Template talk:Indian philosophy

Concepts subsection

Hey, wondering if it would be okay to add a 'Concepts' subsection (like I made for the Chinese philosophy template. Not being particularly knowledgable about the subject, my prelimary list would be: Adharma, Ahiṃsā, Anātman, Ātman, Avidyā, Bhāvana, Dharma, Dukkha, Guṇa, Jñāna, Karma, Māyā, Mokṣa, Nirvāṇa, Pratītyasamutpāda, Prajñā, Prakṛti, Rajamandala, Ṛta, Saṃsāra, Satya, Satyagraha, Skandhas, Smṛti, Śūnyatā, Upādāna, Vijñāna, Vipāka. Basically, I'd love to see a list of concepts that are either 1. incredibly important to one school of thought, and/or 2. shared across several schools of thought. Ideas? Suggestions? Dan Cottrell (talk) 15:49, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I like the 'Concepts' subsection idea, it would be a good addition to this template. You'll find more concepts related to Āstika (Hindu) philosophy in 'Category:Hindu philosophical concepts' and Hindu philosophy#Overview. I think if you want to keep the list under 20 concepts, it would be best to cover only one major concept originated by each school of Indian thought (there are 13 Hindu, 2 Jain and 4 Mahayana schools). CorrectKnowledge (talk) 20:17, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea! :) Here's what I might include, following that:
From particular schools: Guṇa, Yamas, Pramana, Padārtha, Sphoṭa, Advaita, Antarvyāpi, Mukti-yogyas, Eight pentads, Svatantrya, Buddha-nature, Yogācāra, Svabhava, Prajñāpāramitā.
Wider concepts: Mokṣa, Nirvāṇa, Ahiṃsā, Saṃsāra, and of course Dhárma and Karma.
Is winnowing needed? Additions? I have a feeling you're more a specialist in this field than me. :)
Dan Cottrell (talk) 18:40, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your list was already quite comprehensive and yet brief. I have added a few concepts, combined similar schools when possible (to minimize concepts) and arranged the concepts roughly in chronological order by school of philosophy:
Common — Dharma, Karma, Moksha, Saṃsāra, Nirvana; Vedic — Satya, Rta; Upanishads/Vedanta — Ātman (Hinduism), Brahman, Advaita; Jaina — Anekantavada, Syādvāda; Buddhist — Pratītyasamutpāda, Śūnyatā, Anatta; Samkhya/Yoga — Guṇa, Prakṛti, Purusha, Samadhi; Nyaya/Vaiseshika — Padārtha, Dravya; Mimamsa/Panini — Apaurusheyatva, Sphoṭa; Kashmir Shaivism — Aham (Kashmir Shaivism), Svatantrya.
The list contains what I think are 25 major concepts in Indian philosophy (couldn't prune it anymore). I left out concepts like Yamas, Pramana, Antarvyāpi, Mukti-yogyas, Eight pentads, Svabhava, Prajñāpāramitā so that more important concepts from the same schools of philosophy could be included. I also left out Buddha-nature, Yogācāra because they are complete philosophies in themselves, not single concepts. Hope my list is of some help. CorrectKnowledge (talk) 23:09, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I like your list, I say we go with it. Would you want it split up by school, as above, or alphabetical?
Dan Cottrell (talk) 00:48, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Lets do it alphabetically. Arranging concepts chronologically or by school might create unnecessary controversy (see this and this). CorrectKnowledge (talk) 01:22, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Alrighty, just added the concepts alphabetically. For consistency, should be consistent orthographically? Some of the terms have diacritics, some have none. Dan Cottrell (talk) 03:10, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have changed how some of the words were spelled. The words seem orthographically consistent now. CorrectKnowledge (talk) 23:38, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rename

This should be renamed to Indian philosophy. --Babub→Talk 02:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge "Texts" and philosophical texts?

I can't understand why we have 2 groups about texts. I understand a merge. --Redtigerxyz Talk 06:51, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, I have removed certain texts like Ramayana, Mahabharata etc, which cannot be strictly classified as philosophical texts and have merged the rest of the 'texts' into 'philosophical texts'. CorrectKnowledge (talk) 23:08, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion

According to Āstika and nāstika page: "The main schools of Indian philosophy that reject the Vedas were regarded as heterodox in the Brahmanical tradition. It's strange that Indian philosophy is divided as per the Brahmanical tradition. This is not the right way when in fact Jains don't agree that they are nāstika. They accept the existence of soul, they accept that God exists and direct all their efforts to attain Godhood. It's high time that we give some space to the views of non-brahmanical traditions. Classifying Jainism as a nāstika philosophy confuses the reader and doesn't represent it anyway. Better wording is needed. Also, in the philosophers section, not a single philosopher seems to be a Jaina. This is also sad. Jaina philosophers have contributed so much to philosophy and logic. —Nimit (talk) 16:23, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 14 April 2018

Buddhism and Jainism aren't actually Nastika philosophies. They have always denied being Nastika. Hindu scriptures labelling them as "Nastika" is akin to when Muslims label all non-Sunni sects as infidels.

They should be in an Astika (Others) category whereas the current 'Hindu' Astika category should be labelled Astika (Sat-Astika Darshan). Sprocket Crocket (talk) 03:35, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — IVORK Discuss 23:12, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]