Talk:Kanchi Kamakoti Peetham

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

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]

Traditional accounts[edit]

@Periyavacharanam: regarding your edits diff, edit-summary

More information regarding various history of the mutt is added, along with required citation. more about philanthropic activities of the mutt.

and my revert diff, edit-summary

Unexplained removal of sourced info; addition of unsourced info; addition of unattributed legendary date

You:

  • added as founding date 482 BCE - that's accoridng to the peetham-tradition, but historically impossible;
  • added as founder Adi Shankara - that too is accoridng to the peetham-tradition, but rejected by the four cardinal Advaita-mathas;
  • removed (in bold)

also called the Sri Kanchi Matham or the Moolamnaya Sarvagnya Peetham,[1]

which is sourced info
  • changed

The Kanchi Math was originally established as the Kumbakonam Mutt in 1821 as a branch of the Sringeri Mutt,[2] and later became involved with the Kamakshi temple in Kanchipuram. According to the Sri Kanchi math tradition, the matha was founded at Kanchipuram, and shifted south to the temple city of Kumbakonam in the mid-18th century due to the on-going wars, when there was warfare in the region, and returned to Kanchipuram in the 19th century.[3]

into

The Kanchi Matham was originally established as the Moolamnaya Sarvajna Sri Kanchi Kamakoti Peetham in Kanchipuram, and later shifted south to the temple city of Kumbakonam in the late-18th century due to the on-going wars and persecution by the Arcot Nawabs. The matham returned to Kanchipuram in the 19th century after the sociopolitical situation calmed down in Kanchipuram.

References

  1. ^ "About the Peetham". www.kamakoti.org. Retrieved 2022-09-24.
  2. ^ Guruswamy, Mohan (2021-11-30). "Mohan Guruswamy | The Kumbakonam of the Kanchi Shankaracharya". Deccan Chronicle. Retrieved 2022-01-04.
  3. ^ Dalal 2010, p. 192.
removing sourced info, and pushing the peetham-tradition;
  • referenced "The founding of Kanchi Kamakoti Peetham is traditionally attributed by its adherents to Adi Shankara" with "Sri Shankaracharya and his connection with Kanchipuram" (PDF).; it's an interesting document, but as WP:PRIMARY as can be, without author, no pagenumber, and unnecessary, as the statement was already sourced to Dalal (2014);
  • changed

According to the Kanchi matha's tradition and various eminent scholars, their monastery was founded in Kali 2593 (509 BCE) by Adi Shankara.[1]

into

According to the Kanchi matham's tradition and various eminent scholars, their monastery was founded in Kali 2620 (482 BCE) by Adi Shankara.[1][2]

References

  1. ^ a b Dalal 2010, p. 376.
  2. ^ "The Traditional Age of Sri Sankaracharya and The Mathas | PDF | Indian Religions | Religious Comparison". Scribd. Retrieved 2024-05-28.
No pagenumber (but it is on page 4); I don't recall if Dalal says anything about the tradition mentioning different dates, but they could be compared, and bith mentioned, if supported by other sources;
  • referenced "According to the Sri Kanchi matham documents, the matham relocated completely to Kumbakonam in the late-18th century to escape wars and persecution" with "Preceptors of Advaita 59 SRI KAMAKOTI PITHA OF SRI". www.kamakoti.org. Retrieved 2024-05-28.</ref>; also interesting.I wouldn't put it as first reference, but it seems to be usefull;
  • the philantropic activities are unsourced;
  • as for changing matha into matham, matha seems to be the preferred term at Wikipedia.

Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 17:52, 28 May 2024 (UTC) Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 17:52, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i can provide more sources if you want. more books, anything. but one questing mr yesheua, is white western academia greater than indian academia. just one question. all the indian saints, indian dates of various people seem legendary, but you white people have no problem in saying that moses existed 3000 years ago and jesus of nazareth existed 2000 years ago and that as concrete fact.
[Regarding your change of]

According to the Kanchi matha's tradition and various eminent scholars, their monastery was founded in Kali 2593 (509 BCE) by Adi Shankara.

into

According to the Kanchi matham's tradition and various eminent scholars, their monastery was founded in Kali 2620 (482 BCE) by Adi Shankara.

regarding this, the kanchi matham tradition says 509 bce as the birth of adi shankara and that the matham was established in 482 bce. just check their website once. I changed wrong info to make it right and you seem to be holding off to the wrong info like a bloody leach.
[Regarding your change]

The Kanchi Math was originally established as the Kumbakonam Mutt in 1821 as a branch of the Sringeri Mutt, and later became involved with the Kamakshi temple in Kanchipuram. According to the Sri Kanchi math tradition, the matha was founded at Kanchipuram, and shifted south to the temple city of Kumbakonam in the mid-18th century due to the on-going wars, when there was warfare in the region, and returned to Kanchipuram in the 19th century.

into

The Kanchi Matham was originally established as the Moolamnaya Sarvajna Sri Kanchi Kamakoti Peetham in Kanchipuram, and later shifted south to the temple city of Kumbakonam in the late-18th century due to the on-going wars and persecution by the Arcot Nawabs. The matham returned to Kanchipuram in the 19th century after the sociopolitical situation calmed down in Kanchipuram.

