Talk:Adi Shankara

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Clark has suggested that Śaṅkara was originally presented as a Vaiṣṇava and only later associated with Śiva.[103][web 4] However, this view is not accepted within the Advaita Vedānta tradition itself. From the earliest sources, the stance of Trimūrti-abheda (non-difference of the three deities) is emphasized. For example, Sureśvarācārya, the direct disciple of Śaṅkara, states in his Bṛhadāraṇyaka Vārtika:

यः पृथिव्यामितीशोऽसावन्तर्यामी जगद्गुरुः । हरिर्ब्रह्मा पिनाकीति बहुधैकोऽपि गीयते ॥

[“He who, stationed in the deity of the earth, is the inner controller and world-teacher—though one, he is variously spoken of as Hari, Brahmā, and Pinākī (Śiva).”] (Bṛhadāraṇyaka Vārtika, 3.7.3)

Advaita tradition has consistently revered Dakṣiṇāmūrti as the embodiment of Brahman. Sureśvarācārya authored the *Mānasollāsa Vārtika* commentary on the Dakṣiṇāmūrti stotra, and Citsukha (13th c.) in his *Bhāva Prakāśikā* commentary invokes Dakṣiṇāmūrti as Parabrahman. Worship of multiple deities (including Śrīcakra, Candra-mauleśvara, and Śālagrāma) was prevalent in Śaṅkara’s maṭhas under the framework of Śaṇmata.

References to Narāyaṇa and other Vaishnava terms in his *Bhagavadgītā Bhasya* refer to Nirguṇa Brahman rather than a particular deity.

The *Saundarya Lahari*, attributed to Śaṅkara, has at least 35 traditional commentaries (some from the 10th–11th century) accepting Śaṅkara’s authorship. His disciple Toṭakācārya also describes Śaṅkara explicitly as an incarnation of Śiva in the *Toṭakāṣṭakam*. Suggested Reference (Wikipedia format): Kitagawa, Joseph. The Religious Traditions of Asia. Page 83. “Practically, Śaṅkara fostered a rapprochement between Advaita and smārta orthodoxy, which by his time had not only continued to defend the varṇāśramadharma theory as defining the path of karman, but had developed the practice of pañcāyatana pūjā (‘five-shrine worship’) as a solution to varied and conflicting devotional practices. Thus one could worship any one of five deities (Viṣṇu, Śiva, Durgā, Sūrya, Gaṇeśa) as one’s iṣṭadevatā (‘deity of choice’).” Therefore, modern scholarly claims that Śaṅkara was a Vaiṣṇava later reinterpreted as a Śaiva are not corroborated by the writings of his disciples or Advaita tradition itself. Advaitabidyacharya (talk) 16:08, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Day Creature (talk) 17:07, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

The change I need is this quote ...Śaṅkara was originally presented as a Vaiṣṇava and only later associated with Śiva.[103][web 4.....this is just speculation of clark ,either add my Message from "However " after clark statement or remove clark statement ...Sankara was a Smarta ,not a vaishnava ,If there is need of references from westerner ..The reference would be ---Suggested Reference (Wikipedia format):

Kitagawa, Joseph. The Religious Traditions of Asia. Page 83.

“Practically, Śaṅkara fostered a rapprochement between Advaita and smārta orthodoxy, which by his time had not only continued to defend the varṇāśramadharma theory as defining the path of karman, but had developed the practice of pañcāyatana pūjā (‘five-shrine worship’) as a solution to varied and conflicting devotional practices. Thus one could worship any one of five deities (Viṣṇu, Śiva, Durgā, Sūrya, Gaṇeśa) as one’s iṣṭadevatā (‘deity of choice’).” Advaitabidyacharya (talk) 17:42, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

According to Encyclopedia of Hinduism by Constance A. Jones and James D. Ryan (2007, p. 30), Śaṅkara (788–820) was born in Malabar and is credited with establishing ten traditional monastic orders. The source does not describe him as a Vaiṣṇava, nor does it attribute the creation of the ten orders to Vidyāraṇya. This indicates that Clark’s claim is not consistent with standard academic references......2 reference Advaitabidyacharya (talk) 18:18, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

