This template is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hinduism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HinduismWikipedia:WikiProject HinduismTemplate:WikiProject HinduismHinduism articles
This template is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
Created the template. This can be included in the right-hand top corner of articles relating to Hindu philosophy. Babub10:27, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've added him back. He is prominently and frequently mentioned in many books on modern Hinduism. Here are a few more academic books and articles that mention him specifically in the context of Hindu philosophy:
Dell, David (1981). Guide to Hindu Religion, Asian Philosophies and Religions Resources Guide Series. Boston: G.K. Hall and Company. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
McDermott, Robert A. (April, 1975). "Indian Spirituality in the West: A Bibliographical Mapping". Philosophy East and West. 25 (2). The University Press of Hawaii. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
Thomas, Wendell (1930). Hinduism Invades America. The Beacon Press. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help), entire chapter dedicated to Yogananda.
Keep in mind that he is listed under 'Modern' on the template. Many of the others in that list are far less notable, and would likely not have references at all, though I would tend to be inclusionist in that regard. Cheers, ~ priyanathtalk23:19, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No surprise that Hinduism invades America has a chapter on Yogananda, but it doesn't make him a significant philosopher. Maybe you should provide a quote from a reliable source (ie not Swami Kriyananda etc) that he is. I take your point about some of the others having little right to the position, maybe you're right. I note that none of the modern 'philosophers' listed even feature in the Hindu philosophy article. I disagree that we should be inclusionist, that's an invitation to spammers to promote their chosen guru. --Simon D M (talk) 16:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt that there is a reliable source with a 'list of Hindu Philosphers'. It's also likely that only a few, if any of those listed in the template, are labeled 'Hindu philosphers' by reliable academic sources. So this template will always be somewhat arbitrary. The first two references above are academic sources that include Yogananda and his work in discussions of Hindu philosophy - which likely puts him above 90% of those on the template. The third puts him on par with Swami Vivekananda and Vivekananda's influence in spreading Hindu philosophy and religion to the West. The proper place for this discussion, if you want to carry it further, would be on the WikiProject Hinduism notice board. Cheers, ~ priyanathtalk17:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indian Philosophy: An Introduction to Hindu and Buddhist Thought By Richard King ISBN0748609547 has no mention of Yogananda but Gandhi, Vivekananda, Aurobindo, Ramana and Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan are all mentioned. No mention of Satyananda, Prabhupada, Anandamurti, Chinmayananda, Ayya Vaikundar, Pandurang Shastri Athavale, Nitya Chaitanya Yati, Nataraja Guru or Narayana Guru.
Encyclopedia of Indian Philosophies (1983) By Karl H. Potter ISBN8120803086 (6483 pages) has 10,000 citations. Yogananda's ideas clearly receive little attention but there is significant attention to Gandhi, Vivekananda, Aurobindo, Ramana and Radhakrishnan. I think it's pretty clear that the list has serious omissions and what there is can be divided into serious contenders and spam. While only one of Yogananda's works is referenced at all, many of Sivananda's are, 4 of Satyananda's are, 2 of Chinmayananda's, 1 for Nitya Chaitanya Yati, 1 for Nataraja Guru. No mention for Pabhupada, Anandamurti, Ayya Vaikundar, Pandurang Shastri Athavale and Narayana Guru.
Shouldn't topics like the Hindu calendar also be included in an independent section in the template? Unless they are already included a different (perhaps even more relevant) template. If so, can anyone point me to it? --MK12:43, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
These are certainly not part of Hinduism. Wiki will lose all credibility as an impartial source of info if this template continues as it is. Can someone please remove these? I tried doing that and messed up. This template needs careful editing. Samkhya and Yoga can be classed as Nastika (meaning they do not believe in a supernatural god). The only reason for them to be classed as Astika (orthodox) is because of the widely held belief that they hold Vedas as an authority. "Recent" scholarship on this suggests (see Mikel Burley's book on Samkhya and Yoga philosophy) that one cannot make such a straightforward claim--the book clearly suggests that Samkhya and Yoga are more nastika than astika. To be very clear Vedanta schools are the only astika schools, the rest veer towards being nastika. Also, what is Sikhism doing here? Under "Other philosophies and religions related to Hinduism" one can add all the world's religions - Zoroastrianism, Christianity, Islam - and all western schools of philosophy. This section does not make any sense. -Mohanbhan (talk) 15:58, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Jainism,Buddhism and Sikhism are other Indian phioloshophies apart from Hindu philosophy" @Conradjagan: could you please explain what you mean by this? Jainism, Buddhism and Sikhism are three separate religions and have their own sidebars on wiki. Why are you calling these religions other Indian "philosophies"? -Mohanbhan (talk) 10:54, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Mohanbhan: Here are two reliable sources that include Carvaka, Ajivika, Buddhism and Jainism as Indian Philosophies: (1) Basant Pradhan (2014), Yoga and Mindfulness Based Cognitive Therapy, Springer Academic, ISBN978-3319091044, page 10; (2) David Jones (2010), Asian Texts - Asian Contexts, State University of New York Press, ISBN978-1438426754, pages 78-79. These sources mention the link of the first two to Hinduism. You mention Mikel Burley, but on pages 2-3, he calls Buddhism and Jainism as Nastika/Heterodox philosophies and explains their relationship to Hindu philosophy (Mikel Burley (2006), Classical Samkhya and Yoga: An Indian Metaphysics of Experience, Routledge, ISBN978-0415394482). So these should be included in this template. Do you have reliable sources that support excluding Ajivika, Buddhism and Jainism from this template? Unless you present reliable sources, I intend to add Ajivika, Buddhism and Jainism back. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 03:55, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Ms Sarah Welch: I never said anything about them not being Indian philosophies, my concern is about them being classed as Hindu philosophy. They are not "Hindu" philosophy in any sense, which is what this template is called. Yes, Burley or any other scholar would call Buddhism and Jainism heterodox because they are opposed to what is called as "Hinduism" today. I do not understand your overzealous attitude considering there are separate sidebars for Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism. -Mohanbhan (talk) 04:13, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also, why should a template on Hindu philosophy have a section called "Related Indian philosophies"? Hindu philosophy is a subsection of Indian philosophies, and not the other way round. -Mohanbhan (talk) 04:20, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Mohanbhan: Because there are Indian philosophies related to Hindu philosophies (see sources above), and wikipedia templates are meant as information links. Thanks for clarifying. I will change the template. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 08:45, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are getting into a meaningless editwar Sarah Welch, you have no consensus to change the template. Can you pls re-read what I have written before jumping the gun? Hindu philosophies can be part of Indian philosophy template and not the other way round. Discuss here, provide reliable sources (what you have provided as RS says B and J are Indian philosophies, not part of Hindu philosophy) and get the consensus before you make any change. -Mohanbhan (talk) 09:08, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Mohanbhan: You have already agreed Buddhism and Jainism are Indian philosophies, and they are related to Hindu philosophy. I do not understand you: are you suggesting there is no information value in adding links to "Related Indian Philosophies" within this encyclopedic template?
I ping @Joshua Jonathan: for a second opinion, a veteran editor on Buddhism and Hinduism pages. @JJ: this template, created long ago by someone, has had consensus links to Buddhism, Jainism in it. Mohanbhan recently deleted those, and now demands a new consensus. What are your thoughts: are encyclopedic links to Buddhism and Jainism under "Related Indian philosophies" of information value? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 09:49, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Mohanbhan: Ajivikas should be in the Nastika group of this template. Reliable source: P.T. Raju (1985), Structural Depths of Indian Thought, State University of New York Press, ISBN978-0887061394, page 147. Do you have a reliable source that it shouldn't be? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 09:55, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is what Raju (1985) says on p.147: "There were sects other than Buddhism and Jainism, which rejected the authoritativeness of the Vedic scripture. The Ajivikas*,3 along with whom the orthodox schools clubbed the Jainas and the Buddhists, also rejected the Vedas. The Carvakas* also did the same thing. If the Ajivikas* and the Carvakas* can be Hindus, there is every justification to call Jainism and Buddhism forms of Hinduism. As mentioned already, the word Hinduism has no definite meaning and, we may even say, does not mean a thing." Is he saying that Buddhism, Jainism and Ajivika are part of Hinduism? Stop bamboozling the community Sarah Welch. -Mohanbhan (talk) 10:33, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection whatsoever to including Jainism and Hinduism in this template. Who cares if they are not "strictly" Hindu? I don't, most Hindus probably don't, and most Buddhists probably also don't. How about an RfC? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk!10:58, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But Ajivikas and Carvakas can't be called Hindus, that is the point. Yes, please do an RfC but remember you need reliable sources to back your outlandish claims. -Mohanbhan (talk) 11:12, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, you're right; no, I don't object to including "Hinduism." Might be informative here ;) And I also don't object to including Jainism and Buddhism under a heading "Related Indian philosophies"; that's certainly informative. Though I also have to note that they are included in Template:Indian philosophy, a bottom-of-the-page template; that may be sufficient also. @Kautilya3, Ogress, and VictoriaGrayson: what do you think? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk!11:22, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Mohanbhan: The Carvakas article already has multiple reliable sources with embedded quotes on it being called a heterodox school of Hindu philosophy. On Ajivika (sources above),
P.T. Raju Book's Quote: "If the Ajivikas and the Carvakas can be Hindus, there is every justification to call Jainism and Buddhism forms of Hinduism." (page 147)
Basant Pradhan Book's Quote: "Hindu philosophies that do not recognize the authority of the Vedas include Carvakas, Ajivikas". (page 10, the book quotes Robinson et al. - tertiary source)
@Joshua Jonathan: The links in this template before @Mohanbhan deleted Ajivika, Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism were,
Other Indian Philosophies: Buddhism Jainism Sikhism
This template is just a convenient collection of links, so someone who visits a page, such as Nyaya or Carvaka can jump to Buddhism or Jainism or Ajivika page, if he or she wants. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 11:51, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sarah Welch, I suppose you understand the meaning of the conditional "if". Since Ajivikas and Carvakas can't be Hindus, Jainism and Buddhism can't be called forms of Hinduism. Pradhan who you call a tertiary source is not WP:RS, the book is about "Yoga and Mindfulness Based Cognitive Therapy" which most cognitive therapists would classify as New Age woo. If you want to make this template a "convenient collection of links" then change it to Indian philosophy and remove the aum logo; then you can add separate sections of Buddhist philosophies, Jain philosophies etc. And the casual asides thrown by non-experts like Mel Thompson don't count as RS. This relentless POV pushing without reliable sources is a waste of time. -Mohanbhan (talk) 12:16, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Mohanbhan: Cognitive therapy is a part of psychiatry, and has attracted serious scholarship for decades. See: Keith Hawton et al. (Editors, 1989), Cognitive behaviour therapy for psychiatric problems: A practical guide, Oxford University Press, ISBN978-0192615879. I respect your right to believe Yoga / Cognitive Therapy as "New Age woo" or whatever you want, but we must rely on RS, and Pradhan's book published by State University of New York Press is an RS.