the kanchi mutt has british documents from the 1700s regarding their mutt. many copper plate grants have existed which are still at display in the kanchi kosh meuseum of chennai. I have given the source for it. "Preceptors of Advaita 59 SRI KAMAKOTI PITHA OF SRI".
I have to add the source for the philanthrophic activities. I lost the link to the source and I was searching for it again to add. before I could add it, you seemed to have reverted all my edits.
regarding the date, I have said it to be disputed. should I also add that it is mythical, perhaps to gratify your white western hegemony.
countless indian scholars accept the date of adi shankara as 5th century BCE, but you people dismiss them as religiously motivated. but catholic researchers are funded by western acadamia.
I guess according to you, all Indian sources, all indian histographers, all indian accounts are nothing but aseop's fables and they maintain no valuse. shows your white western hegemonical attitude. Periyavacharanam (talk) 04:35, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Periyavacharanam:
  • Regarding your insinuations about the supremacy of "white academia", it obviously escaped your attention that Sharma and Guruswamy are Indian; they reject the claims of the peetham, as many Indians do. Regarding Moses, this is stated in the lead: "Generally, the majority of scholars see the biblical Moses as a legendary figure, while retaining the possibility that Moses or a Moses-like figure existed in the 13th century BC.[12][13][14][15][16]." Regarding Jesus, see Christ myth theory.
  • Regarding 482 BCE: Dalal was cited incorrect; I have corrected this. "Disputed" is an understatement, though; it's simply an impossible date. That's why the article says "According to tradition." Atheists are also funded by western academia; even Hindu's are funded by western academia.
  • Regarding the copperplates etc., this is all mentioned in the article.
  • Philantropic activities: already found the link?
Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 06:19, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A majority of the indian acadamia accept the kanchi kamakoti peetam and other shankarite institutions' arguements. a few, such as Varanasi Rajagopala Sarma and Mohan Guruswamy only refute them.
Not all indians refute the kanchi mutt tradition. you may be of such an asumtion, as it is the anti kanchi activists who have been making a hell lot of noise in the media since the past decades. Around 80% of indians accept the kanchi kamakoti peetham.
The point is not of who accepts whoom. there is enough proof to say that the mutt was established by Sri Adi Shankara Bhagavatpadal himself.
there is a good posibility of 482 BCE date being real. As there is a strong argument for it being legendary, I have mentioned it as "(disputed)".
regarding philanthrophic activities,
Pontiff who took Kanchi mutt to new heights in spiritualism | India.com
This news article mentions all the major philanthrophic activities of the mutt. I can provide more links if you want.
I advice you, Mr. Joshua Jonathan, just read through all the citations and links I have provided. just do one thorough reading of both sides of the argument.
One more point. the article states the reason for relocation to be unclear, but let me tell you, it is pretty clear, as far as we se. Tipu sultan, arcot nawabs indulged in in the brutal carnatic wars with the british. rampant islamic raids were conducted for years. it is historically accurate. the reason is very much clear, only waiting to be understood.
A lot of displacements of sacred idols happened during this time period. the bangaru kamakshi and varadaraja idols moved to tanjavur via udayarpalayam. Bangaru kamakshi is still in thanjavur but varadaraja swami returned.
Regarding new changes made by you,
It seems that you are constantly pressing the sringeri mutt narrative. Mohan guruswamy's childhood anecdotes do not matter as they are personal. there are british. records of the mutt dating to the 1780s. check- "Preceptors of Advaita 59 SRI KAMAKOTI PITHA OF SRI"
there are records in the thanjavur saraswati mahal library regarding the king pratap singh inviting the then shankaracharya, Sri ChandrasekharendraSaraswati V to thanjavur to live there.
link-
The new edits are henious and seem to reflect an air of contempt. even if you did not accept mine, the previous version was fine.
regarding the cardinal mutts not accepting the kanchi shankara mutt, it is a new issue. even till the late 17th century, they acceptied it and there are documents to prove it.
link-ADI SANKARA-AND-COURTS - Sri Kamakoti Peetam and Sri Sringeri Peetam as co-respondents in one case - Śāṅkara Sampradaya Kośaḥ (shankarasampradayakosh.org)
regarding that the kanchi people not recognizing the mutt, you seem to completely rely on Sarma and guruswamy. It can also be interpreted that as the mutt was away from kanchi for a long time, it was not much imprinted in the collective memory of the people.
the phrases such as "setting up shop", "apostate schismatic institution" seem offensive and it is not advisable to use such wordage.
it is not a historic fact that the mutt was set us in 1821. there are 1780s british records in modi script reffering the mutt as sri Kumbakonam kanchi kamakoti peetam. The new revision of the page is more contemptuous.
if the preists really protested, why do they today state that since centuries they have been servants of the mutt. such a grabbing of power cannot be entirely wiped off the collective memory of a whole community.
I am again stating.
"YOU SEEM TO RELY EXTENSIVELY ON THE ARGUEMENTS PUT FORWARD BY VARANASI RAJAGOPALA SARMA AND MOHAN GURUSWAMY"
"IT WOULD BE HEALTHY TO LOOK AT BOTH SIDES OF THE ISSUE AND NOT MAKE CONTEMPTOUS EDITS SUCH AS THE CURRENT REVISION"
"EVEN IF YOU DENY MY EDITS, I AM OKAY WITH IT, BUT IT IS NOT APPRECIABLE TO ADD CONTEMPTOUS EDITS TO THE PAGE"
A book by W. R. Antarkar refuting the arguements of Sarma and Guruswamy.
Kanci Kamakoti Mutt : A Myth or Reality? : W.R Antarkar : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive Periyavacharanam (talk) 09:36, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If A majority of the indian acadamia accept the kanchi kamakoti peetam and other shankarite institutions' arguements, then you know why their publications are ignored here. There's a difference between scientific scholarship and traditional scholarship; Wikipedia relies on scientific scholarship. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 10:40, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
so ultimately you are refusing to look at the citations and links I have provided, atleast for once. this shows your racist attitude towards indians and our institutions. I expected wikipedia to be a neutral ground were people can work together. today, I have gotten to know about you filthy bastards' contempt towards us. Such racism.
IF THIS IS NOT WHITE WESTERN HEGEMONY OVER ACADEMIA, THEN WHAT IS????
RACIST DOGS WITH A WHITE SKIN YOU WESTERNERS ARE.
YOU CONSIDER YOURSELF TO BE SCIENTIFIC AND BLATANTLY DISMISS OUR SCHOLARSHIP CLAIMING IT TO BE USELESS.
THIS ATTITUDE, IS PERHAPS YOUR HERITAGE, PASSED DOWN FROM YOUR COLONIAL FOREFATHERS. Periyavacharanam (talk) 10:58, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Periyavacharanam: - please be warned that calling other editors racist is grounds for being blocked. Skyerise (talk) 11:21, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
see what Joshua Jonathan spoke.
If A majority of the indian acadamia accept the kanchi kamakoti peetam and other shankarite institutions' arguements, then you know why their publications are ignored here. There's a difference between scientific scholarship and traditional scholarship; Wikipedia relies on scientific scholarship. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 10:40, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IF THIS IS NOT RACISM AGAINST INDIANS, THEN WHAT IS.
Read the whole arguement first and speak.
Joshua has being constantly ignoring my arguements. for once, he has not tried to read the citations and links I provided and has constantly discounted it. Periyavacharanam (talk) 11:45, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've already reinserted your sources, but 482 BCE is untenable. If you can't accept, go somewhere else. And stop, indeed, accusing me of racism. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 11:49, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If A majority of the indian acadamia accept the kanchi kamakoti peetam and other shankarite institutions' arguements, then you know why their publications are ignored here. There's a difference between scientific scholarship and traditional scholarship; Wikipedia relies on scientific scholarship. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 10:40, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IF THIS IS NOT BLATANTLY RACIST TOWARDS INDIANS ANDO OUR SCHOLARSHIP, THEN WHAT IS MR. JOSHUA JONATHAN. Periyavacharanam (talk) 11:52, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WHAT HAVE I SAID, IS THAT I HAVE NO PROBLEM OF YOU DISMISSING MY ARGUEMENTS, BUT STO PUSHING A ONESIDED NARRATIVE.
Time and again you are pushing the sringeri mutt arguement.
Just answer these questions.
have you at least for once flipped through the citations and links I have given. If not then what is your basis of claiming 1821 as the establishment date.
have you properly read through my replies instead of dismissing them as nonsense. Periyavacharanam (talk) 11:56, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're not paying attention, are you? I went through your sources, to see if they're usefull. Sources are given for 1821. By the way, if I'm pushing the Sringeri argument, then what are those people? Also racists? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 12:16, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
have you found my sources useful. if so, why is not one ounce of info from them used. Periyavacharanam (talk) 12:23, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have accused you of being "RACIST" as you are ought right dismissing indian scholarship as bogus.
you supporting the sringeri version is not the cause for my accusation.
It would have been very healthy if you, in the kanchi mutt page had provided the arguements of both the sides.
I added a photo for the infobox. you even removed that. Periyavacharanam (talk) 12:28, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have posted on twitter with a photo of your racist reply. Periyavacharanam (talk) 12:43, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Utterly non-constructive; deserved block. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 13:51, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This blogger also asserts the date of 1821; obviously, it's not an isolated story, as can also be seen from this blog, which refers to Real history of the Kanchi math, which mentions "the Sept. 13, 1987 issue of The Illustrated Weekly of India, from a feature written by well-known journalist, K. P. Sunil" as it's source. Interestingly, according to the first writer, the Kamakoti narrative was supported by the evil white race, to divide the Indians. So, pro or contra Kamakoti, it's always the fault of the evil white men. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 19:31, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kanchi_Kamakoti_Peetham&oldid=1226350258"