Talk:Samskara (Indian philosophy)

Work in progress

This page is a work in progress. Please add any helpful points or make any corrections you like. I do not mean to play the expert. Rather I simply noticed that this is a common word that had no entry in Wikipedia, though several sites link to it.

Please make the introduction say what it is, not where it's from and stuff. Pointers at WP:GTL. NickelShoe 03:02, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Charitra 23:03, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Merge

Both words are just different spellings. ^Babub→Talk 01:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC) this is my feelings Sanskara is ability to perform actions. It's impossible to perform any actions without Sanskara. It's the driving force. Even though this word is found in Hindu scriptures, it’s almost identical to 'temperaments'(TP). Our action revolves around our TP. When a child is born, parents would give that child an up bringing that both the parents have inherited from their parents and associates. Child’s begins to display his or her original TP right from the very beginning. The way the child responds to stimuli is the proof to the traces of TP. Soon the child develops an also adopts a particular life style. We would see constant changes occurring in personalities, but that is in fact the TP emerging and responding to different situations in ones life.

TP can create conflicts of opinion, misunderstanding, which can result in enmity, feeling of hostility. It is also creates unity, understanding, generate feeling of love and gratitude. Understanding TP actually underpins tolerance in society. Charitra 23:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC)charitra

Sanskar

The recent addition by User:Sanathan Sanskar about the meaning of the word "sanskar" is on a different sense of the sanskrit term -- as a mental impression upon the mind that causes judgments. The article by Sanathan might belong to the article Saṃskāra. Since it had no citations and can't be looked up and considered, it is hard to be sure where it belongs. Dazedbythebell (talk) 16:14, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Sanathan, you appear to be a new user. This is your contribution history on Wikipedia. To simply put back a section you have added yourself exactly as it was without addressing the discussion page, trying to reach consensus, adding any references, or addressing the tag added above it is not a good way to go. Since you appear to be new to the English language Wikipedia, and this is only the second article you have contributed to, I encourage you to begin by learning the Wikipedia standard protocols before continuing to do reverts. Most importantly please discuss here and reach a consensus before doing anything. This article is about the concept of impressions in Hinduism. There are many other uses of the word and you have it spelled another way. You may thus wish to start a new article under that term (it is clearly another sense of the term) and then disambiguate it at the top of the page. Thank you. I'll leave the material for a while to give you time to discuss here. Dazedbythebell (talk) 17:47, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

One revert alone does not imply edit warring and I hope that the proper solution can be found by discussing here. Apart from the inappropriate style of writing, I have also observed that this section defines a new topic that doesn't fit with the object of this article, in spite of its linguistic nearness. I also think that this new topic should be treated as a separate entry, though it should be written according to WP:MOS, while please providing some references for the text you add, so we can verify its validity (see WP:CITE). One hint is that articles in Wikipedia do not have titles like "What is Sankar?" or include expressions like "Where can we get this Sanskar?". Also to say "Unfortunately, so and so" or come to a conclusion like "Unless the realization comes to people at an early stage, etc" are completely unacceptable and may be removed by anyone contolling the content of an article. So in my opinion, first read about WP:BETTER, second find references to base the treatment of the topic and third, start a new article which treats this topic. You can ask me for more specific help any time during the process. Thank you. Hoverfish Talk 18:11, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Undiscussed Merger

The recent merge of Sanskara with Saṃskāra was not discussed. Sanskara was a very old and stable article. Please discuss and develop consensus. Dazedbythebell (talk) 22:52, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I tried the bold route to merge. I respect your suggestion. Merger proposal started. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:29, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Discussion is good. SaintAviator lets talk 06:42, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

The Sanskara article is a ten year old article that has enjoyed strong stability. To move such an old stable article would require a clear consensus of editors. Near the article's beginning a disambiguation page was agreed on that gave different pages to the four different senses. Ms Sarah Welch yesterday removed the philosophical sense from the Disambiguation Page. Note that the same word can have more than one meaning or use, with no change in spelling. Consider the uses of the term "Avatar" for example. Since the sense of sanskaras as impressions on the mind is entirely different than its sense as particular Hindu rituals, it is not clear what merging these distinct senses into one article achieves. Clarity for the reader is lost, not gained. Ms Sarah Welch has recently changed the ritual sense to have the spelling "sanskara." If this is the only reason for wishing to have such a merger, then some other solution would be more suited, such as adding paranthetical additions to the same spelling. Dazedbythebell (talk) 12:08, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Instead of duplicating the discussion on two talk pages, let us respond on the Saṃskāra talk page. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:35, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

