Talk:Eastern philosophy

Maoism -> Mohism

"Maoism" was obviously "Mohism" (The school of Mozi) in origin. This is a ridicolous mistake, please, may some expert correct? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohism 87.0.208.22 13:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Alright, whoever is writing all that stuff about Christianity under legalism better stop it. --Darthanakin 06:07, 19 November 2005 (UTC) Alright, its this guy 164.82.85.3, watch out for this guy --Darthanakin 06:14, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Nah. It's that Ant-Crist guy again... Banno 06:22, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

The following sentence is incorrect:

  "Shared concepts include the supernatural, the immortal soul (ancestor
of mind-body dualism)"

The concept of the supernatural and the immortal soul is not limited to these two civilizations but occours almost universally in human culture throughout the world.--Vonaurum 09:44, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

NPOV part 2

Doesn't this seem a bit like an argument against the east/west distinction, and less like an article explaining what eastern philosophy is? Does there really need to be two refutations of the term, but yet no explanation of why the difference exists, or what makes the difference in the first place? --Omestes 16:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

WTF?

What the hell is going on here? See Talk:Eastern culture and RFC for more confusion... Sam Spade (talk · contribs) 18:20, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Wilber?

Why does this article mention Ken Wilber? Is it really that significant? --romanm (talk) 21:35, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Wiki Project Policy

Wikipedia:WikiProject Philosophy are developing a policy relevant to this article at Wikipedia:WikiProject Philosophy/geographic divisions. Banno 18:18, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

While I agree with the sentiment expressed, the expression leaves much to be desired. This article expresses a point of view without citation. Banno 18:58, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Although I concur that Deng Xiaoping is a notable modern Eastern thinker who could be considered a philosopher and although I concur that noting him under Maoism is not entirely inappropriate I think that the current way that Deng is referenced on this page is severely in violation of Wikipedia's NPOV policy. The entire text is rife with weasel words that are based around a pro-capitalist, anti-soviet perspective. This unflinching Deng idolization disregards the significant negative impacts of Deng's "reforms" including the stifling of grass-roots democratization efforts (such as the infamous T-Square incident), the extreme environmental damage caused by rapid industrialization under the economic "reform" policy, and the collapse of the "Iron Ricebowl". Considering the problems that can be laid at Deng's feet I would encourage the contributor who included information on Deng to find a much more NPOV way of introducing his contributions to Eastern Philosophy and am removing the offending text pending revision. 64.201.173.145 (talk) 19:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Rewrite introduction

The introduction starts in a negative tone. There is no need to contrast with Western philosophy in the first line itself...Eastern philosophies stand on its own and i would like to rewrite about it in positive terms.

the intro is overly hostile, and assumes a philosophical standpoint (universal philosophy) to criticize opposing philosophies. not only does this not meet up to wikipedia standards, it is off topic.

SV 03:38, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

It struck me as strange as well, I've moved the text here for now in case there are a few useful words to be culled in the future – cacahuate ^talk 17:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

It is a mistake to put too great an emphasis on the peculiar or unique character of Eastern philosophical thought. For one, it is itself a diverse set of movements and outlooks. Second, particular Eastern thinkers often have affinities with figures in Western philosophy. For instance, Mozi, an ancient Chinese philosopher roughly contemporaneous with Confucius, is the first known consequentialist, a strand of ethical thought typically associated with modern English speaking philosophers, while the ethical work of Confucius has a great deal in common with that of Aristotle. It is a serious error to write off Eastern thought as merely mystical or religious, as evidenced by thinkers such as Confucius and Mozi, but also surprising by early Buddhists, who emphasized the evidence available in experience for their system of thought.

God

Why is God capitalized all throughout this article? If not refering to one of the Abrahamic religions then god should remain in lowercase because it is NOT a name. If there was a good reason to capitalize god then gods should also be capped.

198.110.32.2 00:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

God also refers to the philosophical concepts, not just the abrahamic religions.--207.68.234.177 (talk) 23:29, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Modern era

Other than Maoism there doesn't to be any mention of any philosophy done in the last 100 years or so. Clearly there are academic philosophers working in universities in Asia. I think it would be good if someone with a clue about philosophy added some mention. A Geek Tragedy 23:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

No philosophy conceived in modern Asia should bear the definition of "eastern", as this collective term is somehow disputable even for older asiatic traditions, after the end of colonialism.82.54.209.211 19:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, yeah, it does seem too broad a term to be very useful, but by the definition used in the article it is "the various philosophies of China, Japan, Korea, India, and, to some extent, of Iran (Persia)." If it only means Asian philosophy before colonisation by Western powers it should say so and the stuff about Mao should be pulled.A Geek Tragedy 21:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

The best definition of an 'eastern philosophy' is probably the exact opposite to that of 'western philosohpy' —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dannyo50 (talk • contribs) 17:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

what is Ayyavazhi?

