This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Eastern religions article. This is
not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us
assess and improve articles to
good and
1.0 standards, or visit the
wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Asia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Asia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject AsiaTemplate:WikiProject AsiaAsia articles
This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the
project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
Yes, I know. I think should be bypassed.
Andries 20:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
Requested move
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: page moved by rough consensus.
Arbitrarily0(
talk) 01:02, 26 July 2011 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
= Information
Confucianism does not belong here, as it is NOT a religion. It is as an ideology that is humanistic and non-theistic, and does not involve a belief in the supernatural, a defining characteristic of any religious belief system. Otherwise we conflate all ideology and philosophical currents/traditions with religions?
24.5.69.164 (
talk) 19:47, 2 July 2012 (UTC)reply
In
Western religions page it talks about Secularization. Since country in the East experienced the same we should give it a mention.
Doremon764 (
talk) 02:21, 21 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Suggestion
Should we write a paragraph for each of these Religions?
Doremon764 (
talk) 06:02, 21 June 2021 (UTC)reply