Talk:Charvaka/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled

This article certainly did need trimming, but some of the trimming that's been done seems rather drastic - it's left several sections with only two sentences. Two-sentence sections are too short, IMO. Should some of the trimming be reverted, or should some of the sections be merged? I know nothing about this subject myself, so I don't want to take the initiative on this one. Bryan 02:45, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Fundamental elements

[Geoffrey Riggs] At the top of the article, I have now clarified the probable relationship between Carvaka and Brihaspati. -- July 14, 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geoffrey Riggs (talk • contribs) 17:09, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

The articl says that there are five fundamental elements of creation, but cites six; also, the element that corresponds to fire is Agni, not Tejas. According to my understanding, the five elements of creation in Indian mythology are: Prithvi (earth), Agni (fire), Aap (water), Vaayu (air) and Akasha (space). I also remember that Tejas (consciousness, mind) is considered to be an additional element. Can someone clarify this? --ashwatha 05:56, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

In Sanskrit, the word for water is 'jal' or 'paaniyam.' Isn't 'aab'/'aap' Persian? --LordSuryaofShropshire 00:50, Aug 18, 2004 (UTC)

"Jalam" means water in Sanskrit, correct - but "Aap" also means water. In any case, it doesn't make a difference whether we use "Jal" or "aap" here; my main question was with the use of Tejas for fire, which to the best of my knowledge is incorrect. It should be Agni. --ashwatha 23:48, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Well, I've never heard of aap being Sanskrit, and the traditional scriptures always use jal, so I'll alter that. As for tejas, I agree with you. It means, variously, "lifeforce", "potency", "energy", "strength", and secondarily even "semen". But "agni" would be the traditional and denotatively accurate word for 'fire.' --LordSuryaofShropshire 20:43, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)

aap is very Sanskritic; Vedic actually. Agni is refered to as नपमापात् ("born of water"). Sarayuparin 21:30, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Questionable Source

1. The first of the bibiliographical source cited under the article is a book in Marathi, Aastikashiromani Chaarvaaka authored by one Dr. A. H. Salunkhe. This, to me, may not be correct because Aastik in various Indian languages means one who believes in god/gods which evidently Carvakas & Lokayatas were not. In my opinion, it should have been Naastikashiromani Chaarvaaka.

Can somebody who is familiar with the Marathi book clarify this point?

MANOJTV 08:19, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well Salunkhe has called Charvak Astikshiromani because in his opinion Astik translates as one who has belief in what he sees, which in his opinion epitomises the rational Charvak philosophy. Not the generally understood meaning of Astik and Nastik as believer and non believer in god(s). Salunkhe is a learned Sanskrit scholar. Yogesh Khandke 19:25, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

User:CUZIYAM 11:22, 24 Feb 2010 (IST)

2. The article says

"Whereas most systems of Astika philosophy advocated a caste system, the Cārvākas denounced the caste system, calling it artificial, unreal and hence unacceptable. "What is this senseless humbug about the castes and the high and low among them when the organs like the mouth, etc in the human body are the same?"[14]" [14] Prabodha Chandrodaya"

But, the source referred, "Prabodha Chandrodaya" does not have such a sentence. There is no proof to confirm that the Carvakas are against caste.

3. The article also says,

"Temperance - the enjoyment of life's pleasures in a moderate manner, rather than total abstinence - was the Cārvākas' primary modus operandi. In this respect, they much resemble the Epicureans of Greece ."

But, there is no proof either for this idea. Charvaka philosophy do not have any poem that advises "temperance".

[Geoffrey Riggs] Right before the section on Madhavacharya, I've now placed an important description of the earliest direct quote from Brihaspati himself, the apparent founder of Carvaka/Lokayata. It's found in the Sarvasiddhantasamgraha. I've also clarified a possible confusion in the Madhavacharya section: Madhavacharya writes at a number of points various clarifications like "Brihaspati says" etc., and in fact, it's apparent throughout his direct quotes of Carvaka/Lokayata thinking that he's citing Brihaspati primarily. Consequently, the original heading here could cause some confusion ("Quotations attributed to Charvaka from Sarva-Darsana-Sangraha"), so I changed it to "Quotations attributed to Brihaspati from Sarva-Darsana-Sangraha" instead. -- July 14, 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geoffrey Riggs (talk • contribs) 05:35, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Carvaka and Adishankara

They considered artha (finance) and kaama (satisfaction of passions) as the two purposes of life, discarding the other two — dharma (religion) and moksha (salvation) — proclaimed as a fourfold goal system by the Hindu thinkers. While summarising the Carvaka position in Sarvadarsanasangraha Sankara, the Hindu sage Adi Sankara, the main exponent of Advaita Vedanta, stated that those having self-respect undertake farming and other means of creating real property.

