Talk:Hindu philosophy/Archive 1

Unsigned comments

Could someone review the section on the Hindu tradition in ethics? It might better be called Indian tradition since Moghul/Muslim emperors, Jains, etc., and other traditions had much influence, and also since Mohandas Gandhi is so prominent as an ethicists - not everyone thinks he's a Hindu. Right now that page is protected so talk:ethics is a good place to propose rewrites of that section. Thanks.

Do you know anything about hinduism or Gandhi or history at all? The hindu philosophy is as old for Islam as old Islam is for you. Meaning hindu philosophy is many thousand years older than Islam. Mughals can not even count how many grandfathers they have had during that time. Gandhi always relied on Gita during his difficult times he even wrote one translation of Gita and used to teach people what it is about. However Gita is not the source of most of hindu philosophy. source of most of hindu philosophy are Upnishads and oldest of them is at least as old as 900BC.Read history and get yourself acquainted with Upnishads first, before you try to understand what hindu philosophy is. Who told you that Gandhi was not a hindu? Gandhi was a devout hindu. --skant

--

Also, the primary article title should be Hindu philosophy, without a capital "P". This is not a proper noun. The most prominent book by that name can be at Hindu Philosophy, and if there is no consensus, then, it must be a redirect here or at Hindu Philosophy (book). Thanks.

Siddhanta?

I'm trying to work out in my mind where Shaiva Siddhanta tradition fits in with the other strands of Hindu philosophy. Can this be addressed? QuartierLatin1968 21:29, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Shaiva and Vaishnava are not Sidhdhanta, they are sampradyaya. There is a lot in hindu religion compared to any other religion. It has the strongest philosophical base.

Copy-edit

The problem isn't syntax, etc., but tone and style; the article is full of material like: "The philosophical and theological diversity of Hinduism is limitless, being nurtured by the fundamentally eclectic and liberal universalism that is its defining characteristic." It needs to be rewritten in prose that's less purple. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:06, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

My only personal objection to the above-cited sentence was its term "limitless", which does seem hyperbolic. Otherwise, though, the sentence appears to me to offer a fairly precise, and concise, summary of its declared topic: one of the best I've ever come across, in fact. So, how about the following instead:

"The great diversity in the thought and practice of Hinduism is nurtured by the fundamentally eclectic and liberal universalism of its underlying philosophies."

And if there other specific phrases which offend "tone & style" in the same manner, how about listing them here, both so they might be dealt with one-by-one and so others might get a better sense of the style you'd like to see yourself? It seems wise to me, however, to retain the general tone & style of the article as-originally-written, insofar as we can: it appears to have been composed originally by someone her/himself Hindu, and most probably Indian -- and the flavor, of that particular linguistic tone & style of English, to me seems more suitable for this sort of article than would be some form of editor-supplied Westernized / Anglicized prose.

The latter, at its most-dry, is unable to convey the sort of concepts involved in a topic such as "Hindu philosophy", for one thing. And authorial intent generally is better-captured by the original than by editors, for another.

--Kessler 17:16, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

My concern is that the style is wilfully obscure — the worst kind of pseudo-academic writing, full of pointless polysyllables. If clear communication is the aim, the language should be simplified and made more direct. (The content of the sentence is also dubious, in fact.) --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with this last statement. Structurally, the article seems fine to me. However, a lot of the material sounds snowy — words like magic carpets, floating on nothing but air. Cheers, --MILH 18:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I copy-edited quite a bit here and reordered the schools of thought so that they matched with the text. (For example, we read about the "Yoga offshoot" and the next school mentioned is Yoga.) Where these in any particular order before - importance or something? Also, I noticed that the Mimamsa article is cut-pasted into this one - if Mimamsa won't be expanded it should probably be deleted. --will 00:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Also (again): any thoughts on making the six schools their own Level 2 headlines? Right now it's as if the article has the same topic for the title and a heading which seems redundant. --will 00:44, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm just going to do it and if someone hates it please revert. --will 03:00, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Tantra

I'm surprised tantra isn't covered here. It certainly is an important part of many a Hindu tradition and should not be omitted. I'm probably not the best person to write it, but I hope somebody will. --Snowgrouse 02:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Ans: Tantra is not classified as a philosophy. Philosophy by necessity must be a conclusion reached by argument. Tantra is a important part of tradition but not everything associated with religion can be clubbed as philosophy.