Another Source that classifies Hindu philosophy into Astika and Nastika schools as this template did, before recent edits by @Mohanbhan: John Grimes (2004), in The Hindu World (editors: Mittal and Thursby), Routledge, ISBN0-415215277, page 541. John Grimes is a professor at University of Michigan.
@Joshua Jonathan: I have no particular preference whether this template is named Hindu Philosophy or Indian Philosophy. I see no issues with the current name. Clearly, @Mohanbhan is upset with the current name. I will go with the consensus established by you and others. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:29, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sarah Welch: Did I say anything about cognitive therapy? I told you yoga and mindfulness are subjects that cognitive therapists see as woo. We are discussing religions here and cannot treat a book on yoga and mindfulness in cognitive therapy as reliable source. Also, when you quote a book as supporting your view please also quote the paragraph and show how the paragraph supports your view. You have lost the trust of the community by naming texts which clearly don't support the POV you are trying to push. My very first comment here talks about the distinction between Astika and Nastika schools, and I suggested - citing Burley - listing Samkhya and Yoga as Nastika and the rest of the schools as Astika. But since you are insisting on listing separate religions as part of Nastika school you will have to come up with RS which say these religions are part of Hindu philosophy. And you will have to do this by citing the relevant paragraph/s. -Mohanbhan (talk) 17:03, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Mohanbhan: the only one who's loosing "the trust of the community" is you. Be sure that your tone and polemics are not appreciated by "the community." But that's something you probably already know. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk!17:19, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The community will judge that Joshua, please do not presume that you are the "community". My sounding a little exasperated ("my tone") is not the issue, the issue is relentless and unfair POV pushing without reliable sources to list separate religions as part of Hindu philosophy. I am sure this predatory attitude is not appreciated on WP. -Mohanbhan (talk) 17:34, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Mohanbhan might be, uh, a bold editor, but I've been chewing over this issue because Nastika includes non-Hindu religions by nearly everyone's perspective (i.e. Buddhism and Jainism) and some that people argue over (Carvaka, Ajivaka) and some that nobody claims is Hindu (Sikhism). This is explicity a sidebar on Hindu philosophy, not Indian philosophy, and I'm not sure we can justify using the internal "orthodox v. heretic" tools here at all. It's just forcing a super awkward situation where we're arguing. I personally think that this sidebar should probably not have the Nastika category, and if we want to argue over whether Carvaka/Ajivika go here, that's a different situation than deliberately including Buddhism and Jainism, especially since Buddhism, at minimum, has a multitude of philosophies, some living and some defunct. Are we going to pretend it's a monolith, or are we going to include them, which would take up a ton of space? I don't know but it increasingly seems clear that we should either 1. rename the navbar (which seems inappropriate given there's a footer already) 2. remove non-Hindu topics. Thoughts? Ogresssmash!20:17, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Mohanbhan: The template header reads, "Part of a series on Hindu philosophy". A sub-section titled, "Related Indian philosophies" with Buddhism in it, just is a convenient link to reach the wiki page on related Indian philosophy named Buddhism, nothing more.
Ajivikas is an Indian philosophy about which research has been limited, and RS are few. Arthur Basham's classic History and Doctrines of the Ajivikas, a Vanished Indian Religion, ISBN8-120812042 is the most well known RS on Ajivikas. Lets take a closer look.
Page 47: Vaishnavite tendencies are to be found in Ajivika doctrine at a much later date, and Ajivikas are by commentator explicitly identified with ekadandins, or Vaishnava ascetics. – AL Basham
Page 149 (discussion of Ashoka pillar inscriptions on Ajivikas): "likewise I have arranged it that they will be occupied with the Brahmanical Ajivikas. Following Kern, he [Buehler] expresses his belief that the Ajivikas were Vaishnavas. They theory of Kern and Buehler has been attacked by Hoernle and Bhandarkar, and few would now accept it. (...) But, even granting all these provisos, there may be a modicum of truth in the old theory of Kern and Buehler. A close connection between the Brahmana and the Ajivika is indicated by Ashoka's classification of the sects." – AL Basham
Page 170: "This remarkable passage was noted by Kern, who inferred from it that Ajivikas were orthodox Vaishnava ascetics. His view was supported by Buhler. This passage was studied by Hoernle, who commented on it fully. Bhattotpala states that the Ekadandins or Ajivikas are devotees of Narayana, that is Vishnu. On the other hand Silanka, speaking of the Ekadandins in another connection, declares them to be devotees of Shiva. It is clear that what these two commentators had in their mind was the class of ascetics who are still known as Dandins... These ascetics are usually classed as belonging to the Saivite division of Hindus: but they are rather eclectics in that they invoke not only Shiva but also Vishnu as Narayana." – AL Basham
AL Basham in the above book, and his later publications explains the fog, the confusion about the Ajivikas. He also elaborated the evolution in Ajivika beliefs over many centuries (particularly in south India), and this evolution was usually towards an unusual hybrid of heterodoxy and Hindu philosophy. Basham's 1989 book published by Oxford University Press classified Ajivikas as a heterodox Hindu philosophy if I remember correctly, but I do not have access to the book right now and so cannot provide a page number.
Where do we go from here? As both Joshua Jonathan and I have said, this is just a template of convenient links, and there is "no big deal involved." I have no particular preference whether this template is called "part of a series on Hindu philosophy", or "part of a series on Indian philosophy". If the latter template name was chosen, not that it would be the final outcome of this discussion, what layout do you propose and what other changes would you like in this template. Would you keep the Acharyas sub-section etc? @Ogress: how would you redesign this, to make it more encyclopedically useful? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:20, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Sarah Welch, as mentioned by @Joshua Jonathan: and @Ogress: above since there is already an exhaustive Indian philosophy footer I don't think changing the header of this sidebar to Indian philosophy or redesigning it makes any sense.
The Ajivikas in some cases may have been Vaishnavites but that does not make them "Hindus". For example, the Veerashaivas (Sharanas)and Lingayats are Shaivities, they worship an incarnation of the Hindu god Shiva, but their philosophy Shatsthala Siddhanta is so anti Hindu orthodoxy that it is not considered part of Hinduism (and they have a separate sidebar on wiki.) The same can be said of Buddhism, Jainism, Ajivika and Carvaka -- the Buddhists and Carvakas were so hated by Hindu orthodoxy that they were called Mahapatakis (great disaster-wreckers). So it is unfair and ahistorical to list these religions/philosophies as part of Hindu philosophy.
But if you want a template which you want to use as a collection of links to Indian philosophies then you already have the Indian philosophy footer; you can improve it and make it "encyclopedically useful." -Mohanbhan (talk) 02:11, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Let me note again that I don't mind including Jainism and Buddhism into the template; I always found it curious, yet sympathetic, that those inks were there. But The footer may suffice, though. And I guess that most readers will find their way to Buddhism and Jainism; those are not really obscure topics.
Like I said, I'm mostly chewing on this. I hate to reduce the amount of information we provide, and yet I think Hinduism is not a good fit. There's a reason basic sourcebooks are usually titled "An Introduction Indian Philosophy" if they include nastika stuff. Perhaps we could just include āstika and nāstika on the sidebar? The link, I mean, not the categories like before. I know it's informational, but it's super distasteful to stick Sikhism and Jainism in particular into Hinduism, they get enough faeces as it stands and I think simply adding Buddhism is inaccurate. Those should have gone to better pages than just Buddhism anyway - Buddhist philosophy is more on point, but still. Ogresssmash!04:57, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Joshua Jonathan: The footer suffices, technically. In practice though, I like the template at the top or early in the article, because I don't want to scroll to the bottom for links. I have used these template links many times on devices that partially load a wiki page.
@Ogress: The Sikhism addition to this template was very recent by someone new, presumably in good faith, who may not consider "nastika = atheism" and may consider "nastika = non-Vedic". Or, it could be just someone testing their "anyone can edit" privilege.
What do you all think of the following change, till I get hold of hardcopy version of the 1989 Basham or someone else provides a more "persuasive to Mohanbhan" RS for Ajivikas?:
Sarah Welch your grievance, "I like the template at the top or early in the article, because I don't want to scroll to the bottom for links" is not strong enough for you to make these changes. This is easily one of the most hilarious reasons I have seen cited on wiki. Brother Joshua when you say something is fine with you, you will have to specify why it is fine with you. Contrary to what you think this is indeed a "big deal." We are not taking a decision on family vacation you know; this is a wikipedia template and concerns millions of people of various faiths. -Mohanbhan (talk) 15:19, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"one of the most hilarious reasons I have seen cited on wiki"? You ain't seen nothing yet...<br.
Brother Mohanbhan, could you please try to discuss in a decent way, like normal people do? I don't know what you're used to, but we expect to be treated like normal, mature people. Thanks. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk!15:46, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, normal mature behaviour is what I expect of you too, that's why I pointed out the immature and extremely casual remarks made above. -Mohanbhan (talk) 15:53, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'll show what "normal mature behaviour" is:
"Sarah Welch your grievancecomment, "I like the template at the top or early in the article, because I don't want to scroll to the bottom for links" is not strong enough for you to make these changes. This is easily one of the most hilarious reasons I have seen cited on wiki. Brother Joshua when you say something is fine with you, you will have tocould you specify why it is fine with you. Contrary to what you think this is indeed a "big deal." We are not taking a decision on family vacation you know; this is a wikipedia template and concerns millions of people of various faiths.It means a lot to me personally."
Now that you have suitably rephrased the question would you now be kind enough to answer it? Why do you think it is perfectly OK to add separate religions in a Hindu philosophy template? Also, could you pls cite reliable sources which say they are part of Hinduism? -Mohanbhan (talk) 17:22, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also, please do not be blind to your cavalier attitude by resorting to this entirely unnecessary and unwarranted rephrasing. It is not that "this means a lot to me personally" -- this is what is called putting words in the mouth btw -- it is that it doesn't mean anything to you and so you think it is OK to make irresponsible comments. Fairness and sincerity elicits a certain tone, POV pushing and gaming the system elicits a different tone. It is important to look at one's own behaviour before taking it upon oneself to correct another's tone. I hope YOU get the point. -Mohanbhan (talk) 17:56, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Presearch: could you explain to our friend why it might be warranted to include Buddhism and Jainism? As for myself: no, they are not Hinduism, and nobody is saying that they are. What we are saying is that they are relevant to Hindu-philosophy. See Geoffrey samuel, The Origins of Yoga and Tantra, for an overview of their shared origins. See also Advaita Vedanta, for the influence of Madhyamaka philosophy on Advaita Vedanta; and Patanjali's Yoga Sutra's, which are unthinkable without Buddhist meditation.