I deleted the above paragraph from the article, because:

1. It says Sarvadarsanasangraha was authored by Adi Sankara, which is patently wrong.
2. Even if it is assumed that this is a syntactical error, it is false to suggest that Adi Sankara discussed/summarised "Carvaka position in Sarvadarshanasangraha". Adi Sankara lived in the 8th century CE whereas the Madhavacharya, the author of Sarvadarsanasngraha lived in the 14th Century CE, a full 6 centuries after the former's death!
3. Adi Sankara, being an exponent of orthodox Hinduism, might have commented upon Carvaka's philosophy calling it a sect with the sole purpose of amassing wealth and indulging in passions. But this is salandering, not exposition. Hence it doesn't deserve a place in the article as it now appears in the page. It can definitely be brought back, if differently worded with supporting evidence such as citing the chapter and verse of Sankara's works. MANOJTV 08:17, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

ISBN

I have added the ISBN number for this article. Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 12:39, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Pandit Sukhlal Sanghvi and Satkari Mookerji

The article of Charvaka without reference of Pandit Sukhlal Sanghvi and Satkari Mookerji gives impression that really nobody knows about Charvaka. vkvora 11:31, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Tattvopapalavasimha (Charvaka Philosophy) of Jayarashi Bhatta, edited with an introduction and indices by Pandit Sukhalal Sanghavi & Prof. Rasiklal Parikh; vkvora 11:50, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

This article needs to be merged

The Articles Carvaka and Charvak essentially deal with the Charvak philosophy. Only the spellings Carvaka (based on transliterated style) and Charvak (actual pronunciation in Hindi) are the reasons why these exist as two articles.

....

The Charvak is more popular. Carvak to be merged with Charvak.

vkvora 14:37, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

i agree

Citations...

"However, women were clearly in a lower position than the men in Charvakan society and were merely tools for sexual pleasure."

Citations please?

I removed this and other related material - highly POV and unsourced. Metamagician3000 15:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Jainism was a separate religion in its own separate from Hinduism. Please research more before mentioning them as "spinoff" of hinduism — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.251.68.30 (talk) 16:57, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Carvaka, a Hindu philosopher?

Charvak is as much a Hindu philosophy, as Adi Sankara is a Hindu philosopher. It is an avedic darshan. It will be a gross misunderstandig of Hinduism to deny Charvak a place in it.Yogesh Khandke 21:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

In the categorization of Indian Philosophy, Carvaka is shown under Hindu Philosophy. This is not correct. Carvakas stood for a materialist/atheist philosophy and against all orthodox religious practices including Hinduism. Hence Carvaka requires a seperate identity apart from other religious philosophies. May be the title Materialist Philosophy would be appropriate. Since I am not familiar with editing templates, I request somebody to make the required changes in the Indian Philosophy template.MANOJTV 08:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, none of the carvaka leaders said that they are founding a new religion. They just said that they want to remove discrepancies of the religion of that time. Same procedure was repeated by the likes of vivekananda and dayananda too. They too were against orthodox religious practices. If they said that they are starting a new religion, in that case they would have been under a different heading.nids(♂) 08:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

• • Vivekananda and Dayananda were Hindu reformers, not materialist/atheists. Carvaka Philosophy is different. It is an out and out materialist philosophy. And completely different from whatever religious existed during that period. And it deserves separate identity and should not be part of Hinduism or any theistic philosophy.MANOJTV 12:00, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

If you want to define carvaka as separate philosophy then its fine. But just to add, Hinduism had atheistic philosophies like Poorva Mimamsa and Samkhya.nids(♂) 12:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

• • I agree with nids that there are atheistic currents and followers in Hinduism. This could be attributed to the fact that Hinduism did not exist as an organised religion until the recent past and every philosophic current practiced in India was embraced under the universal term "Hinduism". If this is so, Hinduism should be defined in a very wide sense and should not be equated with the way it is accepted today.

