Talk:Ekasarana Dharma

Some issues on the Philosophy section

 * The claim that "the question of Sankaradeva 'not following in toto' or 'deviating from' these texts does not arise" is meaningless, because it has been shown that the Bhagavata of Sankardeva does deviate from the original. So, the question does arise: how does Bhagavata of Sankardeva (and other Ekasarana texts) differ from the original?  Of particular interest is, does it differ fundamentally?  What is also observed is that Sankardeva accepted the monistic interpretations by Sridhara Swami as the correct interpretation of the Bhagavata.  Thus, Sankardeva accepted a particular vedantic interpretation of a pauranic text.  This is very significant and must be discussed here.  Furthermore, writers like S N Sarma as well as M Neog have pointed out that Sankardeva and Madhavdeva did not accept even Sridhara Swami in toto.  This makes it all the more exciting now because Sankardeva seems to have nuanced the philosophical foundations of his religion creatively (and originally) even as he based it largely on precedent works.  What was this nuance? What was original?  Later adherents did not expand or focus on the originality of Sankardeva's philosophy (unlike Jiva Goswami, who did explain the philosophical foundations of Chaitanya, which is today called achintya-bhedabheda).
 * The paragraph on the nirguna and the saguna aspects of Brahma is important, in the context of the interpretation of the Bhagavata. The distinction between achintya-bhedabheda and Ekasarana is important, and should be brought out.
 * That Ekasarana identifies Narayana with Krishna is also important and has been mentioned in the paragraph where the personal god is described. In particular, the difference between Ekasarana and other Krishna cults is described here.

Therefore, please discuss these issues here before making any edits in that section.

Chaipau (talk) 14:40, 2 November 2012 (UTC)


 * User:Sankararkinkar has provided a rebuttal at User_talk:Chaipau. Relevant portions are reproduced here and addressed.


 * "Please do not delete passages that have been referenced and cited. This is against Wikipedia policies."


 * If so, why then why have you deleted passages that are referenced and cited? Or is it that our citations must match your 'tastes' and 'preferences'! And why have you deleted the passage from Sankaradeva's Kirttana Ghosa (now, don't tell me Sankaradeva is sectarian!). That translation was from a fully cited source and directly from Sankaradeva's Work itself! Looks like it is you who are violating Wikipedia's policies.
 * — Sankararkinkar   — (continues after insertion below.)
 * I just reverted the deletions you made . Yes, that resulted in all of your referenced texts getting deleted as well. But your edits clearly were contradicting the existing content, already referenced.  Look at Policies_and_guidelines, and the last bullet "not contradict each other".  It says: The community's view cannot simultaneously be "A" and "not A".  That is why you were invited to discuss the contradictions and resolve them here, before making edits.


 * I have since reinserted the original referenced texts, keeping your edits intact. But now the article reads "A" as well as "not A".  To resolve this, do explain your claim:  "In the light of these facts, the question of Sankaradeva 'not following in toto' or 'deviating from' these texts does not arise", given that authors have raised and critically examined just this very question?  In the article by Ashok Kumar Goswami, taken from the very website you prefer, the author claims Sankardeva's vedantic leanings were original.  How could it have been original if he based his philosophy entirely on the Bhagavata Puran?
 * Chaipau (talk) 05:28, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The main reasons have already been provided (and inserted). Sankaradeva's rendering was not a literal one, but a reclaiming of essence, the sara, of that Text. The Bhagavata's fundamental philosophy is this (and this has been already covered in the relevant section):- the jiva (embodied self) is a part of God, verily of the nature (sva-rupa) of Isvara (sat-cit-ananda) but enveloped by maya, nescience. To secure release from maya (the ultimate objective being to enjoy unbridled devotion to Krishna, Bhakti not mukti), the path suggested in the Bhagavata (as a continuum of the Teachings of the Gita) is Eka-Sarana Bhajana, Sravana-Kirttana to Krishna, God, taking sole-refuge in Him. Call it theology, call it philosophy, call it Yoga, this is the fundamental message of the Bhagavata. Sankaradeva accepts this fundamental message totally. His rendering is geared towards this fundamental message only.


 * — Sankararkinkar   — (continues after insertion below.)


 * I don't know what you are protesting against. You agree that Sankardeva reclaimed the "essence" of the Bhagavata.  I hope you realize that that itself is an interpretation of the text of Bhagavata.  In fact he relied on one particular interpretation of the Bhagavata (Sridhara's) more than any other.  Some authors have examined this critically and have seen that Sankardeva did not accept even Sridhara's commentary in toto.  In fact these authors have identified that these omissions and commissions of Sankardeva and others have a method---they pertain to the actual practice of bhakti.  This is a finding of past authors and it has been reported here.  What is your objection?  Chaipau (talk) 10:44, 5 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, we (again!) are protesting against nothing. Thought it was you who had asked us to explain our statement in the first place; if that sounds like 'protest' to your ears, then, well. Anyway, Let us again try to make things a little clearer (if it isn't clear to you by now, given all the proofs from Sankaradeva's own utterances, works, etc.). The main reason behind this discussion was this: did Sankaradeva deviate from the Bhagavata or not? OK? Fine, in our humble opinion (sectarian, non-scholarly), He did not. Now, you will say, fine, explain your stand, else meaningless. OK. But, at the outset, please remember, the discussion is about deviation. Agreed? Let's move on. First, let's check out the definition of 'DEVIATION'. de·vi·a·tion (this one is from one of those scholarly online lexicons you have out there)1.The act of deviating or turning aside. 2. An abnormality; a departure


 * Hope this definition would give you a fair idea of what is meant by 'to deviate' and how serious an accusation that can be when applied in the present context. For, that would in effect mean, bereft of all phraseological paraphernalia, that 'Sankaradeva had *departed* from the Bhagavata'. In response to this, we say no, in polite words we say, that is "contestable". Sankaradeva never departed from the Bhagavata, in fact, as we have quoted earlier, he Himself dared his detractors to look up the sastras and prove otherwise.


 * Again, some scholars have said that Sankaradeva had not followed these scriptures "in toto". Again, we say no, such a statement is somewhat odd in the first place. For Sankaradeva's main objective was to render the *essence* of the Bhagavata, not "in toto" (it was for the masses remember).


 * As regards your statement that, "I hope you realize that that itself is an interpretation of the text of Bhagavata", yes, correct. But (and this is important), this interpretation of Sankaradeva is a *rooted* one. What this means is that every word, every verse of Sankaradeva is rooted in the Bhagavata; it will be found in the scriptures; these are not something that Sankaradeva invents 'out of the blue' (as a side-note, those works are considered the most authoritative in the exegesis of Hindu Dharma which are rooted in scripture; Sankaradeva's approach is fully in line with this tradition; without inventing a single line, one is still original; this is due to the synthesis and the presentation; there are certain writings on this interesting topic which we wish we could refer to you, but we forget now; please refer to our previous notes to you in this context):-


 * আমাৰ বোলে অপ্ৰত্যয় যাইবা৷
 * চতুৰ্থ স্কন্ধত বিচাৰি পাইবা৷৷১০০৷৷


 * আমাৰ বোলে অপ্ৰত্যয় যাহা৷
 * একাদশ স্কন্ধে বিচাৰি চাহা৷৷৯৬৷৷


 * কৃষ্ণৰ বাক্য পাষাণৰ ৰেখা৷
 * একাদশ স্কন্ধে বিচাৰি দেখা৷৷১৩৯৷৷


 * বোলোক আসি ভাগৱত চাই৷
 * তেৱেসে বুজো তাৰ মুনিষাই৷৷১০৪৷৷
 * পুৰাণ সূৰ্য্য মহাভাগৱত৷
 * বেদান্তৰো ইটো পৰম তত্ত্ব৷৷
 * (পাষণ্ড মৰ্দ্দন)


 * Therefore, we say, Sankaradeva's rendering cannot in any way be regarded as a deviation from the primary Bhagavata. If now some scholars were to say, "Oh! Why then did Sankaradeva omit the Pancharatra vyuha theology from His rendering!", we then would say to them, "Suppose you were assigned the task of writing a small abridged version of Gandhi's 'Experiments With Truth', would you retain only the basic sum and substance of the original or would you make a translation of each and every paragraph?"