 Done Asteramellus (talk) 22:33, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

And reverted; Clark is very clear on his position ("evidently") and arguments. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 04:16, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

yes thanks. Before "According to Clark" was added, it was a bit misleading. Also, I think it is undue to include in that section only Clark's view, when e.g. he also discusses Shankara's connection with smarta worship (page 223) - It may make more sense to cover Clark's interpretation in other sections that cover Shankara's works, his Advaitic views etc. Asteramellus (talk) 20:22, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan I see the section was further updated, which now reads "According to Clark, Shankara was "evidently" a Vaishnavite, probably with a Pancaratra background" - I still think that this is undue in this "Dashanami Sampradaya and mathas" section. Clark's view is very specific view (and seems controversial). I did spend time reading Clark's book and see how he clearly explains his interpretations based on Shankara's work and e.g. Hacker's interpretations and also e.g. interpreting Narayana as evidence of being Vaishnava, which many other scholars have argued such references are to Brahman (not to sectarian Vaishnava devotion). I think it is misleading/undue here - this section's focus is "Dashanami Sampradaya and mathas". Such detail can be placed in another section and if included, it should also note that other scholars interpret e.g references like Narayana in a non-sectarian sense and not evidently Vaishnava. Asteramellus (talk) 21:08, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

I'll take a look to see if it fits elsewhere. Regarding which many other scholars have argued such references are to Brahman (not to sectarian Vaishnava devotion), would you have some examples? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:12, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. e.g. see chapter 13 by Nelson in Krishna: A Sourcebook by Bryant. Also, chapter 6 by Hirst in this book. Have you come across other scholars who also conclude - that Shankara was "evidently Vaishnavite"? Asteramellus (talk) 22:18, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

No... What I did find are some online discussions. Nevertheless, BRILL is a publisher which canoot be easily discarded, and Clark writes about the topic in the context of the creation of the Shankara-legend, which is not only argues by Clark. Nor does his argument only lean on the interpretation of Narayana. So, I think it should stay. I'll have a look at your sources. Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 03:38, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, I also think it can stay in the article - but I think it is undue in this "Dashanami Sampradaya and mathas" section as I explained in one of the replies above.

Maybe I am still missing something, but can you help me understand why such detail should be in this Dashanami section and also now in the lead?

I think along with Clark's conclusion based on Hacker's position(Hacker's POV according to Isaeva) of Shankara being "evidently Vaishnavite", it should also include other scholars' work (and also Clarks' point of Shankara's connection with Smarta worship) to keep the content NPOV. Putting all of this detail in the Dashanami section shifts the focus away from that section.

Including Isaeva's quote here:

"To make the picture complete, however, one cannot overlook the opinion of Paul Hacker, according to which Sankara was really a Visnuite, and the later legends concerning his alleged Saivite inclinations.....Hacker tried to substantiate this completely original point of view in one of his articles. To my mind, though, his arguments are far from conclusive; they cannot explain satisfactorily Sankara's critique of the Visnuite doctrine of Pancaratra in his Commentary on Brahmasutra; or the emergence of the notion of maya, which is so important for the whole concept of Advaita, or, finally, the authorship of Saivite hymns, which is ascribed to him by orthodox tradition. Probably Hacker was somewhat misled in this respect by his subconscious strivings to bring Sankara's teaching a bit closer to his own Christian convictions, which, of course, are more easily comparable with the image of the benevolent and merciful Visnu."

Asteramellus (talk) 21:22, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

• Regarding Clark has suggested that Śaṅkara was originally presented as a Vaiṣṇava and only later associated with Śiva.[103][web 4] However, this view is not accepted within the Advaita Vedānta tradition itself.: Clark does not argue that Shankara was presented as a Vaishnavin; he argues that Shankara and his early disciples avtually were Vaishnavins. That this is not accepted 'within the Advaita Vedanta tradition itself' is to be expected, but I'd like to see scholarly sources describing objections from within the Advaita-tradition agsinst Clarks arguments, instead of WP:OR.
• "From the earliest sources, the stance of Trimūrti-abheda (non-difference of the three deities) is emphasized" - says which WP:RS?
• "Sureśvarācārya authored the *Mānasollāsa Vārtika* commentary on the Dakṣiṇāmūrti stotra" - highly questionable attribution.
• "The *Saundarya Lahari*, attributed to Śaṅkara" - another questionable attribution.
• "His disciple Toṭakācārya also describes Śaṅkara explicitly as an incarnation of Śiva in the *Toṭakāṣṭakam*." - where, exactly?
• Regarding the Hiltebeitel-quote, obviously this needs some counterweight.

Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 04:23, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

I hope you are not talking about something which you clearly don't have any idea about . The Questioning the authenticity of those text is not any pramana to prove him vaishnava ,I have read his text long ago and let me tell you -He hasn't provided any provided any evidence to prove that nor he can provide because in whole of vedanta parampara there isn't any single man that says 'I am vaishnava ' specifically.

Secondly,you said what are the responses of eastern scholar on Clark .But let me assure you - eastern scholar rarely reads any material of vedanta from westerner because they are (westerners) novice in these things .

I am sure they are unaware of the clarks claims .I have provided proper evidence to prove he is Smarta in my earlier post . The 6 system of worship supported by Sankara for a beginner.These are accepted by number of western scholars .

First you need to understand what is "vaishnava" ? Vaishnava are those sects who follows pancharatra agama and believe in pancharatra agama .Those agama main emphasis is on personal god living specifically Vishnu (and other gods as jeeva or living beings )in some kind of transcendental eternal heaven .This agama is refuted by Sankara in his Brahma sutra bhasya .The dissolution of personal god at mahapralaya is described in Brahmasutra bhasya of Sankaracharya itself .

10. On the dissolution of the Brahmaloka (the souls attain), along with the ruler of that world, what is higher than that (i.e. the Supreme Brahman), on account of the declaration of the Sruti.

If the souls going by the path of the gods reach the Saguna Brahman, then how can a statement like “They no more return to this world” (Brih. 6. 2. 15) be made with respect to them, as there can be no permanency anywhere apart from the Supreme Brahman? This Sutra explains it saying that at the dissolution of the Brahmaloka the souls, which by that time have attained Knowledge, along with the Saguna Brahman attain what is higher than the Saguna Brahman, i.e. the Supreme Brahman. So the Sruti texts declare.

Brahmasutra bhasya of sankara 4 3 10

There isn't the single instance of Sankara that says there is eternal transcendental heaven where one goes after death .But according to him , The high level spiritual seeker goes to Brahma loka where he is taught the non difference between individual and the Ishvara where he attain Kaivalyam (Remains as pure consciousness)!

So the inference clark made to say Sankara was vaishnava was from the specific terms like Narayan ,Vishnu and vasudeva used in Upanishad by sankara. But truth is sankara uses all those terms for describing pure consciousness or self rather than any Deity . Narayan is said to be substratum of illusionary world (This is defination of sayanacharya )

He has even used ishvara for Shiva too in some stance of his bhasya like kena upanishad.Bitbthat actually doesn't matter , The goal is Advaitabidyacharya (talk) 08:21, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Now you need to provide reference to prove that .Earlier it wasn't even mentioned that it was clarks claim.But after my edit we can see that properly which is good . Advaitabidyacharya (talk) 08:29, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

We summarize what secondary WP:RS like authors publicised by BRILL state, not what (unspecified) WP:PRIMARY sources state nor the WP:OR of Wiki-editors. If you're not able, or willing, to understand by what prinnciples Wikipedia is organized, then Wikipedia may not be the right venue for you. Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 09:48, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

I'll continue here, regarding interpreting Narayana as evidence of being Vaishnava, which many other scholars have argued such references are to Brahman (not to sectarian Vaishnava devotion) [...] see chapter 13 by Nelson in Krishna: A Sourcebook by Bryant. Also, chapter 6 by Hirst in this book.

• Nelson, Krishna in Advaita Vedanta: The Supreme Brahman in Human Form, p.312: "Indeed, as Hacker has shown, there is good evidence that Shankara and his early followers came from strong Vaishnava backgrounds." I'll add this to the article, and look-up Hacker. Which makes three sources for the claim, not just Clark.
  
