![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
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.
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. [1] 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
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)
@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)
@ 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)
@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)
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)
Ms. Sarah Welch's selectively quoted or bolded above:
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)
@ Malaiya, AmritasyaPutra, Sdmarathe, Adiagr, and HemaChandra88: Pinging more Hinduism editors for neutral input. VictoriaGrayson Talk 20:48, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:06, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
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)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
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.
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. [1] 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
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)
@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)
@ 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)
@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)
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)
Ms. Sarah Welch's selectively quoted or bolded above:
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)
@ Malaiya, AmritasyaPutra, Sdmarathe, Adiagr, and HemaChandra88: Pinging more Hinduism editors for neutral input. VictoriaGrayson Talk 20:48, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:06, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
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)