Template talk:Hindu philosophy

message: Created the template. This can be included in the right-hand top corner of articles relating to Hindu philosophy. Babub 10:27, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: we already have a sidebar.--D-Boy 08:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Created

message: How notable is Nisargadatta Maharaj??--Redtigerxyz (talk) 05:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not. Wikidās ॐ 14:16, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nisargadatta Maharaj 

message: Which of the two notable Prabhupadas is intended to be linked to?  --R'n'B (call me Russ) 16:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prabhupada 

message: The template is too large and taking lots of space in one side of articles, use collapse option! --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 10:32, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone planning to use collapsible boxes in the template? The template is already too large and taking lots of space! --Tito Dutta Message 01:54, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Is anyone going to do this work (or at least respond)? Or I'll give a try? --Tito Dutta ✉ 14:37, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone? --Tito Dutta ✉  03:23, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Collapse!  

message: To resolve the ongoing discussion at Template talk:Hindu philosophy#Jainism, Buddhism, Carvaka and Ajivika part of Hinduism?, the following poposal is being made: 
:Re-insert the links to Jainism, Buddhism and Ajivika, under the header "Related Indian philosophies", which would then read:
:*  Jainism Buddhism Ajivika (line 1); 
:* Shaiva Pratyabhijña Pashupata Siddhanta Tantra (line 2).
Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:14, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Request

message: Were you able to verify this quote? I am not. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:02, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll bet that this is the source: chinabuddhismencyclopedia.com, Hinduism. See also , which contains part of this quote, a date of publication as 1971, and a link to that encyclopedia. And no, I also couldn't find it in Basham himself, but that makes sense, if that encyclopedia is the source. And, surprise, that encyclopedia gives http://www.buddhisma2z.com/content.php?id=175 as its source... Which also says Basham 1971. Well, paraphrasing and unprecise sourcing. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:13, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: @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)

text: @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)
thread_title: Copy-vio? or Basham and Zysk quote by User:Terabar in the RfC

message: 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)
replies: text: @: Major changes to template need consensus. Yours is a major change, the comments in Undo notes do not reflect modern scholarship and RS, therefore unpersuasive. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:25, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Carvaka 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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, , 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, , page 84; [4] Jessica Frazier (2014), Hinduism in The Oxford Handbook of Atheism (Editors: Stephen Bullivant, Michael Ruse), Oxford University Press, , pages 367-378; [5] John Grimes (2004), in The Hindu World (editors: Mittal and Thursby), Routledge, , page 541. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 07:35, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: [[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)
replies: text: @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)

text: Indeed, if you bring "some references" that are WP:RS, we should reconsider. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:58, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  cn-tag 

message: 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, , 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: @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)
thread_title:  Orthodox, Heterodox support 

message: @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)
thread_title:  Proposal for evolving this template 

message: I've removed this template from my watchlist; I'm done here. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:48, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  I'm done here 

message: Jagadguru Shri Kripalu Ji Maharaj is the fifth original Jagadguru for this age. I think he deserves a mention on this list as Samanvayācārya. That is one of the titles (or more precisely, Nikhiladarśana-Samanvayācārya) he was awarded by the Kashi Vidvat Parishat in 1957.
You have asked for sources and if you look at the wiki page for Jagadguru Shri Kripalu Ji Maharaj you'll find them in plenty..  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.242.228.2 (talk) 16:21, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: @117.207.*.* / @117.242.*.*: Non-RS and SPS do not qualify. That article has too many issues as @ has already politely explained to you. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:41, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't accept those explanations. If you also think they are "Non-RS" (I don't know what you mean by SPS), please provide your own explanations... 117.207.184.135 (talk) 11:13, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

text: And Wendy Donigers of the world are not my idea of an WP:RS. I rest my case. As your friend JJ said above: I'm done here. Its now up to you to revert the damages that you (and your friends) have done. BTW, I don't even have an account here....117.207.184.135 (talk) 17:42, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add [[Kripalu Maharaj|Jagadguru Shri Kripalu Ji Maharaj]] as Samanvayācārya. 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Unclear. Create subdivision? 

message: Please see the discussion above, and wikipedia's content policies and guidelines. Do you have any new issues or comments or sources? Please do not edit war with multiple editors, because it is disruptive. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 23:41, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: according to Encyclopedia Britannica, astika and nastika schools are both part of Indian philosophy:
Moreover, other sources on Indian thought confirm the same classification of schools:
--151.67.71.216
@151.67.*: This template is not about "Indian philosophy". Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:02, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

text: Okay, then why is the Charvaka school of philosophy in this template?--151.67.71.216  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.67.71.216 (talk) 21:06, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I read it. And i agree with you, āstika and nāstika schools are part of Indian philosophy, not Hindu philosophy, and the sources confirm it. Then, they should both be removed from this template and added in the template:Indian philosophy. 151.67.71.216 (talk) 22:47, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Sramana insertions again 

message: 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)
replies: text: There is no Jiddu Krishnamurti is this template. Where do you see it? Do you have any reliable sources to help verify the comments you make above? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 23:01, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 21 April 2017 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Concerns? 

message: 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
* Sampradaya 
* Guru–shishya tradition
* Guru or Lama
* Akhara, Gurukula, Matha and Vihara 
58.182.176.169 (talk) 16:15, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the  template. This is a fairly large change, so I suggest consensus be established for the change. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:34, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 19 August 2021