 * Lastly, you have said, "This is a finding of past authors and it has been reported here. What is your objection?". We say, "None whatsoever!" But it should not confuse the reader of Wikipedia into believing that Sankaradeva had 'deviated' (with all the dubious connotations of the term) or strayed or departed, if not in toto, at least partly, from the Bhagavata. The reader should not be (mis)led into believing that not all of Sankaradeva's rendering is sastra-nistha, that maybe some parts had been concocted out of the blue by Sankaradeva Himself. That feeling should not be allowed to enter into the reader's mind for wouldn't that be making a mockery of facts?


 * That is why we inserted an additional point beginning with the lines,"However, this view is contestable..." without touching (save for a little alteration) the previous line (in full Wikipedia spirit, since we have no objection to the views of the scholars quoted). Hope we have made ourselves clear here. Wouldn't like to discuss more on this particular aspect.


 * Since you agree with the observations made by Neog, Sarma and others, there should be no contest. Therefore I have reworded your section to reflect what the followers of Sankardeva take these deviations to mean.  From what I see, Neog, Sarma and others have, by no means, challenged Sankardeva of "deviations" from the essence, because it is not for scholars to specify the essence of the Bhagavata. Rather, it is for the followers to decide what is the essence here.  Chaipau (talk) 06:21, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * No, we do not agree. We reiterate what has been said above; we only said "No objection with people (scholars as well as non-scholars) airing certain views". And scholars do indeed examine the essence of religious and philosophical texts, a Max Muller or a Deussen on the essence of the Upanishads, for instance. Re-touching and re-orienting the point on 'deviation' for better balance. And no, we would not like to discuss this any further.--Sankararkinkar (talk) 11:53, 13 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, we do agree that Sankardeva made changes to the original Bhagavata. Even Sankardeva himself admits so doing.  Whereas you seem to object to the word "deviation", the specific deviations are listed in the footnotes expressly (in other words, you were reacting to a definition that you have yourself provided, not what was in the text).  I am assuming you are not contesting them.   The authors I have quoted (Sarma, Neog) etc do not, anywhere in their works, say anything about the essence, whereas you name an unrelated work by Max Muller.  Further, I would like to remind you that Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, and it is your duty to make good faith attempts at finding common grounds.  Chaipau (talk) 18:12, 13 November 2012 (UTC)


 * From your citations, Dimbeswar Neog just says that Sankardeva has summarized three skandas into one, in one instance. With this Dimbeswar Neog, in fact, agrees with Sarma and MaheswarNeog, who make the same point. He does not say that there is no deviation from the core doctrine, as you claim. Also, the belief that naam is the essence of Bhagavata (Madhavdeva-Bhaktiratnavali; Sankardeva-Bhaktiratnakar; Sonaram Chutiya that you have cited) is the core doctrine of Ekasarana, not the essence of Bhagavata.  This is a sectarian assertion.  I shall await your response before making this clear in the text. Chaipau (talk) 10:13, 14 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Sankaradeva’s writings are 100% sastra-nistha (faithful to scripture). Sankaradeva Himself throws a challenge to his detractors (who had in all probability questioned the authenticity of His translation) in his rendering of the Bhagavata Purana thus, “You may criticize me only if you find something here (in my works) which is not mentioned in the scriptures”.