I dont understand why Ayyavazhi is getting the space among eastern philosophies? it may be a small time cult, thousands of which are present in India. i propose that we should delete its entry among eastern philosophies.

--SV 20:24, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Ayyavazhi is not a cult but a religion in India. Pls read the citations in Ayyavazhi article. It has more than 8000 worship centrs across India. Also moving the sections per alphabetical order. - _Д=|Θ|=_{Д Paul}| 19:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it is merely a sect. Paul has been involved in promoting AV as a notable religion on many different articles. Notice how he changed the ordering alphabetically on this article to favor AV? --Blacksun 15:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Isn't the article in Alphabetical order? Then on what ground you removed it? And Iam moving as per valid citations. - _Д=|Θ|=_{Д Paul}| 18:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Also all others are listed as per alphabetical order. Then Are you argueing that 'Ayyavazhi only' to be moved rigth to the bottom of the article mindless to the followed writing ethics here? Also you called it in the edit summary as "trick to promote" Ayyavazhi. - _Д=|Θ|=_{Д Paul}| 20:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Move Ayyavazhi under the heading "Minor religious traditions and sects". It should NOT appear alongside major religions. Otherwise it has to be resolved by a vote i guess.

--SV 21:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

That would make the list really long. I am not sure if it should be mentioned in this article at all but I guess we can discuss that. --Blacksun 03:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

As SV said, AV is in no way a major religion or tradition. Even the prominent newspapers of the state where it mainly hails from never mention it. Their are only one or two valid citations for it available. THen you go and add it under major religions and traditions and expect us to not realize that you are abusing wikipedia to promote your POV? --Blacksun 01:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Why can't Paul understand that it is not up to him to decide whether Ayyavazhi is a separate religion but up to Reliable sources. One university paper compared to thousands, if not millions for the major religions is not that many reliable sources. There are more sources which claim the Hare Krishnas and Brahmo Samaj are separate from Hinduism yet they still don't get their own section. Neither should Ayyavazhi. Gizza^{Chat ©} 08:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

User:DaGizza, for your opinion as comparing Ayyavazhi with Hare Krishnas and Brahmo Samaj's, I say genuinely it's definitely not. It's something extremely different from those you said. And for strenthening my stand, that "University book" only is not my source, I've also a set of historian's views over Ayyavazhi society and it's ideology, which are considered a reliable sources here. I definitly know that those sources may be sealed as Ayyavazhi biased ones by some of the above users; see even university papers are not valid!!!

For a long time, Iam telling Ayyavazhi is a seperate religion. I've told several time to some of the above users that Iam ready to cite Ayyavazhi society as a seperate religion even from Tamil News papers especially 'Daily Thanthi', the largest read out news Paper in India. Still he is telling "prominent newspapers of the state" are not mentioning Ayyavazhi. I don't know on what ground?

As the part of my discussion here in this matter, you all may decide what to do. Because where ever with some valid sources I, despite of wasting time for long discussions and utilising large efforts discussed with the users, most of them including a few administrators found ways to note me as a notorious criminal.I discussed in polite languages with them, not caring about some types of personal attacks, some 3RR blocks for removing undiscussed edits for which I waited upto one week for opinions etc.

So friends I finally understand that here, What Iam telling, and what credible sources Iam citing, all these are not a problem, but I should be in a large friends-circle here and other wise is not worthy. Some complints and RFCs may be launced against and may be finally blocked for ever. - _Д=|Θ|=_{Д Paul}| 18:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

This is NOT the forum to debate on what makes something into a religion or sect or cult. The most trivial point is Ayyavazhi is not a MAJOR religion at all. so my opinion is you should mention it, if at all you want to, under a seperate heading on minor traditions and sects. I agree with other editors that Ayyavazhi should not get any space under eastern philosophy, but i am willing to atleast consider it under minor religious traditions and sects.

