Talk:Indian philosophy

Bhattacharya's work on Cosmopolitanism
I've again reverted this edit by Festeeliot:
 * "Kalidas Bhattacharya's work on Cosmopolitanism is a precursor to the works of contemporary Western philosophers including that of say, Martha Nussbaum. "

This is not what the source, says, and it's WP:UNDUE. The source says:
 * ''"If one attends seminars in the humanities, one hears of Derrida, Lacan, Alain Badiou, and of the subaltern studies’ group ad nauseam. It is as if Indian philosophers have no place in learned discussions. Of late one hears of Giorgio Agamben and Martha Nussbaum. Nary a word on Indian thinkers who might be used to foreground disciplines as diverse as literature, political science, and film studies.

It is akin to blasphemy to have no reference to American and Continental philosophers in an international symposium, say on, immigration or the rise of religious extremism. Yet Kalidas Bhattacharyya’s understanding of Anekanta Vada is unknown to most. Western savants do not care to understand that cosmopolitanism is a Hindu concept; neither a Jain concept nor is it a Greek concept as is mistakenly taught in classrooms worldwide and mentioned on the Internet. Tara Chatterjee’s Anekanta Vedanta (112–24) should be read by English literature scholars first since they are the ones who hardly know that they are mistaking as Western, concepts which Indian doyens of modern philosophy have already written on. How many Masters’ and post-Masters’ English-literature students know of Kalidas Bhattacharya’s monograph on Indian cosmopolitanism published in 1982?"''  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   08:35, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * This is a polemic against the western humanities, but I don't see how it reliably establishes that "Kalidas Bhattacharya's work on Cosmopolitanism is a precursor to the works of contemporary Western philosophers including that of say, Martha Nussbaum."
 * Prabuddha Bharata ("India Awakened") is published by the Ramakrishna Mission, and is far from WP:RS.
 * The whole statement is WP:UNDUE, given the fact that it does not establish this influence, and is not from a realiable source.


 * Indeed it is WP:Undue. PB is not WP:RS. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:34, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

"oldest written form of Indian philosophy"
Here we go again: "mine is older than yours" - I reverted this edit by Parasparograhi1, who changed

into

with the edit summary "Added more appropriate information."

Obviously, "famous-quotes-on-jainism-by-great-men" is not the right source for such statements, even the less when the original source is removed. So, not appropriate. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   04:59, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

But obviously, the original statement is WP:UNDUE for the lead; I've removed it. NB: it was added here. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   05:20, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

History
Schools of indian philosophy- an overview 2402:3A80:1F6B:60D6:0:0:4F24:DE80 (talk) 13:01, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Recent edits
regarding your recent edits diff: The way you're editing you'll soon be blocked. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  05:33, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Of course Yajnavalkya is also associated with Cedanta, but he is so because of the Upanishads;
 * Why remove the Sikh-picture?
 * Akriyavada and Sassatavada are not sramanic schools, but specific views on specific topics;
 * Saivism still exists; and the four schools you mention are four schools, not three.

Did buddhism really affirm creator god?
Did buddhism really affirm creator god? It is written like that 2A02:8108:8440:6D4:4EA6:A183:2E33:A62A (talk) 21:45, 21 August 2023 (UTC)