 * Now, some scholars have from time to time sought to apply certain 'labels' on this philosophy of the Bhagavata accepted by the Saint. Some see Shankara's monistic Kevaladvaita, others would like to see Visistadvaitism. Quite naturally, there is no consensus because Srimad-Bhagavata, being a product of much earlier (pre-'sampradaya') times is quite platform-independent. This is all the more ironic as neither Shankara nor Ramanuja (Pancharatra school) ever touched the Bhagavata! Here we are, trying to pigeon-hole the philosophy of a savant like Sankaradeva, whose canonical text is the Bhagavata, into schools and sub-schools that do not even touch the Bhagavata! Nay, Sankaradeva and the Southern Acharyas are not even on the same wavelength [see, for instance, the glaring difference between Shankara's, Ramanuja's and Sridhara Svamin's interpretations of Gita 18.66, the charama-sloka of Eka-Sarana. Sridhara's is the one accepted by Sankaradeva, http://www.gitasupersite.iitk.ac.in/]. In view of these facts, therefore, we agree entirely with Vaisnavite scholar Dimbeswar Neog when he says, "Mahāpurusism of Sankardew had no reason to have any mutation, still less any affiliation, with Absolute Monism of Sankaracarya or with Qualified Monism of Ramanujacarya, not to speak of the faiths of their followers." http://atributetosankaradeva.org/Sankardew.pdf


 * — Sankararkinkar   — (continues after insertion below.)


 * That authors will try to label philosophies is a natural tendency. They will not just label, but will try to examine the relationship between these labels.  And all past authors, like Dimbeswar Neog, Maheswar Neog, and even Ashok Kumar Goswami have compared Sankardeva's philosophy with the other Vedantic philosophies and found that it does not fall neatly into any category. In fact this is a consensus among most scholars. Not just modern scholars, but even past sectarian commentators have tried to place the philosophy of their preceptors.  An example is Jiva Goswami, and his Achintya_Bheda_Abheda in Gaudiya Vaishnavism. Therefore, it is natural to examine Sankardeva's philosophy/theism against these philosophies.  Though I can understand a follower of Sankardeva not being particularly concerned with these inquiries, it is important for scholarship to examine these issues, and for Wikipedia to report on them. Chaipau (talk) 10:44, 5 November 2012 (UTC)


 * My dear Sir, did you hear us complain? Of course, all scholars would use labels; it is only when this 'labelizing' becomes a fetish that problems arise. What problems, you ask? Well, anyway, forget it. We would go off-track here and it might even start sounding like a 'protest'.


 * You have said, "And all past authors, like Dimbeswar Neog, Maheswar Neog, and even Ashok Kumar Goswami have compared Sankardeva's philosophy with the other Vedantic philosophies and found that it does not fall neatly into any category. In fact this is a consensus among most scholars."


 * We say, "Exactly!! The very point we seek to make! The main reason (in our own humble opinion, of course) why scholars seeking to trace the roots of the Saint's philosophy have found that it "does not fall neatly into any category" is that Sankaradeva had internalized the philosophy of the Bhagavata and the Bhagavata alone.


 * From the above discussion, two things clearly emerge:-


 * 1. On the one hand, Sankaradeva is saying, “You may criticize me only if you find something here (in my works) which is not mentioned in the scriptures”.


 * 2. On the other, "scholars have compared Sankardeva's philosophy with the other Vedantic philosophies [read Shankara's, Madhva's, Ramanuja's, Nimbarka's] and found that it does not fall neatly into any category"


 * So, from [1] and [2], does it not follow that:-


 * 3. Sankaradeva's philosophy or theosophy or by whatever name the Glimpse of Truth (Darsana) may be called, is rooted 100% in the [primary] scriptures of Hinduism such as the Gita and the Bhagavata?


 * Does it need any further re-affirming that Sankaradeva's philosophy is nothing but that contained within the Gita and the Bhagavata?


 * Pray, where does the question of "follower of Sankardeva not being particularly concerned" et al creep in here. Doesn't quite fit the scholarly resume of this discussion, does it?


 * Therefore, Ashok Kumar Goswami rightly spots in his article that Sankaradeva's Vedantic leanings were original. The purport of this is simply that Sankaradeva did not have any affiliation either with Shankara or with Ramanuja (as a corollary, those scholars who hold such a view are on a wild goose chase as well!). Sankaradeva's Vedantic leanings are quite natural as he accepted the two supreme scriptures, the Gita and the Bhagavata, as the canonical texts of his school. In this context, the views expressed by Shri Kali Charan Das (same website) are worth reproducing:-


 * "Assam Vaishnavism of Srimanta Sankaradeva covers the main tenets of the major Upanishads and the teachings of the Bhagavata-purana and a few other Vedantic texts. The Bhagavad-Gita is said to be the essence of the Upanishads. In Assam Vaishnavism of Sankaradeva, the Bhagavata-purana has been acknowledged as the supreme scripture under various contexts:-


 * The Bhagavata is the supreme Vedanta among the four Vedas, eighteen Puranas and other sastras. Sages Sanaka and Sananda in quest of yoga and knowledge discovered in it the essential truth. Samasta vedanta sara mahabhagavata sastra (Nama-ghosa) [The Bhagavata-sastra is the essence of all the Vedantas]." http://atributetosankaradeva.org/approach.pdf


 * Sridhara's commentary was accepted by the Saint and the other scholar-devotees of Assam because of its emphasis on Devotion only, the very Devotion that is espoused by the Bhagavata. As a side-note, It was popular among Bengal Vaisnavas too. This acceptance has made Sankaradeva's rendering even more authoritative. Nobody can now say, "Oh look! Sankaradeva has invented his own religion!"


 * For, "True philosophy invents nothing; it merely establishes and describes what is". It is therefore established that Sankaradeva did not invent anything. He merely (don't know if it would be proper to use this word; in view of the immensity of the Saint's achievement, it sounds so diminutive) reclaimed the essence of the Gita and the Bhagavata. As Vaisnava scholar Sonaram Chutiya rightly observes:-


 * "Thus, the Eka-Sarana religion propagated by Mahapurusa Srimanta Sankaradeva; the roots of this dharma-vriksa (tree of religion) are very deep and it is supported by all the sastras of Hinduism. But, this strain of religion lay in a highly dispersed form in the scriptures; the Mahapurusa has, however, gathered together all these scattered gems and gifted them in an easily-accessible form to all, including woman and sudra, in their own mother tongue. Binding all peoples – the Garos, Bhots, the Yavanas and all others – with this single thread of harmony and by bringing down the barrage of Hari-Nama, he has gifted all the opportunity of resting in the shade of the dharma-vriksa that is Eka-Sarana" http://atributetosankaradeva.org/bhakti_ratnakarara_adharat_eka_sarana_tattva_trans.pdf


 * — Sankararkinkar   — (continues after insertion below.)


 * Reflect for a moment how offensive this would be for a non-adherent---that Sankardeva has gathered the essence of all the texts of Hinduism. This is a position that Wikipedia cannot adopt.  It will, of course, report that adherents believe this to be the case.  It is fine if you would like to present this on your website, but you should not attempt to propagate this on Wikipedia.  Chaipau (talk) 10:44, 5 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, we can only say that just because it appears 'offensive' (oh, me! this man is getting all worked up!) to you, others may not find it so. And, again, look how wrong you can be even with your scholarly pretence! The following is from the Wikipedia page on Hinduism (scouted by scholarly editors like you, so no cheating here!):-


 * "One orthodox classification of Hindu texts is to divide into Śruti ("revealed") and Smriti ("remembered") texts. These texts discuss theology, philosophy, mythology, rituals and temple building among other topics. Major scriptures include the Vedas, Upanishads, Purāṇas, Mahābhārata, Rāmāyaṇa, Bhagavad Gītā and Āgamas."