--SV 19:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Then this page will be cluttered with thousands of such "minor" religions and sects. Where will you draw a line? --Blacksun 22:23, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

THIS IS NOT A RELIGION ARTICLE! Why is a religion being given space on this page in the first place? If this "religion," as Paul Raj, calls it above, encompasses philosophical ideas, then those ideas should be discussed here and then included in their own sub-section. But, if those philosophical ideas are actually derivitive of other philosophies, then Ayyavazhi should be a note in that (those) other sub-section(s). And, if there are no non-derivitive phiosophical ideas in Ayyavazhi (only religious and/or faith-based ones), then it should be omitted entirely. Oh, and one more thing, the number of followers an idea/religion/philosophy/cult/whatever has is of little relevance here. There are many ideas/religions/philosophies/cults/whatevers, with many more than 8000 followers, that are not mentioned on this page. ask123 03:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Islamic philosophy

Should Islamic philosophy be here? I ask this because Islamic philosophy is actually closer to Western philosophy than Eastern philosophy. Not only because of its status as an Abrahamic religion......but also the fact that Muslim Arabs are the ones that preserved the ancient Greek philosophy after the fall of Rome and it thus became an essential part of philosophy in the Islamic world. Zachorious 14:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Sort of the same thing with Jewish philosophy. Zachorious 14:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

There is a notable Taylor & Francis journal called Asian philosophy : an international journal of Indian, Chinese, Japanese, Buddhist, Persian and Islamic philosophical traditions. Furthermore, Part VI of the authoritative Routledge Companion Encyclopedia of Asian Philosophy (2002) is titled "Islamic Philosophy". --Omnipaedista (talk) 16:47, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Systems of Belief vs. Philosophy

This article does not distinguish between philosophies and systems of belief. As examples, Buddhism and Hinduism are religions (perhaps), organizations of ideas, ways of life, systems of belief, etc. Their respective teachings each contains philosophies, but each, unto itself, is not a philosophy. Philosophy is, among other things, a method of examination that uses rational thought. epistemology and logic, for instance, are types of philosophy. Buddhist philosophical ideas cover many areas, among them metaphysics and epistemology. But the teachings of Gautama Buddha themselves (a.k.a. Buddhism) cannot be collectively called a philosophy because it is not all philosophy. The same goes for Hinduism and many other categories of "Eastern Philosophy" covered in this article. I am not an expert on this subject but this much I know is true... ask123 03:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Aaaargh: Japanese Philosophy

Following the link to the main article on "Japanese Philosophy" is basically a refresh button.... StaticGull 09:45, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

All links of the first section link back this article which is very frustrating if you want to learn more about these philosophies Schwarzbichler 17:41, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

The "Japanese philosophy" link redirects back to the Eastern Philosophy page, but the Persian and Korean links do not. This makes it impossible to read about Japanese philosophy specifically. (209.33.232.233 18:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC))

Page created, but it's quite a small stub.JDowning 18:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The term "Indian religions" does not make sense, because a number of religions and philosophies on that page clearly are not distinctly "Indian."

• Sikhism - Western scholars regard as the influence of Islam on India, during the Islamic occupation of India. It's just as "Middle-Eastern" as it is "Indian."
• Buddhism - Most Buddhist traditions are Asian, not Indian
• Hinduism - Not all Hindu traditions themselves are Indian. There is the large Hindu sect, Hare Krishna, which developed in America.

[Note: The Hare Krishna movement is a Gaudiya Vaishnava sect arising from Bengal, India, which also spread through South India. It did not move into America and elsewhere untill some few hundred years later. Gouranga(UK) (talk) 20:58, 23 February 2008 (UTC)]

Merging the content about the above beliefs and changing the title to "Religious History of India" makes more sense.

Furthermore, about the separate articles on Eastern philosophy and Eastern religion -- in the East, there is no distinction between "Eastern philosophy" and "Eastern religions."

The above are just some quick references I pulled from books laying around the house. Were I go to the library or spend some time using Google, I could bury you all in references to support my claims. And as you can see, all the references cited are clearly reliable because they're widely-used scholarly source material.

I will wait until tomorrow to start the merge. However, per WP:BOLD, I will begin the merge tomorrow. Zenwhat (talk) 02:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Do not give any deadlines for suo motto merger whithout adequate discussions. This issue has been discussed and debated to death on pages of Dharmic religions/ Traditions. One or two references do not authorise you to make such drastic changes. Let this issue be discussed with all the concerned persons first. Else it will be treated as vandalism.--Anish (talk) 05:00, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Anishah, bold edits can be made, even after consensus, even regarding past decisions if new information becomes available. Above, I made that deadline to allow people to make objections before making any substantial changes. I meant to say "I will begin the merge tomorrow," provided there are no objections. Since you objected now, I'll wait and discuss the matter with you or anyone else who makes any objections.

