Talk:Jyotir Math

The names Totakacharya and Trotakacharya are both used for the poet-shishya of Adi Shankara in this article and elsewhere. Are both correct and represent the same individual? David Spector (talk) 23:36, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Note that the judge who ruled that Swami Swaroopananda Saraswati was NOT the legitimate Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath did so because the person who appointed him was himself NOT the legitimate Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath. It makes no sense to assert that the guy appointed by Swami Swaroopananda Saraswati as his heir is the legitimate new Shankaracharya given that reasoning. Sparaig2 (talk) 22:00, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

{{Admin help|answered=yes}}

:Referring to my comment, shouldn't this be arbitrated?

:--Sparaig2 (talk) 22:03, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

::I have no idea what you're asking. Shouldn't what be arbitrated?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:20, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

:::Claiming that the guy who was appointed by Swami Swaroopananda Saraswati is now the Shankaracharaya of Jyotirmath just because SSS appointed him makes no sense because the judge ruled that SSS was not really the Shankaracharya because the guy who appointed HIM was not really the Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath in the first place.

:::Unless that has been adjudicated in court, and it isn't mentioned that it has been, there is STILL no Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath and hasn't been since the original ruling. Sparaig2 (talk) 18:03, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

::::Admins do not settle content disputes. You may use dispute resolution. 331dot (talk) 20:52, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

:::::THing is, because of the history of all pages related to TM, they've pretty much banned anyone who practices TM from editing pages, so my impression is that ONLY people who don't do TM are allowed to edit related pages.

:::::And of course, their partisanship isn't an issue at all . I mean, its not like every issue raised by Cocchrane Review contributors concerning TM research and researchers wasn't also targeted to mindfulness researchers. The fact that they explicitly said "researchers on TM and otehr meditaiton practice [are terribly biased]" does't mean that mindfulness research and researchers are terribly biased, and so mindfulness research gets its own page, while the page for TM research was removed. This has had huge consequences throughout the topic. E.G., the TM organization published 5 papers on the physiological correlates of what THEY consider to be samadhi from 1982 to 2002, but because they can't be cited on the TM page, the editors of the samadhi topic justify that as reason not to include them in the samadhi topic pages., while one or two studies from 80-90 years ago ARE cited on the samadhi page. See my point about so-called "dispute resolution?" Sparaig2 (talk) 21:20, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

{{admin help}}

While it is acknowledged that there is no consensus about the existence of a new Shankaracharya in one section, the other sections still assert that the guy appointed by the man who was appointed the new Shankaracharya by the man who was removed by the courts for not being Shankaracharya IS the Shankaracharya.

How can we have a cordial dispute when this kind of blatantly partisan, inconsistent logic is applied to different sections?

In fact, I see no discussion of any kind between editors in this current page. Sparaig2 (talk) 18:13, 4 December 2022 (UTC)