Which one of the following pairs does **not** form part of the six systems of Indian Philosophy?

Explicitly states that the Vedas gave rise to several schools of thought and names Vedanta and Yoga among the best known, indicating a recognized set of distinct philosophical schools.

A student could take this pattern (Vedic origin → named schools) and look for other canonical lists that group such schools (e.g., lists of classical darshanas) to see if Mimamsa and Vedanta appear together.

Mentions that theosophical inspiration was drawn from multiple specific schools — the Upanishads, Samkhya, Yoga and Vedanta — showing that Vedanta is treated as one distinct, named school alongside others.

One could compare this set of named schools to standard enumerations of Indian philosophical systems to check whether Mimamsa is similarly listed among them.

Describes Lokayata/Carvaka as an identified, named philosophical school with specific doctrines, illustrating the practice of naming and classifying Indian philosophical systems.

Given that named schools like Carvaka and Vedanta exist, a student could search for canonical classifications (e.g., lists of darshanas) to see which named schools are grouped into 'six systems.'

Explains that the Upanishads were referred to as Vedanta (the end of the Vedas), linking Vedanta explicitly to a textual/philosophical tradition and implying it is a distinct school.

From Vedanta's clear distinct identity here, a student might consult standard outlines of classical Indian philosophy to verify whether Vedanta and Mimamsa are included among the principal schools.

Describes Sankara's Advaita as rooted in Vedanta and portrays Vedanta as a major doctrinal tradition engaged in debates with other sects, reinforcing Vedanta's status as a principal school.

A student can use this confirmation of Vedanta's centrality to compare with lists of the Shad-darshanas to test whether Mimamsa is paired with Vedanta in that canonical grouping.

This snippet names 'Carvaka' as a formal philosophical school, showing that Indian thought is often grouped into distinct, named systems.

A student could use this pattern (distinct named schools) plus a basic list of classical Indian systems to suspect Nyaya and Vaisheshika might likewise be named, canonical schools.

States that Upaniṣads/ Vedanta are referred to as a 'school of thought' (Vedanta), showing that major philosophical currents are classified and named.

Knowing Vedanta is one named school makes it plausible to look for other named 'darshanas' (e.g., Nyaya, Vaisheshika) in standard lists of classical schools.

Reiterates that 'Vedanta' is generally known as a school, reinforcing the existence of canonical categories within Indian philosophy.

A student could combine this with a map or textbook list of classical schools to check whether Nyaya and Vaisheshika appear among them.

Mentions a work titled 'Nyaya Kundali' and associates it with philosophical texts patronized by rulers, indicating 'Nyaya' functions as a recognizable philosophical term or tradition.

From the attested existence of Nyaya texts, a student could seek standard enumerations of classical systems to see if Nyaya is counted among the Shad-darshanas.

Discusses distinct religious/philosophical traditions (Vaishnavism, Shaivism) forming coherent streams, illustrating the broader pattern of organizing belief-systems into named categories.

A student could analogously treat Nyaya and Vaisheshika as named philosophical streams and consult canonical lists of classical systems to test whether they are two of six.

Identifies 'lokayata' (Carvaka) as a named materialist school of Indian thought, showing it is treated like other philosophical schools.

A student could compare this with a standard list of classical 'darshanas' (Shad-darshanas) to see whether Lokayata/Carvaka is included among the canonical six.

Explicitly states Chārvāka is sometimes also called 'Lokāyata', confirming the two names refer to the same school.

Use this name-equivalence when checking reference lists or textbooks of Indian philosophy to avoid missing the school under a different name.

Notes that the Vedas gave rise to several schools of thought and names Vedanta and Yoga as well-known examples, indicating there exists an identifiable set of schools to be compared.

A student could locate the conventional enumeration of those 'schools of thought' (the Shad-darshanas) and test if Lokayata and Kapalika appear on that canonical list.

Mentions specific philosophical texts and scholars patronised by a dynasty, implying discrete, named philosophical traditions with associated literature.

A student could survey canonical texts and scholar-lists for each named tradition (e.g., Nyaya, Samkhya, etc.) to determine which six are conventionally grouped as Shad-darshanas and whether Lokayata or Kapalika are among them.

States that Vedic texts gave rise to several schools of thought and explicitly names Vedanta and Yoga as well-known schools.

A student could note that Yoga is repeatedly listed among classical Indian schools and then check standard lists of the 'darshanas' to see whether Yoga appears among the canonical six.

Mentions samkhya, yoga and Vedanta together as recognized schools of thought that influenced later movements.

Seeing Samkhya and Yoga grouped with Vedanta suggests they form part of a recognized set of philosophical traditions; a student could compare this grouping with textbook lists of the Shad-darshanas.

Notes the compilation of the Yoga Sūtras by Patañjali, indicating Yoga has an established textual/philosophical tradition.

Knowing Yoga has foundational texts and an identified founder, a student could infer Yoga's status as a classical school and consult lists of established schools to test inclusion among the six.

Describes Vedanta as 'one school of thought' developing from the Upaniṣads, illustrating that Indian philosophy is described in terms of named schools (e.g., Vedanta).

The pattern of naming and treating Vedanta as a distinct school supports the method of checking whether Samkhya and Yoga are similarly treated in canonical enumerations of darshanas.