Coming to Carvaka, have a look at theis quotation: "The Agnihotra, the three Vedas, the ascetic's three staves, and smearing oneself with ashes — Brihaspati says, these are but means of livelihood for those who have no manliness nor sense." - Doesn't this quotation challenging the Vedas(from Sarvadarshanasangraha) & attributed to Carvaka sufficient enough to prove that Carvaka should not be part of Hinduism? MANOJTV 07:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

If you define Hinduism as an offshoot to Vedic religion, then you are correct in your analysis. But in that case, many Hindus, including me and Veer Savarkar will loose our identity as a Hindu. (I dont care how Max muller or Michael Witzel define Hinduism.)--nids(♂) 08:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Neither do I. Yogesh Khandke 21:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• • Some minor clarifications:

1. How do you define Hinduism?
2. About Savarkar, what is the meaning of the highlighted portion of the following sentence taken from the wikipedia article on Savarkar: Although generally espousing atheism, Savarkar began studying Indian history, Hindu scripture and observing religious traditions.MANOJTV 08:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, many of the western scholars defined Hinduism on the basis that whether one accepts Vedas as supreme or not. It is obviously wrong as many Shaktas and Shaivites do not worship vedas. Puranas is mostly Vaishnavite concept.

About Savarkar, or even Bal Gangadhar Tilak, they have openly claimed themselves to be Hindu and atheist at the same time. Savarkar was an self proclaimed atheist. (He was the person who coined the term Hindutva). So, basically you dont need to worship God, or even Vedas to be a hindu.(not talking about western scholarly defination).nids(♂) 13:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• • Yours is a typical neti, neti style! Ultimately, philosophically, you need not to have to be anything to be a Hindu!! Of course that is the beauty of the pluralist Hinduism, which has withstood the fundamenalist-political-Hindu onslaught. But if one views it as a semi/monolithic enitity, one has to define it.

Your clubbing of Tilak and Savarkar may not be correct. Tilak was using (if it was a correct political strategy is a different question) the religiousness of the Indian masses (Ganesha Festival, for instance, to mobilise the people) to take on the British empire. As to Savarkar (especially post The First War of Independance), he was mis/using the tag of Hinduism to take on an imagined enemy and not just the British empire. In fact, he was politically inactive after he appealed for clemancy from the British & subsequently released from Anadaman jail. You may disagree. MANOJTV 07:41, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I certainly agree with you that Savarkar was politically inactive after he appealed for clemancy. My simple point is that i dont agree with any definition of hinduism that restricts a person to be a beleiver of Vedic philosophy. Savarkar was just a remote example, there were several others who did not beleived in the doctorine of vedas but were still hindus.nids(♂) 07:53, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Culturally when Hindus define themselves from the inside, they may say "I'm from Madras", or "I'm a Brahmin", and do not want, as any one, to enter into too much detail about those two declarations; a cultural identity does not make room for speculation and philosophy [don't ask me how i am a catholic or i lazily send you to Max Weber's definition of the Church]; in the same way seen from Europe and even with an educated eye and years of keen interest in the Hindu "philosophies" there is no problem saying, "orginal Buddhism was a Hindu philosophy" and "Carvaka is another one", we just keep being amazed at the diversity and richness of investigation into 'the meaning of life' that India produces as a peculiar cultural identity in spite of history's "ups and downs", and this alone is a necessary and sufficient definition of Hinduism; in France we could say, "our philosophy and religion is a product of history and politics" and hardly ever escapes the field, few exceptions like Bernard de Clairvaux shaped history with the power of their religious insight. Eric Paroissien; 3 Sept 2006. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.67.176.231 (talk • contribs) .

Savarkar's definition of "Hindu" (and Hindutva) was a trans-religious and trans-cultural paradigm. Read Hindutva and The Volcano and you'll get a sense of it. Bluntly speaking, Savarkar's use of "Hindu" could easily be conflated with "Indian", since he considered Muslims and Christians as "Hindus". If we follow that logic, then, yes, Carvaka could be considered with the "Hindu" philosophical universe. In the stricter sense of "Hindu" orthodoxy, it cannot. The problem lies in the application of "Hindu", it's an irresponsible, ambiguous term used to cover too many philosophical systems, some of which are diametrical opposites. Sarayuparin 04:37, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Carvaka and the Role of Women

The quotation from Naishadhiya (17.42) does not lead to the inference made in the article that Carvaka "sees women as mere sexual objects if sexual pleasure and wealth are its goals". This is clearly brought out in the Note appearing in the same section. The question now is should we retain the sentence related to the wrong inference?

