Talk:Hindu philosophy

Why are samkhya and Mimasa included in Astika schools

If my knowledge of sanskrit is correct then astika means theism. Both Samkhya and Mimasa deny the existence of god making them nastika(Atheist). The traditional schools need not be astika if Samkhya and Mimasa are included in them.

There is also a theistic school of Sankhya as expounded in the 3rd canto (chapters 26-27) of Srimad Bhagavatam which is considered older than the atheistic school. Both are headed by persons called Kapila, the theistic Kapila is an incarnation of God and mentioned in the puranas, Ramayana and Mahabharat. The atheist seems to have adoped the name Kapila to create confusion. It seems that the atheists promote the atheistic version of Samkhya denying the theistic version even exists. The atheistic version is trounced in the Vedanta sutras.

Mimamsa is not a philosophy by a system of ananlysis like Hermanuetics. There is Purva Mimamsa aka Karma Mimamsa and the other is Uttara Mimamsa aka Vedanta. Since both accept the authority of the Vedas they are Astikya 24.139.24.163 (talk) 17:59, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

No, āstika and nāstika do not straightforwardly mean "atheism" and "theism." See Nicholson 2013's discussion about the changing understanding of these terms in Sanskrit texts, from Manusmṛti onwards. As the terms broadly refer to someone who affirms something, from Sanskrit asti, or denies something from na asti, the issue is what that person affirms or denies, which varied over time, depending on the doxographers. This could include reviling the Vedas, denying the existence of an afterlife, rejecting Vedic ritual praxis, etc. maljikthise (talk) 02:09, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

References

Cowell & Gough

This 1882 source is too old, but the only source in parts of Shaivism section. It needs to be updated with recent scholarly literature. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 23:48, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: I am unable to verify Cowell & Gough used the term "Agama and Tantra schools". Did you see somewhere? Here is the text: The Sarva-Darsana-Samgraha or Review of the Different Systems of Hindu Philosophy by Madhava Acharya. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 10:56, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

1882, that's very old... Anyway: "agama" is mentioned on;y once, at p.122; "tantra" is mentioned five times. Makes it a dubious source, doesn't it? Doesn't Flood mention something on tantras and heterodoxy? Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:10, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

@JJ: Will cross check Flood. Thanks. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:20, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

It would be curious to exclude the tantras and agamas, wouldn't it? Yet, this seems to be the common stance. But that would mean that the Brahmanical orthodoxy defines what is "philosophy," and what is not. And that also means that, according to this orthodoxy, Buddhism is a philosophy, but Tantra is not. Strange... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:23, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

As we speak, see Alain Daniélou (1987), While the Gods Play: Shaiva Oracles and Predictions on the Cycles of History and the Destiny of Mankind, p.32-33, for a commentary. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:32, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

@JJ: Thanks, interesting indeed. Over pages 31 to 35, Daniélou is suggesting Agamas are pre-Aryan, older than the Vedas, the Upanishads and the Bhagavad Gita. The original Agamas are lost, he writes. Sumerian temples plans can be traced to these super ancient Indian Agamas, he posits. Interesting, but speculative. He acknowledges that this is not the majority scholarly view. I wonder if it belongs in this article, yet. What do you think? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:42, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

@JJ: Gavin Flood (1996, An Introduction to Hinduism, ISBN 978-0521438780), over pages 136-137 and 155-170, mirrors the summary in the article, on the syncretic nature of theistic sub-schools. Flood writes on page 158, in contrast to Daniélou, "the tantras/agamas/pancartra samhita" cannot be dated before 600 CE at the very earliest. Both Hindu and Buddhist tantric material can be shown to have been derived from Shaiva sources, states Flood. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:01, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

It's clear that Daniélou does not belong in the article. The characterisation, or division, of Indian philosophies is intriguing, though: who determines what is philosophy, and what is not? Which power-mechanisms have been at work? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:25, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes! Richard King (2007 (1999)), Indian Philosophy, p.45: "Clearly, the notion that there are six basic systems of thought gained considerable authority during this period, but authors continued to provide radically different accounts of wat constituted those six, sometimes including Saiva philosophy as a school and also constructing such categories as 'the Nastika school' to accommodate a 'multitude of sins'." Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:47, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

@JJ: You ask, "Which power-mechanisms have been at work?" Perhaps, the power of modern and post-modern scholarly convenience!! Hindu philosophy, like Greek philosophy, has been diverse. Some study them with child-like curiosity, some stereotype them with schizophrenia-like anxiety.

Indeed, lets keep those speculations of Daniélou out of this article. Daniélou was generally good, and much of his scholarship was quite productive. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 23:52, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Hindu philosophy or Indian philosophy

@Joshua Jonathan: I have been thinking about your question above, "who determines what is philosophy, and what is not? Which power-mechanisms have been at work?" I add to my reply above. I will keep it terse, out of the concern that wikipedia talk page is not a forum.

In the history of language and concepts, words follow history, never lead. Word(s), phrases and nomenclature summarize what Man has already been sensing or thinking, they aren't a "big bang from nothing" event. Thus etymologically, the first use of the English-language terms Greek and Greek philosophy are traceable to 14th century, the terms Christianity and Christian philosophy is traceable to early 16th century, the terms Buddhism, Zen and Buddhist philosophy to 18th century, and so on. Yet, the ideas that these words and phrases encompass existed long before those centuries. Hinduism and Hindu philosophy, and more generally India and Indian philosophy for that matter, has a similar history. All of these are words or phrases that follow the history of Man, are tools of general correspondence and scholarly convenience for the communication and discussion of ideas. This article should, as you too have commented elsewhere, encyclopedically summarize what reliable sources include in the phrase "Hindu philosophy". Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:09, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Page move from Hindu Philosophy to Saḍdarśana

@VictoriaGrayson: This move is inappropriate. We need to stick with the sources, and use WP:COMMONNAME. Look at the sources in the article, and the most common name is Hindu Philosophy. Wiki articles need to be searchable and per WP:TITLE. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:54, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

@Titodutta:, @Utcursch: can one of you please revert the move, as it seems that needs admin privileges. The proposed page move by @VictoriaGrayson needs discussion and consensus per WP:RM#CM. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:54, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Looks like you already moved it. I agree, a requested move is needed here. utcursch | talk 01:59, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Article name should be "Indian Philosophy" or "Shad darsana" and not the current "Hindu philosophy", which implies Vedic, as the article encompasses schools that are irreligious and that don´t depend on the Vedas. As currently stated, article is Not-WP:Neutral, in that by subsuming the others under it, it assumes the primacy of Vedanta. Will request an article move. Regards, Jaredscribe (talk) 00:09, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 21 March 2016

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No clear consensus to move, after extended discussion. Perhaps Saḍdarśana should be its own article, and this article should be further expanded to serve as an umbrella including modern Hindu philosophies that deviate from the traditional schools. bd2412 T 04:05, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Hindu philosophy → Saḍdarśana – The content of this article and the related template are not about Hindu philosophy. They are about a specific late medieval schema of categorizing 6 philosophies, known as the Saḍdarśana. The sources already in the article, such as Unifying Hinduism, are abundantly clear on this. VictoriaGrayson^Talk 02:44, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Survey

• Move - Per above.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 02:45, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. The title should be based on the guidelines in WP:TITLE, WP:RECOGNIZABLE and what reliable sources commonly use. Here is what the reliable sources in the article state:

[1] Roy Perrett, page 60, Philosophy of Religion, Routledge, Quote: "Hindu philosophy in India evolved in six major forms. They are known as darsanas, or six classical schools of Hinduism;

[2] M Chadha (2015), pages 127-128, The Routledge Handbook of Contemporary Philosophy of Religion, Routledge, "The sacred texts of the Hindus, the Vedas, are variously interpreted by the six traditional Hindu philosophical schools";

[3] Encyclopedia Britannica (2015), Vedanta - Hindu Philosophy;

[4] Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2015), Perceptual Experience and Concepts in Classical Indian Philosophy, Quote: "The Advaita Vedānta theory compromises on the realism of earlier classical Hindu philosophy."

[5] Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Hindu Philosophy, Quote: "Hindu philosophy, thus understood, not only includes the philosophical doctrines present in Hindu texts of primary and secondary religious importance, but also the systematic philosophies of the Hindu schools: Nyaya, Vaishesika, Sankhya, Yoga, Purvamimamsa and Vedanta."

[6] Andrew Nicholson, page 2, Unifying Hinduism, Quote: "The thesis of this book is (...) as the six systems (ṣaḍdarśana) of mainstream Hindu philosophy".

That should be enough WP:RS. Even Nicholson is using the phrase "Hindu philosophy". Stick with the sources, and WP:TITLE guidelines. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 03:48, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

• Support per "They are about a specific late medieval schema of categorizing 6 philosophies, known as the Saḍdarśana." Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:23, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: Would acknowledging this in the main article suffice? The article does mention sub-schools of Hindu philosophy such as Dvaita, Advaita, Vaishnavism, Shaivism etc. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:44, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

• Move - As per above reasons. Filpro (talk) 00:38, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
• Additional comment: Wikipedia already has an old article Darśana. Why duplicate and create WP:CFORK issues, why not improve the Darśana article? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 03:19, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
• Additional comment 2: The ṣaḍdarśanas are Hindu philosophy, but not all Hindu philosophies are ṣaḍdarśana. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 03:19, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

These comments should be below.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 03:25, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose This article has a long history, and even its earliest versions in 2003 started by defining Hindu philosophy as comprising the 6 branches. Besides, the proposed move would apply a native title, which is contrary to WP:ENGLISH policy. I also agree with reasons outlined above by Ms Sarah Welch. — JFG ^talk 04:35, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

Ms. Sarah Welch's selectively quoted or bolded above:

• Roy Perrett, page 60, Philosophy of Religion, Routledge, Quote: "Hindu philosophy in India evolved in six major forms. They are known as darsanas, or six classical schools of Hinduism;
• Encyclopedia Britannica (2015), Vedanta - Vedanta, one of the six systems (darshans);
• Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Hindu Philosophy, Quote: "Systematic Hindu Philosophy: the Darśanas"
• Andrew Nicholson, page 2, Unifying Hinduism, Quote: "The thesis of this book is (...) as the six systems (ṣaḍdarśana) of mainstream Hindu philosophy".VictoriaGrayson^Talk 04:47, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

And arguing about the phrase 'Hindu philosophy' is a Straw man, since this article is *not* about Hindu philosophy. This article is about a specific 6 category schema created by 12th-16th century Vedantins. Hence the move.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 05:06, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

• Note that the title used by Encyclopedia Britannica is "Hindu philosophy", and it mentions Vedanta as one of six Darshanas in the main article. That is what this article already does. The title is, and should be, the common name in WP:RS. It is incorrect to allege that this article is only about 6 category schema. It includes Shaiva and its subschools (Pāśupata Śaiva, Śaiva siddhānta), Vaiṣṇava, Dvaita, Advaita, and others subschools, see the table and elsewhere. The article has a long Shaivism section. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:44, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Note there is no Encyclopedia Brittanica article called Hindu philosophy.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 15:55, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

@VictoriaGrayson: Encyclopedia Brittanica has some 40,000 articles, wikipedia over 5,000,000. Will you accept the compromise proposal that [1] we add and improve sections such as Shaivism, Vaishnavism, etc [2] add a short summary of Hindu philosophies from Agama (Hinduism), Tantra etc?, [3] welcome sections you propose? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:44, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

@Malaiya, AmritasyaPutra, Sdmarathe, Adiagr, and HemaChandra88: Pinging more Hinduism editors for neutral input.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 20:48, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Maybe create another article with the title षड्दर्शन, as the connotation of the word is very particular, and mixing it with general Hindu Philosophy could be misleading and erroneous. The page Hindu Philosophy could be an umbrella article with entries about other things including but not limited to षड्दर्शन. HemaChandra88 (talk) 11:16, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Vachaspati defines षड्दर्शन as आस्तिकमतसिद्धेपूर्वमीमांसावेदान्तसांख्यपातञ्जलन्यायवैशेपिकाख्ये दर्शनेशास्त्रभेदे षट्सु, and this is exactly what is being described in that article, BTW. HemaChandra88 (talk) 11:23, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hindu philosophy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20020607045307/http://www.krishna.com/printarticles/Lord_Chaitanya.html to http://www.krishna.com/printarticles/Lord_Chaitanya.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:06, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

We should add the reason 'why Nastika (Heterodox) schools are also a part of hindu philosophy'

Nastika or heterodox Indian philosophy are considered as heterodox hindu philosophy or heterodox Hinduism because the word hindu is an exonym and historically it was used as a geographical and cultural and later as a religious identity. But now most of the people know hindu as a religious identity only and think that Hinduism is alternative name of sanatana dharma or vedic dharma which is not true because many other religions including tribal religions are also included in Hinduism and many people still use the word hindu as geographical or cultural Identity. Even the Indian constitution have no definition of hindu or who is a hindu. Many people think only the astika philosophies are hindu philosophy ascthey think hindu is a religious identity only. so calling heterodox philosophy as hindu philosophy without mentioning why they are consider as hindu is creating confusion among many people. So we should add why nastika philosophies are called hindu philosophy (because the word hindu is a exonym) and we should add why buddhism and jainism are now considered as distinct philosophy. If not then atleast in my opinion we should add ajivika and ajnana philosophy too as many consider them as hindu philosophy. If not even this then we should mention why only charvaka is considered as hindu philosophy, why not other nastika philosophies. Mr.nothing anonymous (talk) 16:28, 25 November 2021 (UTC)