Talk:Allama Prabhu

Recent edits

I have reverted certain edits by Ms. Sarah Welch in which Allama Prabhu is being projected as an advaitin. This is a fringe view that some books on Hinduism may be propagating. A.K. Ramanujan, an internationally recognized authority on medieval Kannada poetry, in his now classic anthology of vachanas Speaking of Shiva explains how Virashaivism was antagonistic to orthodox Brahminism, and how the Virashiava saints evolved their own metaphysical-philosophical system called Shatsthala Siddhanta. -Mohanbhan (talk) 09:11, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

@Mohanbhan: Which page number of Ramanujan are you referring to? Have you read the context and pages nearby? For a better understanding of Basava, Allama Prabhu and other Virashaivism thinkers on Vedas/Upanishads/Brahman, see [1] Leela Prasad (2012), Poetics of Conduct: Oral Narrative and Moral Being in a South Indian Town, Columbia University Press, ISBN 978-0231139212, pages 104-105; [2] VN Rao and GH Roghair (2014), Siva's Warriors: The Basava Purana of Palkuriki Somanatha, Princeton University Press, ISBN 978-0691604879, pages 7-8. If you believe these or the sources you removed along with the summary are fringe, please identify a few mainstream scholarly sources with page numbers that state what you allege. Please don't delete scholarly sources. Instead, for NPOV, let us summarize the various scholarly sides. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:02, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

ps: See pages 182-183 of Appendix II. He explicitly mentions "similarities with the monism" preached by Adi Shankara. I will read the whole Appendix of Ramanujan's Speaking of Siva again, then add a summary from it to the article. I await any specific page numbers from Ramanujan you find, in support of why you reverted this. Please do note what you reverted had nothing to do with Lingayat's described position about rituals and Brahmin priests in Ramanujan and elsewhere. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:19, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

@Sarah Welch: I have removed the Hindu leader infobox and the reference to Lingayatism as sect of Hinduism because it isn't. I have already mentioned a mainstream source in Ramanujan; the other source would be The Vigil of Rudra, the anthology of vachanas introduced and translated by H.S. Shivaprakash, published by Penguin. In Ramanujan see Appendix II titled "On Lingayat Culture" by Willian McCormack, page 175, and also Appendix I titled "The Six-phase System", p. 169. -Mohanbhan (talk) 17:56, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

@Mohanbhan: Again, see what you reverted here, and then again here. I do not see any support for this revert on page 169 or page 175, neither of which discuss Advaita or non-dualism. Which page number of The Vigil of Rudra should I look at, to see justification for your revert? While your alleged page numbers make no mention of Advaita non-dualism, I am puzzled why you are deleting sourced content and sources which explicitly discuss Allama Prabhu and that topic. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:28, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Sarah Welch, I asked you to read the two appendices, starting on p.169 and p.175, not only those two pages. (Please read my message above.) You have to read and understand before you add something. And please observe WP:Civil and stay calm while you discuss this. It does not mention Advaita because it has nothing to do with Advaita. This is like asking why there is no mention of Bhagavad Gita in Bible while some fringe source mentions it. Read the Introduction to The Vigil of Rudra to understand how Virashaivism is a distinct religion. There are other philosophies in India other than Advaita Vedanta and it is not a philosophical standard that you start describing all philosophies as "leaning towards" or "similar to" Advaita Vedanta. (Advaita vedanta is not equal to idealist monism, which is how you are using it.) Also note that Ramanujan and Shivaprakash are well-known authorities on Medieval Kannada poetry and Virashiavism, while the authors of your sources are not. -Mohanbhan (talk) 18:47, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

@Mohanbhan: I have read the two appendices, and I find your lecture puzzling. You are doing OR, and lecturing me to deduce conclusions that the source never makes (just like you did here and here where you have had content dispute with several wikipedia editors). In this case, as I mentioned above, pages 182-183 of Ramanujan's book mentions "similarities with the monism" preached by Adi Shankara. This supports the text I added, and urges you to reconsider your revert.

I am inviting Joshua Jonathan, a veteran editor of Vedanta-related wiki pages. @JJ: Do you see anything on page 169 or 175 of Ramanujan's Speaking of Siva, ISBN 978-0140442700 to justify deletion of the sourced content by @Mohanbhan here, and again here? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:58, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Also see this quote from the wiki article: "Allama Prabhu's poetic style has been described as mystic and cryptic, rich in paradoxes and inversions (bedagu mode), staunchly against any form of symbolism, occult powers (siddhis) and their acquisition, temple worship, conventional systems and ritualistic practices, and even critical of fellow Veerashaiva devotees and poets. However, all his poems are non-sectarian and some of them even use straight forward language." It is self-explanatory. -Mohanbhan (talk) 20:12, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

@Mohanbhan: Again, nothing to do with Advaita or non-dualism, which is what you reverted 1st time here, and 2nd time here. Remember, this dispute started with your 1st revert, where your edit summary alleged, "I know all your additions are sourced but they are WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE". I am still waiting for any source from you, leave aside few scholarly sources with page numbers, that establish the non-fringe mainstream position on Allama Prabhu, Advaita and non-dualism. Please stop this OR and lecturing with "it is self-explanatory", and just provide page number of a source(s) that has a relevant paragraph, that states what you allege is the mainstream position on Allama Prabhu, Advaita and non-dualism. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:50, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Sources

Hi there, both of you. I'll have a look at the sourcesand the edits:

• 1a: diff1: removal of "Ishwaran states Allama was a strong exponent of Advaita non-dualism philosophy. (source: K Ishawaran (1992), Speaking of Basava: Lingayat Religion and Culture in South Asia, Westview Press, ISBN 978-0813383897, pages 129-130)
• 1b: same diff: removal of [[Para Brahman#Advaita Vedanta|Nirguna]]
• 2: diff2: removal of "[sect Lingayat-Shaivism] of Hinduism (source: Roshen Dalal (2011), The Religions of India: A Concise Guide to Nine Major Faiths, Penguin, ISBN 978-0143415176, page 209)([sect Lingayat-Shaivism] remains)
• 3: A.K. Ramanujan, Speaking of Shiva, Appendix II titled "On Lingayat Culture" by Willian McCormack, starting on page 175; Appendix I titled "The Six-phase System", starting on p. 169. Comment by Mohanbhan: "explains how Virashaivism was antagonistic to orthodox Brahminism, and how the Virashiava saints evolved their own metaphysical-philosophical system called Shatsthala Siddhanta."
• 4: H.S. Shivaprakash, The Vigil of Rudra.

My comments:

• ad1: I only have snippet-view for this book, but to me the problem seems to be that thos elines may suggest that Allama Prabhu was a follower of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta, whereas Ishawaran speaks of a more generic "Advaita Philosophy," which has influenced many Indian traditions, for example also Kashmir Shaivism. Maybe this nuance/difference should be made clear;
• ad2: the problem lies with the term "Hinduism"? Of course there are good historical reasons not to use this term, but there are also good historical and conventional reasons to do use (incorrect English, I know; in Dutch one would say "wel gebruiken") this term in this respect. So, it's not clear why it should be removed.
• ad3: I can't accees this book; looks like a very interesting book, though; I've put it on my wish-list. Nevertheless, Mohanbhan's commentary may provide a clue to the removal of the term "Hinduism": if "Hinduism" is equated with "Brahmanism," or the "standard Brahmanical narrative," yeas, then I understand what your objections are. But conventionally, most people (at least outside India) don't have that Brahmanical association with the term "Hinduism," nor the sole association with "Advaita Vedanta."
• ad4: Shivaprakash's intriduction makes clear, right away, that the Bhakti-movement opposed the varna-system, which was upheld by the rulers who aupported the Brahmanical system. So, I see Mohanbhan's point of stating that Lingayatism is not Hinduism. But it's a fine nuance, which should be mentione din the article itself. For the infobox, a random reader, say a Japanese 17-year old kid, probably will find it usefull info: "Ah yes, India! Hinduism!"

Pffff.... Nuanced info required here! You both seem to be right here, in some respects. So, my "conclusion": be nuanced about nondualism/Advaita, and use a qualified to make clear that this is not about Shankara's Advaita in a restrcited sense, but about Advaita in a broader sense. And regarding "Hinduism": I'd leave it in the text, since it is claryfying for most readers, but do make clear in the article itself how Lingayatism is positioned within "Hinduism."
Regarding "Hinduism" itself: I'm glad that there are editors whom are opposed to this all-too-easy "inclusivism," which so often is a mere whole-sale narrative of the glorious Vedic-Brahmanical past (and I don't mean that ms Sarah Welch is selling this story!) But the nuance itself also needs nuance; simply opposing all of it won't ork, I think; better try to provide additional info, which makes clear, at many places, that there are many nuances. All the best, to both of you, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:14, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

@JJ: Thanks. I will split this into two section, and discuss "Can Allama Prabhu be called Hindu / is Lingayatism a Hindu sect?" in Infobox Hindu Leader section of this talk page. My main concern has been the deletion of sourced content on Allama Prabhu, Advaita and non-dualism. I concur with you on this. I will make clear the nuance/difference, and include reliable sources. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 11:08, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Joshua, thanks for your comments. As I have mentioned below, pushing the term Advaita Vedanta would be fringe and undue when the Virashaiva mystics had their own system called Shatsthala Siddhanta. This is an article about a poet, and if it is going to talk about his metaphysical system at all then there should be a detailed exposition of Shatsthala siddhanta and how he was against ritualism and varna and caste systems associated with Brahminism and the Brahminical philosophy of Advaita Vedanta. -Mohanbhan (talk) 12:20, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Infobox Hindu leader

Question: "Should Allama Prabhu be called a Hindu leader? Is Lingayatism a Hindu sect? Is XYZ a Hindu sect/denomination?"

@Joshua Jonathan:: Good points above. Frankly, most scholars and I too have struggled with that question. It is the same sort of controversy you find in other religions (e.g. was or is Sufi or Ahmadiyya or Bahai an Islamic sect?). The answer depends on the premises / presumptions / stereotypes. I have no particular preference about the classification, and what is or what isn't included in Hinduism (or some other religion).

The challenge for Shivaprakash and much of the literature about Indian medieval history is the authenticity of the documents they rely on. Most, if you dig deeper, are hagiographies full of myth and miracles, where multiple manuscripts exist, and each says different things. While @Mohanbhan calls "HS Shivaprakash is a well-known authority", this is irrelevant in an encyclopedia. Wiki articles are to be based on the "widely held scholarly views, that can be verified", and according to community agreed policies and guidelines. In this case, that does not mean we ignore Shivaprakash, it means we consider Shivaprakash and additional scholars.

Now, lets return to the above Question. In Shivaprakash's book, I do not see the conclusion anywhere, "Lingayatism is not a Hindu sect". I see a mention of Hinduism on page 3 of introduction of Shivaprakash book, the second para, where it also reads, "[At the time of Vijayanagara's resistance to Muslim invasion], Sharana movement was no more an immediate reality. It was glorious memory, a myth. They carried out a reinterpretation of the myth....". In The Context of Vachana Translations section of his introduction, 6th to 8th paragraph, I see a review by Shivaprakash, where he acknowledges "many" non-Virashaiva scholars, Brahmins in particular and others, presenting Virashaivism as "extension of Hinduism" and "reformatory Hinduism" (his words). Thus we do see support, "Lingayatism, to many non-Virashaiva scholars, is an extension/reform movement in Hinduism".

Now lets go beyond Shivaprakash, consider additional scholars, as summarized in tertiary literature. Here is the opening line in Encyclopedia Britannica's article on Lingayat:

Lingayat, also called Virashaiva, member of a Hindu sect with a wide following in southern India that worships Shiva as the only deity.

– Lingayat, Hindu sect, Alternative title: Virashaiva article, Encyclopedia Britannica (2015)

The reliable sources are suggesting the answer to the above Question is Yes. However, I must also note my agreement with you (except that your wording may be conflating Brahmanism with "priestly class Brahmin-ism"?, as some others do). Scholars do question, what is Hinduism? and is Lingayat or Shaivism or Vaishnavism or Shaktism or Smartism or XYZ a distinct religion, if yes or no, how, since when, where, why?

The constructive approach here would be to "better try to provide additional info, which makes clear the nuances." @Mohanbhan's approach of picking a side, calling sources as fringe/undue, deleting the content and those sources, and then failing to provide mainstream source(s) with page numbers that actually say what he imagines/alleges they say, is not constructive, and does not help in "making clear the nuances". Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 11:08, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Allama Prabhu, Advaita Vedanta, Monism

Sarah Welch: You have stop saying the same things over and over again when explanation based on two mainstream sources has been provided to you. Allama Prabhu has nothing to do with Advaita Vedanta and there being no mention of it in mainstream sources on his poetry and Virashaivism should put your speculations at rest. The main system of Virashaivism is Shatsthala siddhanta, this has not been mentioned in the article; what they were against is the varna and caste system, this also has not been mentioned in the article; without mentioning the core principles of Virashiavism of which Allama Prabhu was a major poet and philosopher you are trying to promote the fringe view that he was a "Advaita Vedantist". Joshua also agrees that Advaita Vedanta has been used generically in Eknath Easwaran's text, to mean idealist monism, and this term cannot be used in this article (or any article in the generic sense) as it is associated with Adi Shankara. It is also strange that you are making the artificial distinction between Brahminism and "priestly class Brahminism" -- this is OR -- as Surendranath Dasgupta uses the word Brahminism to refer to the religion which considers Vedas, Upanishads etc as its core texts. You can also refer to Dasgupta's entry on Virashaivism in vol five of A History of Indian Philosophy. So I have now provided 3 mainstream sources 1. A.K. Ramanujan, 2. H.S. Shiva Prakash and 3 Sudrendranath Dasgupta which supports my view, and your sources are general surveys of Hinduism which do not deal specifically with Virashaivism or with the poet Allama Prabhu whose article we are editing.

PS: this is an article on a poet who was non-sectarian. Calling a literary figure who fought against sectarianism and sectarian identification a Hindu leader or a Vedantist is nothing but a travesty of truth. -Mohanbhan (talk) 12:09, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

@Mohanbhan: None of three sources support "your view". If they do reach the conclusions you allege, why don't you identify the page numbers where they make those conclusions about Allama Prabhu, Advaita Vedanta and monism? With @JJ input, I will now edit the article and summarize what the sources actually say. I invite @JJ and urge you to let @JJ provide a neutral check and revise any edits I make on Vedanta-related text. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:54, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

@JJ: [1] There are numerous other recent sources, which all state Lingayatism has been a "monism", "modified monism", or a "non-dualism" (advaita) philosophy. I haven't added them to this article because they do not explicitly link it to Allama Prabhu. [2] I would welcome a summary from any recent reliable source that states a different view on "Allama Prabhu, Non-dualism, Monism" than what is currently summarized in the article, but am unaware of any. I recall seeing a ~100 year source, that questioned whether Lingayats were monist, but it did not make a conclusion either way. It is a dated source, so I have not bothered to dig it out from my old notes archives. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:13, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Quotes from Ramanujan

@Mohanbhan: The quotes from Ramanujan you added to this article, don't mention Allama Prabhu. Why do they belong to this article on Allama Prabhu? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:11, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Who added the quote Sarah Welch, you or me? I only expanded it. Why did you remove it after the expansion? Because it does not promote your POV? This is v strange! This section is about Allama's philosophy as a Virasaiva poet, why would you remove the quote when it represents the stand of virasaiva saints in a balanced way? I am sure the editors who created this page are watching your POV pushing. I will leave it to them. I have other work to attend to and cannot stop your relentless POV pushing. -Mohanbhan (talk) 03:16, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Also, yes, Allama Prabhu, is a Virashaiva saint, not a Vedantic saint--why are you hellbent on portraying him a Vedantic saint? What is this if not POV pushing? -Mohanbhan (talk) 03:22, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

For the benefit of other editors this is the quote from Ramanujan that I added:

The vacana saints reject not only the 'great' 'traditions of Vedic religion, but the 'little' local traditions as well. They not only scorn the effectiveness of the Vedas as scripture; they reject the little legends of the local gods and goddesses. The first of the following examples mocks at orthodox ritual genuflections and recitations; the second, at animal sacrifice in folk-religion.(AK Ramanujan (1973), Speaking of Siva, Penguin Classics, ISBN 978-0140442700, page ISBN 978-0140442700, page 25) ...Why did the vacanakaras (and certain other bhakti traditions in India and elsewhere) reject, at least in their more intense moods, the 'great' and 'little' traditions? I think it is because the 'great' and 'little' traditions, as we have described them, together constitute 'establishment' in the several senses of the word. They are the establishment, the stable, the secure, the sthavara, in the social sense. [...] Thus, classical belief systems, social customs and superstitions, image worship, the caste system, the Vedic ritual of yajna, as well as local sacrifices of lambs and goats—all of them are fiercely questioned and ridiculed.(AK Ramanujan (1973), Speaking of Siva, Penguin Classics, ISBN 978-0140442700, page ISBN 978-0140442700, page 29-30) -Mohanbhan (talk) 03:36, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

@Mohanbhan: WP:AGF. I deleted your above quote, and mine, from Ramanujan, because it doesn't mention Allama Prabhu anywhere. It is irrelevant to this article.

You are casting aspersions when you allege, "I removed it because it does not promote my POV". Actually, I had wanted to add another quote from my draft, and placed the wrong quote instead. Here is what I had wanted to add to this article:

Allama Prabhu, the teacher of Basava, was thoroughly surcharged with the Vedantism of the Shankara school.

– Surendranath Dasgupta, A History of Indian Philosophy, Volume 5: Southern Schools of Saivism, ISBN 978-8120804166, page 50

I deleted the entire irrelevant quote, but decided not to add the above in place of it, given our dispute on Shankara, Vedanta, Monism, Allama Prabhu (see another section above). You have been edit warring in last 48 hours, deleting any such content summary and deleting any sources I add on Vedanta-Shankara-Allama Prabhu. So, I want to wait for @Joshua Jonathan's input, while meditating on the most compassionate, constructive next steps. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 04:39, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Your Surendranath Dasgupta quote is WRONG. This is what it says in Vol 5 of A History of Indian Philosophy: "It will be easy for us to show that Allama-Prabhu, the teacher of Basava, was thoroughly surcharged with the Vedantism of the Saririka school." This is what you got by typing Vedantism in the google books search box, and based on this snippet-view, in which Dasgupta says it is "easy for him to show Allama was surcharged with Vedantism" of Badarayana, you are claiming that Allama Prabhu had something to do with Advaita Vedanta. The obvious questions here are 1. is it ethical to post a false quote on wiki talk page to deceive other editors? and 2. to present the quote in such a way -- by removing the qualifiers -- that the author is stating something as already established when he is only stating something could be established? -Mohanbhan (talk) 14:42, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Before accusing me of editwarring in the last 48 hours please read WP:EDITWAR and WP:BRD. Once the discussion on talk page has started you cannot revert the first revert, or make changes without getting consensus. You reverted the first revert after WP:BRD cycle began and you made the changes without consensus. (You then repeatedly asked for page numbers relating to advaita in Ramanujan and Shivaprakash's texts even after I explained twice that you will not find the word mentioned as Allama Prabhu's metaphysics has nothing to do with it.) So who has been edit warring, you or me?

Thanks for the constructive steps you took on my talk page Sarah Welch. Nice. -Mohanbhan (talk) 13:10, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

@Mohanbhan: There you go again, accusing and casting aspersions. You are looking at "google snippet view", and I am looking at page 50 of the book. It is lines 15-17 from top. It reads, "It will be easy for us to show that Allama-Prabhu, the teacher of Basava, was thoroughly surcharged with the Vedantism of the Śaṇkara school." In the next paragraph, there is a discussion of Adi Shankara's Bhasya on Brahma Sutra II.2.37, and Ananda Giri's Shankara-vijaya.