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; we try to provide useful information. Addig those two links provides extra information. So, your turn: why is it so important for you? To add a personal note: I've been studying Buddhism and Hinduism for over 25 years now; studying them in combination has helped me to understand both of them better, since they are so closely related. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk!18:13, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am not in the habit of repeating myself. I am made it perfectly clear why I do not want separate religions to be added to a Hindu philosophy template. If you say they are "relevant" to Hindu philosophy you will have to explain what you mean by "relevance" and if relevance means "a relation demanding inclusion as part of Hindu philosophy" then you will have to establish that relevance with reliable sources. You are saying that the origins of "Hinduism" and Buddhism are "shared" in Yoga and Tantra, that Advaita Vedanta is influenced by Buddhist philosophy, that Patanjali's yoga sutras are influenced by Buddhist meditation. Let us examine these propositions. 1. Yes, Samkhya and Yoga schools owe a lot to Tantra, yet who gives a damn about Tantra in Hinduism? In this very template it appears at the very bottom of the subhead 'Texts' as the penultimate text and is classed as Other Scriptures. Let us get one thing straight: the Vedas are central to Hindu philosophy; even today the Vedas are the only texts considered infalliable by Hindus. So all Astika philosophies -- those which accept the infallibale authority of the Vedas -- are part of Hindu philosophy. But early Sankhya, early Mimamsa and early Yoga do not accept the authority of the Vedas. (This is not original research, Burley and many other scholars hold this opinion.) That's why I suggested that they be classed as Nastika philosophy. Since Vedas are central to Hinduism, anything that is absolutely antagonistic to the Vedas, like Buddhism, Jainism, Carvaka and Ajivika, cannot be considered as part of Hinduism or as schools of Hindu philosophy. 2. Yes, it is widely known that Advaita Vedanta is influenced by Nagarjuna's Madhyamaka philosophy but why would that make you add Madhyamaka philosophy under Hindu philosophy? You should rather be adding Advaita Vedanta or Hinduism under Buddhist philosophy. Why don't you try adding Advaita Vedanta to Template:Buddhism by creating a subhead titled "Other related philosophies"? Let us see whether the editors of Buddhism template allow such a thing. 3. I do not agree to this, there are not more that 3-4 sutras in Patanjali's Yoga Sutras which actually deal with "meditation" in the sense of doing yoga asanas.
And it does not matter how you have studied two separate but comparable religions together; one can do that with any two religions like Hinduism and Christianity or Hinduism and Islam. That is not a reason to add Christianity and Islam as "related Indian philosophies." For one thing they --Buddhism and Jainism-- are not merely "philosophies" but religions comprising many philosophical schools. Each of them have dedicated portals on wiki: Portal:Buddhism, Portal:Jainism
All this is in addition to my earlier explanations as to why it is not OK to add separate religions to a Hindu philosophy template. I have also suggested Sarah Welch to change the header and logo and call it Indian philosophy if she wants to add Buddhist and Jain philosophical schools (and not merely Buddhism,Jainism and Sikhism) to this template. I have then agreed with you and Ogress that since there is already an Indian philosophy footer there is no need to change this template. -Mohanbhan (talk) 19:51, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I (Preearch) was pinged above by Joshua Jonathan and asked, "could you explain to our friend why it might be warranted to include Buddhism and Jainism?" Having started to read through the enormous set of comments, and then skimmed when it got to be too much, I will try. But I am not optimistic, because I have seldom seen an editor with so few edits be so insistent on trying to impose his/her will on a matter that seems to be more an issue of encyclopedia construction preferences than of substance. Buddhism and Jainism have a shared history of more than 2000 years with the collection of viewpoints and practices that began to be called Hinduism around 1000 years ago (see Unifying Hinduism); it took awhile for the terms astika and nastika to be stabilized. So clearly they are related topics. In WP articles, many related topics are linked in text in ways that their relationship is explained; but others are linked in a "see also" section. It is perfectly legitimate for a Template to provide a similar service, and what appears to be the enormous agitation displayed by our friend at such linking (claims that Wikipedia will lose all legitimacy, etc.) seems to bespeak of a failure to see things in proportion, which often suggests lack of detachment, though I think our friend is unlikely to agree that such a condition would apply to him. But I think he should consider this as a distinct possiblity.
That said, I do find that our friend asked a rather interesting question, 'You should rather be adding Advaita Vedanta or Hinduism under Buddhist philosophy. Why don't you try adding Advaita Vedanta to Template:Buddhism by creating a subhead titled "Other related philosophies"? Let us see whether the editors of Buddhism template allow such a thing.' I suspect he is correct, and that editors of Buddhism might indeed be grudging about so prominent an admission of influence (assuming adequate documentation could be found of influence of Vedanta on Buddhism). But would the influence be as much as the reverse? And even if it is, implying an inconsistency in style between the templates, how much does this type of inconsistency between such extreme-high-level templates matter?
For a long time I've regretted the demise in use (and later deletion) of a more inclusive template that covered writers from all the major Indian-derived religions. In my experience, many people are interested in writers across diverse traditions which now must be sought out in a balkanized set of templates (e.g., Hindu, Buddhist), making it easier for people to remain ignorant of other traditions (which seems a smidgen contrary to the mission of Wikipedia). --Presearch (talk) 00:36, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Presearch:, @Joshua Jonathan: Thank you, both. Indeed, that question "why not add Jainism and Hinduism" as related philosophies in Buddhism template, "why not add Buddhism and Hinduism" as related philosophies in Jainism template are interesting. Such additions would indeed add useful links consistent with the mission of Wikipedia. Yet, I feel that debate better belongs on respective template's talk page.
I sense the current views on whether to include "Related Indian philosophies" section in this template are:
Perfectly legitimate to add: @Ms Sarah Welch, @Joshua Jonathan, and @Presearch
Still chewing on this: @Ogress
Perfectly against: @Mohanbhan
I invite @Abecedare: who may or may not respond. Abecedare, who is another veteran contributor and an admin, helped sort a complicated topic on Noticeboard for India-related topics today. Abecedare: any wisdom, or summary of past community RfC consensus on templates, or suggestions on this? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:43, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is not about numbers Sarah Welch, it is about making valid arguments and citing reliable sources. You, Joshua and Presearch have not cited reliable sources, nor are your arguments for inclusion persuasive. Presearch this statement of yours "Buddhism and Jainism have a shared history of more than 2000 years with the collection of viewpoints and practices that began to be called Hinduism around 1000 years ago (see Unifying Hinduism)" is very controversial because as far as I know the first recorded use of the word "Hindooism" was in 1816 by Rammohun Roy. I will still look up Unifying Hinduism but the general consensus among indologists and sanskritists is that Hinduism as we know it today is a 19th century development.
And this is what Ogress has said, "I know it's informational, but it's super distasteful to stick Sikhism and Jainism in particular into Hinduism, they get enough faeces as it stands and I think simply adding Buddhism is inaccurate." Which means she is also unambiguously against the inclusion. -Mohanbhan (talk) 02:08, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Astika and Nastika schools and Hindu philosophy:
Sushil Mittal & Gene Thursby (2004), The Hindu World, Routledge, 1, pages 729-730.
Roy Perrett (2000), Indian Philosophy, Routledge, 2, page 88.
Mittal and Thursby list 6 astika and 3 nastika philosophies. Perrett lists 6 astika and 4 nastika (including Ajivika). For more reliable sources on Ajivika, the less discussed school, see above. Both of the above sources explicitly discuss "Hindu philosophy". Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 02:12, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Mohanbhan: I am puzzled also by your demand for "cite reliable sources" here, when you refuse to do the same on Carvaka talk page for your claim, "Carvaka is not a Hindu philosophy". In that article, where this template has been used, you are lecturing me to read the book and "derive a conclusion you are with your original research". This double standard is strange and disruptive. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 02:20, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You made that comment asking me for the precise page number etc half an hour ago Sarah Welch. I will provide the excerpt. I asked you to read the first chapter of Chattopadhyaya's book which elaborates what I have said on the Carvaka talk page. Since you are not ready to do that I will provide the excerpt. Have some patience and don't make hasty accusations about double standards etc. -Mohanbhan (talk) 02:57, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Mohanbhan: It is strange that you are now going to look for an "excerpt" after you have made disruptive edits. I am not looking for an excerpt where I must do original research to make new conclusions that the author doesn't. Just mention the page number where you see the conclusion, and I will verify. Are books by Mittal & Thursby and Perrett reliable sources to you; if not why not? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 03:17, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Though Mittal and Thursby identify Carvaka, Jainism and Buddhism as Nastika schools of Hindu philosophy they qualify the claim with this: "Though it should be noted that this division is more political than intellectual, as there is very little Vedic content in some of the orthodox systems." Wikipedia is no place to reflect spurious classifications made on political grounds. Though Perrett uses the word "Hindu philosophical theology" initially, he is cautious enough to use the phrase "the broad Indian philosophical tradition" to categorize the Nastika schools. So these citations are not good enough to class Jainism, Buddhism, Carvaka and Ajivika as Nastika schools of Hindu philosophy.
What disruptive edits are you talking about Sarah Welch? Have I restored the revert you have made to Carvaka page or the Hindu philosophy template? And why is it strange to give an excerpt from the said book? I want everyone to see what we are talking about; not everyone will have access to that book. -Mohanbhan (talk) 03:27, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Mohanbhan: thank you for your extensive reply; it's clear what your thoughts are. A few comments:
It's reasonable to use the allegiance to the Veda's as a criterium; yet, it's also reasonable to use a 'common-sense', or 'real-life', or 'committed identity' argument (I'm searching for the right words here): not all the Hindu-traditions acknowledge the (centrality of) authority of the Veda's; Tantric Shaivism, for example, has its own corpus;
We've given two sources already, Geofrey Samuel's The Origins of Yoga and Tantra, and Andrew J. Nicholson's Unifying Hinduism;
It's an interesting thought to add Advaita Vedanta to Buddhism-templates; regrettably, the Buddhism-related articles are suffering from a chronic lack of historicity regarding the interactions with other Indian religions and philosophy.
(ec) @Mohanbhan: I hope you didn't miss that Mittal and Thursby are talking about "orthodox" (astika schools) when they make their "political than intellectual" comment, not "heterodox" schools. Is there a Wikipedia policy page you can point to that says, "Wikipedia does not allow content that is based on political classifications (even if it is in a reliable recent scholarly source)? or something equivalent?"
The Perrett source states on page 88, "The Mimamsa is one of the six major orthodox schools of Hindu philosophical theology. The term used in the tradition for orthodoxy is astika, and it is contrasted with nastika or heterodoxy, or better still non-orthodoxy. Much debate in Hindu theology centers around whether a particular view or system of thought is astika or nastika. (...) Those who deny the validity of the Veda are by definition nastika and comprise, in the broad Indian philosophical traditions, the materialists Carvaka or Lokyata, the Ajivikas, the Jainas, the Buddhists."