New Maintenance Tags

Since user Ms Sarah Welch has added many maintenance tags to the page [1], I assuĚme s/he intends to help to address these issues to improve the article. Dazedbythebell (talk) 15:52, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

And I will work on adding more references too. Dazedbythebell (talk) 20:14, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

If you improve the content, I will help. Will you be okay if the titles of the two articles were,

Sanskara (psychology) or Sanskara (disposition), sources: 1, 2

Sanskara (rite of passage)? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:46, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

These names are good. Or possibly Sanskara (Indian philosophy). An editor who edits books on Hinduism has given me some books and leads for better sources, so that it does not rely on Meher Baba. He could be there, but only as one instance further down. I will start reading what the editor gave me that has discussion of sanskaras and it will take me a few days. If you want to start I can join in later with what I can glean that helps flesh it out. Dazedbythebell (talk) 23:43, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Done, per comments above and Sanskara (rite of passage) talk page. Merge proposal withdrawn. The bot should clean up the links in due course. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:53, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Very good. I'm still working on reading as I had much to do. But will add in references. Dazedbythebell (talk) 20:11, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I have some reference definitions in hand now, but can't see where they are anymore needed. I like what has been done already. Dazedbythebell (talk) 00:53, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Meher Baba

There is going to have to be a new section for Sanskaras specific to Meher Baba. This is because Baba was not Hindu, and because his explanation of the term was different. In fact these are both statements by Baba on sanskaras as impressions. "The very foundation of all my explanations is sanskaras." (Bhau Kalchuri, Lord Meher, p. 835) "I will give you some very new facts concerning sanskaras; truly, no philosophical books explain the term properly." (ibid p. 2250) Baba had whole chapters on sanskaras, and his entire system is based on them. If the Baba template is to link to the term, it should not be named "Hinduism." It needs a new page or the section for now be eliminated from the Hindu part. Baba was Zoroastrian and his teaching emphasized Sufism. He wasn't Hindu. Dazedbythebell (talk) 12:40, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Also the move to Sanskara (Hinduism) makes no sense, because the rights of passage are also a strictly and exclusively Hindu use of the word. So the word is grossly misnamed. One suggestion is to merge this article with the Buddhist term Saṅkhāra and then have a section on Hinduism, one on its nuance in Buddhism, and one on how Meher Baba explained it, and others, and name it Sanskara (philosophy) again. But for now I am going to remove links from the Baba article to this now Hindu specific article title. Dazedbythebell (talk) 12:45, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the Baba data and other information is important to keep. A page rename should do it, does anyone who regularly edits the page have any ideas? Thanks for keeping on top of this Dazedbythebell. Randy Kryn 13:45, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

A section specific for Meher Baba's opinions on sanskara's seems WP:UNDUE to me. I think you can limit those specifications to the Meher Baba article. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:24, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

NB: the term "sanskara" isn't even included anymore in the Meher Baba-template, so why is this template still on this page? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:26, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

One way that the Meher Baba material could be put back is to merge the Hindu and Buddhist articles and rename it Samskara (Eastern philosophy). Much of what is being said by the Buddhist article, the Hindu article, and what Meher Baba (who was neither) say about the sanskara seems to me to be the same concept in slightly different terminology. I am personally OK with simply leaving out Meher Baba for the time being. It certainly would confuse readers to include him under the heading of Hinduism, as he was more syncretic, and his actual term he most often used was "impression" (See God Speaks). Is there any consensus for making an all-inclusive Buddhist-Hindu article under Samskara (Eastern philosophy)? Of course editors in the Buddhist article (Saṅkhāra) would have to be brought into the discussion to have a true consensus. I am not sure that a Meher Baba on sanskara would be undue. Most of his two main books center around it as a concept. However, there is zero secondary published literature on his use of the word 'sanskara.' Dazedbythebell (talk) 15:45, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

You could propose a merger, and leave a notification at both the India and Buddhism project-pages. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:04, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

As I first said, before the renaming to Sanskara (philosophy), I would have been happy if the original material of this page, before other philosophies were merged in, was renamed to Sanskara (Meher Baba). This might have raised an issue of having too many specific articles on Meher Baba's teachings while we still don't have any notable secondary literature on them, but it would have been a better solution. Also if this article is renamed to (Easter philosophy), still it wouldn't be a correct container for Meher Baba's explanations, because they are syncretic to western philosophy as well. As a first move I agree with Dazedbythebell's removal of the Meher Baba section from this page. I am undecided about any further moves on the issue. Hoverfish Talk 17:05, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

One thought is to create a section for Sanskaras in the article Discourses (Meher Baba), which would be appropriate as Discourses was the only source given for the material that was removed from here. Hoverfish Talk 17:22, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

It seems to me that focussing too much on the specifics of the names ("Hindu," "eastern," "syncretic") won't be really helpfull. Most readers won't care at all. If it's helpfull for Meher Baba adepts to have an overview of his teachings, then add it to the discourses-page. Tt seems to fit there quite well. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:04, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I too like Hoverfish's suggestion of moving the Meher Baba specific part to a sub-section of the Discourses (Meher Baba) article. I would be willing go ahead and develop that as a minor section. I agree it would belong there. Dazedbythebell (talk) 21:18, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Title of the article

Sanskara (Hinduism) title for this article is confusing, because the term Sanskara in Hinduism commonly refers to rites of passage. Sankhara (Buddhism) and Sanskara (suffixed either (philosophy) or (psychology)) have distinct enough spelling to remain separate articles. My plan was to (1) expand this article, (2) add a summary section on Buddhism here with link to the main Sankhara article, (3) add a section on the concept of Sanskara as mental/psyche traces in Jainism. @Joshua Jonathan: Would that make Sanskara (philosophy) or Sanskara (psychology) a more proper title?

@Dazedbythebell: Samskara/Sanskara is not exclusive to Hinduism as a term for the rites of passage. Jain literature uses it too. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:59, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying that for me Ms Sarah Welch. Dazedbythebell (talk) 21:14, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

In that case, "Samskara (Indian philosophy)" (or "Samskara (Indian religions)", or "Samskara (Indian philosophy and religions)") might be quite fine, I guess. It's just that "philosophy" is too general, and a little bit odd, when the article on the Buddhist usage of the term is "Samskara (Buddhism)" (or soemthing like that). Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:06, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Sanskara (Indian philosophy) is a good idea. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:11, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, "Indian philosophy" would cover the Hindu, Jain, Buddhist senses. Psychology, like philosophy, is likely too broad a term and might irritate the psychology project editors. All three of the religious origins at least have India as their place of philosophical origin. Dazedbythebell (talk) 21:14, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm for redirecting it one more time to Samskara (Indian philosophy), and giving a brief section on the Buddhist sense and linking to the Sankhara article for elaboration. And if anyone wants to add a Jain section that would be good. As for spellings Samskara or Sanskara, I think it is more often spelled samskara, even in its philosophical sense, though I am not positive of that. Dazedbythebell (talk) 21:17, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Samskara might be better, to avoid confusion with Sanskara (rite de passage). Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:22, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Either Samskara (Indian philosophy) or Sanskara (Indian philosophy) is fine. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 05:55, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Can someone redirect it (removing any double redirects) then to Samskara (Indian philosophy) and so we can add the brief section on Buddhism and link to it for further reading? Dazedbythebell (talk) 13:01, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Done. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:06, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Good move. Dazedbythebell (talk) 00:46, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

2019: another merger request

As above, there have been some requests from the community to merge Samskara (Indian philosophy) and Sankhara. Some say they are cognates between Pali and Sanskrit. In a possible merger, the article may be called Samskara and would describe not just Buddhism but also Hinduism, Jainism, and the Indian philosophy in general. That said, I do not see many differences between the two articles and agree with others above, that although the contents are slightly different, a unification would be beneficial as the two articles share more in common than is useful to distinguish with two separate articles. Lastly the disambiguator (Indian philosophy) seems redundant, adding not much. These are all Indian philosophies after all. Rather than change it, this gives another reason why a simple merger under the name Samskara would be beneficial.

But I am open to discussion here before taking action. Thank you. Alexkyoung (talk) 18:31, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

Can you precise who is "Das"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boutarfa Nafia (talk • contribs) 10:13, 18 March 2022 (UTC)