My guess is that special characters may be getting corrupted during optical scanning for google snippet view. I forgive you one more time, as this looks like an innocent mistake by you. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 03:31, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Please observe WP:Civil Sarah Welch and refrain from making condescending remarks. I have verified the quote, what you presented (Allama Prabhu, the teacher of Basava, was thoroughly surcharged with the Vedantism of the Shankara school.) is still incomplete because you removed the qualifier and made it look as though Dasgupta has already demonstrated that Allama Prabhu work is surcharged with Vedantism while he only suggested that it could be done. Also, there is no discussion of Adi Shankara's Bhashya on Brahma Sutra II.2.37 or Anandagiri's Shankara Vijayam in the next paragraph, Brahma Sutra is mentioned because Vachaspati's commentary on Shankara's commentary of Brahmasutras "speaks of four types of followers of Siva" and Shankara Vijayam is mentioned because Anandagiri "gives a long description of the various types of devotees who could be distinguished from one another by their outward marks." (p.50) You need to learn to present the sources properly and without bias before you start making unwarranted remarks. -Mohanbhan (talk) 13:45, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Recent removals

It's nice when people like each other....

Okay, three recent removals, right?

• 1: Mohanbhan 19:31, 4 August 2015:

• 1a: "Michael describes Allama's ideas as non-dualism inspired by Advaita Vedanta." source: R Blake Michael (1992), The Origins of Vīraśaiva Sects, Motilal Banarsidass, ISBN 978-8120807761, page 33-35, 127-128;
• 1b: "Ishwaran states Allama was a strong exponent of non-dualism (advaita) philosophy, and persuaded Siddharama [an early scholar of Lingayatism], that "God was within him". Source: K Ishawaran (1992), Speaking of Basava: Lingayat Religion and Culture in South Asia, Westview Press, ISBN 978-0813383897, pages 129-130, Quote: "'Allama Prabhu, a staunch exponent of non-dualism (advaita), convinced Siddharama that God was within himself. He chided him by saying, 'you who presume to place Him before you and converse with Him, do not have any understanding of Him!";

• 2: Mohanbhan 20:04, 4 August 2015: idem;
• 3: Ms Sarah Welch 22:05, 4 August 2015: great traditions and small traditions.

• Ad 1a (Michael): nothing wrong with the source itself, I guess?

• Chapter 1 narrates the distinctiveness of the Virasaiva sect as to Brahmanical orthodoxy:

• p.6: states that Lingayata practices often are the same as Brahmanical practices, and that Lingayatists may be regarded as a separate cast within the Brahmanaical fold;
• pp.8-14 portray Lingayatism as a "sect"; if that's within Hinduism I can't tell; incomplete access via Google Books.

• Chapter two threats the Sunyasampadane, compiled around 1400, with vaccanes from Allama Prabhu and other sfrom the 12th century (you both know that, of course. I don't.) Interesting.

• p.27: "In this dialectic, they lead the reader from one quite partial spiritual insight to a higher, more comprehensive one. In fact, it is precisely this dialecticl character of spiritual progression which lends the text its name Sunyasampadane, The Graduated Attainment of the Void (or of the Absolute)." Now, doesn't that sound like Madhyamaka? Shankara, of course, was also influenced by Madhyamaka; why not call those Advaita influences Buddhist influences? (sorry, I'm teasin gboth of you a little bit; but it's not only a joke).
• p.30: "... the social, political and cultural context reflected in the Sunyasampadane resembles and was probably modelled upon conditions at fifteenth century Vijayanagara" - did that have influence on how the Advaita influences were regarded? Was Advaita [Vedanta] more influential in the 15th century than it was in the 12th/13th century?
• I've read pp. 33-35; Michael nowhere uses the term "advaita," as far as I can see. At best the term "non-duality" is being used. Nor does he explicitly make any statement saying "Allama's spirirtuality van be described as non-dualism." So, I'm afraid that this is interpretation...
• Note 6, p.26/61 does refer to Advaita, though. It's about works attributed to Vidyaranya, advisor of Harihara I and Bukka Raya I, the founders of the Vijayanagara Empire, and the 12th Jagadguru of the Śringeri Śarada Pītham from 1380-6. Interesting additional info: "In fact, Paul Hacker has argued that Sankara owes his pre-eminence as a religious figure and reputed founder of the advaita monasteries to the fourteenth century efforts of Vidyaranya to provide a legitimizing legend for that monastic structure and, at the same time, to bolster the spirits of Hindu Vijanagara against the Muslims." (p.61)

• Chapter three:

• p.127 says: "Using a standard advaita metaphor from the Upanishads";
• 129-130: unaccessible via Google Books.

• Ad 1b (Ishwaran): sourced info; uses the term "advaita," not "advaita vedanta." How about an explanatory note that states that it is not Advaita Vedanta? Actually, this is what Mohanbhan's long quotes did, sort of.
• Ad 2: idem.
• Ad 3: interesting info; paraphrase them into a note?

So, altogether: yes, Lingayatism as a sort of Hinduism, but a specific "sect" or tradition. And no, Allama not an Advaita Vedantin, but yes non-dualist. And a somewhat later tradition which may have been onfluenced by Advaiya Vedanta via the influence of Vidyaranya. So, what are we going to make of this?... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:24, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Okay, this is what I've done:

• Re-inserted both of your latest edits/reverts;
• Removed "Michael describes Allama's ideas as non-dualism inspired by Advaita Vedanta, since this is an interpretation of what Michael writes;"
• Shortened the expose on great traditions and small traditions, and moved it into a note;
• Copy-edited the qualifications on monism and advaita, including this piece of info which was added by Mohanbhan:

"Indeed, according to the Lingayat Sanskrit scholar, Dr SC Nandimath, there are philosophical similarities with the monism preached by the eighth-century Vedantin, Sankaracharya." (source: Ramanujan 1973, p.182-183)

• Added a note on Advaita.

Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:29, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Correction: S.C. Nandimath, as referred to by Ramanuja, writes about Lingayatism in general. I've moved this into the note. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:55, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

@JJ: That Dr SC Nandimath note: I added it here, not @Mohanbhan. As I wrote above, this was one from my [1] list. @Mohanbhan then added to the same quote here. Both my addition and @Mohanbhan's were about Lingayatism in general, not Allama Prabhu. Just wanting to own the mistake I started, and correction I made hours later when I realized the difference between what I wanted to add versus what I actually added yesterday.

Indeed, Sunyasampadane is interesting. It is similar to Shankara's saguna -> nirguna journey, reformulated but beautifully, brilliantly. Linga-worship becomes the path to Self/Soul-realization. Compare pages 212-235 in Isaeva's book on Shankara with Chapter 3 of Blake Michael. For this article, a summary from pages 85-91 of Chapter 3 on Allama Prabhu's views might be a worthwhile addition? I like the changes you have made. Thanks for mediating, the diligent effort you put in, is obvious. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 11:08, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Joshua: Just for the record, this "Indeed, according to the Lingayat Sanskrit scholar, Dr SC Nandimath, there are philosophical similarities with the monism preached by the eighth-century Vedantin, Sankaracharya. (source: Ramanujan 1973, p.182-183)" was not added by me. This was added by Sarah Welch; I only expanded the quote. I have pasted what I added above. -Mohanbhan (talk) 13:13, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Bhakti as liberating knowledge?

The following sentence is weird:

"Allama suggested the path of devotion (bhakti marga) as the path of liberating knowledge." source: Subramanian (2005), pages 15-16

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:37, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

It's not what the source says. I've removed changed it. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:41, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

McCormack - Ramanujan

"William McCormack, quoting Ramanujan", source "AK Ramanujan (1973)" - now who's the source? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:47, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

@JJ: McCormack wrote the Appendix, Ramanujan attached it to his book. Confusing? Yes. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 11:10, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Shatsthala siddhanta

The quotes in Note 3 uses the Allama Prabhu article as a SOAPBOX to promote views on Advaita Vedanta and Madhyamaka philosophy which has nothing to do with Allama Prabhu. Again the philosophy section does not mention anything about Shatsthala siddhanta or what Virashaivism, and Allama Prabhu in particular, actually stood for, as mentioned in Ramanujan, Shivaprakash and Dasgupta. Both of you are doing original research, but I will leave this for other editors to sort out. -Mohanbhan (talk) 13:30, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

• "According to Ramanujan, "Lingayats feel that it ranks with any that Brahmanism has produced." The "it" here refers to Shatsthala siddhanta not to the vachana tradition, yet there is no mention of it in the article. Also not sure why Allama is closer to Advaitic tradition, and Madhyamaka philosophy, but does not not even represent Virasaiva tradition of which is the primary poet-saint (the leader of Anubhava mantapa).

• "The vacana saints reject not only the 'great' 'traditions of Vedic religion, but the 'little' local traditions as well. They not only scorn the effectiveness of the Vedas as scripture; they reject the little legends of the local gods and goddesses. The first of the following examples mocks at orthodox ritual genuflections and recitations; the second, at animal sacrifice in folk-religion.(AK Ramanujan (1973), Speaking of Siva, Penguin Classics, ISBN 978-0140442700, page ISBN 978-0140442700, page 25)

• "...Why did the vacanakaras (and certain other bhakti traditions in India and elsewhere) reject, at least in their more intense moods, the 'great' and 'little' traditions? I think it is because the 'great' and 'little' traditions, as we have described them, together constitute 'establishment' in the several senses of the word. They are the establishment, the stable, the secure, the sthavara, in the social sense. [...] Thus, classical belief systems, social customs and superstitions, image worship, the caste system, the Vedic ritual of yajna, as well as local sacrifices of lambs and goats—all of them are fiercely questioned and ridiculed.(AK Ramanujan (1973), Speaking of Siva, Penguin Classics, ISBN 978-0140442700, page ISBN 978-0140442700, page 29-30)

The boldfaced text represents the Virasaiva position most emphatically, but is not used in the article or the notes. Perhaps because it hurts the tendentious Vedantic connection which is being made here? Why is Allama Prabhu's Virasaiva connection being suppressed and a non-existent Vedantic connection being highlighted? -Mohanbhan (talk) 13:49, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Mohanbhan; thanks for your comments. Some responses:

• The influence from Advaita Vedanta is sourced; I think that this does not need to be disputed. The intersting question is how Lingayatism was influenced, in what ways, adn how those influences were reworked and adapted;
• What's a/the relevant and (most) accessible source on Shatsthala siddhanta? It's interesting.

Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:40, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

• Joshua, why don't you answer my specific and pointed question instead of responding in a general way? You disregard the Virasaiva philosophy, the context in which Allma Prabhu and other Virasaiva poets emerged and wrote, and what they stood for, and pick out SC Nadimath's stray quote in A.K. Ramanujan's introduction to claim that your claim is "sourced"? The issue is not about whether it is sourced or not (and being sourced does not make this claim beyond dispute); the issue is that this statement is WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE. And this is obvious if you read 1.Ramanujan's intro to Speaking of Siva 2. Shiva Prakash's intro to I Keep Vigil of Rudra--two authentic sources which deal directly with Allama Prabhu and his poetry.
• The Virasaiva poets emphasised karma marga rather than bhakti marga (one of the most famous statements of Basava is "Kayakave kailasa", "Work itself is paradise.") but the philosophy section talks about Bhakti.
• Appendix I of Speaking of Shiva deals with Shatsthala Siddhanta but Allama Prabhu was not responding to metaphysical ideals alone. In fact, he and other poets -- who wrote in vernacular Kannada as opposed to elite Sanskrit, which only Brahmins males were allowed to speak and read -- ridiculed the metaphysical obsession of saints and celebrated the spirituality of everyday life. They also questioned the metaphysical basis for social hierarchy imposed by Brahminism (and upheld by Brahminical saints) and repeatedly emphasised that all humans are created equal. To disregard this central feature of Allama Prabhu's philosophy and equate it with the philosophy of his Brahminical opponents is a joke and a travesty of truth. If wikipedia is not a soapbox WP:SOAP I don't know why it is being used like one to propogate Advaita vedanta and Madhyamaka philosophy. -Mohanbhan (talk) 01:08, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

• This quote is also wrong: "According to S.C. Nandimath, as referred to by Ramanuja, Lingayatism shows "philosophical similarities with the monism preached by the eighth-century Vedantin, Sankaracharya." Ramanuja? S.C. Nandimath, a 20th century scholar, is quoted by A.K. Ramanujan, the translator/author of Speaking of Siva, not Ramanujacharya. -Mohanbhan (talk) 02:07, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

An article being incomplete, does not mean that certain aspects of the topic are being disregarded. It just means that the article is incomplete. That's also why I asked for sources; thanks.
You write "Allama Prabhu was not responding to metaphysical ideals alone"; that's a nic point. Even the header "philosophy" may reflect a modern (western) bias, emphasizing "philosophy" as a vehicle for "truth," over practical, embodied "spirituality" another "metaphysical misnoumer").
Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:34, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I've used part of the third quote you've provided ("Why did the vacanakaras"). I haven't used it completely, because I don't have access to the full source, because the selection you have provided does not tell us why they were 'anti-establishment.' Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:54, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

@JJ: Those views are not attributed to Allama Prabhu by Ramanujan, they are explicitly attributed to other Virasaiva poets, on page 30. Isn't it OR to attribute it to Allama Prabhu? The Virasaiva poets were a mixed bunch - some bhakti types with loving devotional songs, some not. FWIW, "elite Sanskrit: only Brahmins males were allowed to speak and read," etc allegations lack a recent reliable source: skepticism / possible OR. See pages 45-47, where Ramanujan writes something quite different. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 05:47, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

@JJ: This article is getting better as you edit. I like the revised social concerns, philosophy and religiosity sections. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 06:25, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Unrelated?

Removal and revert

Hi Mohanbhan. I can somehow understand that you're not interested in extended info on India's philosophies, but it's not clear to me why this info would be unrelated, or "superfluous." And I definitely don't understand why you removed these explanations about Advaita; the line clearly says "Allama's philosophy has been called "advaita""; it does not say "has been influenced by," as you say in your edit-summary.

And to call Gombrich an unreliable source, and remove info on that basis, is far besides the truth; Gombrich is an outstanding scholar on Indian religions.

I saw your removal of Gombrich last; I'd already restored some of the info ypu'd removed, but now I've restored all of it. The point of the whole note is, that "advaita" is not specifically "Advaita Vedanta," but may also be a generic term, which exceeds the Advaita vedanta tradition. Which means that Allama Prabhu is not an Advaitin, but stands on his own in his philosophical thought, c.q. is more representative of a broad current of Indian thought, and not just of Advaita Vedanta. I prov ided this extensive note because of the "colonisation" (Michel Foucault) of Indian thought by (neo) Advaita Vedanta, reducing all and everything to Shankara. The note may be too extensive, but it's not incoherent. And when you start by removing Gombrich, saying he's an unreliable source, it raises questions about the rest of those removals. Removing it wrecks the rest of the note; ergo, this can be done better. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:08, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, when you removed the first part of these sentences, you made the rest unintelligible:

"[beginning of removed part] Shankara's Advaita was influenced by Madhyamaka Buddhism and its notion of sunyata, while Pre-sectarian Buddhism may also have been responding to the oldest Upanishadic teachings of the Chandogya Upanishad,[end of removed part] itself one of the sources of Shankara's teachings. Dasgupta and Mohanta also note that Buddhism and Shankara's Advaita Vedanta are not opposing systems, but "different phases of development of the same non-dualistic metaphysics from the Upanishadic period to the time of Sankara." This development did not end with Advaita Vedanta, but continued in Tantrism and various schools of Shaivism."

References

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:20, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Joshua, the Gombrich article cited IS unrelaible by wiki standards as it is uploaded on a wordpress blog. It's authenticity is questionable. Also, the use of the word advaita is WP:UNDUE as it is almost always used in the context of Shankara's advaita. Allama Prabhu was anti-vedic and anti-Brahminical, which is what scholars of Vachana literature have been saying, and for saying which one renowned scholar M. M. Kalburgi had to lose his life. Your tendentious note connecting Allama with "advaita", no matter how specifically you define it, is therefore a slap on the face of Vachana scholarship. Stray statements, superficial comments in surveys of Hinduism and Buddhism, cannot be used in an article on Allama Prabhu; nor can you attribute observations made on Lingayatism to Allama's philosophy, which, being the vision of a poet-mystic, is complex and unique. Allama's ankitanama Guheshwara (Lord of the Caves) CANNOT be equated with Shiva. These are nuances and complexities that your unnecessary extrapolation in the form of a note misses. I will therefore restore my edit. -Mohanbhan (talk) 07:43, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Also, Eknath Ishwaran is not a Vachana or Allama Prabhu scholar; his claim cannot be used to override the well-researched and widely acknowledged claims made by Vachana scholars and translators like A.K. Ramanujan and H.S. Shivaprakash. Still, this is Iswaran's exact statement "Allama Prabhu, a staunch exponent of non-dualism (advaita), convinced Siddharama that God was within himself. He chided him by saying, 'you who presume to place Him before you and converse with Him, do not have any understanding of Him!" He uses the the word non-dualism and gives the word advaita in brackets---this stray passing reference by a popular-writer on Hinduism cannot be used to connect Allama's philosophy with Advaita. -Mohanbhan (talk) 08:05, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Mohanbhan, I advice you to find out first who Richard Gombrich is, and what his credits are. Also notice that this artcle by Gombrich was published by BRILL. Regarding the note: it makes clear that the label "advaita" is nuanced, and does not mean that Allama Prabhu was an Advaita Vedantin. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:31, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

NB: I agree with you that Eknath Ishwaran is a popular writer; but nevertheless, he did call Allama Prabhu and advaitin, indirectly; it's good to correct, or nuance, such a statement. And I think that you're well aware that I'm not an Advaita-propagandist; I've got no intention to associate Allama Prabhu with Advaita Vedanta.

Sigh (tpo myself); I'm responding to quick; let's try to solve this with reasonable thoughts and arguments. You probably do have important points on Allama Prabhu and the (non)connection with Indian religions; it's especially calling Gombrich an unreliable source that's problematic to me. It my be wise to split these edits and revert into separate parts to discuss them. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:37, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

The cited source is unreliable Joshua, it is uploaded on wordpress which is why it's authenticity is doubtful. Please try to understand what is being said before you start advising. Richard Gombrich being a respected Indologist/Buddhist scholar and him being published by Brill does not change anything; he is not a Vachana scholar and not a scholar on Allama Prabhu. (AP did not write in Sanskrit or Pali, and I happen to know Kannada and have read scholarly works on Allama both in Kannada (M. M. Kalburgi) and in English. It is clear who is lacking in competence here. I am sorry to see you edit-warring without reading or understanding my very specific reasons for removing certain claims and sources. Also, may I remind you once again that this article is not on Buddhism or Hinduism, but on a medieval Kannada poet, and that your extrapolation on the concept of advaita is WP:UNDUE. And let me assure you (again) that I have nothing against Gombrich, and I am not calling into question his scholarship; it is the cited source whose authenticity is doubtful, and the digression on advaita is unnecessary and irrelevant in an article on Allama Prabhu. -Mohanbhan (talk) 09:02, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

BRILL, removal of sourced info, and WP:BRD. WP:UNDUE is open for discussion, but see my explanation above: the note explains the context, and is not per se in favor of the label "advaita." Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:08, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

List

Contested info:

• 1: "poet-sant leaders of Bhakti movement in south India, who emphasized the philosophy of non-dualism." source: Patton Burchett (Editor: Knut Jacobsen, 2011), Yoga Powers, Brill Academic, ISBN 978-9004212145, page 370
• 2: " Shiva Prakash (1997), pages xLi, 170-179, Quote: "Devotees of Shiva, they emphasized the importance of moral values and condemned mere ritualism. They were critics of social evils. Basava, Allama Prabhu, Akka Mahadevi, Raghavanka and Harihar were among the best writers of this period.""
• 3: "and also as non-dualism (advaita). (Ishawaran 1992, p.129-130)
• 4: Extended note:

• 4A: "Allama's philosophy has been called "advaita", which may be a generic term, but it has also been specifically characterized as influenced by Shankara's Advaita Vedanta:"

Quotes:

• 4B: "Ishawaran: "Allama Prabhu, a staunch exponent of non-dualism (advaita), convinced Siddharama that God was within himself. He chided him by saying, 'you who presume to place Him before you and converse with Him, do not have any understanding of Him!"" Source: Ishawaran 1992, p.129-130
• 4C: "According to S.C. Nandimath, as referred to by A.K. Ramanujan, Lingayatism shows "philosophical similarities with the monism preached by the eighth-century Vedantin, Sankaracharya."" Source: Ramanujan 1973, p.182-183
• 4D: "Surendranath Dasgupta: "It will be easy for us to show that Allama-Prabhu, the teacher of Basava, was thoroughly surcharged with the Vedantism of the Śaṇkara school." (Surendranath Dasgupta (1951), A History of Indian Philosophy, Volume 5: Southern Schools of Saivism, Motilal Banarsidass (2012 Reprint), ISBN 978-8120804166, page 50)" - This part is not in dispute!

Further explanation:

• 4E: "Although Advaita or nondualism nowadays is best-known from Shankara's Advaita Vedanta, it has a long history in Indian thought." source: Dasgupta & Mohanta 1998, p.362
• 4F: "Shankara's Advaita was influenced by Madhyamaka Buddhism and its notion of sunyata, while Pre-sectarian Buddhism may also have been responding to the oldest Upanishadic teachings of the Chandogya Upanishad, (Gombrich 1990, p.12-20) itself one of the sources of Shankara's teachings.
• 4G: Dasgupta and Mohanta also note that Buddhism and Shankara's Advaita Vedanta are not opposing systems, but "different phases of development of the same non-dualistic metaphysics from the Upanishadic period to the time of Sankara." (Dasgupta & Mohanta 1998, p.362)"
• 4H: "This development did not end with Advaita Vedanta, but continued in Tantrism and various schools of Shaivism. Non-dual Kashmir Shaivism, for example, was influenced by, and took over doctrines from, several orthodox and heterodox Indian religious and philosophical traditions. (Muller-Ortega 2010, p.25) These include Vedanta, Samkhya, Patanjali Yoga and Nyayas, and various Buddhist schools, including Yogacara and Madhyamika, (Muller-Ortega 2010, p.25) but also Tantra and the Nath-tradition.(Muller-Ortega 2010, p.26)"

Recommendation for further reading:

• 4I: "On the interplay between the various Indian traditions, especially Buddhism and Brahmanism, see:
  * Geoffrey Samuel (2010), The Origins of Yoga and Tantra. Indic Religions to the Thirteenth Century, Cambridge University Press}}
  * Andrew J. Nicholson( 2010), Unifying Hinduism: Philosophy and Identity in Indian Intellectual History, Columbia University Press"

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:06, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

(Reply by Mohanbhan:)

• ad 1: The book "Yoga Powers" is not a book either on Vachana poetry or on Allama Prabhu, so this stray comment cannot be used in the lede.
• ad 2: Shivaprakash (1997) is making a general comment about the Virasaiva poets/Lingayatism; he is not specifically claiming that Allama was a devotee of Shiva. There is extensive scholarship on the word "Guheshwara" and none of the scholars say that it refers to Shiva.
• ad 4: Dasgupta and Mohanta, Gombrich, Nicholson etc and the rest of the quotes and comments are WP:UNDUE in this article on Allama Prabhu. This is not, even remotely, an article in which the influence of Buddhism on Hinduism could be considered, as Allama is neither a Buddhist nor a Hindu (i.e. someone who acknowledges Vedas as infalliable texts).
• ad 4A: Nobody has "specifically characterized" Allama's philosophy "as influenced by Shankara's Advaita Vedanta". The only scholar who makes such a statement, Dasgupta, says such an influence could be shown BUT he has not actually shown Shankara's influence on Allama by comparing their works. Such egregious speculations cannot be part of an encyclopedia.
• ad 4B: Iswaran has already been discussed, see my arguments above.
• ad 4C: Lingayatism is NOT EQUAL TO Allama's worlview/philosophy. So Nandimath's quote cannot be a part of this article.
• ad 4F: Wordpress is not WP:RS and therefore the Gombrich citation and related content has to go.

-Mohanbhan (talk) 09:32, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Gombrich was published by BRILL; a pdf was uploaded by "A Handfull of Leaves," a superb online libary of scholarly studies on Buddhism. So, the publisher is BRIIL. You won't get better than that for reliable sources. I'll read and comment on the rest later; thanks for replying. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:44, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Page 12-20 of this Gombrich article (https://ahandfulofleaves.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/recovering-the-buddhas-message_gombrich_tbf_1988.pdf) has been referred to in the article. It does not say that it is taken from a book published by Brill, but instead refers to a journal, though the book referred to in Bibliography is Earliest Buddhism: Madhyamaka published by Brill. Even if the source is authentic, this source does not belong to the article as it has nothing to do with Buddhism. -Mohanbhan (talk) 10:02, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

It has been published two times, in 1988 and 1990. The note is not specifically on Buddhism, but on the qualification of Allama Prabhu as "advaitic," and the spread of "advaitic" currents of thought. Buddhism is part of this story. I'll come back to your other concerns later; not enough time. Thank you for providing an opportunity to learn more. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:45, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

@Mohanbhan: Please don't edit war with @Joshua Jonathan, and respect WP:BRD. I have been following @JJ and your edits since yesterday, and I am puzzled by your "X is a religion scholar or Indology scholar, X's publication is a reliable source, but X is not a scholar on this or that specific religious person". Indeed, we should avoid fiction writers and a book on geography/botany/'space aliens' as source for religion/history, because those fields are neither related nor overlap, but Gombrich etc are reasonable reliable sources for this article, in sections that are encyclopedically related/overlapping with the scope of this article.

Your concern with "wordpress.com may be a blog" is in good faith, but tenuous. The site is just hosting that paper, the paper has been edited by Tadeusz Skorupski, and just a convenient link. Perhaps, @JJ you can find an alternate link to the same paper, to avoid hours dealing with @Mohanbhan's technicalities? On the rest, your bulleted points above have much OR; it is @JJ's generosity to summarize a reliable publication, but @JJ does not need to check with you first whether you are convinced/"like it" or not. What @JJ restored is WP:DUE, although it can be improved and refined a bit to avoid any hints of OR-Synthesis. But, edit warring is not the way to achieve this. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:41, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Edit-warring and POV-pushing (as demonstrated on innumerable talk pages) are your specialty Sarah Welch, and you would be a little less puzzled if you learn to read and understand what is being said instead of looking for syntactical patterns in my statements. The views of subject experts and scholars are to be preferred over the views of Hindu generalists, and scholars and experts - no matter how esteemed - of other subjects/topics. Also, I think I am reminding you for the nth time to stick to the topic of discussion instead of making personal comments. But you don't seem to get these polite reminders. -Mohanbhan (talk) 14:19, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

@Mohanbhan: Which sentence of mine above are your interpreting as a "personal comment", that "you think you are reminding" me again? On your edit warring in this article within the last 24 hours, here is the evidence. Once @JJ reverted your edit, WP:BRD applies. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:45, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Please read WP:EW and know what edit-warring is before you accuse someone of it. I reverted to my edit after a discussion on the talk page, (and after citing specific reasons for removal in each of the edit summaries). Also read WP:BRD, it is not a hard and fast rule, and I have been discussing the edits here. -Mohanbhan (talk) 12:17, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Reply by JJ:

• ad 1: it is a comment on Allama Prabhu, made by Knut Jacobsen, professor of religious studies, published by BRILL;
• ad 2: the reference says "Shiva Prakash (1997), "Kannada". In Ayyappapanicker, Medieval Indian Literature:An Anthology, Sahitya Akademipages, pp. xli, 170-179"; not only one quote. In the quote, Prakash refers to the vachanakaras, and mentions Allama Prabhu as one of them. The text in the Wiki-article, referenced by this source, does not say "Allama was a devotee of Shiva," nor does it speak of "Guheshwara".
• ad 4:

• "Undue." Well that's a point we can discuss further; it's a long note indeed. I've already explained why I've added it. Your main contention seems to be point 4a: the characterisation of Allama Prabhu's philosophy as "advaita" or "nondualism." See ad 4a.
• Your objection is that Allama was not a Buddhist nor a Hindu, so that the influence of Buddhism on Hinduism is not relevant to this Wiki-article. This objection misses the point: we're talking about the influence of advaitic thought on Allama; in that respect is does not matter if you call him a Hindu or not. What matters is this influence.
• Regarding the specific point of Allama being a Hindu or not: I guess most scholars would not hesitate to include Lingayatism into Hinduism. You may use the specific criterium of adherence tothe Vedas; well, that point is also being mentioned by scholars, noting that this adherence is an insufficinet criterium.

• ad 4a:

• Dasgupta says that "Allama-Prabhu [...] was thoroughly surcharged with the Vedantism of the Śaṇkara school." Well, if that doesn't mean 'influenced by', I don't know what else it may mean. So, yes, "specifically characterised." And Dasguopta is not alone: Ishawaran says "Allama Prabhu, a staunch exponent of non-dualism (advaita)"; see also 4b. Burchett also refers to Allama Prabhu, when he says "who emphasized the philosophy of non-dualism." Only A.K. Ramanujan, referring to S.C. Nandimath, refers to Lingayatism in general, saying that Lingayatism shows "philosophical similarities with the monism preached by the eighth-century Vedantin, Sankaracharya."
• You call Dasgupta's statement "egregious speculations;" that's your qualification, and Dasgupta's statement. Which is relevant in this context, also when you reject it.

• ad 4b: Ishawaran says "Allama Prabhu, a staunch exponent of non-dualism (advaita)"; the Wiki-text refers to this statement saying "Allama's philosophy has been called "advaita"".
• ad 4c: would you suggest that Allama Prabhu was not a Lingayat? The lead now says '" Prabhu is [...] the spiritual authority, and an integral part of the Lingayata." Besides, this is one of several sources on the advaitic character of Allama Prabhu's thought; it adds further weight to the sources which specifcally refer to Allama Prabhu. See also ad 4a;
• ad 4f: Gombrich is WP:RS, period.

So, your main contention seems to be the advaitic influence on, or element in, Allama Prabhu. Which, so far, is confirmed by several sources. The length of the note is a consequence of this contention, since it nuances these qualifications, and provides a context. If you think it could be shorter, please propose. But please acknowledge the fact that the advaitic character is being nuanced in this note. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:18, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Reply by Mohanbhan

• 1: Fact: This statement is NOT by Knut A Jacobson. Jacobson is the editor of the said book and the article is by Patton Burchett. My initial argument that Burchett is not an expert on Vachana literature or Allama Prabhu and so his stray comment on something as significant as Allama's philosophical orientation cannot be a part of the lede I think still stays. Nevertheless, it seems even Burchett is not saying what is being claimed in that sentence. Here is the link to page 370 of the book and there is no mention of the word Sant or nondualism. Burchett is using the vachanas as they are employed in hagiographic records to narrate a legend about Allama and Goraksha, and talking about a specific vachana he says Bhakti is not being exalted here but "a form of non-dual mystical knowledge" and he ends the paragraph by noting how the narrative of the south-to-north Bhakti movement glosses over "substantial qualitiative differences in the form and style of bhakti being practiced." This is a far cry from the sentence in the article: "He is one of the celebrated poet-sant leaders of Bhakti movement in south India, who emphasized the philosophy of non-dualism."
• 2: Neither you nor I know what is being said on page xLi (41) of the article titled "Kannada", and I am not sure what quote you are referring to with the word "vachanakara" in it. (There is no quote in the citation). This seems like a spurious citation to me as an article in book of a thousand odd pages would not have roman pagination. So at least "non-dualism" and "sant" from this sentence has to go, if one cannot get rid of the entire sentence.
• 4a: This is what Dasgupta says : "It will be easy for us to show that Allama-Prabhu, the teacher of Basava, was thoroughly surcharged with the Vedantism of the Śaṇkara school." It is interesting that in your quotation you have deleted the qualification which forms the basis of my argument: Dasgupta says "it can be easily shown" but he has not; so this is an "egregious speculation" and it cannot be used to characterize Allama as influenced by Advaita philosophy. And also, as observed before, this is WP:UNDUE.

  The argument is Allama is anti-Vedic and anti-Brahminical, while advaita of the Shankara school is Vedic and Brahminical, so to say Allama was influenced by Shankara's advaita based on Dasgupta's wild speculation is very problematic.

• 4b: Yes, "called" Advaita on the strength of a quote by a popular writer on Hinduism who puts the word advaita in brackets is going a little too far, don't you think? To make a statement like that you need to have scholarly work characterizing Allama's philosophy as Advaita (and not just "a form of non-dual mystical knowledge") The word Advaita on wikipedia occurs mainly in the context of Adviata Vedanta, Neo-Vedanta etc; it is not a part of the vocabulary of Kashmir Shaivism, and definitely NEVER used by the Virashaivas, or Allama Prabhu, who wrote in Kannada.
• 4c: This is what I said: "Lingayatism is NOT EQUAL TO Allama's worlview/philosophy. So Nandimath's quote cannot be a part of this article." Does this read as Allama Prabhu is not a Lingayat? Statements made about Lingayatism in general, like the one made by Nandimath, cannot be attributed to Allama Prabhu is what I am saying.
• 4f: Gombrich, Reza Aslan, Karen Armstrong are all WP:RS but it is just that these scholars are irrelevant and unreliable in the context of this article. What is the point of this digression on Advaita/Buddhism in an article on Allama Prabhu when there is no scholarly work qualifying Allama's philosophy as advaitic? Are all non-dualisms/monisms "advaitic": can Spinoza's and Epicurean monism be characterized as "advaitic" because they are non-dualistic? Why then do you take such liberties with Allama Prabhu? This is nothing but WP:OR and no matter how nuanced your qualification of advaita, WP:UNDUE.

So I think my very specific and well-reasoned edits to the article should be restored. -Mohanbhan (talk) 14:06, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Reply by JJ:

• ad 1: you're right, it's by Butchett. Nevertheless, it's still published by BRILL. What Butchetts says, is that there were differences of style and practice within the bhakti-movement. He does qualify Allama's approach here as "nondual." We can argue into details about the difference between "nondualism" and "non-dual mystic knowledge," but that's mere semantics, not content.
• ad2: Well, I do, because I read that page. As said before (I quote myself here), "In the quote, Prakash refers to the vachanakaras, and mentions Allama Prabhu as one of them. "'The line in the Wiki-article says "Allama Prabhu used poetry, now part of Vachana Sahitya literature, to criticise rituals and social conventions, to breakdown social barriers and to emphasize moral values and devotional worship of Shiva." This line is supported by this source. I don't understand why you argue about "sants" or "nondualism" here; tht's not what this Wiki-sentence is about.
• ad 4a: it's not relevant that Dasgupta does not give his argumentation; the statement is relevant. Wikipedia hgives an overview of the relevant sources. Your argument "The argument is Allama is anti-Vedic and anti-Brahminical, while advaita of the Shankara school is Vedic and Brahminical, so to say Allama was influenced by Shankara's advaita based on Dasgupta's wild speculation is very problematic" is your personal conclusion, which is relevant for the first remise, but incorrect for the conclusion: you cannot conclude from these two premises that Allama was not influenced by Shankara's advaita. Several sources say it was; several other sources say that advaita, c.q. nondualism, was (and is) a pervasive strand of thought in India, which is not restricted to Shankara. And that's exactly what the note is about.
• ad 4b:

• see ad 4a.
• Please understand now that the sources are not saying that Allama was an Advaitin Vedantin; they say that his philosophy was nondualistic c.q. "advaita," and that he may have been influenced by Shankara's Advaita Vedanta. That does not ake him an Advaitin.
• The fact (is it a fact?) that Kashmir Shaivism does not have the term "advaita" in its vocabulary, does not mean that it was not influenced by advaitic thought. See the note...

• ad 4c: sorry, I don't follow you here. You're fixated on semantic details. Nandimath wa squoted here by Ramanujan. And even if we want to make a very exact nuance between Lingayatism and Allama (a nuance which is overriden by the statement, made by various authors, that Allama was the main provider of Lingayatism's philosophy/spirituality), then it's still relevant for the readers to get this information.
• ad 4f: again: nobody's saying that Allama was an Advaita Vedantin. The term "advaita" has become a generic term in the Indian context, which is confusing; it took me a couple of years to understand what's so problematic about this term. That's why the note is important: it contextualizes the qualification. Actually, a few more lines would be necessary, on the "vedantification" of Indian discource; see Advaita Vedanta#Influence on modern Hinduism.

So, again, but with a nuance, your concern seems to be that Allama is "colonialized" by Advaita Vedanta, c.q. Brahmanical discourse, which wants to incorporate all and everything Indian into a hegemonic Vedic framework. That's the problem, isn't it? Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:41, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Comment by Mohanbhan

• 1: Your careless and slipshod way of argumentation -- calling my objections "semantic" -- does not respond to any of my arguments.
• 2: I have quoted the line in the lede ("He is one of the celebrated poet-sant leaders of Bhakti movement in south India, who emphasized the philosophy of non-dualism.") which has the Shivaprakash (1997) citation. This has to go now since even your explanation does not show the word sant and nondualism mentioned. Sant is not even a Kannada word, and Shivaprakash would never use it to describe Allama.
• 4a: I have read Dasgupta's entry on the Virasaivas in Vol 5 of History of Indian Philosophy which I think I have mentioned on this page. There is a difference between scholarly demonstration of a claim and a speculative claim, and speculative claims are just speculations, they are not be treated as established facts.
• The rest of your statements are original research. Advaita Vedanta has not colonized Allama Prabhu, it is your mind which is colonized by Advaita which is why you want to see it everywhere. Thanks for wasting my time. BTW, you and Sarah Welch should stop working as a WP:TAGTEAM. -Mohanbhan (talk) 18:44, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Comment by Ms Sarah Welch

@JJ: Some of @Mohanbhan arguments are repeat of August discussion above. I do not want to repeat it. One of the sentences in the lead needs some copyediting of cites and their placement. I will fix that later today. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:02, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

@Mohanbhan: On#1, the Burchett in Jacobsen source, have you read the chapter, or are you still looking at google snippets and some lucky pages? I ask because in August, here, you discussed exactly this thing, and you made false accusations and insulting aspersions against me. FWIW, in my reading, Burchett sentence accepts that conclusion ('easy to show' implies so), and Burchett comments that follow is about Vedanta per Shankara's Advaita school. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:02, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Haha! Burchett and Advaita Vedanta? Sarah Welch, I wish you knew what you are talking about but this is what happens when you work as a tag team. -Mohanbhan (talk) 18:44, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Reply by JJ:

• ad 1:

• differentiating between "nondualism" and "non-dual mystic knowledge" is indeed semantics.
• (@Mohanbhan's "2" in the response above) "He is one of the celebrated poet-sant leaders" has the Butchett-citation, not Shiva Prakesh. This makes your response confusing. Anyway, "sants" is problematic for you! I've removed it, though Subramanian seems to say the same.
• @Ms Sarah Welch: I don't think that Butchett refers to Advaita Vedanta; I think that he refers to a broader current of "non-dual mystic knowledge." It's an age-old division, of course, between 'magical powers' and 'insight.' In this case, it's about 'Saiva non-dualism', or 'Advaita Shaivism', so to speak, not about "Advaita Vedanta".

• ad 4a: you call it an "established fact;" that's not what Dasgupta says. I think that Dasgupta does count as WP:RS here, which is relevant for inclusion. The quote is given; readers can read what exactly Dasgupta has to say.

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:04, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Tag-team

Regarding "Tag-team": please read the lead to that policy:

"Tag teaming (sometimes also called a "Travelling Circus" or "Factionalism") is a controversial[1] form of meatpuppetry in which editors coordinate their actions to circumvent the normal process of consensus. As with meatpuppetry, editors may be accused of coordinating their actions to sidestep policies and guidelines (such as 3RR and NPOV). Unlike "meatpuppetry", the phrase may be applied to otherwise legitimate editors. The phrase comes from professional wrestling "tag teams", where teams of two or more wrestlers take turns in the ring, and one brings in his teammate by tagging him.

Wikipedia encourages and depends on cooperative editing to improve articles, and most editors who work together are not a tag team. Assume good faith, and keep in mind that in almost all cases it is better to address other editors' reasoning than it is to accuse them of being on a team.

Unsubstantiated accusations of tag teaming are uncivil. Care should be taken to frame assertions in an appropriate way, citing evidence in the appropriate venues, following our dispute resolution process."

• "coordinate their actions to circumvent the normal process of consensus": Ms Sarah Welch and I don't coordinate our actions; we simply agree. That's a form of concencus.
• "editors may be accused of coordinating their actions to sidestep policies and guidelines (such as 3RR and NPOV)": we're not sidestepping policies, on the contrary; we're discussing your edits. As you may have noted, I've even reverted her. I'm also trying to compromise toward your concerns about Advaita Vedanta; the whole note is a result of taking your concerns seriously, just like these modifications of that note,
• "most editors who work together are not a tag team": that speaks for itself.
• "Assume good faith, and keep in mind that in almost all cases it is better to address other editors' reasoning than it is to accuse them of being on a team": yep, indeed. Address the reasoning.

Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:04, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Note

I've rephrased the intro to the note, stating clearly that Allama Prabhu and Lingayatism is not Advaita vedanta. I've also added additional info on the current popularity of Advaita Vedanta, to make clear that this interpretation of Indian religiosity is quite dominant. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:17, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Hinduism source

@Joshua Jonathan:: Should we be using Hindu leader infobox in this article? For WP:V, on page 3072, Melton and Baumann (2010), Religions of the World, ISBN 978-1598842036, mention Allama Prabhu in their section on Virasaivism, and call it a form of Hinduism, where Vedas hold no place of special authority.

Similarly, in Appendix II of the Ramanujan's book "Speaking of Siva", William McCormack writes, "we believe Lingayats to be Hindus because their beliefs are syncretistic and include an assemblage of many Hindu elements, including the name of their God, Shiva, who is one of the chief figures of the Hindu pantheon. AK Ramanujan documents this point in his introduction to the present book, where he discusses Hindu symbolic elements in vacanas." Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:54, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I'd rather use an infobox for writers or poets or so, given the sensitivities surrounding the question "Who is a Hindu?" In a scholarly sense, of course Lingayats are included within Hinduism, since adherence ot the Vedas is not the conclusive criterium. But in India, this is an important criterium. Orthodox Hindus seems to take as the criterium (see Frank Morales), blissfully unaware or disregarding the Agamas etc.; neo-Vedantins and Hindutvas want to include everything with Hinduism, with the Vedic tradition as its proud origin; and non-Vedic people reject this, and don't want to be included into the Vedic fold. And, last but not least, we also have to reckon with the sensitivities here ate Wikipedia. So, a neutral may be better. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 03:56, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

@JJ: You mean Frank Morales, the episcopal priest activist? Does he discuss Lingayats, or Allama Prabhu, or both ? If yes, which book and page number? I note your request to consider sensitivities, but it is better done in this and other articles, by presenting all sides and POVs, with reliable sources, rather than suppressing information to please bullies on either side. I will go with your call on the current infobox. How about adding a short section in the main article summarizing the debate of whether Allama Prabhu and his movement Virasaivism are considered a part of Hinduism. We can summarize Melton as well as Ramanujan's book on this, and add in a summary of the disputing side with similar quality sources? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 09:36, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Remember that "Hindus" only tip their hat to Vedas. Vedas are largely irrelevant to Hinduism (excepting Upanishads). - Kautilya3 (talk) 09:43, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

This is how the Supreme Court of India understands Hinduism:

"..the basic concepts of Hindu religion, are stated thus:

(35) The first amongst these basic concepts is the acceptance of the Veda as the highest authority in religious and philosophic matters. This concept necessary implies that all the system claim to have drawn their principles from a common reservoir of thought enshrined in the Veda. The Hindu teachers were thus obligated to use the heritage they received from the past in order to make their views readily understood. The other basic concept which is common to the six systems of Hindu philosophy is that " all of them accept the view of the great world rhyme. Vast periods of creation, maintenance and dissolution follow each other in endless succession. This theory is not inconsistent with belief in progress: for it is not a question of the movement of the world reaching its goal time without number, and being again fforced back to its starting-point. It means that the race of man enters upon and retravels its ascending path of realization. This interminable succession of world ages has no beginning [Indian Philosophy by Dr. Radhakrishnan, Vol. II, p.26] `It may also he said that all the systems of Hindu philosophy belief in rebirth and pre-existence. `Our life is a step on a road, the direction and goal of which are lost in the infinite. On this road, death is never an end or an obstacle but at most the beginning of new steps [Indian Philosophy by Dr. Radhakrishnan, Vol. II, p.27].' Thus, it is clear that unlike other religions and religious creeds, Hindu religion is not tied to any definite set of philosophic concepts as such.'"

Source: http://www.hinduismtoday.com/modules/smartsection/item.php?itemid=5047

So there is no question of using the Hindu leader infobox here. -Mohanbhan (talk) 10:13, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

@Mohanbhan: You are interpreting and deriving strange new conclusions about Lingayatism from what that paragraph's first and last and other sentences say. Similar debate is found in aspects of all religions, such as Christianity (see George Coates for a more scholarly discussion on whether someone can question or deny Bible's authority on some or all matters and still be a Christian). One can question or deny the authority of certain scripture, but still conclude as above paragraph does – "religion is not tied to any definite set of philosophic concepts as such" (Vedas include Upanishads, and a lot of inconsistent non-Upanishad stuff, inconsistencies even Indian scholars such as Adi Shankara and even older ones debated in their works). But, such discussions make this talk page into a forum for WP:OR, which it is not. If you have specific scholarly source that assert Allama Prabhu-Lingayatism is not Hinduism, please provide it with page number. @JJ can help include it in the proposed section in the main article on "whether Allama Prabhu and his movement Virasaivism are considered a part of Hinduism". Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 10:42, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

(ps) @Mohanbhan: In case you missed it, I accepted @JJ's suggestion to not change the infobox of this article to 'Hindu leader'. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 10:49, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

This Frank Morales. I don't think that the Supreme Court of India provides the final scholarly criterium on who is a Hindu. At least not at Wikipedia. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:19, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

regarding the question "How about adding a short section in the main article summarizing the debate of whether Allama Prabhu and his movement Virasaivism are considered a part of Hinduism", I don't think that would be wise to do here. For whom is it relevant? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:48, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

@JJ: To whoever interested in learning if scholars consider Allama Prabhu to be, or not to be one of the 12th-century Hindu religious leader? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:32, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Nondualism in lead and shivayoga.net

@Joshua Jonathan: The shivayoga.net is not RS, and I will remove it, but leave the text for now. Perhaps you can find a better source for the text? The lead needs to have nondualism in the lead somewhere, as it is important and well supported. Yes, I too interpret nondualism in the broadest way, but we need to respect what three sources are saying, and we have yet to come across a scholarly source that denies what these sources are stating or claims "Allama was proponent of dualism".

1. "Ishwaran states Allama was a strong exponent of non-dualism (advaita) philosophy, and persuaded Siddharama [an early scholar of Lingayatism], that "God was within him". Source: K Ishawaran (1992), Speaking of Basava: Lingayat Religion and Culture in South Asia, Westview Press, ISBN 978-0813383897, pages 129-130, Quote: "'Allama Prabhu, a staunch exponent of non-dualism (advaita), convinced Siddharama that God was within himself. He chided him by saying, 'you who presume to place Him before you and converse with Him, do not have any understanding of Him!";
2. "Indeed, according to the Lingayat Sanskrit scholar, Dr SC Nandimath, there are philosophical similarities with the monism preached by the eighth-century Vedantin, Sankaracharya." (source: Ramanujan 1973, p.182-183)
3. "Surendranath Dasgupta: "It will be easy for us to show that Allama-Prabhu, the teacher of Basava, was thoroughly surcharged with the Vedantism of the Śaṇkara school." (Surendranath Dasgupta (1951), A History of Indian Philosophy, Volume 5: Southern Schools of Saivism, Motilal Banarsidass (2012 Reprint), ISBN 978-8120804166, page 50)"

I am fine without advaita, just nondualism will do. Please add it somewhere. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 09:36, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

The term "nondualism" alone is not sufficient; it's too fuzzy (actually, it's a hopeless term). I think it's okay the way it is now: nondualism/"advaita"/nondual consciousness of Self and Shiva, though the last term could be replcaed with another description. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:46, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

@JJ: May be embed nondualism/advaita and the quotes into a note? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:18, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Bhakti?

We have the lead paragraph claiming that Allama Prabhu was "one of the celebrated poets of the Bhakti movement in south India". I don't believe that is a correct interpretation of the cited source, which only says that (emphasis added):

In the wake of the Bhakti movement initiated by Ramanuja and Madhava, the literature of devotion flourished. But the most powerful literary movement during early medieval days in Kannada was that of the Virashaivas. A number of writers, collectively known as vachanakaras, changed the entire contour of Kannada poetry. Devotees of Siva, they emphasized the importance of moral values and condemned mere ritualism. They were critics of social evils. Basava, Alama Prabhu, Akka Mahadevi, Raghavanka and Harihar were among the best writers of the period. Kumaravasya was perhaps the greatest poet of the Krishna Bhakt school in Kannada, the most universal and most localized writer of the group

And even more to the point D.R. Nagaraj specifically says that Allama Prabhu was not a Bhakti poet (sorry for the longish quote, which though is necessary to understand the argument being made; not reprodcing the footnotes and diacritics)):

At this juncture, it is useful to try to discriminate among the literary forms discussed under the umbrella category of bhakti, a term often used in scholarly discourse in a quite unhistorical and undifferentiated way to refer to a wide range of expressions of protest against orthodoxy that found literary embodiment. Sometimes included in the category of bhakti is the yogamarga (path of bodily discipline), which was followed by the nathas, siddhas and many esoteric sects. This tradition produced rich and profound poetry, but with characteristics differing strikingly from most bhakti literature. Saraha and Allama Prabhu are not bhakti poets; their insistence on opaque and mysterious modes of metaphor is in stark contrast with the emotionally transparent model of bhakti. The aesthetic of bhakti poetry is close to the Western romantic poem; the emotional states of either srngara or vatsalya (maternal love) find lyric expression. Yoga poetry, by contrast, rests on the principles of paradox and irony. Its imagery can swing from the abstract to the concrete and back. Many a time it is a combination of bhakti and the esoteric yogic streams that produces mystic poetry.

Bhakti was neither a homogeneous nor a unified movement; not all who are typically described as bhakti poets shared radical positions on questions of equality or adopted the same kind of rasa - centered aesthetics. For instance, many Vaishnava bhakti Kannada poets, particularly of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, cannot be considered radicals; they betray a conservative indifference toward questions of equality. The point to be noted is that in the context of the twelfth- century Virashaiva movement, two tendencies contest each other in many ways. The first, represented by Basavanna and Akka Mahadevi is traditional bhakti; the second, represented by Allama Prabhu, differs fundamentally from the first. Allama wrote in a highly esoteric and individualized mode that was a product of his multiple interactions with other traditions of mystical experience.

The Bhakti movement and Virashaiva's (and the associated bhakti and vachana literatures) being contemporaries are no doubt discussed in close proximity (as in first quote above), or even sometimes confused (as Nagaraj says), but we should be careful not to perpetuate the "error" in wikipedia's voice. Instead, if there are scholars who argue that Prabhu was indeed a bhakti poet, cite and attribute their view, and cite the counter-arguments. Abecedare (talk) 15:17, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed note! Additional work is waiting for us... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:50, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

@A:, @JJ: That is in part why I had taken "bhakti movement" out from lead yesterday here. The other reason was WP:V. There is some support though elsewhere; for example, in Michael Downes's Jonathan Harvey: Song Offerings and White as Jasmine, ISBN 978-0754660224, pages 76-77; where Vacanas are called bhakti poems, and Allama Prabhu is mentioned. I will leave it to you @JJ, whether such sources justify mentioning "bhakti" in the lead. My preference would be to move 'bhakti'-related summary to the main article, and definitely mention that he is "not" considered as bhakti poet by some scholars, with reasons. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:15, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Also Molly Daniels (2004), The Oxford India Ramanujan, Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0195664782, pages 331-334; Quote: "Four bhakti poets from the Kannada-speaking region in Ramanujan's Speaking of Siva were among the foremost of those who wrote vacanas (short sayings) expressing their devotion to Siva." Allama Prabhu is one of the four. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:45, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Jonathan Harvey: Song Offerings and White as Jasmine is a book on the British music composer Jonathan Harvey and talks about two of his compositions titled 'Song Offerings' (1985), and 'White as Jasmine' (1999). Molly Daniels has edited Ramanujan's Oxford anthology not because she is a scholar (she is the director of a creative writing school at Chicago university) but because she is Ramanujan's ex-wife. Her statements have no scholarly standing. -Mohanbhan (talk) 09:23, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I haven't examined the sources mentioned in any detail, but given that Nagarah devotes so much effort and space to counter the argument that Prabhu wrote Bhakti poetry, I would expect there to be sources that (casually) classify him as a Bhakti poet. If so, we can easily handle it by saying something along the lines, "Allama Prabhu has sometimes been referred to as a Bhakti poet.<sup Appropriate citation However, D.R. Nagaraj, a scholar of Kannada literature, has argued on aesthetic grounds that his works were ..." etc. Abecedare (talk) 15:39, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

On checking, I see that something like this has already been added Allama Prabhu#Viraisava and the vacanakaras (thanks to whoever did this!). Also saw the semi-protection: haven't followed the heavy edit traffic on the page, but come on y'all... you all are better than this. A little more collaborative editing, and little less battleground conduct will make both the article and the experience of editing it better for all. Abecedare (talk) 15:44, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

@Abecedare: Indeed. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:08, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Reverted info

There is a lot of intricate discussion about the nature of Lingayat-Shaivism above, which I can't penetrate. However, I had copied infobox information [1] from the Basava page, who is the founder of Lingayat-Shavism. This was reverted by Mohanbhan along with a whole bunch of other clean-up I did. I still don't know what the problem is, but I think this discussion should take place on Talk:Lingayatism page, where people knowledgeable about the subject can comment. - Kautilya3 (talk) 11:57, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

This page is not on Basava but on the vachana poet Allama Prabhu, and Allama's philosophical orientation, his not being a Bhakti poet etc are being discussed on this page. There is a difference between the Vachanas of poets like Basava and Mahadeviakka and those of Allama Prabhu as has been noted by D. R. Nagaraj in the quote above. You cannot make crude uninformed changes to the article without participating in the discussion and getting consensus for the specific changes that you wish to make. -Mohanbhan (talk) 12:17, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, you are not addressing the question. Why is Basava's religious affiliation not appropriate for Allama Prabhu? - Kautilya3 (talk) 12:25, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Please read the section titled Bhakti above. -Mohanbhan (talk) 12:31, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I have read it for sure, multiple times. What does it have to do with religious affiliation? - Kautilya3 (talk) 12:36, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Bhakti is a religious affiliation associated with Hinduism, not just a fancy term. -Mohanbhan (talk) 12:39, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

M. M. Kalburgi, a leading scholar of vachana literature who was assassinated recently, also held that Lingayatism-Virasaivism is not part of Hinduism. This quote is from S. Settar's obituary article on Kalburgi published in the latest issue of EPW.

Though it is not difficult to make out why Kalaburgi had acquired many academic enemies, it is however beyond my imagination to understand the enmity of an assassin. Kalaburgi had never clashed with the devotees of Vedic Hinduism, though he had vigorously argued that Virasaivism (like Buddhism, Sikkhism and Jainism) was not part of Hinduism, but an independent religion of India. His reading of the vacanas had led him to understand that the philosophy advocated by the 12th century reformers was not the same as Vedic Hinduism, for they had not accepted the Vedas and the Gita as authority, followed the varna order, or found gods in temples, or respected the Agamas, or believed in the notions of karma and rebirth.

-Mohanbhan (talk) 12:54, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Bhakti is a practice is associated with Hinduism and means personal devotion to God. Other religions have it too, even if they don't use the workd "Bhakti" for it. In any case, there is no mention of Bhakti in the infobox. So this is entirely irrelevant. If you want to argue that Lingayat-Shaivism is not part of Hinduism, please take it to Talk:Lingayatism as I have suggested above. But, as far as the issue here is concerned, you have again dodged the question, why is Basava's religious affiliation not appropriate for Allama Prabhu? - Kautilya3 (talk) 13:03, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Comment: Beyond Basava, all sources I have seen, include Lingayat-Saivism in Hinduism. See [1] Ramanujan (1973), Speaking of Siva, Penguin Classics, ISBN 0-14-044270-7, Appendix II, pages 175-187 [2] Melton and Baumann (2010), Religions of the World, ISBN 978-1598842036, page 3072 [3] Dalal (2011), The Religions of India: A Concise Guide to Nine Major Faiths, Penguin, ISBN 978-0143415176, page 209. I have no particular preference for infobox type used in this article (see Hinduism source section of this talk page). The link to Hinduism with these and other sources, inside whatever infobox is used in this article, and elsewhere, is appropriate and consistent with wikipedia content guidelines. Deletion of such mention and sources is disruptive. As I have noted earlier, if there are reliable sources that state "Allama Prabhu was not a Hindu" or implies something equivalent, that too should be included in this article for WP:NPOV. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:05, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: Your recent attempts to move the discussion on this page to Lingayatism talk page constitutes a form of WP:CANVASS called Votestacking.

Vote-stacking: Posting messages to users selected based on their known opinions (which may be made known by a userbox, user category, or prior statement).[2] Vote-banking involves recruiting editors perceived as having a common viewpoint for a group, similar to a political party, in the expectation that notifying the group of any discussion related to that viewpoint will result in a numerical advantage, much as a form of prearranged vote stacking.

Also see, WP:VOTESTACK. Pls refrain from votestacking. -Mohanbhan (talk) 17:54, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Any discussion on the nature of Lingayatism should take place on its talk page. I have no idea what their opinions are, but I am sure they are relevant to the issue at hand. You seem to have declared pretty much unilaterally on this page that Lingayatism is a separate religion and decided to obstruct anybody that disagrees. This cannot be allowed to continue for ever. - Kautilya3 (talk) 18:09, 23 September 2015 (UTC)