Perrett book therefore is a reliable scholarly source that supports the content of the proposal above: put Buddhism etc under "Related Indian Philosophies". Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 03:55, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My 2c: Having read/skimmed through the above discussion here I are my main two thoughts:
If it were a question of classifying schools of philosophy, I would side with Mohanbhan's POV and exclude the nastika schools (Jainism, Buddhism, Cravaka, and Ajivika) from "Hindu" philosophy. Including them blurs eliminates whatever distinction exists between (classical) Indian philosophy and Hindu philosophy, and if we wish to do that we may as well use the term "Indian philosophy", which is overwhelmingly more common for the combined set of nastika+astika schools. See in particular, Chatterjee and Dutta (p.4 "Indian philosophy is not Hindu philosophy") or Dasgupta's (p. 67 of vol. 1) discussion of nastika and astika as classification of Indian philosophies from a Hindu POV; almost every source I have seen on the topic repeats this. John Grimes cited by Sarah above is the only author I have seen so far who talks of astika and nastika schools as being a sub-division of Hindu philosophy (as opposed to Indian philosophy), but I believe that he just a bit casual in that sentence especially since his own book is titled A Concise Dictionary of Indian Philosophy.
That said, templates are not meant to be classification tools. They are navigational aids meant to guide the reader to related articles that may be of interest, and the same sources I cite above (as well as numerous other books on Indian philosophy) clearly show that Hindu/astika schools are often discussed in context of nastika schools, with which they share a deep historical and philosophical relation. Discussing them in tandem is the approach taken by almost every comprehensive book on the subject, and this is not even a modern phenomenon. Chatterjee and Dutta (p.4 again) point out that Madhvacharya did so in his survey 800 years back!
In light of the above two points, my preference is to (a) include the nastika schools in the template, while (b) making it clear that they are not being "claimed" to be Hindu (whatever that means). If others can agree with this, we just need to come up with a mechanism for achieving the latter goal for which there are several options, such as:
Simply retitling the template as Indian philosophy and making it a vertical analog of the existing Template:Indian philosophy, with which it already shares most of the content. Which version to include on any particular page can then be decided based on what other templates, images etc are competing for sidebar placement.
Reorganizing the section titles within the template to make the distinction clear. Frankly, I think the previous version with Buddhism, Jainism, Carvaka and Ajivika listed in the Nastika section already did an adequate job, but I am open to any suggestion (such as using "Related systems") that can achieve consensus.
@Abecedare: Thank you for your reply. Any creative ideas that makes the distinction clearer, is fine with me. Re-titling is what I was wondering about earlier, but then noticed that this template has sections like Acharya, which could bring new objectors out of the woods (this or that Acharya is not relevant to Indian philosophy in general, so why is he or she in this template). The broader title may also tempt editors to add a lot more sections for each tradition/philosophy, making it too complex to serve as a navigational tool of convenient links. Another creative option may be to leave the title same, group all Astika-related sections to the top, and place the Nastika group at the bottom and call it "Related Indian philosophies" or "Other Indian philosophies", with Indian bold or something, whatever makes it clearer. I am open to alternate suggestions. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 04:53, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Selective blindness to the objections made do not make the objections disappear Sarah Welch. The phrase used in Perrett is "broad Indian philosophical traditions." And yes, Mittal and Thursby are talking about the political nature of the Astika-Nastika classification. As I said, citing Burley, it is perfectly legitimate to classify Sankhya and Yoga as Nastika. I am not into wikilawyering but based on my experience I can tell you that intellectual classifications carry greater weight on wiki than political classifications.
@Joshua: I have explained why what is said in The Origins of Yoga and Tantra do not support the inclusion of Buddhism and other religions in a Hindu philosophy template. I have also told you why Nicholson's view that Hinduism was unified is unusual as the word Hinduism itself was first used in 19th century. And I know many scholars who would object to Tantra being classed as Hinduism.
@Abecedare: Madhava Acharya's Sarva Darshana Samgraha is an exercise to extoll the virtues of Advaita Vedanta. It starts with Carvaka philosophy in the first chapter, refutes it in the next chapter on Buddhist philosophy, refutes Buddhist philosophy in the next chapter on Jain philosophy and so on. The last chapter of the book is on Patanjali's Yoga philosophy; it carries a note at the end which says, Advaita Vedanta which is the greatest of all Indian philosophical schools is not discussed here as it is the topic of a separate book by the author. So the atheist/materialist school has always been used as a punching bag by all theistic esp. Vedantist philosophers. I don't think this primitive approach of privileging theistic schools and denigrating atheistic schools needs to be encouraged on wikipedia. Editors on wiki are either systematically suppressing material on Carvaka or giving it a particular slant to hide its antagonistic stand against the orthodoxy. This would be very clear if you look at the wiki page of Brihaspati the philosopher who is seen as one of the originators of the Carvaka: there is no mention there of either Brihaspatya sutras or Carvaka philosophy. Considering all these it is important how Carvaka philosophy is classified. This is not just a matter of having a convenient navigational tool. -Mohanbhan (talk) 05:09, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is not just a matter of having a convenient navigational tool. But it is, when talking of WP:Navigation templates! Can we keep the discussion focused here? Any improvements to the Carvaka article should be suggested at Talk:Cārvāka. The question here is whether comprehensive surveys of Hindu philosophy, such as the main references used in Hindu philosophy article, mention the Nastika schools or not (which guides us whether to include them in our template or not). Are you claiming they don't? Abecedare (talk) 05:22, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, if the term Hindu philosophy is to make any sense there must be some criteria to include and exclude schools of philosophy. The criteria for inclusion that is widely followed is whether the philosophies/theologies accept the authority of the Vedas. Only Vedantic schools explicitly acknowledge the authority of the Vedas. The other schools just make a deferential gesture towards the Vedas (The Samkhya and Yoga schools make the barest minimum gesture.) Carvaka, Jainism, Buddhism and Ajivika are completely opposed to the Vedas and Vedantic philosophy, so it wouldn't be correct to include them in a template on Hindu philosophy. -Mohanbhan (talk) 05:57, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Hindu philosophy article on wiki cites four Nastika schools as part of Hindu philosophy without citing any reliable sources. Their inclusion can easily be challenged. That page can't be used as a "main reference" for this template. Changes could be made to that article based on the criteria for inclusion that we are working out here. -Mohanbhan (talk) 06:10, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Mohanbhan, not sure what/whom you are replying to since I already stated above that "Hindu" philosophy is not the prefered collective term for astika+nastika schools. And I am not asking about what the Hindu philosophy article says. I mentioned "comprehensive surveys of Hindu philosophy, such as the main references used in Hindu philosophy article" discussing nastika philosophies as related systems. Are you disputing that? Abecedare (talk) 06:17, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Mohanbhan, your criterium is clear. Thanks. Though do note that Unifying Hinduism also describes how this criterium developed. It's an interesting read, this book; I can recommand it.
Following your criterium, the template could also be called "Orthodox Hindu philosophy," right? But themn we do come back to the question, "What is "Hinduism"?," and to the question "What is the function of those templates. But I do understand your argument, and your objections, I guess.
Interesting note on Tantra & Hinduism; Tantra is precisely the field where Buddhism was influenced by Hinduism. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk!06:23, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Joshua: I will read Unifying Hinduism. Thanks.
@Abecedare: "Comprehensive surveys of Hindu philosophy discuss Nastika schools as related systems." So you are saying Astika and Nastika are related systems since Nastika schools refute the claims made by Astika schools. Well, if you look at Carvaka, Buddhism, Jainism and Ajivika from the Astika (Hindu) viewpoint they do appear as not-Astika, non-Hindu and therefore na+Astika (Nastika). I think this is a negative identity imposed on these systems. Their disagreement with Astika schools does not define their identity IMO. They have a positive identity. That is why Chattopadhyaya called the Carvaka school "Lokayata" meaning that which is prevalent in the society (lokeshu ayata). So the classification of Nastika is made from a Astika viewpoint. Form the Buddhist, Jain, Ajivika and Carvaka point of view the Astika schools of Vedanta, Mimamsa etc would be "Nastika", since they refute the irreligious/materialist ideas celebrated in these philosophical traditions. -Mohanbhan (talk) 06:42, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Every system is orthodox in it own (and in its followers') eyes, is true but irrelevant. Since this is not a general forum, lets keep the discussion on topic, ie how reliable sources classify and discuss the schools of Indian and Hindu philosophy. So unless you disagree with "comprehensive surveys of Hindu philosophy discuss Nastika schools as related systems.", we can move to finalizing how to properly include those systems in the template w/o appearing to claim them as Hindu. Abecedare (talk) 06:56, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Abecedare: I appreciate your pragmatic approach but the need to be practical should not simplify the problem. This is the problem: You will find reliable sources privileging the Hindu viewpoint which say nastika schools are subsidiary systems related to Hindu philosophy. You will also find reliable sources which privilege Buddhist/Jain/Carvaka viewpoints which see Astika schools as subsidiary related systems. Now it is very easy to just look at reliable sources which privilege the Hindu viewpoint and class the rest as nastika. This can be done under a heading called Indian philosophy. But my question is: why impose this negative viewpoint on Buddhism, Jainism, Ajivika and Carvaka? Many Hindus would claim that this negative identity and marginal status of other religions and philosophical traditions is justified since India is a Hindu-majority country. Agreed. But since wikipedia is not an Indian but a global enterprise there should be unbiased non-negative representation of all philosophical schools and traditions here. Nastika is a negative category and only sources which privilege the Hindu viewpoint make such a classification. Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya's book Lokayata, a reliable source for Carvaka philosophy, for example, does not make such a classification. -Mohanbhan (talk) 07:17, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Abecedare:, @Joshua Jonathan: Indeed, as @JJ writes, "What is Hinduism?" is at the heart of this. Hindu philosophy, in reliable scholarly sources, is a modern umbrella term that means a lot of things. It includes schools that were astika and nastika (these terms themselves mean a lot of different things). Except some fringe views, almost all scholarship includes all sorts of schools under the umbrella term of "Hindu philosophy" – some were smaller than Ajivikas and for which Wikipedia does not have an article yet. Vedic and non-Vedic adjectives don't mean much, for purposes of clarity, because Vedas have all sorts of different philosophies embedded in them. Even Rigveda questions: is there God? if yes, who created him? In other words, like every system of ancient religion/philosophy from Inkas to India, from Greek to Christian, with many generations of scholars, Man thinks, Man disagrees, Man creates orthodox and non-orthodox schools. We can't do OR here. All we can do is summarize the majority scholarly view. I now feel @Mohanbhan has a strange, uncommon view of Hinduism, and we can't convince @Mohanbhan. But consensus is not defined as "make @Mohanbhan happy". Lets try to reach a sans-@Mohanbhan consensus, that incorporates his/her well founded concern, fix this template, then move on. For this template, I would love a constructive specific proposal from @Mohanbhan, instead of this forum like discussion.