I am not very sure. This is because though the inference itself is wrong, the Note does give an interesting piece of information about a logical fallacy which many fall prey to.MANOJTV 01:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Devanagari spelling of the word.

Please spell this word in Devanagari so that I can know the exact pronounciation.

Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.72.16.184 (talk) 12:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC).

The IAST romanization of the Devanagari is given in the article: cārvāka). That IAST is a lossless romanization of चार्वाक. Buddhipriya 20:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Hedonism and inference in Cārvāka thought

CorrectKnowledge correctly says "reliable sources must be strong enough to support extraordinary claims". And that precisely what my editing had done, though the statements I made that "the Carvakas were not hedonistic and that they did admit inference as valid means of knowledge" were in now way an "extraordinary claim", except to those who do not want to think beyond what is available in theistic edicats. The source of my editing was an esssay by Dr Ramkrishna Bhattacharya, the foremost living Indian Phiosopher who has contributed (and continues to contribute) extensively researched articles on Carvaka/Lokayata Philosophy in various Indian and International Philosophical Journals. To be more specific, this particular essay "Cārvāka/ Lokāyata: Some Common Misrepresentations Examined" was the second part of the essay “Lokayata Darsana and a Comparative Study with Greek materialism” originally published in,Materialism and Immaterialism in India and the West: Varying Vistas (Editor: Partha Ghose) published by Centre for the Studies on Civilizations, New Delhi (2010, pp.21-34).

Now, what is the source of this caricature of Carvaka Philosophy as hedonistic? None, apart from the claims made by their theistic opponents. And it is these unreliable sources that philosphers from Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya to Ramkrishna Bhattacharya exposed with evidence.

Same is the case with the claim that Carvakas refused to admit inference. There is enough evidence (the essay I referred to make this amply clear even to those theistically blind) to believe that Carvaka did admit inference as a valid means of knowledge.

So please don't delete valid information just because one finds it unpalatable (for whatever reason). [[5]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skollur (talk • contribs) 04:05, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I also said in my edit summary that you were violating quite a few Wikipedia policies. Lets take a look at all the issues I have with your edits one by one:

• Were Carvaka hedonists? Quite a few reliable sources ([6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16]) clearly state so. You are entitled to believe that you have the truth, that this superposition of hedonism onto Carvakas is a part of a theistic conspiracy. However, you might want to read Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth, Wikipedia:Fringe theories and WP:UNDUE before attempting to include this minority viewpoint into the article.
• You have added "Philosophers sympathetic to Carvaka Philosophy, however, says that there are enough evidence to show that, in addition to perception, the Carvakas also admitted inference as a valid means of cognition in so far as it was based on perception and hence verifiable by perception..." after the statement "the first principle of Cārvāka philosophy was the rejection of inference as a means to establish metaphysical truths" in the lead. Your statement is really redundant, given that the phrase "rejection of inference as a means to establish metaphysical truth" already suggests that Carvakas accepted inference in non-metaphysical (not related to heaven, hell, soul etc.) matters. Please also read MOS:LEAD. The lead only should summarize the contents of the article and emphasis given to material in the lead should reflect its relative importance to the subject, according to reliable sources.
• Two books written by Dr Ramkrishna Bhattacharya have already been used extensively in the article. His two articles in carvaka4india have also been used, but only very carefully. Carvaka4india is a personal website which makes no attempt to hide the fact that it is trying to propagate a political POV. Such websites should not be used against reliable academic fact-checked publications. (see WP:USERG)
• You have also suggested that Dr Ramkrishna Bhattacharya is a "the foremost living Indian Phiosopher". While this might be your belief, Dr Bhattacharya is actually an Emeritus Fellow in English, University Grants Commission, New Delhi.[17] He is not really a reliable source for philosophy, though he can be used in other sections of this page because of his work on the history of materialistic thought in India (which is already the case). Moreover, we are already using two of his books and two essays on this page. Using any more would be giving undue weight to his point of view.
• Please also note, the section on representation of Cārvāka in Āstika, Buddhist and Jain Literature already presents the point of view that Carvaka philosophy could have been distorted by other schools (Dr Bhattacharya has been used as a source here). However, there is no need to repeat this in every section on the page.

Finally, you suggested that I am deleting the information because I find it unpalatable. Might I suggest that it is you who is finding the Hedonism in Carvaka unpalatable, even though there is nothing really wrong with it. Carvaka is a complete Indian philosophy with a first principle and a prescription for life. It can stand on its own against other philosophies like Buddhism, Vedanta, Samkhya etc. To deny Carvakas their arguments against inference and their conclusions derived from it would turn them into an ordinary ideology not a vibrant philosophy that they were. Regards. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 14:39, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

• Let us leave aside whether hedonism is right or wrong. The question is were the Carvakas hedonists? Their theistic opponents claim that they were. Most of the authoritative sources you have referred to (including a book on Corporate Governance & Business Ethics!) base their arguments on these theistic texts that deliberately maligned Carvakas. Well, one is free to accept this as the gospel truth. But a book of reference (which Wikipedia is) is not platform to project exclusively these views, however ancient the theistic texts are.

• Fringe theory? Phew! I suggest these people to read at least a couple of books by Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya. Why not start with his magnum opus Lokayata published half-a-century back? Minority view point? Well, majority view point need not necessarily be the truth. In fact, it should not be the criterion of truth when it comes to academic subjects.

• Does my addition looks redundant after the statement that inference was not accepted by Carvaka in metaphysical subjects. Does it violate Wikipedia rules on "Lead"? Perhaps, it does. Can we then shift the whole comment on “inference” from the lead to the sections on Epistemology and Metaphysics? I have no objection.

• True, the website www.carvaka4india.com does not hide the fact that it stands for defending secularism and rational inquiry. But the writings to which reference is made in Wikipedia are peer-reviewed articles which earlier appeared in academic publications. One is free to make links to these original publications (rather than carvaka4india) if available online.

• Ramkrish Bhattacharya indeed is a well-known philosopher who has written extensively on Carvaka/Lokayata philosophy, more than anyone you have quoted in your reply. His academic career as an Emeritus Fellow of English does in no way negate this. If this is your standard of judging one’s works, how do you bracket, for instance, Damodar Dharmananda Kosambi, a polymath?

• Though it is mentioned in the article that the opponents had distorted Carvaka Philosophy, there have been attempts in the article to continue to project this distorted view as the principal character of Carvaka Philosophy. That does not seem to be correct.

• I have loved your conclusion, brilliantly, beautifully expressed! But were they indeed hedonistic, especially when the term is used in a derogatory sense? Skollur (talk)

Perhaps we need to reword the Cārvāka#Pleasure section in the article. I believe the first line "Cārvāka believed there was nothing wrong with sensual pleasures and that it was the only objective worth pursuing" might be objectionable to you. The other lines "Since it is impossible to have pleasure without pain, Cārvāka believed, wisdom lay in enjoying pleasure and avoiding pain as far as possible. Unlike many of the Indian philosophies of the time, Cārvāka did not believe in austerities or rejecting pleasure out of fear of pain and held such reasoning to be foolish." look alright to me, though I would like to know your comments on it.

Maybe we can drop the phrase "that it was the only objective worth pursuing" since your sources indicate otherwise. Is this agreeable or do you have something different on your mind? Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 16:40, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Are Charvakas / Lokayatas 'Hindu'?

In the Intro section, the Charvakas are frequently mentioned as 'Hindu'. Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan has been quoted as a reference. How sound is Radhakrishna as a reference, considering he was a spokesmen of modern hinduism who claimed stuff on the behalf of the Buddha (see p.36) ? Gavin Flood has been stated as an additional reference. However, in page 224 (which has been provided as a reference), Flood says this on the term darshana that is "used not only to refer to orthodox (astika) systems of Hindu belief, systems acknowledging the Veda as revelation, but also to the heterodox (nastika) views of Jainism, Buddhism and Materialism (Lokayata)". Flood does not claim the Lokayatas were Hindu to begin with. Can Charvakas / Lokayatas be categorized under 'Hindu'?--Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 19:37, 16 December 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra

You know that Carvaka pre-dates buddhism, jainism? Hindu is current relevant term for the followers, so it would be used. Bladesmulti (talk) 10:52, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I think we should use the term "ancient Indian philosophy" to describe Carvaka. Whether they were Hindu are or not, it should be removed from the header and put in a subsection. Kenfyre (talk) 08:00, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for suggestion, but "it should be removed from the header", how you will be doing? Bladesmulti (talk) 08:02, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