Mr. Snowgrouse, you are right. As a hindu from india i see this article as a propaganda of hindu fundamentalists such as RSS(similar to kkk), BJP, VHP. Probably their texts have been lifted & pasted here. For a critical review of hinduism see this http://www.ambedkar.org/ambcd/

--Anirudh777 10:41, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I am tired of your endless nonsense (RSS compared to KKK!). Go find yourself a publication of KKK (if any) and compare it with the literature of RSS. This b.s. of equating a Hindu organisation with KKK is nothing but slandering. Wikipedia is not a propaganda site for jobless people like you.--Babub | Talk 15:25, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, it will be a worthwhile effort for you to figure out who funds http://www.ambedkar.org/ and http://www.dalitstan.org/. deeptrivia (talk) 16:08, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

All of you are off-base. Hindu Philosophy is a description of the six orthodox or aastika schools of Vedic Philosophy. Tantra is a powerful and integral contribution of Hinduism to religious thought. In fact, much of the modern puja or worship practice of Hindus is based on lots of Tantric ideas and rituals. Tantra, in consultation with Yogic philosophy, gave the average Hindu, regardless of caste, a more direct means of expressing and exploring his/her religious and spiritual life. However, Tantra is not technically one of the six darshanas or aastika schools. Like Bhakti, Tantra is a part of greater Hinduism adjunct to the six schools. --68.173.46.79 20:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

These people are much more than off-based. They are frightened. They hardly understand what six schools of hindu philosophy are and simply want to corrupt article. Somebody even talked about BJP/RSS here?? Even on scholary article, they are trying to find BJP/RSS because of their fear. No other religion is feared so much for its good things than Hinduism. If you tell them how old these schools of though are they will panic. If you further write what Volataire said about Upanishads, some of them may come to kill you.

I agree with you. Singling out the few politically active Hindu groups and comparing their multi-ethnic, multi-linguistic, pan-Hindu and worldwide religious movement and philosophy to a racist organization like the KKK is nothing but slander against Hinduism. The writer above seems to have particular motives. Unfortunately there are likely some vested interests from extremists of other religions bent on maligning Hinduism and that will require awareness on our behalf. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LordKrishnaMyHero (talk • contribs) 03:53, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

athiestic darshans

why there is no mention of Nastik darshans. i can claim myself an athiest and still be a hindu. if nobody else has a prob. can i add a article or two about athiestic darshans like charvak. nids 21:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

No, wikipedia is not for professing individual beliefs. If you are a Hindu then that's fine, but you need not write about your beliefs here. Anyway, this article is about the shad-darshana (which itself includes the atheistic Samkhya and Mimamsa}, but Charvaka as well as Jainism are covered under Indian philosophy.--^Babub→Talk 00:47, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

see, charvaka and jainism are under athiestic darshans of hinduism and are wrongly just listed under indian philosophy. i know about hindu philosophy because my mom is a Ph.D. in Sanskrit on the topic of Shad darshan and i still have a copy of her thiesis. i m goin to add that part here myself, but just waitin for any suggestions or objections. nids 19:31, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

This article is specifically about Shad-darshan: Samkhya, Yoga, Vaisheshika, Nyaya, Mimamsa and Vedanta. Add material about these darshans here. About Charvaka and Jaina darshans, you can add in their respective articles.--^Babub→Talk 05:09, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

copyediting

I will be editing this article off and on today, so my apologies if this causes any edit conflicts. I usually do one aspect of grammar, style, format, etc. at a time for the whole document.Shawn Fitzgibbons 19:29, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I have edited the article up to Advaita, and I'm done for the day. I will continue tomorrow.Shawn Fitzgibbons 22:42, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I have reverted some of the recent changes because I felt statments such as "Yoga practitioners are not in agreement on whether Brahman has a personal attribute" are too one-sided in their approach for the reader (it is subtle but still it is apparent) - In order to give an equal playing field to advaita and dvaita schools of thought. Ys, Gouranga(UK) 12:57, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm ok with minor changes, but try not to hack it to death or impose POV on it.Shawn Fitzgibbons 13:29, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I've tried to make this article as consistent as possible with articles it links to in wikipedia. If you absolutely must make changes to the content of the article, please try to find references to support your contention. I'm also glad to discuss any philosophical opinions you may have on my talk page.SFinside 14:08, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

In Acintya: Singularity is an innapropriate word in this context. The philosophy does not go as far as stating that the individual soul and God exist as a single entity. Also to use Brahman as the only descriptive word for the Supreme being is not strictly in accordance to NPOV - that is why I do not agree with the recent changes. Other viewpoints are given as 'possible theories' only. Also many words are not wiki-linked. It is just the yoga and acintya sections where I see this being an issue. Ys, Gouranga(UK) 12:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Yoga's primary text

