Talk:Samkhya

c.q.

What does this abbreviation c.q. mean? It appears not to be an English abbreviation. Jayarava (talk) 10:22, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Casu quo ("in which case, if that be the case"). Is it a Dutch Latinism? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:30, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Correction: Richard Garbe

Richard Karl von Garbe was incorrectly described on this page as a "Christian missionary" (no sources included to establish this). To the best of my knowledge, sources show he was a professor of philosophy in Germany, with a deep interest and substantial research on Indian philosophy. Sources are listed here (they are not directly relevant to the article so I didn't include them there). I urge editors to be a little more careful in checking their sources and information. - Naushervan (talk) 09:09, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

- Bagchi, Kaushik. "An Orientalist in the Orient: Richard Garbe's Indian journey, 1885-1886." Journal of World History, vol. 14, no. 3, Sept. 2003, pp. 281+. Gale Academic OneFile, link.gale.com/apps/doc/A106646926/AONE. Accessed 6 Dec. 2022.

- Zimmermann, R. “RICHARD KARL von GARBE, 22nd Sept. 1927.” Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, vol. 9, no. 2/4, 1928, pp. 339–42. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/44028003. Accessed 6 Dec. 2022. Naushervan (talk) 09:09, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Incorrect characterization of Prakriti

The article mentions that Prakriti is inactive, unconscious, and is a balance of the three guṇas (qualities or innate tendencies), namely sattva, rajas, and tamas. Prakriti is anything but unconscious. It is not dead matter, and for the record even dead matter is conscious. This whole universe of animate and inanimate objects is very much conscious, including rocks and stones. Also, just because Prakriti has been distinguished from Purusha which is consciousness, it does not mean that Prakriti is unconscious and inactive. The awareness or consciousness inherent in living bodies is of lesser vibration than that associated with the mind, and still lesser than pure awareness. 203.163.245.184 (talk) 01:03, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Saṃsāra 88.218.17.150 (talk) 07:12, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Saṃsāra 88.218.17.150 (talk) 07:12, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Saṃsāra 88.218.17.150 (talk) 07:12, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Quote box - Remove or Keep?

There seems to be a quote box right above the introduction. Is this standard Wikipedia policy? Should we keep or remove this? Zoozoor (talk) 00:47, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

? Any reason to remove it? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 04:41, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

I mean, it's pretty unorthodox to start an article with a quote. It might violate the neutrality rule, since the first sentence is a personal opinion. Zoozoor (talk) 05:09, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Consistency

In some cases Sanskrit terms are placed in parentheses and in other cases the translation is placed in parentheses. The variations appear to be arbitrary. For example, the Sanskrit terms for all of the tattvas are placed in parentheses but outside of the parentheses when pramanas are discussed. I suggest having some consistency on this page and would opt for placing the translation in the parentheses since this seems to be the norm on this page and related pages.

Apostrophes and speech marks also seem to be used unnecessarily in certain cases. For example, speech marks are used in the case of tanmatras 'five "subtle elements" or "modes of sensory content" (tanmatras)' but single apostrophes for sabda 'śabda (āptavacana, meaning, 'word/testimony of reliable sources').'. Moreover, there are cases where apostrophes may not even be necessary, for example, 'These are pratyakṣa ('perception'), anumāṇa ('inference') '. I think in such cases the apostrophes can be removed since the singular words are ubiquitous enough that they do not need to be quoted from a particular source in this way.

Does anyone have any preferences for how to maintain consistency? Katiedevi (talk) 17:19, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Your suggestions seem eminently sensible. I think there are occasionally cases where such variations are not necessarily arbitrary, but I'm sure you can spot those if they occur. Harold the Sheep (talk) 03:46, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! Do you have any thoughts on capitalisations? Some terms are capitalised whilst others are not. The capitalisation of 'Prakṛti' and 'Puruṣa' seems to perhaps be a convention picked up from secondary sources. Katiedevi (talk) 16:02, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

If it is a convention from secondary sources it's probably a good idea to go with that. I think capitalisation is preferable for 'Prakṛti' and 'Puruṣa'; not necessarily for all terms though. Harold the Sheep (talk) 04:36, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Sankhya / Samkhya

Stop writing Sankhya incorrectly. This is clearly the English imposition over the original Sanskrit phonetics. It’s SANKHYA NOT SAMKHYA ~2026-26066-84 (talk) 06:12, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

English sources use both depending on transliteration style - Sankhya (pronunciation) vs Samkhya (spelling). Asteramellus (talk) 22:51, 29 April 2026 (UTC)