This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
The following comment was left on my talk page:
I think you probably only clicked on the first link in my addition and failed to notice the second (which I think is the thing you are calling "a self-published document"). The second link (which is one part of the site linked to on the first link) was to the recommended reading list provided by the philosophy department of University College, London to students writing a paper on Indian philosophy (analogous to at least a full-year course at an American university). In general, these recommended reading guides are of the utmost quality (naming the best general introductions, translations, etc. in a given area of philosophy), but Indian philosophy is not my specialty so I cannot confirm that this is the case here. I hope that you look again and reconsider whether this might be a useful resource for individuals considering what to read in this area, but I trust your judgment if you conclude that this isn't appropriate here. - KSchutte 23:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Most of the text in this article is unsourced. It seem to be mainly a list of links to other articles, which is where detail can be found and better maintained. Should this article be edited down and made specifically a navigation list? Buddhipriya 00:11, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
<deindent> I think this article needs to be re-written in the summary style i.e. have a short descriptive paragraph on each important topic with links provided to the Main articles for details. I have taken a stab at a descriptive intro just to provide seed-material - right now it overly relies on one source (Radhakrishnan (1929) and thus is likely to be dated and over-emphasizing a single POV. So feel free to modify/rewrite it. As India and Philosophy articles show, it is certainly possible to write a cogent article on a vast topic, which can then serve as a road-map to the reader for further exploration. Abecedare 00:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
What do do regarding the overlap problems with content in Hindu Philosophy which is also in need of work? Buddhipriya 18:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
This article needs a thorough cleaning-up. The Jainism section earlier was a copy-paste from Jain-samaja & Co. Did not contain even a singe of proper encyclopaedic language. Same goes with section on Sikhism and to an extent, Buddhism also. Often religious satsang gets mixed up in an encyclopaedia. Indian_Air_Force (IAF) ( talk) 18:27, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Thereof we cannot speak...
This article does not seem to be acquainted with anything that contemporary scholars of Indian Philosophy (not Religion) would recognize as constitutive of philosophical discussion in Classical to Pre-Modern India (200 C.E-1600 C.E). Or of anything that classical Indian philosophers would recognize as the practice they were engaged in, for that matter.
Shankara and Nagarjuna are not the only two people who thought in India. Not by a long shot. They are, in fact, not particularly representative either.
Tihs article fails miserably not simply in terms of what it discusses, or the works it cites (rather, fails to cite), but in terms of its basic and evident ignorance of the history of Sanskrit literature and its genres. There are philosophical genres in Sanskrit (and theological, in Medieval Tamil), but none of this is to be found in this article. No hint of the "sort of" thought engaged in by Indian intellectuals, not the range of their concerns, nor the diversity of analytic methods and arguments.
Apart from relying on grossly inadequate sources, the fact that the word 'pramANa' (epistemic warrant) does not show up is symptomatic of the article entirely missing the history and character of the tradition in India. No references to the works of B. K. Matilal, Jitendranath Mohanty, to name just two scholars who have done much to correct the gross inaccuracies and misapprehensions of Indian thought (the conflation of Sankara's mysticism, popular among Bengali middle-class spirituals in the 18th-19th century, with philosophical thought in general, is a particularly eggregious problem that could have been solved by one inexpensive book by Matilal "On Perception"); but while one wants to take the authors' confusion of Vedantic theology and philosophical theology practiced indepednent of scriptural warrant (as it is in the Nyaya tradition post 450 c.e) to task, a more pressing problem must engage us: the author of this article shows no sign of knowing the difference either in Sanskrit texts, or in the history of Philosophy in the West, between what philosophy (in a weak "wise sayings" sort of mode) one can find in pre-philosophical literature, on the one hand, and philosophical texts proper, which take as their concern general categories in epistemology, metaphysics, and language, as their concern, and proceed in the mode of problems and arguments, proofs and refutations--methods closer to the spirit of Islamic, Medieval and contemporary analytic philosophy.
There is philosophy in Classical India. None in this article.
As a concerned Student of Indian Philosophy, I really hope the editors can see to it that someone does better. 128.135.96.119 ( talk) 21:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
This article only refers to a few lines of philosophy (Hindu, Jain and Buddhist) and should not carry the title it does. I would expect that an article with this title, in relation to a country of a billion people (and, by implication, a sub-continent with nearly a billion and a half) and with a history that extends more than 5000 years would be very large and must, in keeping with reality, be inclusive. Unless it is the opinion of the experts (has this article received the attention of an expert?) that this article does, in fact, refers to a vast majority of "Indian Philosophy" I think this article should be renamed and updated with a clearer scope and a more appropriate title or deleted altogether (re-written). The (limited) components that are referred to seem to have their own dedicated (and adequate) pages and, as suggested elsewhere, a list may be more appropriate. Indian philosophy may (or may not) just be too unwieldy to effectively put on one page. This page should, perhaps, focus on its classifications and let dedicated pages handle the elaboration.
Specific (layman) queries and comments I have:
Movements like the Sufi movement have been ignored and their exclusion not explained. Was Kabir a philosoper? The Muslims (mysteriously ignored in this article) surely had their own philosophical thought influenced by the Arabs and Middle-Eastern philosophers but was there any subsequent evolution of "Muslim Philosophy" in India? Even the Mughals, it seems from this article, developed no philosophy during their empire. It would also seem from this article that there were no noteworthy Indian atheists of any kind before the Colonial era. The Christians, living in India for over 2000 years, never seemed to have got around to philosophy. Are there any contemporary "Indian" philosophers at all? What about Mohandas K. Gandhi, what was his philosophy - did he have none or was it one mentioned in this article?
The article either implies that the Atheists, Muslims, Parsis and Christians had no philosphy or they are not Indian. The former conclusion is insulting (to Atheists, Mulsims, Parsis, Christians and non-hindu Indians in general) and the latter wrong (the wikipedia article on India is a good starting point to see what I mean about "Indian"). 80.227.170.65 ( talk) 14:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.227.170.65 ( talk) 14:04, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
I really don't know about calling Acharya Rajnish an example of someone who successfully synthesised Eastern and Western philosophical thought. Snickrpedia ( talk) 03:57, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
This is a proposed merger from Hindu Philosophy into this article. The rationale is that these two articles contain mostly the same information.
The reason why I feel the merger should go from Hindu philosophy into Indian philosophy is because of the inclusion in both articles of the Nastika (heterodox) schools, which have arguable inclusion in an article on Hinduism. -- Bill Huston (talk) 16:01, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Hinduism,buddhism and jainsim in india were in harmonious co existence in india,unlike the abrahamic faiths.no one was branded as heretic.secondly the disappearance of buddhism in india starts with the islamic invasion not as reaction by hindu brahmins.another important point that needs to be mentioned is the behaviour of harsha of kashmir who destroyed both hindu and buddhist shrines in kashmir since his wealth was reducing and one more thing buddhism was popular only in certain parts of north india.it was never popular in much of the south india.islamic invasion had in most impact in northern india were buddhism was relatively popular.In orissa there are hindu temples dedicated to the buddha.buddha is a part of the hindu pantheon not very recently but since time immemorial.also thervada buddhism has lot of hindu flavour in it.the worship of Rama in Thailand as also Ganesh in thailand is an example. Linguisticgeek ( talk) 05:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
The following comment was left on my talk page:
I think you probably only clicked on the first link in my addition and failed to notice the second (which I think is the thing you are calling "a self-published document"). The second link (which is one part of the site linked to on the first link) was to the recommended reading list provided by the philosophy department of University College, London to students writing a paper on Indian philosophy (analogous to at least a full-year course at an American university). In general, these recommended reading guides are of the utmost quality (naming the best general introductions, translations, etc. in a given area of philosophy), but Indian philosophy is not my specialty so I cannot confirm that this is the case here. I hope that you look again and reconsider whether this might be a useful resource for individuals considering what to read in this area, but I trust your judgment if you conclude that this isn't appropriate here. - KSchutte 23:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Most of the text in this article is unsourced. It seem to be mainly a list of links to other articles, which is where detail can be found and better maintained. Should this article be edited down and made specifically a navigation list? Buddhipriya 00:11, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
<deindent> I think this article needs to be re-written in the summary style i.e. have a short descriptive paragraph on each important topic with links provided to the Main articles for details. I have taken a stab at a descriptive intro just to provide seed-material - right now it overly relies on one source (Radhakrishnan (1929) and thus is likely to be dated and over-emphasizing a single POV. So feel free to modify/rewrite it. As India and Philosophy articles show, it is certainly possible to write a cogent article on a vast topic, which can then serve as a road-map to the reader for further exploration. Abecedare 00:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
What do do regarding the overlap problems with content in Hindu Philosophy which is also in need of work? Buddhipriya 18:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
This article needs a thorough cleaning-up. The Jainism section earlier was a copy-paste from Jain-samaja & Co. Did not contain even a singe of proper encyclopaedic language. Same goes with section on Sikhism and to an extent, Buddhism also. Often religious satsang gets mixed up in an encyclopaedia. Indian_Air_Force (IAF) ( talk) 18:27, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Thereof we cannot speak...
This article does not seem to be acquainted with anything that contemporary scholars of Indian Philosophy (not Religion) would recognize as constitutive of philosophical discussion in Classical to Pre-Modern India (200 C.E-1600 C.E). Or of anything that classical Indian philosophers would recognize as the practice they were engaged in, for that matter.
Shankara and Nagarjuna are not the only two people who thought in India. Not by a long shot. They are, in fact, not particularly representative either.
Tihs article fails miserably not simply in terms of what it discusses, or the works it cites (rather, fails to cite), but in terms of its basic and evident ignorance of the history of Sanskrit literature and its genres. There are philosophical genres in Sanskrit (and theological, in Medieval Tamil), but none of this is to be found in this article. No hint of the "sort of" thought engaged in by Indian intellectuals, not the range of their concerns, nor the diversity of analytic methods and arguments.
Apart from relying on grossly inadequate sources, the fact that the word 'pramANa' (epistemic warrant) does not show up is symptomatic of the article entirely missing the history and character of the tradition in India. No references to the works of B. K. Matilal, Jitendranath Mohanty, to name just two scholars who have done much to correct the gross inaccuracies and misapprehensions of Indian thought (the conflation of Sankara's mysticism, popular among Bengali middle-class spirituals in the 18th-19th century, with philosophical thought in general, is a particularly eggregious problem that could have been solved by one inexpensive book by Matilal "On Perception"); but while one wants to take the authors' confusion of Vedantic theology and philosophical theology practiced indepednent of scriptural warrant (as it is in the Nyaya tradition post 450 c.e) to task, a more pressing problem must engage us: the author of this article shows no sign of knowing the difference either in Sanskrit texts, or in the history of Philosophy in the West, between what philosophy (in a weak "wise sayings" sort of mode) one can find in pre-philosophical literature, on the one hand, and philosophical texts proper, which take as their concern general categories in epistemology, metaphysics, and language, as their concern, and proceed in the mode of problems and arguments, proofs and refutations--methods closer to the spirit of Islamic, Medieval and contemporary analytic philosophy.
There is philosophy in Classical India. None in this article.
As a concerned Student of Indian Philosophy, I really hope the editors can see to it that someone does better. 128.135.96.119 ( talk) 21:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
This article only refers to a few lines of philosophy (Hindu, Jain and Buddhist) and should not carry the title it does. I would expect that an article with this title, in relation to a country of a billion people (and, by implication, a sub-continent with nearly a billion and a half) and with a history that extends more than 5000 years would be very large and must, in keeping with reality, be inclusive. Unless it is the opinion of the experts (has this article received the attention of an expert?) that this article does, in fact, refers to a vast majority of "Indian Philosophy" I think this article should be renamed and updated with a clearer scope and a more appropriate title or deleted altogether (re-written). The (limited) components that are referred to seem to have their own dedicated (and adequate) pages and, as suggested elsewhere, a list may be more appropriate. Indian philosophy may (or may not) just be too unwieldy to effectively put on one page. This page should, perhaps, focus on its classifications and let dedicated pages handle the elaboration.
Specific (layman) queries and comments I have:
Movements like the Sufi movement have been ignored and their exclusion not explained. Was Kabir a philosoper? The Muslims (mysteriously ignored in this article) surely had their own philosophical thought influenced by the Arabs and Middle-Eastern philosophers but was there any subsequent evolution of "Muslim Philosophy" in India? Even the Mughals, it seems from this article, developed no philosophy during their empire. It would also seem from this article that there were no noteworthy Indian atheists of any kind before the Colonial era. The Christians, living in India for over 2000 years, never seemed to have got around to philosophy. Are there any contemporary "Indian" philosophers at all? What about Mohandas K. Gandhi, what was his philosophy - did he have none or was it one mentioned in this article?
The article either implies that the Atheists, Muslims, Parsis and Christians had no philosphy or they are not Indian. The former conclusion is insulting (to Atheists, Mulsims, Parsis, Christians and non-hindu Indians in general) and the latter wrong (the wikipedia article on India is a good starting point to see what I mean about "Indian"). 80.227.170.65 ( talk) 14:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.227.170.65 ( talk) 14:04, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
I really don't know about calling Acharya Rajnish an example of someone who successfully synthesised Eastern and Western philosophical thought. Snickrpedia ( talk) 03:57, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
This is a proposed merger from Hindu Philosophy into this article. The rationale is that these two articles contain mostly the same information.
The reason why I feel the merger should go from Hindu philosophy into Indian philosophy is because of the inclusion in both articles of the Nastika (heterodox) schools, which have arguable inclusion in an article on Hinduism. -- Bill Huston (talk) 16:01, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Hinduism,buddhism and jainsim in india were in harmonious co existence in india,unlike the abrahamic faiths.no one was branded as heretic.secondly the disappearance of buddhism in india starts with the islamic invasion not as reaction by hindu brahmins.another important point that needs to be mentioned is the behaviour of harsha of kashmir who destroyed both hindu and buddhist shrines in kashmir since his wealth was reducing and one more thing buddhism was popular only in certain parts of north india.it was never popular in much of the south india.islamic invasion had in most impact in northern india were buddhism was relatively popular.In orissa there are hindu temples dedicated to the buddha.buddha is a part of the hindu pantheon not very recently but since time immemorial.also thervada buddhism has lot of hindu flavour in it.the worship of Rama in Thailand as also Ganesh in thailand is an example. Linguisticgeek ( talk) 05:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC)