Talk:Eastern religions

Working towards improvement

I have been adding summary style sections and rewriting sections as summaries. I have been improving the sourcing and trying to improve the writing overall. If anyone has any comments, criticisms or suggestions, they would be quite welcome. Vassyana 16:11, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I have been working here and on the Gurus article, which I think is getting pretty comprehensive. I think rather than making a Guru section here, we could just link to Gurus. What do people here think? Actually, is there anyone here? Rumiton 15:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello Rumiton, the section on Guru's in this article already links to Guru, so I've removed the duplicate link. I don't think we should get into too much detail here, but there should at least be a simple summary? Regards, Gouranga(UK) 16:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah, there is someone here. Yes, I noticed the other link afterwards. Thanks for the deletion. I guess the difficult thing will be summarizing a large body of information in a fair way. Care to make a start? Rumiton 16:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Reliable sources for the term dharmic religions?

Where are the reliable sources that use the term dharmic religions in the context of this article? Dharmic religions is a now deleted obscure neologism and should not be used throughout Wikipedia. a good alternative is Indian religions. Andries 15:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I propose to use the alternative phrase Indian religions. The number of google scholar results for "Indian religions"+"Indian religion" is (45.600 + 84.200) while it is only (492+475) for "dharmic religions" +"dharmic religion". See Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_September_8. Andries 19:21, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Dharmic religion already disambiguates to Indian religions and Indian philosophy ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I know. I think should be bypassed. Andries 20:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. "Dharmic religions", neologism or not, is a better term than "Indian religions". While Buddhism is certainly a religion which originates in India, it is not an exclusively Indian religion; nowadays, it is primarily a non-Indian religion, in geographic terms, since a very small percentage of the Indian population currently follows Buddhism, while in other non-Indian cultures Buddhism is the majority religion. There is also a legitimate question to ask concerning non-Indian forms of Buddhism, to what extent are they purely based on Indian predecessors, and to what extent they incorporate non-Indian pre-Buddhist religious forms or practices. (e.g. how much influence has Tibetan shamanism or Bon had on Tibetan Buddhism? how much influence has Taoism had on Chinese Buddhism?) These are legitimate questions to which answers will differ, but the term "Indian religions" seems to prejudge the conclusion that the Indian influence is predominant and the non-Indian elements insignificant. So I don't like the phrase "Indian religions". "Indian religions" is a bad term for the same reason that calling Judaism/Christianity/Islam "Middle Eastern religions" is a bad term. And "Indian religions" could also be read as "religions found in India", in which case Islam is a major Indian religion. So even if "dharmic religions" is a neologism, it is a useful one, and a transparent one as well. Anyone familiar with these religions will instantly understand what the term "dharmic religions" is meant to mean, and find it clearer and more accurate than the alternative term "Indian religions." --SJK (talk) 00:05, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Offensive statement in the lead.

"The use of this classification is waning due to Islam's place among the Abrahamic religions and Islamic academic abandonment of archaic Orientalism." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Editor2020 (talk • contribs) 20:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Dubious flags

Someone added dubious and cite flags to the lede. I will check back in here tomorrow for any comments that normally accompany such flagging. Regards, -Stevertigo 08:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I deleted the material. I'm with you on the assertion that Eastern thought doesn't necessarily embrace the distinction between theology and philosophy that is seen in the West, but the remainder seems off base to me, and lacks reference. The idea that 'Eastern' can be used as a synonym for polytheism, or that Buddhism is generally recognized as somehow monotheistic or monistic is totally unconvincing to me. First, many branches of Hinduism are strongly monotheistic in their modern forms. Sikkhism is strongly monotheistic. The identity and number of deities is not a central concern in Buddhism, so there are plenty of 'polytheist' Buddhist deities. While certain Buddhist branches have monistic tendencies, there are just as many Buddhist schools of thought that are strongly analytical and see the world as synthetic, rather than as the expression of an underlying unity. If Eastern and Western were ever used that way, it's certainly an anachronistic (and inaccurate) use in this day and age. As was mentioned in the article, the Celts were polytheists, and the canonical polytheism in Western thought is the Greeks. Now, the Greeks are eastern in the sense of 'Oriental' if you're thinking about the late Roman era, but usually when we talk about 'Eastern religion' these days, we're talking about South Asian and East Asian religion, not the religion of Eastern Europe and Central Asia, Asia Minor, and Greece. --Clay Collier (talk) 09:14, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Excellent points. I appreciate your ability to break things down nicely. I am not unhappy with the current version, and hope I have gotten you and Mitsube to improve the lede a little bit in some basic areas. I think you will agree that it was sorely lacking, and still needs some work. This: "it's certainly an anachronistic (and inaccurate) use in this day and age" sums things up nicely and belongs in the lede.

My reasons for adding so much gloss in my last edit were to deal with Mitsube (notably absent in this conversation), who simply reverted my attempt to add some conceptual differentiations to the lede, including the basic concepts of montheism and polytheism and even more importantly, the greater East West distinction. Both are still in the lede, as well is as the reference to Abrahamic/Dharmic religions (though Mitsube's comment about the latter article being a deleted neologism is well made. Note: Category:Dharmic religion stubs), and thus I am satisfied that I am dealing with real editors here, and not just a couple of revert-monkeys.

Much of what you've touched on above, Clay, belongs in the lede; the theological/conceptual ground that Eastern religions cover. Its important to be a bit abstract, even if "Eastern religious" traditions defy the typical theological concepts found in "Western religions." I know only what most "Western" people know about Eastern religions, which is next to nothing. Which makes me not an expert with regard to the particular details, but it does make me an expert with regard to what common people are looking for in an article leade about a topic they know next to nothing about. -Stevertigo 21:47, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Eastern religion usage

This article does not reflect the way the term "Eastern religion" is actually used. In common usage, the "Eastern" religions are those that originated in India and China and are currently the dominant religions of Asia. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are considered Western religions because they originated in the western part of Asia and are currently the dominant religions of Europe and the Americas.

All of today's major world religions originated in Asia, so classifying all Asian religions as "Eastern" isn't very useful. Pterodactyler 15:22, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

The only remotely useful information on this incomplete page is the somewhat-dubious definition of 'Eastern Religion'. The rest can be found at the religions' respective pages. If there is no objection before tomorrow, I am going to rewrite this page. Turly-burly 07:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Why is there only the Dharmic religions here? What about Taoism and Confucianism? And don't the folk and animistic religions get a say?

Wrong

Why are you classifying religions that originated in South Asia as Eastern Religions? It doesn't make sense now does it.109.152.102.205 (talk) 22:44, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Well it does, to an extent. One has to remember the phrase "Eastern religions" is inherently eurocentric, it means religions found East of Europe, or East of what Europe was familiar with. So, Christianity and Judaism and Islam are religions with which Europe has a long familiarity. Islam was mainly in the East (but also in the South, and once upon a time in the West.) So "Eastern religion" really means "further East than Islam", so ends up meaning the religions found in South and East and Southeast Asia, Islam excluded. Besides, the largest of the East Asian religions (Buddhism) originates in South Asia, although there are other East Asian religions of native provenance (Taoism, Shintoism). To conclude, the terminology makes sense if one understands its historical origins, even if starting from a blank slate today one might choose different terminology. --SJK (talk) 00:11, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

Eastern religion → Eastern religions – It's a collective term. Arjun^codename024 17:22, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is. Rennell435 (talk) 17:52, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support 65.93.15.213 (talk) 04:02, 20 July 2011 (UTC)