Talk:Āstika and nāstika

message: I have edited the "Nastika" article after merger of content from "Astika", to reduce redundancy/repetition (mainly in the definition of the terms) and hopefully improve flow. There is still some repeated content in the article in the form of specification of which schools are astika and which are nastika; for the moment I have let this be - hopefully after the "Classification" section is expanded somewhat the repetition will not be so glaring. 
One point: I am not certain if the use of nastika as atheist is wrong, or simply non-technical. For instance in physics speed and velocity have different meanings; but they are often used  synonymously in non-technical writing incorrect. Also the Monier-Williams dictionary does define astika as "one who believes in the existence (of God, of another world, etc.)" (see ). I have accordingly cut out the following paragraph from the article:
The incorrect belief that the word nāstika means "atheist" is sometimes based on a false derivation of the word from na ("not") + asti (3rd person singular of the verb "to be", translated as "he is", "she is", or "it is"). The fact that this is a false derivation can be shown by referring to the index of books on Indian philosophy, which list the primary term āstika (आस्तिक, orthodox) with a long initial ā (आ) rather than a short initial a (अ) as is used in conjugation of the verb "to be".
not because it is necessarily wrong; but because I think it will qualify as original research. 
In summary: I have tried to make clear the distinction between the "common" and "technical" uasge of the terms - I think the Bhattacharyya quote is very helpful for the latter purpose. However if you think that the article language is not clear on this (important) point; or if you simply disagree with my contention that nastika can mean atheist in some usage - we can definitely discuss this here and look for specific references to clarify the issue. Abecedare 02:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent improvements overall.  I will give it a going over again with finer sandpaper and then it will go back to you again. Buddhipriya 06:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  My edits 

message: In reading this again I am seeing a need to get more granular regarding the term Mimamsa when we refer to it in the opening sentences, with regard to its theistic or non-theistic bent.  I am not sure of the periods but I know that there are issues with age strata.  There are also multiple uses of terms such as x-mimamsa versus y-mimamsa.  In the lists below I use the terminology of Radhakrishnan and Moore, which is Purva Mimamsa. Just another detail to work out. Buddhipriya 07:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need to clarify mimamsa periods 

message: I have gone over it all and have moved a couple of points that are not clear to me to the talk page for further work.  I welcome further passes.  We also could use an additional editor to look it over with a completely fresh perspective. Buddhipriya 07:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice job, especially at correcting the conceptual error I introduced regarding the Flood quote. I have deleted the extraneous sentence you had marked and made a coupld of minor typographical edits. I think the page is in a good shape now ... till the next editor comes along and improves/vandalizes it :-) Abecedare 08:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  My edits are done too 

message: I added another quote from Chatterjee and Datta regarding these terms.  This reference brings in belief in life after death as another interpretation, which is the Buddhist usage I mentioned somewhere during an earlier edit cycle.  I am still trying to find a good reference for it, but in other Buddhist usage the "it" which is being denied is the persistent Self (atman).  The Chatterjee and Datta quote does not mention that but I know it is true and eventually will find a reference for it. Buddhipriya 23:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I found a reference I was thinking of 

message: I am unsure about the proposal to merge the article on Nastika with Indian philosophy because on a practical basis I have seen a number of instances where there is confusion over the definition of the term Nastika and it is handy to be able to quickly link to this article.  I am concerned that if there is a merger it will not be so easy to refer people to the defined answer for this question in particular.  Also, the use of the term nastika in general parlance to mean atheist is not a use specific to India philosophy, so that issue would not be as clear if the articles were merged. On the other hand, I see that proliferation of articles makes it more difficult to maintain the whole set that are needed for this subject.  So on balance I could go either way with the proposal.  But I feel that the Nastika article is currently well-sourced, and it is important that if they are merged that it be done in a careful manner that does not result in the loss of sourced references.  On balance I would hold off on merger unless there is a strong argument in favor. Buddhipriya 01:28, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed the merge tag for now, since no discussion regarding the subject took place for a long time. I certainly agree with Buddhipriya, but still I am open for any discussion regarding its proposed merger. Thanks--nids(♂) 19:08, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merger with [[Indian philosophy]]

message: "Dayanand Commemoration Volume: A Homage to Maharshi Dayanand Saraswati, from India and the World"
*By Har Bilas Sarda
*Page 154
*Published 1933 Chandmal Chandak
"It conveys simply the derogatory sense of a general character. By using Nastika,
the writers want us to understand a negator, one not abiding by the Vedas"BalanceRestored 11:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey man, relax. Its just that only these three schools were traditionally considered Nastikas. I dont think that Nastika is or was a racist slur, but you are always welcome to add that if you have some citation.--nids(♂) 11:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: Astika is also a Bulgarian brand of beer.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.121.52.118 (talk) 20:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This problem is still standing, I may try to correct this myself then. Krum Stanoev (talk) 15:57, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bulgarian beer 

message: Dear Wikidas, I think you misunderstood my edit. Please see Wikipedia:Otheruses templates (example usage) and Template:Redirect. What I did was completely right. I hope you understand now. Thanks. --Mankar CamoranTalk 10:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  <nowiki>{{Redirect}}</nowiki> 

message: Is Ājīvika a nāstika school? I was under the impression that they were. But I can't find anything referenceable that says that right now. --SJK (talk) 12:19, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Ājīvika]] 

message: Orthodoxy is typically used to mean adhering to "the accepted or traditional and established faith, especially in religion" wheras heterodoxy generally means "any opinions or doctrines at variance with an official or orthodox  position".
Most religions have these aspects to them. It is not only the authority of the Vedas as supreme revealed scriptures, but Yogis, Buddhists and Jains may also be considered "orthodox" or "heterodox", and possibly a mixture of both ! To define Yoga as an orthodoxy and Buddhism as a hetrodoxy in this way seems unhelpful.
Yoga Mat (talk) 09:11, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Psychological aspects of orthodoxy / heterodoxy 

message: "Of the six orthodox philosophies of Vedic tradition — Sankhya, Yoga, Nyaya, Vaisesika, Mimamsa and Vedanta — only the Vedanta of Badarayana Vyasa is free of error, and even that only as properly explained by the bona fide Vaisnava acaryas...
Can someone please remove this Hare Krishna nonsense?
Thank you,  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.107.0.81 (talk) 19:55, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sectarian diatribe? 

message: I found the reference of Chatterji and Dutta in the introductory para as "Not Required". Excerpts from their work is making readers to make an opinion about non-verifyable dichotomic "Theist - Atheist" nature of Indian Philosophy and Samkhya/ Mimamsa schools. This could be their individual research or opinion where they have made no reference of the scripture,text etc. in their work; this should be moved to the latter sections of this article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.95.101.171 (talk) 10:46, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference of Chatterji and Dutta in the first section must be moved to latter sections of this article  

message: The sections for Jainism and Buddhism were added in 2007 by someone who, although never blocked as a sock, is definitely a sockpuppet of , who in turn has probably reincarnated (sic) as . Both are prolific sockmasters, both have a thing about inserting the subject matter and both have a very distinctive citation style. The B. C. Law book is, in any event, not a reliable source but the entire pair of sections could do with a set of knowledgeable eyes. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 10:14, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jainism and Buddhism sections 

message: How is the content you added relevant and WP:Due to this article. What has "Vivekananda: It is the most curious fact that the disciples and descendants of Krishna have no name for their religion [although] foreigners call it Hinduism or Brâhmanism" got to do with Astika and Nastika? Please don't edit war. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:43, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: This does not belong in the lead, indeed. Polemical pov-pushing. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:06, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relevance of Vivekananda quote and OR-Synthesis? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Āstika and nāstika. 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/20070418105244/http://www.iheu.org/node/185 to http://www.iheu.org/node/185
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) 13:43, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified