this reference is not the original mailing list anyway. It is a web page at http://www.advaita-vedanta.org/ which is a major and reputed website, and publishes this posting because of its content.
  • Third, S. Vidyasankar is himself a reputable source. He has other reputable published work on related topics, for instance that on Jyotirmath. This detailed and researched email has itself been reproduced, as here and on other websites, for its content and value. See also; [1]
  • Finally, I've looked through Wikipedia:Verifiability and the only item that I can see that may support your case is that which says that 'blogs' are not verifiable sources. I trust that this is not the reason you insist on calling it a blog, when it is not.
On the reversion of the other (anonymous) edits, it is not the purpose of Wikipedia to give details of the organisation's contacts in the USA. Imc 21:05, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry i disagree.Advaita vedanta is the personal website of so called Vidyasankar Sundersan who keep on saying Kanchi Mutt is not an established mutt with the so called inscriptions. Sringeri Mutt holds date of adisankara in the 1st century till 19th century AD.But now they show 788-820 AD.Did he said anything about that? What about the geneologies of other main mutts which agree in common of 6th century BC.Did he say anything about that? How fortunate. No importance should be given to the website which shows this much IGNORANCE.The ONLY thing which is altogther correct is about his Jyoti Mutt.14.99.22.138 (talk) 06:49, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

Adequate references have been provided. I dont think "unrferenced" tag is relevant any more -Ravichandar84 15:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The references given as place of sankara's death as Kedarnath in the Himalayas only says about his full life about various doings and establishment of 4 mutts and of him staying at kanchi in his last days and after him it is math also.There is no mention of his passing away in the himalayas. So editing the history.14.99.243.89 (talk) 12:42, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Murder trial[edit]

I was surprised to find no reference to the ongoing murder trial in the article. I have added a summary paragraph with citations.

I think we should provide more details of this episode and its effect on the matha. mukerjee (talk) 05:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem removed[edit]

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.kamakoti.org/peeth/origin.html and other pages in that domain. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:32, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template default image[edit]

@Frietjes: The infobox template in this article is adding a default image. This image is simply wrong and the Kanchi monastery looks very different (I will upload some images with embedded EXIF data when I return to my office). Is there a way to remove this default image misinformation? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 03:23, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ms Sarah Welch, you can edit the default image by clicking on "wikidata item" in the menu on the left, which should take you to d:Q129932. Frietjes (talk) 13:21, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 11:43, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mass-revert[edit]

@2405:201:e018:5835:785d:5e3b:ef:e493: so, what exactly is it you want to retain? You're now doing multiple mass-reverts diff diff, because you want to retain one piece of text, Not just Sringeri but also Puri and Dwaraka reject Kanchi as a Sankaracharya, without specifying what exactly. That's WP:DISRUPTIVE. Yet, I presume you're referring to this piece from the lead:

Its founding is attributed by its followers to Adi Shankara,[1] though this is categorically dismissed by all the four cardinal Sankara mathas established by Adi Sankara as per his own work Mathamnaya Setu:[2] according to the Sringeri matha, Purī Govardhana Pīṭhaṃ and the Dwarka Sharada Peetham, who legally holds the Jyotir Math[3] as well. Adi Sankara in this work does not hold Kanchi among the original mathas established by him.[4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12]

References

  1. ^ Roshen Dalal (2010). Hinduism: An Alphabetical Guide. Penguin. p. 376. ISBN 978-0-14-341421-6.
  2. ^ "Mathamnaya".
  3. ^ "Badrinath shrine dispute ends".
  4. ^ Varanasi Rajgopal Sharma. Kanchi Kamakoti Math - A Myth.
  5. ^ "ஆதி சங்கரர் நிறுவியதா காஞ்சி சங்கரமடம்? - முரண்படும் தகவல்கள்". BBC News தமிழ் (in Tamil). 2018-03-01. Retrieved 2022-01-04.
  6. ^ आदि शंकराचार्य जी का कांची पीठ से क्या कोई संबंध है ?, retrieved 2021-12-01
  7. ^ சிருங்கேரியா? காஞ்சியா?.
  8. ^ Varanasi Rajgopal Sharma. Kanchi Math Tamil Refutation.
  9. ^ "Dwarikapeeth Shankaracharya asks Kanchi seer to step down". https://www.outlookindia.com/. Retrieved 2022-01-04. {{cite web}}: External link in |website= (help)
  10. ^ Guruswamy, Mohan (2021-11-30). "Mohan Guruswamy | The Kumbakonam of the Kanchi Shankaracharya". Deccan Chronicle. Retrieved 2021-12-01.
  11. ^ R. Krishnaswai Aiyar, K. R. Venkataraman (1965-12-01). The Truth About The Kumbhakonam Mutt Part 1& 2.
  12. ^ T.R.Rao (1988-08-10). Kanchi Paramacharya.

As a starter:

  • Note that the WP:LEAD summarizes the article, which is not the case here. It's obvious that this is a WP:UNDUE addition to the lead, put there to push a point of view.
  • Further, as the Shankara maths were probably established in the 14th century CE, any claim of being established by Shankara in the 8th century CE, let alone the 5th century BCE, is questionable.

The text is poorly written, and the sources are grabbed together to support a specific point of view, with little regard for WP:RS:

  • "Its founding is attributed by its followers to Adi Shankara"
  • "though this is categorically dismissed by all the four cardinal Sankara mathas established by Adi Sankara as per his own work Mathamnaya Setu":
  • "Mathamnaya". - I don't know what the "Mathamnaya Setu" ism but be sure that it is not written by Shankara. Does this primary source state that the four mathas deny Kanchi Kamakoti Peetham's claim? It would be quite extraordinary for an (alledgedly) 5th c. BCE text to dispute a claim from the 19th century...

The court said Adi Shankaracharya had in the 8th century AD founded the four holy shrines in four parts of the country - Jyotirmath Badrikashrama in Badrinath in the north, Sharda Math at Dwarkadham in Gujarat in the west, Sringeri Math at Rameshwaram in Tamil Nadu in the south and Govardhan Math at Puri in Odisha in the east.

See above; a court statement is not WP:RS for such a claim
  • "as well." - ah, the four mathas deny Kanchi Kamakoti Peetham's claims. But not in the "Mathamnaya Setu," nor in the court statement.
  • "Adi Sankara in this work does not hold Kanchi among the original mathas established by him."

The point you want to make is already covered by this statement:

Its founding is traditionally attributed to the Adi Shankara, but this and the reliability of the matha's succession list has been questioned.[3] Sringeri matha rejects the claims of Kanchi Kamakoti Peetam, and does not count it among the mathas established by Shankara.[4] (Dalal 2014)

If you want to state that the other mathas reject Kanchi Kamakoti Peetham's claims, you'll have to come with WP:RS, not Tamil soyrces and propaganda booklets. And you definitely don't do mass-reverts to reatin poorly written, poorly sourced text. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:56, 20 January 2022 (UTC) / update Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:24, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

He's sited news articles and good tamil sources. What's the problem with Tamil sources? That it's written in Tamil. Shows clear bias against sources from non-European languages. RamgopalChandrasekaran (talk) 04:09, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Tamil-sources are unverifiable for non-Tamil readers. See WP:VERIFIABILITY and WP:RS. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:07, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ping[edit]

@WikiLinuz, TrangaBellam, and Chariotrider555: couls you add this page to your watchlist? Thanks. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:00, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that the three above users have formed a syndicate with User:Joshua Jonathan to do propaganda for an illegal cause reading from all the talk articles. Any 'consensus' is a set up like what the UN is now, between a bunch of cronies or sockpuppets of the same user. Marappagounder (talk) 06:49, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kanchi Kamakoti Peetham Reg[edit]

There had been a long legal process in the Patna High Court and there has been a clear verdict that there are only four cardinal Amnaya Peethas. Thus they can only use the title Shankaracharya. The title is official and hereditary and is not transferable/ assumable. I have noted that there are attempts to illegally override this clear verdict based on evidences using wikipedia as a proxy. If the content does not explain this, this is a pure contempt of any civilized legal process. Marappagounder (talk) 06:22, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Marappagounder: The text you inserted violates WP:NPOV, and the sources from Internet Archive and YouTube aren't reliable. WikiLinuz {talk} 🍁 07:10, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But ref. like Clark1, Blah Blah2 are acceptable to you aren't they? These are official channels. If you are a baby boomer, wake up. cheers!