What about this idea:
Title: Part of a series on Indian philosophies
Astika Hindu philosophy: Samkhya Yoga Nyaya Vaisheshika Mīmāṃsā Vedanta
Your being completely biased Sarah Welch, and looking only at Hindu-privileging sources, doesn't make my reasonable and balanced view "strange and uncommon". Please look at Indian philosophy from Buddhist/Jain/Carvaka/Ajivika perspectives; please look at texts which privilege these views. Just because India is a Hindu-majority country (I am not sure what that exactly means, given that people are so confused about "Hinduism") we can't give a hegemonic status to Hinduism on wikipedia. Hindus may claim Carvaka as a nastika school of Hindu philosophy but the Carvakas/Lokayatas (i.e. the new materialists like Chattopadhyay and Bhattaracharya) do not see themselves as part of Hinduism. It is very important that we take into consideration the self-definition of these schools of thought and not blindly follow a hegemonic approach. And this is not original research, this is going to the reliable sources in Buddhism/Jainism/Carvaka and Ajivika: none of these sources identify their religion/philosophy as part of Hinduism. Why should wiki pander to the imperialistic tendencies of Hinduism?
Let us apply the principle of non-contradiction to cut through all the bullshit, obscurantism and propaganda. Hinduism is widely defined as the religion which holds the Vedas as infallible authority--as the word of Brahma. Hinduism is also sometimes described as having some Nastika or heterodox schools which deny the authority of the Vedas. The principle of non-contradiction says something can't be A and not-A at the same time and same place. So how can Hinduism claim to both hold and not hold the Vedas as divine authority at the same time? This is a logical absurdity. Either Hinduism should stick to the Vedas and its allied schools or it should embrace the Carvaka school and let go of the Astika schools. It cannot claim to contain both.
I repeat: Buddhism-Jainism-Carvaka- and Ajivika-privileging reliable sources would not define these religions as part of Hinduism. This extremely crucial self-definition of religions/philosophical schools cannot be -- and should not be -- ignored. -Mohanbhan (talk) 12:47, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Mohanbhan: You write, "Let us apply the principle of non-contradiction to cut through all the bullshit, obscurantism and propaganda." That is an appeal for OR, and using this talk page as a forum. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:52, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
RfC: should this template also contain links to Jainism and Buddhism as "Related Indian philosophies"?
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is consensus for reinserting the links. There is also strong support for renaming the template though this RFC did not ask the question, and there is no consensus on a specific rename. AlbinoFerret01:34, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Given the close relations between Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism, and the influence of those traditions on Hinduism, it is convenient to have a link to those topics. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk!13:16, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support: It would add convenient links to information in this template, consistent with Wikipedia mission. It is supported by recent reliable scholarly sources, for example: 1 Roy Perrett (2000), Indian Philosophy, Routledge, page 88; [2] Sushil Mittal & Gene Thursby (2004), The Hindu World, Routledge, pages 729-730. For other reasons, see discussion in the above closed section titled, "Jainism, Buddhism, Carvaka and Ajivika part of Hinduism?". Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:43, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: For the reasons stated above. All the works quoted by Sarah Welch and Joshua Jonathan are problematic, as discussed above. Also, they are works which privilege a Hindu viewpoint. "Related Indian philosophies" is the header chosen by the editors. Buddhism, Jainism, Carvaka and Ajivika are not "philosophies": three of them are religions. "Related": related to what? Indian philosophy? That doesn't make sense. Hindu philosophy? How are Christian, Sikh and Islamic religions not "related"? This doesn't make sense either. "Indian": Are they "Indian" because they originated in India? Are Christianity and Islam "Israeli" or "Middle Eastern" then? This also does not make any sense. This is an absurd and meaningless category imposed on non-Hindu religions and a philosophical school of materialism to provide hegemonic status to Astika or Orthodox Hinduism. The implication is that other religions and philosophical schools are somehow "lesser." This is fascistic and in bad taste. -Mohanbhan (talk) 16:18, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Fascist? Is that really the word you want to use here in a consensus-building discussion? There are probably more apt terms. Ogresssmash!00:59, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Ogress: Fascistic is not a word that I use emotionally or impulsively. The word fascistic has a meaning, it means might is right. Most editors have chosen to overlook my very pertinent objection that they have come to the conclusion about Nastika philosophies as being not-Astika or orthodox Hinduism by reading books on Hinduism which naturally privilege the Hinduism POV and give the status of other to other religions and philosophical schools. Does any book on Buddhist/Jain/Carvaka or Ajivika philosophies identify itself as part of Hindu philosophy? No. So my appeal has been to respect the self-definition of these philosophies.
Also, I had not noticed that the request does not mention retitling the template to Indian philosophies, which is what Sarah Welch had proposed. If editors are not going to leave Buddhism, Jainism, Carvaka and Ajivika alone they will have to at least change the header to "Part of a series on Indian philosophy." -Mohanbhan (talk) 08:05, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment"to provide hegemonic status to Astika or Orthodox Hinduism" - hmm, they wish we did. Actually, I expect that orthodox Hindus may object to revealing the close relations with Buddhism and Jainism. But Buddhists may indeed fear that Buddhism is subdued under Hinduism, as if it is some part of Hinduism. Nevertheless, the two books mentioned reveal more about the close relations between those tarditions, and about the ineer dynamics of "Hinduism" and the drive to present it as a coherent, unified tradition. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk!04:10, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support As I explained in detail above, I support this because every comprehensive source on the topic discusses these schools in tandem under the rubric of Indian philosophy (eg, Encyclopedia of Indian philosophies, Chatterjee and Dutta, Dasgupta, Mohanty) etc). These schools have a long historical and deep philosophical relation with Hindu philosophy, and a reader of Samkhya would naturally be interested in reading about Carvaka; a reader of Adi Shankara in Buddhism etc. Providing convenient navigational links to such related content of interest is the sole purpose of navigational templates. The primary objections to inclusion is the claim that this inclusion somehow privileges the Hindu POV by classifying religions like Buddhism or Jainism as "other" or "nastika", or subsumes them under Hinduism. I don't believe providing navigational links to readers under "Related Indian philosophies" does either of that, and so support the proposal. Abecedare (talk) 16:33, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support but rename - I think they need to be on the template but calling Jainism, Sikhism and Buddhism "Hindu philosophy" is definitely giving me the flibbertygibbets, even if it is just a link helper. Maybe we could just rename it "Classical Indic philosophy" or something similar. Either that or we need to limit the links to Astika and Nastika and make a new Indian Philosophy sidebar, which honestly, seems like overkill. Whatever the decision, directly linking to Buddhist philosophy and equivalents is more sensible than just linking to Buddhism. Ogresssmash!00:54, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Joshua, Orthodox is Astika and Heterodox is Nastika, and this pertains only to Hindu philosophy. There is no such thing as "Orthodox Indian philosophy." -Mohanbhan (talk) 09:21, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, now I see what you mean. It took me some time to let it sink in :). Yes; you might even say: "this pertains only to Hindu philosophy as classified by the Brahmanical tradition". Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk!14:46, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose: There are many close relations of Hinduism with Zorastraniasm, Islam and Christianity. They should be included too. This is what one notable writer has to say about Buddhism and Hinduism"
Hide a fraudulent attribution to Basham and Zysk, it is cut & paste from a blog at http://www.buddhisma2z.com/ (Alphabetic Index: Hinduism)
"Hinduism is not a religion in the usual sense of the word, but is rather a collection of sometimes widely divergent religious concepts and practices that evolved out of Brahmanism in India. It is sometimes said that Buddhism is a branch of Hinduism or that it started as a reform movement within Hinduism. Neither of these claims is correct. Firstly, Hinduism did not exist at the time of the Buddha and only began to evolve after the 3rd or 4th centuries CE. But even if we confuse Hinduism with Brahmanism it is still clear from the Buddhist scriptures that the Buddha saw his Dhamma as contrasting with and being an alternative to the religion of his time, not a reform or a reinterpretation of it. Source The Origins and Development of Classical Hinduism By A. L. Bash am and K. G. Zysk,1971.
Comment: A check of Basham and Zysk by @Joshua Jonathan and @Ms Sarah Welch failed verification (see section below). Basham and Zysk did not write this nor imply this. Editor @Terabar was pinged and invited to provide the page number for this quote at 14:02, 5 July 2015 (UTC), the editor did not respond with a page number, even though @Terabar posted other messages on wikipedia after the request.
Comment Thanks for the quote; totally agree. Note, though, that the proposal is not to say that they are the same, bu that they are related. Maybe Ogress is right, and the template should be renamed. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk!04:21, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: @Joshua: If you think the template should be renamed to "Part of a series on Indian philosophies" why don't you add that to the proposed changes under "Request"? -Mohanbhan (talk) 09:09, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In order not to confuse the discussion by changing the original proposal. Also, it's a "maybe". And there already is a template on Indian philosophy; two of them is too uch, isn't it? And also because there are two distinct articles on Hindu philosophy and Indian philosophy respectively; the fact that there is a separate article on Hindu philosophy seems to warrant a separate navigation bar. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk!09:21, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Ogress: and @Abecedare:, do you support the inclusion of related philosophies without the renaming of template to "Part of a series on Indian philosophies"? I guess that's what both of you had proposed. -Mohanbhan (talk) 09:33, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Why not Sarah Welch, when you have proposed it yourself above? What is the point of this Rfc if not to resolve the issues raised? If you are serious about resolving the dispute you cannot go back on a solution that you have yourself proposed. Please don't make this an exercise in one upmanship. -Mohanbhan (talk) 15:06, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If you want to include all philosophies in one template then better rename it as "Indian philosophies" and not "Hinduism". We should keep sidebar of "Indian Philosophies" plus "related sidebar of particular philosophy" on articles related to Jainism, Buddhism, Carvaka, Sufism etc. And can keep sidebar of "Hindu philosophy" plus "Indian philosophy" on articles related to Hinduism/vedic religion. --Human3015 knock knock • 09:36, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jainism, Buddhism and Ajivika are certainly "related to Hindu philosophy", and are certainly "Indian Philosophies". Why are we missing out Carvaka? The template can read Ajivika Budhhism Carvaka Jainism. (Alphabetical order) --Rahul (talk) 11:17, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Copy-vio? or Basham and Zysk quote by User:Terabar in the RfC
@JJ: Lets give @Terabar an opportunity to provide a page number from Basham and Zysk, or explain what happened. Note @Terabar wrote before the quote: "This is what one notable writer has to say about Buddhism and Hinduism". Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:36, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@JJ: This reads, "Majority of the articles in the CBE (Chinese Buddhist Encyclopedia) have been copied from other websites available in the Internet." Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:36, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Support:It is not OK to use saffron colour in the Hindu nav/sidebar. Saffron is the colour of BJP/RSS/Jan Sangh, the far-right Hindu nationalist parties in India. Hinduism is not Hindu nationalism or Hindutva, and Hinduism has got nothing to do with the saffron colour. So I propose that the colour used in the Hindu nav bar be changed immediately. Using this colour constitutes promotion of the far-right ideology, the spreading of which has been called saffronization in India. But since wiki is completely saffronized, the wiki entry on it does not describe the term adequately. Concerned editors may google the term to understand the dangers of saffronizing. -Mohanbhan (talk) 17:58, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hm. First, I know we have a lot, like an metric ton, of problems with Indic pages, but I don't know that I'd say English Wikipedia is "saffronized". The Muslim Right keeps the Saffron Right a little at bay. (A little humour there.) Second, I've been thinking that it's ugly as sin myself. Do you have a color suggestion? It's easier to sell a color than to say "not saffron". I'd agree because in many place, saffron is the color of Buddhism, especially Buddhist-related ethnic nationalism, but I don't have a good color suggestion that isn't white. Is there a good argument for more earthy colors for the bars? Bright orange kind of hurts.