In the formal sense of the orthodox Yogic school, the primary text is the Yoga Sutras, which developed a lot of the strains of Upanishadic thought and the seminal teachings of the Bhagavad Gita. The Bhagavad Gita is the main text only in conjunction with the Yoga Sutras and this should be more clearly highlighted in this explanation to maintain accuracy and, additionally, proper coordination with the main Yoga article. --68.173.46.79 21:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Buddhi Yoga? and Raja Yoga

Karma Yoga, Bhakti Yoga, and Jnana Yoga have good links and are well described. But Buddhi Yoga isn't. I removed the link to Buddhi only , because it is not explaining Buddhi Yoga at all, and it is better to have a void link than a misleading link. Perhaps Buddhi Yoga needs to be stricken? What about Raja Yoga which the other three pages do mention? Gschadow 22:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Ideally someone could create the Buddhi Yoga article which having a blind link may encourage (rather than it just going to Buddhi). Raja Yoga is not mentioned by name in the Bhagavad-Gita and is already linked slightly lower down in the yoga paragraph so I do not feel Buddhi-yoga should redirect there. Buddhi, if not perfect, would seem more appropriate to me than any other links in that instance. Ys, Gouranga(UK) 20:57, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

"abstruse Vedanta" what??? - and a request regarding date claims

What does this mean?

The more abstruse Vedanta is the essence of the Vedas, as encapsulated in the Upanishads. Vedantic thought drew on Vedic cosmology, hymns and philosophy. The Brihadaranyaka Upanishad appeared as far back as 3,500 years ago. While thirteen or so Upanishads are accepted as principal, over a hundred exist. The most significant contribution of Vedantic thought is the idea that self-consciousness is continuous with and indistinguishable from consciousness of Brahman.

Can people please begin to critically support such datings? With the Rig Veda dated about 1500 BCE, which is 3500 years ago, how can an Upanishad, even if it's an Upanishad associated with the Rig Veda Samhita, be dated as far back as that? Thanks. Gschadow 22:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

What is Vedic Brahminism?

I propose that brahminism be deleted from the introduction. It is a european term unintelligible to hindus. In europe, the protestants saw catholic priests as the ones who corrupted God's true message. When these very protestants came as colonisers to India, they saw hindu religion with the same model and saw brahmins as the "priests" that corrupted God's true message and transformed hinduism into paganism. But this view makes no sense to hindus. There is no term Brahmana dharma or brahmanatva. Brahminism is just a european ideological term and not a translation of any equivalent sanskrit word. I propose to delete it under NPOV --SV 20:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

As long as the article - Brahmanism - exists in Wikipedia we cannot really use the above argument to delete any references or links to it. However, I have replaced it with Vedic Religion which seems more appropriate in this instance. Regards, Gouranga(UK) 21:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

The existence of brahminism is not an issue since westerners do use it. But the issue is that it is NOT a description of hinduism of itself and so should not find a mention in the article on hindu philosophy.

I also see that you have reverted my edits. The intro says - "The criterion for these six schools was that they partly derived from and accepted the authority of the Vedas, while clearly developing their own strains of thought". Not only is the above false it is also illogical. Acceptance of authority contradicts "developing own strain". The reason why the six schools developed their own strains is because they accepted vedas as an authoritative guide and NOT as absolute authority.

--SV 21:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I take your point and have removed the sentance, it wasn't even clear in what it said. I believe we should ideally avoid any generalisations of this type (or counter-type) in the article in order to keep it as neutral as possible. Thanks for pointing this out. Regards, Gouranga(UK) 11:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

What to do about forking?

Does anyone have a good suggestion on how to reduce forking between this article and Indian philosophy which of necessity covers much of the same ground, being a superset of Hindu philosphy? Buddhipriya 19:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The other article looks to be coming more from an historical rather than a philosophical perspective. Do you think it might help to re-name to History of Indian Philosophy, linking to this article for a more detailed overview of the philosophies? Ys, Gouranga(UK) 10:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The concept of Indian philosophy includes non-Hindu philosophies such as Buddhism. The two need to be kept distinct I think. I would avoid renaming to History of Indian Philosphy because that would created more forking potential such as what I am trying to unscramble now with Shaivism and History of Shaivism. Probably Dab's suggestion that the Indian Philosphy article be a set of stubs to detail articles such as Hindu philosphy is best, but I am still unsure of the best approach, as the component articles are all very weak. There has been quite a bit of conflict on the articles related to Hinduism and Buddhism regarding the history of the relation between those two systems, and that subject is related as well. It is an interesting topic that is very poorly handled now. Buddhipriya 19:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I actually don't see Indian philosophy and Hindu philosophy as forks. Rather the two articles discuss related issues at different resolutions/depths, with the latter subject being the most prominent component of the former. Continuing down the chain (or more accurately tree) are articles on individual schools of Hindu philosophy and going up, are more general articles on philosophy. This non-linear, multi-resolution structure is IMO a distinct advantage rather than a problem, since it allows the reader to choose the depth to which he/she wants to study a topic. We simply need to ensure that the "Hindu Philosophy section" of the Indian philosophy article is an accurate summary of the topic discussed in this article - but that is an issue handled regularly on wikipedia when dealing with topics of sufficient breadth. Abecedare 20:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I think I probably am just ignorant of the best term to use. The issue I am seeing is redundancy between multiple articles, and what policies, if any, cover how to maintain consistency across articles that have the type of rollup structure that you describe. It would seem easiest from a maintenance point of view to keep the higher level article as short as possible, with referral down to the detail article. If that is so, then one approach would be to move detail out of Indian philosophy down to Hindu philosophy, and correspondingly move general material up in the other direction. Does that make sense, and are there any Wiki guidelines on this? I am seeing very similar issues with the complex of articles on Shaivism that I have been interested in lately. Buddhipriya 20:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you that editors needs to decide what depth of discussion is appropriate for an article, and details beyond that point should be moved to the more specialized article (so called "main articles" on the subject). WP:SS provides some pointers in this regards, but eventually this is a matter of editorial judgment rather than wikipedia policy and hence needs to be handled on a case-by-case basis on the respective articles' talk page.

So yes, any details about Hindu philosophy should be added to this article first. Note though that "general material" on Hindu philosophy (for example, that it arose on the Indian sub-continent, starting ~ 2000 BCE (or whatever); has six main schools etc) should be discussed in both articles. So there should be redundancy between the articles with the view that anyone who has read the Hindu Philosophy article should learn nothing new from reading the "Hindu Philosophy" section of the Indian philosophy article!

Please let me know if my replies are addressing the issue you have in mind, because it is quite possible that we are talking at cross purposes :-) Abecedare 21:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Raja Yoga / Yoga

I'm not really convinced at having Raja Yoga as the main link under Yoga? Either the section needs to be re-written to explain things more clearly, or surely the main Yoga link is more appropriate? Anyone else think differently? Gouranga(UK) 10:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the main link should be to Yoga as there are various forking problems with Raja Yoga. Buddhipriya 19:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Rāja yoga - Raja Yoga and others redirect. Wakari07 (talk) 09:37, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Shaivism, Shaktism, Tantra and Trika?

Hi there. Some of the most significant parts of the Hindu philosophical thinking are missing from the list. Is Tantra not a part of the Hindu philosophy? It is also missing in the parallel article Indian philosophy. Also, Kashmir Shaivism and other forms of Shaivism and Shaktism. Am I correct to think they should be added sometimes in the future (soon hopefully)? Visarga 16:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

these are various Hindu denominations that grew out of Vedanta in the Middle Ages, not classical schools of Hindu philosophy. They are duly addressed elsewhere, above all at the Hinduism article itself. --dab (𒁳) 08:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Why are sages like Atri, Yagnavalkya, Dattatreya, Ashtavakra etc - the authors of the Upanishads missing

Shoudn't they be under the people/ancient section? 24.10.195.188 (talk) 10:12, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Vi

um, why? This is the article on the classical Darshanas, not the one on the Upanishads. For a discussion of the individual sages you mention, you want the Rishi article. --dab (𒁳) 08:53, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

If other sages and modern pan-Hindu philosophy is not going to be discussed, then the name of this page is a misnomer. It should be titled "Historic Darshana" or something of the sort. "Hindu philosophy" implies a comprehensive analysis of a broad topic and if you don't even include the contemporary and currently most popular pan-Hindu Jagruti philosophy, then the title should be altered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LordKrishnaMyHero (talk • contribs) 03:21, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Huh!

Section Samkhya says:

In the West, dualism is between the mind and the body, whereas in Samkhya it is between the soul and matter.{{huh}}

Eeeh... "Mind" is just a rewording of "soul", and "body" shall not be interpreted literally in the phrase "mind and body". The phrase "mind and body" actually means "soul and matter", not "brain-substance and the rest of the body". ... said: Rursus (bork²) 16:56, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Article needs revision

The article speaks of darsanas and not indian philosophy, so that requires a change of name.. Also, needs more citations and formatting. The six darsanas are traditionally accepted but needs better citation. I'll try revise some parts of the article if others don't mind. leaflord (talk) 15:01, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Dates for Aksapada Gautama

In looking at various Wikipedia articles on Hindu philosophy, I noticed that the dates for Aksapada Gautama range from 6th century BC (e.g., List of Hindus), to 2nd century BC (e.g., this article) to 2nd century AD (e.g., Nyāya Sūtras). The only dates that seem to be given a reference are the 2nd century AD ones. Does anyone know what the currently accepted dates are for him?

All the best. –Syncategoremata (talk) 15:32, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Samkhya

Why can't we start the introduction of Samkhya with referring to Sage Kapila and his texts? We have not mentioned about anything in this Samkhya section! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krish rdkb (talk • contribs) 08:49, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Advaita

This section is not written from a neutral point of view and it missed all essential teachings of "Advaita Vedanta".

Incorrect views in the section:

1. "He saw this form as that of Vishnu."
- This point is not agreeable, if the word "Vishnu" means some particular, individual God having a form. Adi Shankracharya, always equated "Vishnu" to "Brahman". The word "Vishnu" means: "He who pervades every thing". He always negated that "Brahman" is having any particular form.

2. "Ishvara is the manifestation of Brahman to human minds under the influence of an illusionary power called Avidya."

- This is not entirely correct. Ishvara is not due to "Avidya" but due to "Maya". The difference between "Avidya" and "Maya" is: "Avidya" is individual ignorance, where as "Maya" is collective ignorance. So, when one removes his/her own "Avidya", world doesn't disappear as "Maya" still persists for others.

3. "The main confusion is that when the advaita/advaitis believe Lord Shiva as the greatest, how do they chant "Bhaja Govindam" which is in praise of Lord Vishnu."

- This is absolute non-sense. This sentence is a misfit and without any citation. It is not a piece of information but a question. Perhaps this question has been posed by a "Vaishnava follower". I do not object to any such discussions, but it should not be done in the main article. Adviata Vendanta proclaims the supremacy of "Bramhan". The names like "Siva" and "Vishnu" are synonymous (see Vishnu Sahashra naama) and point to same ultimate reality.

The essential teachings of Advaita-Vedanta:

1. "Brahman" is the only basic principle which is "Sat", i.e. which exists independently in all the time without any change.

2. The entire world and all the dualities are due to "Maya". "Maya" is the illusionary and creative aspect of "Brahman", and it is neither existent nor non-existent, but appears to exist temporarily. As the basis of any illusionary object is a true and self-existing object, similarly the basis of "Maya" is the never changing "Brahman".

3. There is no non-existing principle or "Asat", ever exists. So, "Maya" is not "non-existent".

4. Individual soul and the supreme Brahman are one and the same. The seeming duality is because of "Avidya" or ignorance. When the ignorance is removed only one reality remains.

5. In the field of Maya, the supreme can be viewed by the individual soul as "Ishwara". Worshiping Ishwara with devotion, subsequently leads to mental purification, which is the indirect cause of removal of ignorance.

6. The only direct cause of removal of ignorance of duality is "Atma Vidya" or Self-knowledge.

Sabyasachi Mishra (talk) 06:09, 17 January 2011 (UTC) Sabyasachi Mishra

Disbelieve in God ?

I think we need a fresh look at the Samkya Philosophy and its semantics; The argument of disbelieving in God by Samkhya School is untenable. The said reference in the main article could be just authors interpretation of text in isolated context. The best story which I remember comes from Rudra Samhita of Shiv Purana where Goddess Parvati had a long discussion with Lord Shiv on his or her existence in this creation and their intermigling roles; this details the very existence of samkhya school and its teachings. Avid reader may verify. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.95.101.171 (talk) 10:25, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree. It's apparently a statement based on one single Gbooks citation. I'm sure one can find more scholars supporting the Samkhya belief in Brahman. Should not be difficult and take two years to debunk such a, seems to me untrue, statement. Wakari07 (talk) 09:20, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

DoneWakari07 (talk) 09:34, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Here are a few more references that represent Samkhya as an atheistic philosophy – [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. Your rewording in the Samkhya section was also inappropriate because the reference explicitly translates Iśvara as God. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 10:01, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Stupid behaviour. Isvara is not God. This is inciting ignorance, even more dangerous than inciting hatred. Wakari07 (talk) 17:33, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Please stick to talk page guidelines, this is the second time you've used objectionable language. As for translating Isvara as God, that is how the reference translates it.[8] We can't change it to please anyone. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 17:42, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