According to WP:SCREW UP, Anything by a syndicate is true. I know I will be blocked and this page will be haunted as usual. Ive seen this from 2005. So go on! It is my convication for facts which I will uphold. Not afraid of ur syndicate Marappagounder (talk) 07:33, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Patna High Court, speaking in 1936, simply repeats the common story of the establishment of those four mathas. That story originated in ca. the 15th century, when hagiographies of Shankara were written; they cannot be considered as accurate historical records. In all likelyhood, none of those maths were established by Adi Shankara... Likewise, the Mathamnaya Setu seems to postdate the rise in prominence of those four mathas. It's a classic story of a new state, aligning itself with religious institutions to gain recognition. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:53, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So, you can also question anything and everything.
MathamnayaSetu is a work of Shankara himself.
So what is an accurate historical record (for syndicates like you)? A time machine?
So all Indian scriptures are false.All Indian courts lie. All historiographers are frauds.All Indian institutions are fake.This is called 'reductio ad absurdum'.
There are hundreds of insc.,Pre colonial Gvt. records and these all fake for ur 4 man syndicate (probably sockpuppets) 117.242.80.135 (talk) 11:44, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.exoticindiaart.com/book/details/records-of-sringeri-dharmasamsthana-nac252/
Mercenaries like this 4 men syndicate must learn a lot 117.242.80.135 (talk) 11:49, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
https://archive.org/details/AKShastryRecordsOfSringeriMatha2009/page/n3/mode/2up
Joshua WikiLinuz deletion/blocking lowlife...u say all the inscriptions ate fake? 117.242.80.135 (talk) 11:51, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shankara's Brahmasutrabhasya is authentic, just like the Upadesaharsha (I'm typing it wrong, I know). MathamnayaSetu seems to be a late medieaval work. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:12, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding legal 'threats'[edit]

A threat for prosection is different from a verdict. Wikipedia is neither a qualified body to adjudicate , nor are the editors. If some title is legally held by someone, wikipedia editors cannot award it another. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marappagounder (talk • contribs) 06:32, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Revert[edit]

@122.173.96.13: you keep removing diff well-sourced info, and replace it with poorly sourced beliefs:

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:55, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

why is the above a poor source? Srikamakoti Vaidyanathan (talk) 10:28, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a response to the question? Srikamakoti Vaidyanathan (talk) 17:24, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A book from 1916 is almost by definition outdated; and here at Wikipedia, it's symptomatic for editors who scrape together the kind of "sources" which confirm to their pre-established opinions and beliefs. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 18:00, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A book from 1916 is not necessarily outdated by wikipedia guidelines, vide WP:AGE MATTERS. With respect to historical events, it says that older sources may tend to have closer details even. One could consider the subject for which this source was quoted to fall under the purview of historical events, since it is about the origin of the said institution.
Regardless, is a publisher expected to republish a work solely for Wikipedia to consider it up to date enough for it to be reliable (especially since there does not seem to be any scholarship to counter the contents of the above source)?
Lastly, so far as editors furnishing evidences that conform to their opinions, it shouldn't be a problem as long as they are valid. After all, large sections of this page are written by and for the benefit of people holding a specific opinion on the institution concerned. Our esteemed editors don't seem to have problem with the poor quality of their 'sources'. 117.192.97.243 (talk) 16:01, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the above reply was by Srikamakoti Vaidyanathan Srikamakoti Vaidyanathan (talk) 16:04, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Joshua Jonathan@lemonokany responses? Srikamakoti Vaidyanathan (talk) 06:17, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You An IP removed sourced info, and replaced it with your their personal interpretation ("proves otherwise") of an outdated source. Those copper plates "prove" nothing; how those copper plates are to be interpreted is up to scholars, not to you us. Besides, you they provided only a bare link, not a pagenumber; but maybe you can provide a pagenumber where Rao states the copper plates prove that the matha-tradition is reliable? Again, your this style of editing is problematic; you may not perceive the pattern, but I've seen dozens of editors like you this; in the end, they either give up or get blocked. Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 08:43, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, do note that I was not the person to perform the first edit. I do not know what sources were replaced. I am unaware as to what led you to confuse the identity of the person who did the initial edit to that of myself. My question was only pertaining to why you consider this a poor source, so that it can be corrected and a genuine claim does not get suppressed. A poor quality in referencing does not necessarily imply poor sources.
You may have seen multiple editors who may not have referenced well, so I suppose this puts you in a position where you could clarify the exact nature of the problem in the beginning itself, rather than engaging in unproductive criticism and confusing identities of editors. Srikamakoti Vaidyanathan (talk) 09:45, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Edit: On examining the history of the edits done, I now understand that the editor had then referenced it for the same content in 2022 that I tried to edit recently. Srikamakoti Vaidyanathan (talk) 12:41, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kanchi_Kamakoti_Peetham&oldid=1203190271"