Ms Sarah Welch (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 71: | Line 71: | ||
"Jainism,Buddhism and Sikhism are other Indian phioloshophies apart from Hindu philosophy" {{reply to|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"? -[[User:Mohanbhan|Mohanbhan]] ([[User talk:Mohanbhan|talk]]) 10:54, 30 June 2015 (UTC) |
"Jainism,Buddhism and Sikhism are other Indian phioloshophies apart from Hindu philosophy" {{reply to|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"? -[[User:Mohanbhan|Mohanbhan]] ([[User talk:Mohanbhan|talk]]) 10:54, 30 June 2015 (UTC) |
||
:{{yo|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, ISBN 978-3319091044, page 10; (2) David Jones (2010), Asian Texts - Asian Contexts, State University of New York Press, ISBN 978-1438426754, 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, ISBN 978-0415394482). 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 [[WP:RS|reliable sources]], I intend to add Ajivika, Buddhism and Jainism back. [[User:Ms Sarah Welch|Ms Sarah Welch]] ([[User talk:Ms Sarah Welch|talk]]) 03:55, 1 July 2015 (UTC) |
Revision as of 03:55, 1 July 2015
Religion Template‑class | |||||||
|
Philosophy: Eastern Template‑class | |||||||||||||||||||
|
Hinduism: Philosophy Template‑class | ||||||||||
|
India Template‑class | |||||||
|
Created
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)
- we already have a sidebar.--D-Boy 08:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Yogananda
I've removed Yogananda. It's going a bit far to pick him out as a notable modern Hindu philosopher. Would like to see the reliable 3rd party source that does so. --Simon D M (talk) 15:17, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- 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, ~ priyanath talk 23:19, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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, ~ priyanath talk 17:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Indian Philosophy: An Introduction to Hindu and Buddhist Thought By Richard King ISBN 0748609547 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 ISBN 8120803086 (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.
Nisargadatta Maharaj
How notable is Nisargadatta Maharaj??--Redtigerxyz (talk) 05:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- Not. Wikidās ॐ 14:16, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Prabhupada
Which of the two notable Prabhupadas is intended to be linked to? --R'n'B (call me Russ) 16:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Inclusion of topics like the Hindu calendar?
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? --MK 12:43, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
- Ok, found it. It's template:Hinduism
Collapse!
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Anyone? --Tito Dutta ✉ 03:23, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
- 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)
No one? OK, I have tried to do it in this edit --Tito Dutta ✉ 04:05, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Jainism, Buddhism, Carvaka and Ajivika part of Hinduism?
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)
"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)
- @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, ISBN 978-3319091044, page 10; (2) David Jones (2010), Asian Texts - Asian Contexts, State University of New York Press, ISBN 978-1438426754, 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, ISBN 978-0415394482). 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)