Honestly my favorite navbars are the ones that are simplest, as I really hate clutter and cruft and mobiles make a lot of pages illegible because of cruft and clutter: one of the ones I like to look at is {{Early Buddhism}} (template:Early Buddhism), although I'd like to tweak it a hair. It's simple and relatively nice, but it's not polished. The green leaf on top really sets off the bar. Maybe we could do something less glitzy with Hindu philosophy, but I'd like to hear specific color suggestions. Mohanbhan, Joshua_Jonathan, uh VictoriaGrayson... god, who are the usual suspects? Soham321, Human3015, The Rahul Jain. Cpt.a.haddock I know we all disagree about the contents, and those are important, but I urge us not to overlook how important presentation can be to material as well. PLEASE tag other people who usually comment on pages, I'm in a lot of weather-related pain and can't think straight today. Don't skip the people you disagree with, these kind of somewhat less-charged discussions can also ease interpersonal tensions and we are a consensus-driven site. (And apparently I'm all your moms.) Ogresssmash!20:56, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with MohanBhan that the saffron color has become politicized and is now identified with Hindu nationalism. While opposing Mohan's suggestion Victoria Grayson gives a link to WP:RGW which says WP is not the place for righting historical wrongs. Her reasoning would have been acceptable if there was any way to show that Hindu philosophers were identifying with the color saffron in any way. In other words, is there any writing of any prominent ancient or medieval Hindu philosopher showing any preference for the saffron color? To the best of my knowledge, the answer is No. This being the case we can do away with the misleading saffron color. Soham321 (talk) 02:08, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hatting this part of my response since i went off on a tangent.
My own suggestion would be to replace the saffron color with the Indian Tricolor (of the Indian national flag). I also think the classification being currently done in which Hindu philosophy is treated in isolation is misleading and wrong because for a very long period of time--spanning more than a thousand years--Hindu philosophy was intermingling with Buddhist and Jain philosophies, and this co-mingling was occurring in peculiar ways. For instance, on the question of whether the world is ultimately real, or ultimately unreal only the Mahayana Buddhists (Yogacaras or Vijnana vadins, and Madhyamakas or Sunya vadins) and the Advaita Vedantists were upholding such a view. Some of the advanced Mahayana Buddhists like Dharmakirti and his commentators had come up with a peculiar argument in defense of idealism and a rebuttal was offered for this argument from Jain philosophers like Akalanka, Mimamsa philosophers like Kumarila Bhatta, and Hinayana Buddhists like Subhagupta who belongs to the Vaibhasika sub-school of Hinayana Buddhism. (The words 'Mahayana' or 'Greater Vehicle' and 'Hinayana' or 'Lesser/Meaner Vehicle' have been coined by the self-styled Mahayanists.) So the arguments really were about specific issues. On a particular topic, a hindu philosopher could combine with a philosopher representing a sub-school of Buddhism; and similarly on another topic a Buddhist philosopher could combine (put forward arguments which were in agreement with) a hindu philosopher of a particular school and launch scholarly attacks against other hindu philosophers representing some other school. This interaction and intermingling, i will point out, led to an all round enrichment of all the philosophers and philosophical schools which were participating in these debates.
To give an example of the intermingling: Here is Vachaspati Mishra, writing from the Nyaya point of view in the Nyaya Vartika Tatparya Tika and commenting on the Yogacara Buddhist Dignaga's definition of perception:
The Master has dropped the characteristic of non-illusoriness because he knows this non-illusoriness is suicidal for his whole system
The relationship between the Nyaya-Vaisesika philosophers and the Mahayana Buddhists goes something like this: The Nyaya philosopher Vatsyayana had written a commentary on the Nyaya Sutra which was attacked by the Mahayana Buddhist Dignaga in his writings. Dignaga in turn was criticized from the Nyaya-Vaisesika point of view by Uddyotakara who in turn was criticized by the Mahayana Buddhist Dharmakirti who in turn was criticized by Vachaspati Mishra and Udayana. Vatsyayana was writing in around the 4th century and Udayana in the tenth century. The point here is that both the Nyaya-Vaisesika and the Mahayana Buddhist philosophies were enriched as a result of this interactive debate.
This being the case, i propose that the classification be done under the title Indian Philosophy and we follow the traditional mode of classification whereby under Indian Philosophy we place Sankhya, Yoga, Nyaya, Vaisesika, Mimamsa, Vedanta under Astika and Buddhism, Jainism, and Charvaka under Nastika. This classification is to be found in the Mahabharata, and the various dharmasastras and also various other traditional texts so there is no reason to deviate from it.
But what about Sikhism, Christianity (with respect to the Syrian Christians), Islam in India (including Sufism) etc. even though they have been around in India for a long time these did not experience the kind of intermingling that took place between the different schools of Hinduism, Buddhism, and Jainism and so for this reason they need not be placed under the Astika and Nastika categories in Indian Philosophy but may be placed in a separate 'Other' category. Soham321 (talk) 22:30, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A clarification: The classification of Indian philosophies under Astika and Nastika has been explained in the dharmasastras and other works. A Nastika philosophy is one which does not accept the authority of the Vedas. An Astika is one which accepts the authority of the Veda. (Thus, in the philosophical sense, the words do not correspond to the literal meaning of the words whereby Astika means a theist and Nastika an atheist. A classic example of an Astika philosophy which denies the existence of God is the Sankhya.) Soham321 (talk) 22:43, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Soham, a request: Would you please "refactor" your response above? The first few sentences focus on the color issue, but then the rest focuses on a philosophical issue, beginning with the sentence "I also think the classification being currently done in which Hindu philosophy is treated in isolation is misleading". I'd encourage you to move that philosophical discussion to its own new section below, where it could receive the attention it deserves, instead of being an impediment and distraction in the current section. Thanks for your consideration. --Presearch (talk) 00:32, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ambivalent, plus potential alternative: Red. First the "con": I'm not satisfied that the political significance should be taken to eclipse the religious significance. Saffron has been associated with Hindu renunciates (ascetics), who are a significant part of Hinduism, for centuries if not milennia. Just because a contemporary political party has politicized an ancient symbol doesn't mean that Wikipedia (or others) should dance to the tune, when the symbol is so ancient. The cross has often been politicized or used in heinous ways (e.g., cross-burnings by the Ku Klux Klan) - Does that mean that Wikipedia should eliminate the cross that appears on the bottom of its Christianity template (link)? Note also that the Islam portal (link) is green, and the color green is often taken to symbolize Islam. If we discover that the color green has been politicized somewhere, does that mean that Wikipedia must change the color of the Islam portal? This impulse strikes me as meriting scrutiny for being driven by short-sighted and excessive WP:RECENTISM.
Next, an interesting perspective is provided by the history of the Indian Flag, especially as described at an archived Indian government website HERE. According to that article, in 1921 the independence movement unofficially adopted a flag that was red (symbolizing Hinduism), green (symbolizing Islam), and white (symbolizing other religions). Then, in 1931, the Congress officially adopted a saffron, white, and green tricolor, and it was "clearly stated that it bore no communal significance and was to be interpreted thus." These are essentially the colors of the current Indian Flag, which are given interpretations derived from religions (e.g., saffron may represent courage and sacrifice, also here), but the current flag colors are seemingly clearly mandated not to bear communal religious implications (Hindu/Islamic/Other).
Finally, my questions are: Why was red chosen to symbolize Hinduism in the 1921 unofficial flag? Is there any evidence that red still connotes Hinduism today? If so, would red be a good color to use in this Hinduism sidebar? And last but not least, is there any persuasive evidence that the political connotations of saffron have eclipsed the religious connotations among the relevant audience? --Presearch (talk) 00:28, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support but not for the reasons given by OP. VictoriaGrayson and others, please also consider my reply to the initial suggestion, tl;dr I suggest we might change it not to fight Saffronization but because it's UGLY and the same color is associated with Buddhism, notably current Buddhist-related ethnic nationalist movements. (But mostly, it's ugly.) Ogresssmash!01:01, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Since Hinduism is known for its plurality and diversity I propose a shade of blue, the colour of the ocean. Blue is the colour of the sky and so of Brahma who is beyond all description. It is also the colour of Krishna, and of Mount Kailash, the home of Shiva. And, more than anything else, it is pleasant on the eyes. Please check out the different shades of blue. I personally like International Klein Blue and Ultramarine but would be happy with any shade of blue. And the use of saffron, as Presearch says, is not a recent phenomenon. As far as I know it was Hindu Mahasabha, started in 1906, which first started using the saffron flag. RSS, started in 1925, has also used the saffron flag. So saffron has represented far-right Hindu nationalist politics for over a hundred years, and associating Hinduism with it would definitely constitute saffronization. (The Hindu politics template also uses saffron, but of a lighter shade, implying perhaps that Hinduism is more intensely nationalistic than Hindutva.) -Mohanbhan (talk) 03:19, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am fine with blue color, but i did not like the shades of blue proposed by Mohan. My favorites are shades of Sky Blue like Deep Sky Blue: Sky_blue#Deep_sky_blue and also the Sky Blue(G&S) and Light Sky Blue colors. I also think any dark blue color is best avoided since dark blue is the color of the Bahujan Samaj Party. Soham321 (talk) 03:37, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - I hhave no problem whatsoever with the orange colour; I like it. Bu that's a personal "preference." Coincidentally, orange is also the national colour of the Netherlands, of our King, and of our national soccer-team. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk!03:55, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: @Joshua: In the context of the discussion here, that saffron is being used for saffronization, what is your response? I don't think we are talking about personal preferences here; personally, I also like the colour of kesar and love kesar milk. Agree with Soham, dark blue is the colour of BSP party; among the lighter shades I like United nations blue. -Mohanbhan (talk) 11:23, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I understand your point; it's just that I personally have no such associations with the color orange. Though, I must say, if there is an association with "saffronization," then orange might be a good colour, ironically. Because "Hinduism" may be a too narrow term, where "Indian philosophy" might be better, given the scope. But don't let my opinions on this issue weight very much; I have no substantial arguments pro or contra. I don't mind blue either. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk!12:00, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Saffron/orange has been debated and linked to Hinduism since the British times (read e.g. this). The old reasoning has been that sun deity, Savitr, Surya as well as Agni in the Vedas is oft mentioned, and orange / saffron / reddish-yellow is the color that reminds of them. Other major colors - blue/purple for Christianity, green for Islam, red for Communism are already in widespread use in wikipedia templates. That leaves shades of yellow / orange / saffron / amber / sunglow as the available colors for Indian religions-related templates. Colors should help easily identify a template or topic or comparative chart, not become a target for political correctness. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:48, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
According to the comment in Undo Notes I have referred the article and the article say Carvaka rejects Vedas, Vedic ritualism and supernaturalism. So I moved Charvaka under Related Indian philosophies.--Tenkasi Subramanian (talk) 14:47, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted your OR and non-WP:V change. See discussion above, the Charvaka article and its talk page. Many Astika schools reject ritualism too and supernaturalism. Scholars include Charvaka as Hindu tradition/philosophy. -- unsigned edit by 90.41.239.61
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Oppose This is not Mohanbhan-pedia. The template is useful in a variety of Project Hinduism-related pages. For further reasons, see the discussions above. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:46, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @JJ: Given all the reliable sources mentioned in closed discussions above that discuss the schools of "Hindu philosophy", have you come across any new reliable sources lately with overwhelming arguments for a reconsideration? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:11, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The consensus reached in the above discussion is to retain the section titled "Related Indian philosophies" because Jainism, Buddhism and Ajivika and Charvaka are related Indian philosophies, and not because they are Hindu philosophies. One editor has explicitly asked for the template to be renamed while others have suggested it as all these religions/philosophies are discussed under the rubric of Indian philosophy. So contrary to what Sarah Welch claims all the reliable sources quoted above discuss the aforementioned religions/philosophies as aspects of Indian philosophy or Indian thought. -- unsigned comment by Mohanbhan, 17:39, 25 September 2015
Reply: Puzzling. See, for example, Basant Pradhan Book's mentioned above, on page 10. There is more above. A citation index search for unique scholarly publications using the term "Hindu philosophy" or "Hindu philosophies", since 1975, gives over 6,500 records. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:43, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose because a template on Indian philosophy would have significantly different content with many more links to Buddhism, Jainism etc related articles (see {{Indian philosophy}}). The name of a template is no big deal since wikipedia readers don't even see it, but the proposed rename is inadvisable since it will just spark off many more battles about making the template links match the scope suggested by the new name. Abecedare (talk) 17:51, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "The name of a template is no big deal since wikipedia readers don't even see it" This is a strange claim. Nothing is more glaringly conspicuous and garish than the Hindu philosophy template with its bright orange and OM sign. If the name of the template is no big deal and if no-one sees it one might as well change it. Utilitarian arguments aside, the more significant consideration is whether "Ajivika, Buddhism, Jainism, Shaiva, Pratyabhijña, Pashupata, Siddhanta, Tantra" are discussed as Hindu philosophies? The answer being no, following WP:RS the template should be renamed Indian philosophy to justifiably retain links to other Indian philosophies. -Mohanbhan (talk) 18:32, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I still don't mind the name "Hindu philosophy," and including Buddhism. May I withdraw the proposal, and ask for a little bit less partisanship about the answer to the question "What is Hinduism," c.q. "Who is a Hindu"? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk!20:12, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The answer to the original question "Hindu philosophy → Indian philosophy" is obviously "no" because we do need a template on Hindu philosophy. As for "what is Hinduism," let us remember that it is a modern term. It is not defined by a reductionist definition. So, deciding which ancient system of belief should be included in it is always a bit of a toss-up. We should go by what scholarly consensus appears to be (which in turn follows the prevalent practice in the society). When there are gray areas, we should represent them as gray areas. - Kautilya3 (talk) 11:30, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Michael Witzel clearly supports my position:
"“Hinduism” is a loose agglomerate of many of the interlinking religions and worldviews of South Asia (and Bali); though overlapping with some other religions, it basically includes those that are neither Islamic, Christian, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi, Sikh, or “tribal”. As this negative description indicates, an effectual definition of Hinduism (used here for brevity’s sake) is virtually impossible: it is the sum of the traditional beliefs, rituals, customs, and pertinent social structures of South Asia, including the philosophical and theological representation of these beliefs in some two dozen of schools of thought. Less encompassing definitions (especially those deriving Hinduism simply from Vedic origins, do not sufficiently cover the realities on the ground or in the available texts. The Veda is expressively rejected by many Tantric sects, Vırashaivism, Buddhism, and Jainism. Nor does the fashionable description of Hinduism as a colonial creation apply: Greek and Chinese visitors (c. 450 B.C.–A.D. 600) saw it as different (as “deva worship”) from Buddhism and other ascetic religions (gymnosophists); indigenously, Hinduism was often referred to simply as dharma."Witzel, Michael (2006), "Hinduism (Dharma)", in Stanley Wolpert (ed.), Encyclopedia of India, vol. 2 (E-J), Thomson Gale, pp. 188–193, ISBN0-684-31512-2
Conclusion So far, it's clear that there is not much support for this move. I also agree with the Witzel-quote; most scholars use a "brod definition" of Hinduism, which also includes non-vedic traditions alike Lingayatism. So, I think we skip this Veda-argument as the criterium for incluion or exclusion. And keep this template at it's present name and state. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk!19:16, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
These deletions [2] are undue. I meant that the word "related" is good enough, no need to add "non-Hindu". I didn't say that you should delete all these philosophies. - Kautilya3 (talk) 17:22, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
//"Related" does not mean "comes under". "Related" does not mean "belongs to". //
I know this alreday and listened your points very well. But you don't listened my replies. I already replied you like below.
//But if you include in these template viewers may think like these are all come under Hinduism.//
Because you mixed Other Hindu philosophies as well as Related Indian Philosophies in one Header. This is only the reason for confusion. But now both categories are separated and look clear. First listen my replies and continue your talk.--Tenkasi Subramanian (talk) 14:12, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@தென்காசி சுப்பிரமணியன்: you reverted again, with a nonsense-argument and a misplaced allegation: "I reverted with references. But user Jonathan did revert without any citations. User Jonathan done vandalism on my edits."
Let's repeat: we're taling here about related traditions. We're not saying that those traditions are part of Hinduism, we're also not saying that they are completely different. For your knowledge: I'm a Buddhist, I see plenty of differences between Buddhism and Hinduism, but I also see a lot of similarities. They are like two close brothers (or sisters) of the same family.
References: you didn't revert with any "references." You reverted, ignoring the talkpage-discussion. The "references" you're referring too belong to an article-section on the similarities and differences between various Indian religious traditions. How do these specificially establish that Buddhism etc. are not "related" to Hinduism? They don't, on the contrary. The lead of that article speaks of "parallel" traditions. See Geoffrey Samuel (2010), The Origins of Yoga and Tantra. Indic Religions to the Thirteenth Century, Cambridge University Press, for more on the shared background between those various traditions.
Read WP:VANDALISM to understand what we mean with vandalism, and don't use the word when I'm correcting your WP:DISRUPTIVE behaviour and WP:POV-pushing.
User:Joshua Jonathan Your words are not right to use in Wikipedia. How can you use the word non-sense? Is it come under wiki Policies?
First I ask for references in my edit. [3]. You removed my cn template. How can you remove this without talking in talk page? So this is Vandalism. So I am talking with sense.
After you removed my cn template there is only way to mention respective article or article part in Edit Summary and remove non citation philosophies. That's why I give sramana link in edit summary and remove your edit. Because you only say templates don't contain reflists..
And without talking in talk page you removed my cn template. So I revert your edit. This is like I'm correcting your WP:DISRUPTIVE behaviour and WP:POV-pushing.
After all that, Now only you quote some books in talk page for your point and claim that you are following wiki policies. What is the problem to state that books when i asked the questions first and removed my edits? Without quoting any books and you removed my edit just like that means it looks like your edits were Vandalism and you were not following wiki policies.
If I ask citations means you should give respective references and revert my edit. That is wiki policy. So you study the wiki policies first and talk with me.
Your below last edits only looks neutral and clear in everything. Because you separated Other hindu Philosophies and related Indian Philosophies. If you done this before means it was correct. But without doing this, you revert my edits means then it must be non-sense reverts as well as disruptive reverts on my correct edits.
[4] --Tenkasi Subramanian (talk) 14:07, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. The solution is neutral as well as clear. But I didn't do any edit war. Quoting reference or giving article part which have enough reference and revert the edit means that is not edit war.--Tenkasi Subramanian (talk) 20:24, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Does other religions should be included in Hindu philosophy template?