So can anyone cut and page sentences into here and claim anything without context? That's not how it works. I may me a bit condescending in my words, for which i apologise, but i am really shocked at the bottomless level of ignorance expressed by that single sentence. Wakari07 (talk) 17:49, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

If your argument is that Isvara is not God, Brahman is, it should be taken up at their articles not here. Majority of Samkhya scholars translate Isvara as God. Please also note, the discordance between Isvara and Brahman is a characteristic of Upanishads and Advaita Vedanta. Yoga and Samkhya do not share the same interpretation. Hopefully, this helps. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 17:57, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

No, my argument is that it is well explained and sourced elsewhere in the article that Samkhya, certainly in its origins, is "not theistic". That says it doesn't talk about God (or whatever god). Please try to go beyond Western-programmed words. God is a word inspired by mind-body division, whereas Samkhya thinks the main "division" is between soul and matter. Isvara is out of the equation for Samkhya. This article is about Samkhya, not about connotations of the syntactical entity "God". Wakari07 (talk) 18:05, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Btw: WP:BRD has in the lead: "care and diplomacy should be exercised". Wakari07 (talk) 18:12, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Please wait for my arguments before removing sourced content. Nandalal Sinha, in his detailed translation and commentary on Samkhya literature, writes that Samkhya is Nir-Isvara (godless). In fact, Samkhya Karika, the oldest surviving literature of Samkhya school, in Verses I.92-I.96 and III.54-56, gives many arguments against the idea of eternal, self-caused, creator God. The arguments and reference are given here. Please read them. It is a misnomer to say Samkhya does not deny Isvara. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 18:14, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Btw2, at CK's request, this discussion is continued from Talk:Samkhya#Denial of existence of God?

I think it is rude behaviour to input conflict. As you state it yourself (citing Samkhya Karika), it does not "deny the existence of God", it is *merely* "against the idea of an eternal, self-caused, Isvara". The nuance is essential and should not be left out anywhere in this article. I think the sentence as it stands makes a fundamental translation error (translating Isvara by God, which is an absolute simplism) and a fundamental lack of thoughtful balance. Let's not import "God" where He is not needed, i.e. where men must handle themselves the situations they created. Wakari07 (talk) 18:22, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

This is a translation of verses from the Samkhya Karika:

... these, however, do not allude to an eternal, uncaused Isvara (God), but are only eulogies of such Jivas or Incarnate Selves as are going to be freed, or of the Yogins, human as well as super-human, who have attained perfection by the practice of Yoga. (I. 95)
Neither is the existence of God as the moral governor of the world, proved; for, if God Himself produce the consequences of acts, He would do so even without the aid of Karma; on the other hand, if His agency in this respect be subsidiary to that of Karma, then let Karma itself be the cause of its consequences; what is the use of a God? (V. 2-9)

Please note how God and Isvara are used interchangeably by the translator (N. Sinha). Same is true of many other scholars. If you have a reference which does not translate Isvara as God please share it here. Otherwise, I don't see what we can do here. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 18:34, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Can we close this? Sankhya, in general, does not talk about Isvara (so-called God), but about people's responsibilities. The inclusion of the artificial controversy - including the sentences "Samkhya denies the existence of Ishvara (God) or any other exterior influence.[7]", "Samkhya, a strongly dualist theoretical exposition of mind and matter, that denies the existence of God." and "Samkhya denies the existence of Ishvara(God).[6]" in the body and lead of this article (and in Samkhya) - is, in my view, not needed, until we can find a much more balanced wording. Motion for closure. Wakari07 (talk) 18:48, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I accept changing the lead to Samkhya is an atheistic and strongly dualist theoretical exposition of mind and matter. Does this sound more balanced? Is this acceptable? Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 18:54, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

That would be a start, but not enough. I mean, fix all the occurrences. Wakari07 (talk) 18:58, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Let's start with that, we'll wait for other editors to weigh in on the neutrality of Samkhya section. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 19:05, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

What about "Samkhya, a non-theistic and strongly dualist theoretical exposition of mind and matter." for the lead? For me that leaves enough research possibilities open for the interested reader while remaining compact. I would certainly agree on such a type of sentence for the lead. It's generally "soul and matter", "Purusha and Prakṛti" which is the line of distinction in the meant dualism. However we tranlate it ('mind' is not preferred, but acceptable) is less important as long as we refer/link to the original (which is the lemma base descriptor, article title, in Sanskrit or sometimes the Pali spelling.Wakari07 (talk) 19:14, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Keeping in line with Wikipedia's verifiability policy calling Samkhya non–theistic would require sources. In fact it would require multiple sources because majority of sources (7 of which are given in my first comment) call Samkhya atheistic. I think you will find the essay Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth helpful. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 19:24, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Truth is easily verifiable, that's not the point. At least atheistic, "without god", means about the same, less a connotation, as non-theistic (which is more precise than using 'atheism' in this context - Agnosticism would be more fit in my view, but hey). Then we have two more occurrences. Can we remove them or change, in this body, "existence" in "omnipotence" or "prevalence" and remove the mention of God? I would agree to have something like "Samkhya denies the all-determining nature of Ishvara." if you insist on it. For the third occurrence, in the Samkhya article, i suggest to simply remove it from the lead. Are there other occurrences? Opinions? Wakari07 (talk) 19:34, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Non-theism and atheism might be similar, but they are not the same. That is why wikipedia has two different articles on them. Hence, I have to insist again that you find sources to show Samkhya is non–theistic or agnostic. Please note, Purusha is translated as consciousness not mind. And while we changed the lead here, changing anything in the Samkhya article will require a separate discussion there because that article is detailed WP:SPINOUT, whereas this is just a summary. I requested you to discuss here first so as to not duplicate my arguments on Samkhya. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 19:53, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

as long as we don't link to 'atheism' it's ok for me. But the other occurrences are exactly the discussion here. I see no reason to move it anywhere (except to Samkhya) maybe. It's your call (again). Where shall we discuss now? Wakari07 (talk) 20:05, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

We can discuss the issues you have with the Samkhya article at Talk:Samkhya. For problems with this article, feel free to continue here. We have to fork our discussions at this point. Till tomorrow then. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 20:10, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

That's not serious. There is one occurrence left in the body of this article. Wakari07 (talk) 20:13, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

If you go to sleep, i remove the statement "Samkhya denies the existence of Ishvara(God).[6]" and propose this one here: "Samkhya denies that Ishvara (some translate it as "God") is omnipotent.". What do you think? Personally i think it is superfluous to mention as this is clear if you read the article. Also, discussion of the word "God" should happen near the sentence " Originally, Samkhya was not theistic, but in confluence with Yoga it developed a theistic variant." which is not directly referenced either, but nevertheless quite true i think. Wakari07 (talk) 20:24, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Also accepting your proposal for 'consciousness' instead of 'mind' for Purusha (consensus). Wakari07 (talk) 20:32, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Please don't removed referenced statements like this. If you have something new to bring to the table regarding this, please feel free to share it. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 10:42, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I thought i was waiting an answer from you. It is you who disrupts the body of work here. I also saw other editors becoming annoyed. Wakari07 (talk) 21:44, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

The sentence you've removed for the fourth time[9] is reliably referenced and therefore meets Wikipedia's verifiability policy. The burden is on you to give adequate reasons for removing it. Please self–revert your last edit, there is no point in edit warring. I've tried my best to convince you with references (7 of them) and with verses from the Samkhyakarika, in my previous posts. As such, I can always provide more references for this sentence (see another one). However, I doubt this will convince you. Please note, I did not write this sentence and am open to rewording it provided you make reasonable arguments backed by reliable sources. However, if you continue to remove referenced content like this, sooner or later you'll attract stricter action. Regards. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 07:46, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

PS You have also misrepresented a reference at the article on Samkhya.[10] Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policy. I'll refrain from making any reverts there till our discussion here is finished. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 07:51, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Contents of this article need to be improved

I went through the entire sections of this page and related contents and found that people are posting their own researchs and opinions about Indian Philosophy and different schools of thought without heeding the real contents of the matter and context. Since philosophy is a subject of interpretations, this main page about Indian Philosophy must embrace a rationale and unbiased view of the contents and should posit the provenance of philosophy and a genesis of different schools bringing all the schools under one umbrella.59.95.101.171 (talk) 11:11, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I entirely agree with your opinion. Every contributer should write from a neutral point if view in the "Article" page. The sections should be informative and all the important aspects should be covered (in brief of course). The statements like "Dvaita is undoubtedly the greatest philosophy because after the introduction of Dvaita, there is no other philosophy which is in contrary to it."(in the section Advaita) clearly shows the biased judgement of the contributer and Wikipedia is not the right place to advocate the supremacy of one's own person belief. The article should be written in such a manner that, it can clearly convey the important aspects of all major philosophical schools of Hinduism and the similarities and the dissimilarities among them should be apparent; without saying which one is contributer's favorite. Sabyasachi Mishra (talk) 06:23, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Comparative table?

Could something like this be helpful for this article? Wiki-uk (talk) 13:52, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Hinduism- A Infinito-Theist Religion.

There has been a perennial debate (since long time) whether Hinduism is a monotheist, or polytheist or atheist religion. Hinduism is actually an 'Infinito-Theist' religion. As per Hindu texts like vedas and upanishads god is 'anaadi' and 'annant', i.e. infinite and non quantifiable. When we say God is one, or more than one , we are trying to quantify and measure the god. Even when we say there is no God or Zero God , we are doing the same. But as per original Hindu philosophy, God is non quantifiable i.e it cannot be measured. God is Infinite in terms of proportion, size, span, even in time. Infinity of God also signifies infinite possibilites of God. Thus One God, Two God, 33 Crore Gods, No God are actually various possibilites and aspects of Infinite God. As per Hindu philosophy god is also omnipresent, permeates through out the entire Universe and is present in each and every particle, space and wave present in universe (Kan Kan may Ishwar Vidyaman) i.e infinite in span. That's why Hindus can worship the entire universe. Depending on his capacity, capability and personal interest a Hindu can worship idols, animals, living persons, dead persons, as god lies in virtually everything. Thus, Hinduism is the only religion in the world to recognise monotheism, polytheism, atheism, agnosticism, animism etc. This feature makes it a mother of all religions. Thus a Hindu can be an athiest, like Kapil Muni. Hindus are permitted to dismiss, criticise or even reject any of its sacred texts and yet remain a Hindu. For example, Chaarwak rejected Vedas, yet he remained a Hindu. One more intersting thing I would like to add, that every knows Hindus have invented Zero. But only few people knows that Hindus have also invented Infinity. So, lets promote Hinduism as Infinito-Theist Religion.-Rajesh Kumar69 (talk) 05:43, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, let's not "promote" anything. Ogress _smash! 05:48, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Still interesting, and fun. Paradigm shift ;p Wakari07 (talk) 19:50, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Hinduism- A Quantum-Relativistic Religion

Unlike semetic religions like Judaism, Christianity and Islam, which are "absolutist'religions, Hinduism is Quantum-Relativisic religion. As per Hinduism, truth depends on the viewers, i.e. truth for one person can be falsehood for second person and half truth for third person, which can be called as Quantum View point.For as per Hinduism there is nothing like absolute truth or perfection. Truth or Perfection are always compartive in nature, i.e Relativistic view point. Thus as per Hinduism even God is infallible.This Quantum-Relativity of Hinduism not only make it tolerent ,but also enable it to continously redefine itself. This ability of redifine itself has made it worlds oldest surving and flourishing religion.This Quantum-Relativity also makes it an Unorganized relgion, a reilgion without central authority, numerous books, numerous contradictory ideologies and sects etc.Actually, it is not a single religion, but a cofedration or conglomeration of numerous and ever increasing religions , originated at differnt time, and amalgamated with mainstream Hinuism, while retaining thier original character. In Fact notion of mainstream Hinduism has also changed from time to time.Thus, it is World's only Unorganized Relgion, which makes it unique and great.Rajesh Kumar69 (talk) 06:22, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Importing from a section on 'philosophy in the Vedas'

I think that the section on philosophy in Historical Vedic religion should be imported and merged into this article.CorrectKnowledge (talk) 18:43, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree, it seems to fit very much with this topic. Adelle Frank (talk) 16:57, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Sanskrit spelling

I would like to talk about the use of unambiguous Sanskrit transliteration here and in general on Wikipedia. Would this be the right place? Personally I'm very much in favour of having the IAST spelling. All over if possible, maybe not for lemmas in real general use as nirvāṇa or so, but why not? I see no reason to not have Nyāya, Vaiśeṣika, Vaiśeṣika Sūtra ‎and other lemma's. A reference text necessarily must use precise, unambiguous transliteration, so it often even includes Devanāgarī for more options. Wakari07 (talk) 22:00, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I found a discussion on Talk:Patanjali#Requested move where some managed to rename Patañjali. Wakari07 (talk) 22:40, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

The answer is 42: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Indic) Wakari07 (talk) 22:45, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

As you may have already noticed at Talk:Patanjali#Requested move, WP:COMMONNAME reigned supreme. I undid some of your moves for the same reason. If you think its time to change lot of article titles to Indic convention, take it up at WT:IN. I am okay with either of the conventions, but a consensus is required on this. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 06:49, 21 September 2012 (UTC)