None of the sources mentioned claims that Charvakas were Hindu. --Rahul (talk) 09:06, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I just added the source, and other than that there are already the sources that regard them as hindus, so there's need to be rebellious about something that is basically nonsense. Bladesmulti (talk) 09:16, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello folks, please call me 74. This revert seems to capture the current dispute in a nutshell.[18]

1. ...and religious indifference. (ins) (/ins)
2. Cārvāka is classified as a heterodox
3. Hindu Indian
4. (Nāstika) system. (strike) (/strike)
5. (ins) (/ins)
6. It is characterized as a materialistic and atheistic school of thought. While this branch of Indian philosophy is today not considered to be part of the six orthodox schools of Hindu philosophy, some describe it as an atheistic or materialistic philosophical movement within Hinduism. (strike) (/strike)
7. (( Cārvāka )) emerged as an alternative to the orthodox Hindu pro-Vedic Āstika schools,
8. as well as a philosophical predecessor to subsequent or contemporaneous nāstika philosophies such as Ājīvika, Jainism and Buddhism (the latter two later spinning off into what may be described today as separate religions)
9. in the classical period ...

References

In the RfC below, Itsmejudith says that Radhakrishnan (R1 + R7 in my mini-table here) and Flood (R8) agree with the use of "Indian" rather than "Hindu". This is also the position that Mayasutra opened the thread with. Rahul has put those refs into mainspace... but also deleted several google books refs, without explanation. Furthermore, R6 by Siddiqui seems to say that "Carvaka is ... part of ... Hinduism", from the quote provided (I don't have the source to verify the surrounding context however). Additionally, sources R2/R3/R4/R5/R9 by Tiwari, Ninan, Viswanathan, Chandra, and Potter (respectively) were simply deleted; The_Rahul_Jain, can you explain what was wrong with those five sources, that caused you to delete them without an edit-summary? Also, what is your reading of R6 by Siddiqui?

  It seems like there are four logical possibilities: Cārvāka is Indian but not Hindu, Cārvāka is Hindu but not Indian, Cārvāka is both, Cārvāka is neither. Right now, mainspace is saying that the sources all show option one (Indian but not Hindu). Is that correct? Kenfyre suggested we put the question, of whether Cārvākas were Hindu or not, into the body, but I don't think that has been done. Actually, please forgive my ignorance... is there a "Hinduism proper" which refers to the predominant modern sect, and also a broader "Hindu philosophy" which encompasses a wider set of traditions, or are those two concepts (modern-Hinduism and Hindu-philosophy) basically treated as identical in the sources? Thanks. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 15:05, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I have reverted my edits for now. However, I still cannot find R2,R3,R4 and R5, which you say I have removed. Can you provide the diffs for them? --Rahul (talk) 15:29, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

As you can probably tell, I don't have enough knowledge to be confident reverting.  :-)   You may not want to revert yet, for that reason, but also because you were *adding* some sources too, including the R1/R7 + R8 which were recommended by Itsmejudith and Mayasutra. This is the diff[19] I used to create the change-summary, shown above. Fragment#3 (aka F3) concerns whether the lead paragraph should say Indian or Hindu, and F4 is sources R2/etc removed, while F5 is sources added. Does this help explain? 74.192.84.101 (talk) 15:39, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes I see it now. I do not think R2, R3, R4 and R5 are reliable for the particular claim. R3 for example begins with "Daddy, may I talk to you? I want to know about our religion." R9 cites pages which are translations of an ancient text, making it a primary source. --Rahul (talk) 16:05, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

On R9, please see WP:PRIMARY, those are fine if used "with care". Furthermore, just because it is a translation, does not make it unreliable. (More importantly, the article claims that no primary sources about Cārvāka survive.) Can you show me the sentence in WP:RS which disqualifies R2, as being a Reliable Source, which is defined in policy? Wikipedia editors should not be picking and choosing the sources ourselves; we should simply try to neutrally reflect what the Reliable Sources say, right? And what about R6, did you interpret the quote the same way I did? 74.192.84.101 (talk) 19:07, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

The source R9 is not used with care at all. Here is a preview of those pages. The opinion of one Jain monk of seventh century is used the support the statement "some describe it as an atheistic or materialistic philosophical movement within Hinduism." The Jain monk also does not describe it as a "movement within Hinduism". --Rahul (talk) 21:41, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

It is a translation of a Jain text, not Charvaka text. Charvaka texts do not survive. --Rahul (talk) 21:47, 30 January 2014 (UTC)