• Nelson note 10 refers to Mayeda, "Thousand Teaching" p.8 note 13, which is on p.4: Mayeda: "But his doctrine is far removed from Saivism and Saktism. It can be ascertained from his works that he had some faith in, or was favorable to, Vaishnavism." Mayeda note 13 refers to Nakamura Vedanta Tetsugaku no Hatten p.531, and Paul Hacker (1965), Relations of early Advaitins to to Vaishnavism.
• such references are to Brahman (not to sectarian Vaishnava devotion) - Nelson p.313 writes:

Scholars have long noted Shankara’s tendency to employ such designations of the transpersonal Absolute as para-brahman (supreme Brahman), atman (Self), and paramatman (supreme Self) interchangeably with ishvara, parameshvara (supreme Lord), and bhagavan (Blessed Lord), which are titles of the personal God, and even with Narayana and Vishnu, which are personal names derived from mythology. This habit of thought will be apparent in the readings that follow.

Nelson does not argue here that Narayana does not indicat Vaishnavism; he only argues that terms for parabrahman and aparabarhman are used interchangeable.

Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 04:01, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan A bit unsure about the changes. For "become known as a major religious hero due to 14th century political and religious developments" - seems undue in lead without attribution. And even if attributed, from what I read in one of cited source (didn't read all the sources), it's hard to support the wordings used here. Would be helpful to see some quotes from the cited sources.

For the "Hindu philosopher" change, Shankara is widely described in academic sources as a "philosopher", so it would be better to keep "was an Indian Vedic scholar, philosopher". And, also keep the next sentence as "While he is often revered as the most important Indian philosopher" (instead of Hindu philosopher) - seems more neutral e.g. cited Isaeva source discuss Shankara in relation to Jain / Buddhist traditions also - within Indian Philosophy. Asteramellus (talk) 22:03, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

@Asteramellus thank you for your query. I don't think that who has popular become known as a major religious hero due to 14th century political and religious developments is WP:UNDUE, on the contrary: it's the essence of who people think he is (was). Sundaresan summarizes it quite well: Shankara was a scholar-monk, yet in this regard he is relevant to few people. Most people know him as a travelling teacher who 'conqured' India in a spiritual way. But this is a fictional character, created in the 14th-17th century, as explained in the article. This is explained by multiple authors.

For "most important Indian/Hindu philosopher" we don't have sources anyway, though it's a common notion, of course. I tried a Google-search; both quelifiers can be found. Yet, given the fact that he operated within the Hindu-fold, and his Advaita-views are decisively influenced by Buddhism, I think that ""most important Hindu philosopher" is more apt. Which also answers the concerns about the term "philosopher": he wasn't. He was a commentator, a theologian, but not a systematic 'philosopher', as explained in the article, e.g.:

According to Mayeda, Shankara represents a turning point in the development of Vedānta, yet he also notices that it is only since Deussens's praise that Shankara "has usually been regarded as the greatest philosopher of India." Mayeda further notes that Shankara was primarily concerned with moksha, "and not with the establishment of a complete system of philosophy or theology," following Potter, who qualifies Shankara as a "speculative philosopher." Lipner notes that Shankara's "main literary approach was commentarial and hence perforce disjointed rather than procedurally systematic [...] though a systematic philosophy can be derived from Samkara's thought."

Admittetly, the phrase "greatest Indian philosopher" is used here, so I'll change that. Yet, it also mentions 'regarded as [...] philospher," explaining that the notion of 'philosopher' is questionable. Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:47, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks Joshua. I recall discussing "philosopher" discussion here before and we can look at that, but regardless of the terms "Indian philosopher" or "Hindu philosopher", most scholarly sources do refer to him as "philosopher". I see that there are scholarly discussions, as you have mentioned, questioning "philosopher", but we also use the term philosopher for others such as Dharmakirti, Haribhadra, Sureśvara etc. I think it would be better to keep "was an Indian Vedic scholar-monk, philosopher, and teacher (acharya) of Advaita Vedanta".

Also, couple of sources I found interesting to read - if you have access to this source (starting page 180), it has some analysis on "discussion among Western scholars as to whether it would be more correct to see Sankara a theologian rather than as a philosopher". And e.g. Max Muller refer him as both - "Sankara, who, after all, is not only a philosopher, but a theologian". Asteramellus (talk) 12:43, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

Regarding who has popular become known as a major religious hero due to 14th century political and religious developments, don't think from Sundaresan's summary, we can say "14th century political and religious developments". Maybe the other sources mention that - I did read Hacker source also. And to say "major religious hero", I think it needs to be quoted/attributed else it sounds WP:SYNTH. I think maybe better to have all the scholarly views in body (some are already there), rather than in the first paragraph of the lead. Asteramellus (talk) 12:58, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

I've added a straight quote instead. As for "philosopher," I bet that the author this blog read our article. More response later! Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 13:54, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

Searching now for the source of Deussen's admiration, per "it is only since Deussens's praise that Shankara "has usually been regarded as the greatest philosopher of India." Maybe Outline of the Vedanta system of philosophy according to Shankara.

Ai...:

On the tree of Indian wisdom there is no fairer flower than the Upanishads, and no finer fruit than the Vedanta philosophy. This system grew out of the teachings of the Upanishads, and was brought to its consummate form by the great Shankara (born 788 a.d., exactly one thousand years before his spiritual kinsman Schopenhauer). Even to this day, Shankards system represents the common belief of nearly all thoughtfid Hindus

"its consummate form" - nay; there's a lot on AV that does not come from Shankara; "the common belief" - that's a gross misunderstanding ...

The fundamental idea of the Vedanta system, as most tersely expressed in the words of the Veda, "That art thou" (tat tvam asi), and "I am Brahman" (aham brahma asmi2) is the identity of Brahman and the soul.

Sounds as if he was completely unfamiliair with Vaishna-Vedanta? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 09:41, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks - I will spend some time later to read Deussen source. Mayeda seems to be accepting that Shankara is regarded as a "philosopher", while noting that "only since..regarded as the greatest philosopher of India". Regardless of Deussen familiar or unfamiliar with Vaishnava Vedanta, most modern scholarship consistently refer to Shankara and others as philosophers.

Regarding the other changes in the lead, I see the change who has popular become known as a "divine folk-hero who spread his teaching through his digvijaya ("universal conquest,") all over India like a victorious conqueror,". This interpretation is discussed by Hacker, but he presents it as his own explanation ("I explain as follows"). Such details seems better kept in the body with context/attribution.

Reading WP:LEAD and Jimbo Wales quote at WP:UNDUE, just not clear why we would include Hacker's interpretation in the lead and not include the widely used "philosopher". Asteramellus (talk) 22:41, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Still pondering over "philosopher"; I'll further reply on that Later. Regarding 'folk-hero': no, that's not just Hacker;it's a broadly accepted historical fact that the 'popular image', this 'folk hero', stems from those 14th-17th century hagiographies, as extensively explained in the body. If you want to understand Shankara properly, than this is essential: Shankara the scholar-monk is not the same as 'Shankara' the traveler-debater; that 'Shankara' is a fictional character, which is intertwined with Shankara the scholar-monk. This scholar-monk receives so much attention due to this fictional character, but it is this fictional character which has captured the imagination - and most people are unaware of that! So, it has to be mentioned, because it makes christal-clear what we're talking about. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 23:02, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks again Joshua for thinking through this with me and for adding "philosopher". Regarding "folk-hero", yes, but concern is also for proper context/attribution. The second paragraph of the lead already extensively covers the later hagiographical construction of Shankara as a digvijaya-travelling, deified figure with dates/context/attribution. Keeping the current sentence in the lead (in first sentence) without context/attribution gives the folk-hero interpretation undue weight and maybe misleading to readers. Asteramellus (talk) 00:39, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

There's repetition indeed, but it's not undue; I disagree with "misleading," as it is exactly this popular image which misleads most people in thinking that this image is accurate, not even realizing that it is just that: an image, a narrative. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 04:08, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. Now my concern is a bit more with latest changes. Not only does the first paragraph of the lead give undue weight (without clear attribution / context) to the "folk-hero" interpretation tied to 14th-17th century developments, but the historical context that previously explained this interpretation in the second paragraph is now in notes or removed - we are giving conclusion to the reader before any visible context. The earlier version felt more neutral and more helpful for readers - it avoided introducing interpretive details in the first paragraph. I guess we are reading this differently - it may be helpful to have other editors' thoughts. Asteramellus (talk) 19:35, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Your problem is with "folk-hero"? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 20:05, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

yes - and also placing this interpretation in the lead (first paragraph) without context/attribution I think gives it undue weight. Earlier version with such detail in second paragraph with context was much clear (and neutral) for a reader like me. Asteramellus (talk) 00:28, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Ah, thanks! I hadn't moved the info into the noteslist yet. Paraphrasing would be helpfull, thus? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 04:05, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks again. I think the lead is shifting towards popular or "revivalist" interpretations. The original version also had NPOV issues, but this seems to add new ones in the first paragraph. Maybe change who has popular become known as a heroic Saivite travelling religious leader who re-established traditional Hinduism to "who in later hagiographies came to be portrayed as a travelling religious leader tied to the revitalization of Hindu traditions."? Asteramellus (talk) 01:07, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

You mean "revisionist"? Your phrasing is too 'light', I think; this 'popular image' is precisely what's most relevant. It's not 'just' the portrayal; it's the result that's most relevant: the creation of a legend which is not recognised as such. 'Shankara doesn't exist', to paraphrase neo-Advaita. He's a super-hero character avant-la-lettre... I actually still prefer "divine folk-hero," which is spot-on, and formulated by one of the most reputed Advaita-scholars. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 04:15, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

yes thanks - sorry for late response here. Thinking as a reader, how should "popular image" and resulting legend be understood when this is in the first paragraph without context or attribution? I will also try to look at how other articles handle such interpretive details in leads - seems maybe similar concern on the Vishnu page for "a minor deity in the Vedas" in the lead. Again, thinking as a reader, does having such interpretive details in the lead improve clarity or does it cause confusion by introducing such details before the context that explains them? Asteramellus (talk) 03:12, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

The lead summarizes the article; it's explained in detail in the article. The aim of Wikipedia is to summarize scholarly insights, not to perpetuate popular or religious images and views. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 07:45, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks Joshua. I don't think we are disagreeing about whether this is scholarly insights or whether it belongs in the lead. I had already mentioned this earlier - see , , . Lead summarizing the article, but I think other guidance e.g. MOS:OPEN etc is relevant.

I see that his recent change fixes some of earlier concerns. With latest change, wondering about "true impact lies" without mentioning later hagiographies. Maybe change it to "In later hagiographies, Shankara's impact lies in the popular perception of him as a heroic traveling religious leader associated with the re-establishment of Hindu traditions". Asteramellus (talk) 15:29, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Yes, these are scholarly insights, and yes, it belongs in the lead in a prominent place. 'Shankara the brilliant scholar' is a variation of 'Shankara the restorer'; it's a legend, created centuries after his death, and it has such a grip that it seems almost impossible to release, also when being faced with a dissecting scholarly analysis.

How he became the focal point of this legend is explained in the lead, and in detail in the article.

Your proposed sentence implies an (unmentioned) impact inhis own times; as explained in the article, this impact seems to have been quite minimal. The sentence should be "His popular perception as a heroic traveling religious leader who re-established traditional Hinduism was created in later hagiographies" - but that is already detailed in the next paragraph. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 04:30, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

I've adapted "folk-hero," and restored the info. Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 06:29, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In the first paragraph, change "Vaishna" to "Vaishnava". "Vaishna" is a tpyo. Thebooksdostop (talk) 11:32, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

 Done Day Creature (talk) 18:19, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

"while his views were manitained by the Suresvara school" ... should surely be "maintained"? ~2026-57681-5 (talk) 19:21, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

done Asteramellus (talk) 22:41, 11 February 2026 (UTC)