Talk:Indian philosophy

"oldest written form of Indian philosophy"

Here we go again: "mine is older than yours" - I reverted this edit by Parasparograhi1, who changed

The main schools of Indian philosophy were formalised chiefly between 1000 BCE to the early centuries of the Common Era. According to philosopher Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan, the earliest of these, which date back to the composition of the Upanishads in the later Vedic period (1000–500 BCE), constitute "the earliest philosophical compositions of the world."

into

The main schools of Indian philosophy were formalised chiefly between 1000 BCE to the early centuries of the Common Era. According to philosopher Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan, although Vedas were the oldest written form of Indian philosophy, Jainism was existing even before the composition of Vedas.

with the edit summary "Added more appropriate information."

References

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)

Recent edits

@Bittuisthebestno. 23: regarding your recent edits diff:

• 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.

The way you're editing you'll soon be blocked. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:33, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

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)

Why Sikhism is missing from this essay?

Sikhism is also a product of Indian Philosophy and should be included. 2409:40C2:11A8:79CD:95FE:9ECF:9903:27AD (talk) 03:51, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

Question regarding reverted classification section

Hi, @Joshua Jonathan: thanks for taking the time to review my edit. I understand your point about the sourcing. The chart was not meant to create a new classification, but to give a visual summary of classifications that are already discussed in academic works on Indian philosophy. I based it mainly on general discussions of the Āstika/Nāstika distinction and the six orthodox systems (ṣaḍdarśana) found in works such as Dasgupta's A History of Indian Philosophy and Radhakrishnan's Indian Philosophy. However ,I agree that the chart itself needs clearer attribution, and I will add better source information to the Commons file. I will also look at reducing the text so it does not repeat information already present in the article. Thanks again for the feedback, I appreciate the help in making the contribution fit Wikipedia standards. Shreedhar kumbar (talk) 08:25, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

@Shreedhar kumbar: the chart is actually quite good, but indeed, unsourced. The section you added is sourced, but raises questions: how did you write this? AI? Copied from other Wiki-articles? You're a new editor, and you added a large cunk of text; we can't judge yet what kind of editor you are. So, my advice for the text would be: look where it fits in, and add it in little steps, not all at once. Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 08:48, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan Thank you for the encouraging words regarding the chart and the constructive advice! I completely understand your caution as a new editor, I wanted to prepare a well researched, complete draft beforehand, but I realize dumping a massive block of text all at once can be jarring... To clarify, the text was my own synthesis written to match Wikipedia's encyclopedic tone, backed by the standard histories mentioned, rather than a direct copy-paste. However, I agree that integration in smaller, iterative steps is a much better approach. As a first step, would it be acceptable if I upload the finalized chart to Wikimedia Commons with comprehensive source attributions, and then introduce just the chart along with a very brief, 1–2 sentence introductory classification summary to the article? We can then collaboratively evaluate if any further textual sub-sections are necessary or redundant. Regards! Shreedhar kumbar (talk) 11:41, 26 June 2026 (UTC)