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Does other religions should be mentioned in this template? If other Indian religions mentioned here then how it should be mentioned? As "Other Indian religions" or "Related Indian religions"? Or better not to be mentioned? For example other religions like Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism are mentioned in this template which themselves have separate same kind of templates. This template is not so useful when there is already another template named Template:Hinduism. And is there need to include all Indian philosophies in this template when there is special Template:Indian philosophy for that purpose?--Human3015TALK15:33, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The previous RFC was four months ago... Maybe the main problem is in the terms "astika-nastika." When these twp terms are being used to qualify Indian philosophies, Buddhism etc. are "automatically" included. So, maybe we should skip that, and ise a new classification, with separate lists for each "school." Of course, other problems will arise then, but imagine for example:
Actually problem starts with term "Hindu" itself. There are 6 schools of "orthodox" (astika) philosophy and 3-4 schools of "heterodox" philosophy (nastika) but these 2 broad groups are factions of "Indian philosophy" not "Hindu philosophy" (and traditionally none of these 2 broad classical groups includes "Sikhism"). At least name of the template should be Template:Vedic philosophy so that all astika philosophies can be mentioned. There is nothing called "Hindu philosophy", it should be "Vedic philosophy". If people want to create template which includes all Indian philosophy under "geographic' word Hindu(India) then why not include Sufism, Ahmadiyya, Deobandi which have been developed in India. There are many sects of Islam which are developed in India. But we does have separate template for Indian philosophies. --Human3015TALK18:20, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The term Indian philosophy is widely used by scholars for a group of philosophies with roots and origins in India. See this and this, for example. Hindu philosophy, similarly, is a very common term in secondary and tertiary scholarly literature; see sources in various sections of this talk page. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:15, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your sources saying that "Buddhism" and other stuff is grouped under Indian philosophies, no one is opposing it, here RfC is why they should be mentioned in Hindu philosophy template?. There is already template for Indian philosophies. Mentioning all Indian philosophies in Hindu template will make Indian philosophy template useless. --Human3015TALK10:39, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think this endless cycle of RfC's has to stop. There are no precise boundaries around Hinduism. Neither was there anything called "Hinduism" or even the concept of a "religion" at the time these philosophies were developed. So people are barking up the wrong tree. Here is Michael Witzel again: the religions that emerged from early Hinduism, such as Jainism and Buddhism, and later on, Sikh religion, have had shifting boundaries with Hinduism; they were both included as well as excluded. The authoritative fourteenth-century Sarvadarshanasam. graha (or the 11th-century Shivaite Somashambhupaddhati) do include them. All these “views” (darshana) and religions were influenced by developments that spread from one religion to the other. Nevertheless, some religions, such as Buddhism, are excluded by their own self-understanding and definition.[1] What the last sentence means is that Buddhism tried to define itself as a separate religion. But "Hinduism" did not see it as a separate religion. Scholars that studied the history more closely do not even grant this concession. Wilfred Cantwell Smith states that there was a Buddhist community in India, but not a Buddhist religion.[2] This whole debate what is and what isn't Hinduism is political and misguided. There was absolutely nothing wrong with the original template. - Kautilya3 (talk) 14:40, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
References
^Witzel, Michael (2006), "Hinduism (Dharma)", in Stanley Wolpert (ed.), Encyclopedia of India, vol. 2 (E-J), Thomson Gale, pp. 188–193, ISBN0-684-31512-2
Yes other Indian religions should be mentioned because of [1] reasons explained in last RfC, [2] the "Related Indian religions" definition is supported by secondary and tertiary scholarly sources presented in several sections of this talk page, [3] @Abecedare's prudent note that this "template is a set of convenient navigation links", and [4] and 100s of recent scholarly sources use the term "Hindu philosophy", with many discussing "related Indian religions" therein. While this RfC is in progress, the consensus summarized by @AlbinoFerret from August RfC apply. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:17, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Human3015: I am open to removing the "Related Indian Philosophies" section and inserting Indian philosophy nav link instead at the bottom as @JJ had done, if that is the entire purpose of this RfC? That will provide two step navigation, instead of one step in current/old template, but is otherwise equivalent. If you withdraw this RfC, I will make that change. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:34, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think no problem in closing this RFC, no other person commented here, Kautilya, JJ are routine users with whom we interact. Sarah is also routine and me too. But I think we should request it at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. On my side I withdraw this. But still people will keep on commenting here. I was forgotten about this RfC unless Legobot gave me message regarding this on my talk page today, thanks to bot and thanks to all editors here. --Human3015TALK16:22, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
@தென்காசி சுப்பிரமணியன்: the cn-tag was for the Charvaka school. It's classified under "Other Indian philosophies," isn't it? So, that's back to the question if this category should be included. Maybe we should replace it with one link to "Indian philosophy," at the bottom of the template. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk!05:04, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Joshua Jonathan: The older format was much clearer, better, well sourced. The recent changes to this template are WP:BRD, ignores previous RfC consensus above, and I would like to revert most of the changes, keep some, but before I make the revert+evolve this template, I would like to know if your changes were triggered after checking one or more scholarly sources or something else? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 07:35, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@தென்காசி சுப்பிரமணியன்: The above sections discuss the sources extensively. For example, see these to verify six Astika schools and Charvaka as Hindu philosophy: [1] R Thomas (2014), Hindu Perspectives on Evolution: Darwin, Dharma, and Design. Sociology of Religion, Vol. 75, No. 1, pages 164-165, Quote: "some of the ancient Hindu traditions like Charvaka have a rich tradition of materialism, in general, other schools...; [...] Samkhya, there have also been explicitly atheistic schools in the Hindu tradition. One virulently anti-supernatural system is/was the so-called Charvaka school."; [2] KN Tiwari (1998), Classical Indian Ethical Thought, Motilal Banarsidass, ISBN978-8120816077, page 67; Quote: "Of the three heterodox systems, the remaining one, the Cārvāka system, is a Hindu system."; [3] Bill Cooke (2005), Dictionary of Atheism, Skepticism, and Humanism, ISBN978-1591022992, page 84; [4] Jessica Frazier (2014), Hinduism in The Oxford Handbook of Atheism (Editors: Stephen Bullivant, Michael Ruse), Oxford University Press, ISBN978-0199644650, pages 367-378; [5] John Grimes (2004), in The Hindu World (editors: Mittal and Thursby), Routledge, ISBN0-415215277, page 541. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 07:35, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[[yo|Ms Sarah Welch}} I think that the present format works much better. The inclusion of non-Hindu philosophies is a rcurrent topic of debate; in the present format this discussion can be prevented, while there is still a link to them. That has got more to do eith pragmatism than with scholarly sources. What scholarly sources are you referring to? Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk!08:00, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@JJ: See the 5 sources I just listed, and more are in the sections above. The new format includes the same old list, but eliminates the Astika/Nastika classification and is far more confusing. It may not be wise to let every edit warring tempt us to yield on wiki's template/content policies and guidelines. I suggest we stick with the last RfC and the classifications found in scholarly sources, while addressing the cn-tag issue. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 08:16, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If there is a reference means then that is Ok as of now. But if some references say Charvaka is not hindu tradition and that sources will be included in article means Charvaka should be removed from this Template.--Tenkasi Subramanian (talk) 20:25, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Joshua Jonathan: The support for orthodox and heterodox is in numerous sources, such as [1] Koslowski (2001), The Concept of God, the Origin of the World; Springer, ISBN978-1402000546, pages 11-15; [2] Roy Perrett (2000), Indian Philosophy, Routledge, states on page 88, "The Mimamsa is one of the six major orthodox schools of Hindu philosophical theology". I will reconsider if someone can provide a WP:RS that states something different or offers a conflicting classification of Hindu philosophies. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 09:02, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Ms sarah Welch: in that case, we should only include the socalled orthodox philosophes, and not use a separate category for nastika (Buddhism etc), but only provide a link to "Indian philosophy" at the bottom. Yet, there are various classifications. And where do you put Shaivism/Tantra? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk!11:45, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@JJ: Which "various classifications" and sources you have in mind? As @Abecedare mentioned a while ago, "templates are just navigational aids meant to guide the reader to related articles that may be of interest". Till we can find verifiable source and is directly related to the subject, we should attempt to incorporate the link. The orthodox and heterodox grouping of Indian philosophies is a common practice. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:03, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@JJ/others: I am thinking of the following: [1] remove all Acharya/Sant names from the various Hindu philosophies that lack verifiability (if someone offers a source, we can insert them back); [2] add Acharya/Sant names for the various philosophies, such as Yoga, that are verifiable (@JJ's previous edit on this would be my starting point) [3] add text box containing the names of Sanskrit texts for each Hindu philosophy, again where one or more sources verify the relevance of that text to the specific Hindu philosophy. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 10:36, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know much about this subject (currently doing peer review on Vedanta), but it seems that Advaita Vedanta, Vishishtadvaita, Dvaita, Bhedabheda, Dvaitadvaita, Achintya Bheda Abheda, Shuddhadvaita are all subdivisions of Vedanta. May I suggest that "Vedanta" be listed in line with the other 5 philosophies and that a new division bar labelled something like "Subdivisions of Vedanta" be created between the 2 clusters. Dig Deeper (talk) 19:17, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@151.67.*.*: This template is about Hindu philosophy, not Indian philosophy. Encyclopedia Britannica does not say "Hindu philosophy includes nastika schools such as Buddhism". It is discussing Indian philosophy. Please do not keep reverting multiple editors. See the extensive discussions above. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 02:06, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Āstika, in Indian philosophy, any orthodox school of thought, defined as one that accepts the authority of the Vedas (sacred scriptures of ancient India); the superiority of the Brahmans (the class of priests), who are the expositors of the law (dharma); and a society made up of the four traditional classes (varna). The six orthodox philosophic systems are those of Sāṃkhya and Yoga, Nyāya and Vaiśeṣika, and Mīmāṃsā and Vedānta.
The term āstika comes from the Sanskrit asti, which means “there is.” Contrasted to the āstika systems are the nāstika (Sanskrit: from na asti, “there is not”), the individuals and schools that do not accept the authority of the Veda, the system of the four classes, and the superiority of the Brahmins. Included among the nāstika schools are the Buddhists, Jainas, the ascetic Ājīvikas, and the materialistic Cārvākas.
— The Editors of Encyclopædia Britannica, "Āstika" (1998), Britannica.com
Moreover, other sources on Indian thought confirm the same classification of schools:
Āstika and nāstika - These terms can be translated as ' believer' and 'unbeliever' when used as nouns, or as 'believing' and 'unbelieving' when used as adjectives; nāstika is sometimes translated as 'atheist'. They are derived from Sanskrit asti, "is", and nāsti, "is not", and refer to those who believe in or assert certain religious concepts and those who deny them. What the āstika affirms and the nāstika denies is the Veda, and those beliefs which it authorises; the other-world [...], the gods and the efficacy of ritual. The distinction between āstika and nāstika is used in the classification of systems of thought (Dasgupta 1957; 67f). The well known set of six systems (the Ṣaḍḍarśana) are all āstika, since they do not deny the authority of the Veda, though is a central concern only for the first two, Pūrva Mīmāṃsā and Vedānta. Buddhism, Jainism and the materialist Lokāyata or Cārvāka system are nāstika.
— Dermot Killingley, "Āstika and nāstika", in Denise Cush, Catherine Robinson and Michael York (editors), Encyclopedia of Hinduism (2008), Routledge, ISBN978-0-7007-1267-0, page 50
Please visit Talk:Charvaka. Read the many sections there, with the WP:RS discussed. In future, do not "revert" war with editors and please read the talk page. If you can't be bothered with reading the past discussions, RfCs, and archives on a talk page, you shouldn't be editing wikipedia. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:12, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The template says "Heterodox". The cited sources on this talk page above, as well as in the Charvaka article and its talk page support this. If you keep asking questions that have already been answered, please expect your questions will be ignored. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:19, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
The table of information below the portrait (with header: "Part of a series on Hindu philosophy") should be removed because it is misleading and misinforming the audience. The man described in the article ( Jiddu Krishnamurti) was never part of any religion. His talks, books were never confined to any religion or philosophy. On the contrary, throughout his life he refused to be associated to any religion or philosophy. That is part of the essence of his work. He broadly clarifies that in his work. Any association to Hinduism, Hindu philosophies or Yoga is completely misleading the audience in relation with the life and work of Jiddu Krishnamurti. Masterpapa~enwiki (talk) 22:33, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Realphi: please read the discussions above, including the comments by admin Abecedare. If you have new concerns, please state them along with scholarly sources to support your arguments. FWIW, I did not understand your edit summary "nastika philosophies are not part of hindu philosophy" here. Carvaka is classified as a nastika philosophy, and scholarly sources include it as a Hindu philosophy. Please read that article, its talk page and the cited sources therein. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 03:27, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
To make it easier to understand, please name the headings in the following ways (use both original term and english term):
"Orthodox" to "Astika or six orthodox sampradayas" or "Saḍdarśana Astika or six orthodox sampradayas" or "Orthodox or Astika sampradayas" or "Orthodox Astika sampradayas" or "Orthodox Astika sampradayas"
"Heterodox" to "Nastika or heterodox sampradayas"
"Sub-schools" to "Polycentric Astika sampradayas" or "Syncretic Astika sampradayas"
Also add a subsection "Concepts" with following entries
Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the