 * So, in the context of the referenced article, what the author is saying is that Sankaradeva's Eka-Sarana doctrine is *supported* by all these sastras - the foundational texts - of Hinduism, "Vedas, Upanishads, Purāṇas, Mahābhārata, Rāmāyaṇa, Bhagavad Gītā and Āgamas". Of course, the writer has not mentioned the word 'foundational' in that particular sentence, but that should be obvious to even a kid in the context of that article. But, of course, for scholarly people ever on the look-out for criticism at the first opportunity, it's a different thing altogether, isn't it? Anyway, let's revert to the topic at hand. Yes, now I'm sure you will argue, "Can't be! No way! Sankaradeva's doctrine can never be supported by so many sastras! Scholars have not confirmed it. Too offensive for non-adherent!" To this, we say, well, first, a lot of study is necessary. There is something like an 'undercurrent' in all sastras. And, we, based on our limited study, agree with scholars who say this. For instance, we agree with Sankaradeva when he says:-


 * [NON-ADHERENTS BEWARE! HIGHLY OFFENSIVE MATERIAL BELOW!!]
 * চাৰিবেদ অষ্টাদশ পুৰাণ যতেক শাস্ত্ৰ
 * পৰম বেদান্ত ভাগৱত৷
 * সনক সনন্দ মুনি যোগজ্ঞান বিচাৰিয়া
 * উদ্ধাৰিলা তাৰ সাৰ তত্ত্ব৷৷
 * আগম পুৰাণ যত বেদান্তৰ তাতপৰ্য্য
 * জানি কৰা ভকতিক সাৰ৷
 * শ্ৰৱণ কীৰ্ত্তন বিনা আন পুণ্যে নপায় জানা
 * ইটো ঘোৰ সংসাৰৰ পাৰ৷৷১৬৭৩৷৷
 * [বেদস্তুতি]


 * We also agree with Madhavadeva when he says:-
 * দেৱৰো দুৰ্ল্লভ ঈশ্বৰ কৃষ্ণক
 * ভকতিসি কৰে বশ্য |
 * আগম নিগম গীতা ভাগৱত
 * শাস্ত্ৰৰ এহি ৰহস্য ||২২১


 * বেদে ৰামায়ণে পুৰাণে ভাৰতে
 * আদি মধ্য অৱসানে |
 * হৰিকেসে মাত্ৰ কহৱে নিশ্চয়
 * জানা তথ্য এহিমানে ||২০৩


 * Can it be true? Is there really something called an "essence of all scriptures"? Behind this almost blinding diversity of motifs and metaphors, symbols and imageries of the 'complexity' that goes by the name of Hinduism? In other words, can Sankaradeva and Madhavadeva be correct? For answering that, as we said, you'll have to study the primary sources and not parrot the views of scholars all the time. When you voiced your disapproval of the above statement (in the most acerbic manner possible, by Wikipedia standards), had you by that time finished reading all these sastras or did you merely echo the voice of others or maybe, it is some pre-conceived notion that works in your intellect, some 'pet theory difficult to eliminate'? Totally unwarranted reaction by any standards. Before making any comments (read jabs and jibes) on the views of Sankaradeva, Madhavadeva and other (sectarian!) Vaisnavite scholars, one should have at least acquired the basic 'degree' i.e read all the chief sastras - the fountainheads of Hindu theosophy and tradition - at least once. [Let me tell you, one may be surprised!] And as for us? Well, the onus's not on us because we believe, based on what little we've read, in their assertions (easy, wasn't that!).


 * Anyway, your comments that these views would be 'offensive' to non-adherents cause us to pen in these few extra lines. Let them not be misunderstood as protest or anything like that. You have also made uncalled for remarks such as "It is fine if you would like to present this on your website, but you should not attempt to propagate this on Wikipedia." which we felt was somewhat crude and rude and condescending albeit in line with your strange, unfathomable 'theory' that adherents' views are non-scholarly and hence untouchable. Fine. Nothing more left to discuss here.


 * The originality of Sankaradeva (in His Works) lies in His masterly arrangement of his source-material, identification of the right sources in the first place, connecting and correlating and seamlessly synthesizing numerous passages containing related ideas into one, well-organized sequence, adding appropriate comments (again basing these on authoritative sources such as Sridhara) and providing for resolution of doubt at the right places - a kind of "brilliant, analytical scholarship at work" (Maheswar Neog on the Saint's Bhakti-Ratnakara), winnowing, sifting and separating chaff from grain, the inessential from the essential, all in line with the Supreme Message of the Bhagavata which he had so brilliantly internalized. The result is a sublimation, the distilled essence of the Vedanta for us to imbibe! Definitely, it is an approach refreshing and revitalizing, "at once original and new" (Dimbeswar Neog). And, yes, critical scholars have also found this approach "quite lively" and constituting "a real contribution to our total knowledge of devotion" (A V Subramanian, http://atributetosankaradeva.org/bhakti.pdf).


 * Believe me, this is not an easy feat to achieve. And we are not even talking here of the aesthetics and the appeal of his language, the captivating rasas, his numerous poetic embellishments, His 'milk and honey' formula, His sublime presentations!


 * Therein lies the originality of Sankaradeva.


 * [PS:- Its not a 'website that we prefer'. Website is not inventing anything on its own. It is merely hosting the articles of scholars. We have merely cited those pieces (hundreds of websites on the subject don't exist anyway)] --Sankararkinkar (talk) 14:34, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Who is we? Please be aware that Wikipedia consists of individual editors, and writing as a proxy for others is strongly discouraged.


 * Please don't be a stickler for norms. Follow the spirit of Wikipedia, the essence, not the dross!

Chaipau (talk) 10:44, 5 November 2012 (UTC) , w

Opinion or demonstration
The authors Maheswar Neog and Satyendranath Sarma have given instances and demonstrated where the Bhagavata of Sankardeva differs from the original. So, they are not merely opinions. User:Sankararkinkar has reverted an edit where this is made clear. This is a request to the editor not to revert changes without a basis or a discussion here. Chaipau (talk) 14:39, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Dimbeswar Neog
Dimbeswar Neog is cited in the text as having asserted that Sankardeva has not deviated from the original Bhagavata. On looking up the cited work, I found just the opposite to be true. This is what he writes: "If there could be any question of mutation or affiliation still, it could have been with the Gita and the Bhagawat direct which Sankardew read and interpreted in his own way, at once original and new." (p.3). Therefore Neog leaves open the question of mutations from the original Bhagavata. That Sankardeva had brought forth an original religion as well as philosophy is admitted by the founder of Sankar Sangha, Haladhar Bhuyan: "Sri Neog now definitely shows that Sankardew’s philosophy is his own and that his religion is as original as that of any great preacher of the world; and he substantiates his views by precisely quoting authentic sources." (p.vi) All the authors quoted in text Dimbeswar Neog, Maheswar Neog and Satyendranath Sarma agree that Sankardeva's philosophy was original, though pieced together from Advaita and Samkhya relics. Chaipau (talk) 14:54, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Further, the quote attributed to Dimbeswar Neog ("What is to be found by searching as many...") is actually Dimbeswar Neog's translation of Ramananda Dvija, son of Madhavdeva's nephew and a biographer of Sankardeva. Chaipau (talk) 21:26, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Short description edit revert
Hi, you recently reverted an edit I made to the short description of this article, stating that it was unexplained. My reasoning for the edit is that the s/d as it exists now is insufficiently succinct. As a s/d, it should be as short as possible, that is why I abridged it. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 14:58, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * thanks for the information. The s/d you inserted was too general not sufficiently precise, so updated.  Chaipau (talk) 15:13, 15 January 2021 (UTC)