Talk:Hindu philosophy

message: If my knowledge of sanskrit is correct then astika means theism. Both Samkhya and Mimasa deny the existence of god making them nastika(Atheist). The traditional schools need not be astika if Samkhya and Mimasa are included in them.
:There is also a theistic school of Sankhya as expounded in the 3rd canto (chapters 26-27) of Srimad Bhagavatam which is considered older than the atheistic school. Both are headed by persons called Kapila, the theistic Kapila is an incarnation of God and mentioned in the puranas, Ramayana and Mahabharat. The atheist seems to have adoped the name Kapila to create confusion. It seems that the atheists promote the atheistic version of Samkhya denying the theistic version even exists. The atheistic version is trounced in the Vedanta sutras.
:Mimamsa is not a philosophy by a system of ananlysis like Hermanuetics. There is Purva Mimamsa aka Karma Mimamsa and the other is Uttara Mimamsa aka Vedanta. Since both accept the authority of the Vedas they are Astikya 24.139.24.163 (talk) 17:59, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Why are samkhya and Mimasa included in Astika schools

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

message: @VictoriaGrayson: This move is inappropriate. We need to stick with the sources, and use WP:COMMONNAME. Look at the sources in the article, and the most common name is Hindu Philosophy. Wiki articles need to be searchable and per WP:TITLE. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:54, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like you already moved it. I agree, a requested move is needed here. utcursch | talk 01:59, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Article name should be "Indian Philosophy" or "Shad darsana" and not the current "Hindu philosophy", which implies Vedic, as the article encompasses schools that are irreligious and that don´t depend on the Vedas.  As currently stated, article is Not-WP:Neutral, in that by subsuming the others under it, it assumes the primacy of Vedanta.  Will request an article move.   Regards, Jaredscribe (talk) 00:09, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page move from Hindu Philosophy to Saḍdarśana 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Hindu philosophy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20020607045307/http://www.krishna.com/printarticles/Lord_Chaitanya.html to http://www.krishna.com/printarticles/Lord_Chaitanya.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:06, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

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