Furthermore, my proposed edit doesn't contradict past consensus for two reasons:

1. The past proposals appear to have all involved either deleting this article or renaming it to "Dharmic religion" or "Dharmic tradition," both of which I agree have been rejected by consensus. However, I propose a merge to Eastern philosophy and the possible creation of an article on the History of religion in India, which is entirely different.
2. I've cited a number of reliable, verifiable sources to establish my points. So far, the only source I've seen to dispute my claims above is searches on scholar.google.com. That appears to violate WP:GOOGLE, because search engines have limitations where written material, such as books, may serve as better sources.

The number of my references do not matter if they are reliable and verifiable. A claim only needs but one reliable, verifiable reference to be made. But as I said, if you're uncertain or if anyone digs up references which demonstrate the contrary, I can dig up even more references, if necessary. Based on the above, I don't think I should need to, but to build consensus, I will. Zenwhat (talk) 06:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, hold on. I just saw this. [1] I will have to take a look at it tomorrow, since I'm about to go to bed, but overall, my points still do appear to stand since a brief look over the page shows that few people cite soources for their claims and the issue isn't exactly the same as the above, although it's very similar. I admit I'll have to take a closer look over some of the past discussions. If you were involved and could provide a summary, that would be appreciated. It is important for me to mention however that consensus can change. Zenwhat (talk) 06:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that there is some overlap among the three articles, but I don't believe that the proposed merge is the correct resolution. First of all, while I see your point regarding the philosophy/religion division not being as operative outside the West, I don't think that 'Eastern Philosophy' is the correct end point for these three pages. All of these traditions comprise more than just philosophies- they also have significant social, supernatural, ritual, etc. structures that fall outside of what is traditionally considered philosophy. Ultimately though, the religion vs. philosophy vs. what-have-you argument with respect to the Eastern traditions is old and pointless- its been fought a million times in a million places, and is no more likely of getting a resolution here than anywhere else. Furthermore, scholars do sometimes consider the philosophical and religious traditions separately; its possible to talk a great deal about, say, Buddhist ethics, without saying much about monastic ordination or making merit, which are cultic/devotional practices that philosophy of religion does not typically give attention to. So the two articles reflect two different focuses that exist in the real world. Finally, with respect to 'Indian Religions': this page seems reasonably coherent as it stands. Classifying religious traditions according to their origin, and discussing them in the context of that origin seems perfectly sensible- much more so than discussing say, Sikhism and Taoism together because they are both 'Eastern'. While there are elements of those three traditions that are influenced by forces outside India, in every case their origin and a great deal of their intellectual development occurred inside the sub-continent. For instance, first real non-Indian school of Buddhist philosophy was the Tiantai, which didn't appear until 1000 years after the Buddha, and whose most important scripture was the Lotus Sutra, which was composed in India. It's certainly beneficial to describe these traditions in the context of their origins in Indian history, geography, etc. and how conditions in India influenced their genesis and development. Plenty of scholars have done exactly that, so it seems sensible to keep this page around as a means of collecting or referencing such ideas. --Clay Collier (talk) 07:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Spasemunki\Clay Collier, your claim "they also have significant social, supernatural, ritual, etc. structures that fall outside of what is traditionally considered philosophy" is probably true per the western definition of philosophy, as noted by my sources above, but not the eastern definition. In the absence of sources, what you said above appears to be original research which seeks to divide Eastern thought into "Eastern philosophy" and "Eastern religion" when no such division is recognized by mainstream philosophers in either the west or east. In many ways, the seemingly "devotional" teachings of Buddhism aren't particularly different from beliefs advocated by modern movements in philosophy, such as Existentialism and Post-Modernism. Alan Watts and Stephen Batchelor have written extensively on this. If such a division between "Eastern Philosophy" and "Eastern Religion" is recognized, please cite a reliable source to substantiate that claim. There are already pages and pages of unsubstantiated claims on discussions which appear to be similar to this issue. In order to move forward, we need to move past that. Zenwhat (talk) 08:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your view and am trying to understand why you want to merge Easter Philosophy with Indian Religions. It seems that this opposition stems from allergy to the word “Indian”. But that cannot be the criteria. Wikipedia does not function on emotions and passions. The fact that Historical Buddhism or for that matter the other Indian Religions originated on Indian soils cannot be done away with.

Your arguments are frail as I will show you why :-

Please note : WP policy is Be bold but don’t be reckless.

Now let us analyse your references of which you are “proud” that you want to “bury us all” :-

• Reference no. 1 – You are mixing Indian with Hinduism which is totally wrong. Buddhism and Jainism can be Indian without being a part of Hinduism.
• Reference no. 2 – Influence of Islam cannot make Sikhism a Middle Eastern religion. Idiot's Guide simply talks of influence and when you convert Sikhism to Middle Eastern religion, you are pushing a POV or indulging in disguised OR.
• Reference 3 and 4 – Wikipedia itself cannot be a reference for another wiki article.
• Reference 5 – OK… ISKON developed in west. Ok..so you are claiming it is not Indian.. OK….Then it is not eastern also….so don’t put it as a reference or by that logic there should be no page on Eastern Philosophy, as one small subsect developed in west. !!
• Reference 6, 7 and 8 – The phrases “mixing of ideas and beliefs” and “complement each other” can never construed to mean Religion and Philosophies are true and complete synonyms. It fact – complement each other means that they are different but both are required to complete each other.

Its quite clear that religion and philosophy can be similar but cannot be considered as synonyms. Similarly the words “Indian” and “Eastern” cannot be considered as synonyms. So you don’t have a case for merger of IR with EP.

Furthermore, even though Dolphin can be considered as a Marine mammal as well as Cataceans, there is no need to merge Marine mammal with Cataceans. Similarly Jainism, Hinduism, Buddhism and Sikhism can be a part of Indian Religion as well as Eastern Religions or Eastern Philosophy, which is a broader category. In fact, both articles COMPLEMENT each other. You last phrase “if anyone digs up references which demonstrate the contrary, I can dig up even more references, if necessary” gives an ipression that, you have come with a pre-conceived notion and you are not ready to accept that there can be authoritative and scholarly discord or wide ranging contrary views and all views need to be expressed in wikipedia. I just hope that is not the case.--Anish (talk) 11:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

In response to Anishshah19:

• Reference no. 1 - I agree, but as it stands now, the article on Indian religions doesn't discuss early Hinduism and Buddhism (early Theravada) in India. It invokes Hinduism and Buddhism as if they were strictly Indian, which they aren't, and no source seems to have been cited to establish that. This is why I suggested renaming it "History of Religion in India".
• Reference no. 2 - Since Sikhism was the result of the Islamic occupation of India, although Sikhism was born in India, it was brought back to Middle-Eastern countries. Again, the article doesn't discuss "Early Sihkism in India," but invokes Sihkism as a strictly "Indian religion," when historically, with the exception of its early history, most Sikhs were not Indians.
• Reference 3 and 4 - I didn't invoke Wikipedia as a reference for itself. I said see the references on those articles. I could list them here, but it would be redundant.
• Reference 5 - It's not western, either. The founder of ISKON was an Indian, heavily influenced by Hinduism, who traveled to America.
• Reference 6, 7, and 8 - The mixing of ideas and beliefs is precisely what makes Eastern philosophy distinct from Western philosophy. In the West, philosophy is distinguished from religion, because "philosophy" is about "ideas" and "religion" is about "beliefs." The above sources demonstrate this is not true of Eastern philosophy, hence it completely eliminates any justification for separating "Eastern religion" from "Eastern philosophy". This is a widely-recognized fact in philosophy. I challenge you to contact any philosophy professor at your local university. Despite past discussions on this, this continued distinction between "Eastern philosophy" and "Eastern religion" appears to have been made based upon poor verification of original research. Zenwhat (talk) 20:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and also, my claim about the reference burying -- I say that simply because I have a fair amount of knowledge in the field, though I don't have a particular degree. It's not that I'm not open to other ideas (please, share references which demonstrate I'm wrong). It's just that my experience in the field make me suspect it's unlikely to see anyone bring anything. Zenwhat (talk) 23:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Do not support merge Christian philosophy, Jewish philosophy and Islamic philosophy, among other articles, are distinct from the article on Abrahamic religions. I do not really see any significant reasons to support merging both Indian religions and Eastern religions into Eastern philosophy, since in general, people treat religion (as procedure/ritual) and philosophy (as outlook/worldview) as seperate things. I do see a significant amount of overlap between Indian religions and Eastern religions, however, I think the current state of Eastern religions works well as a psudo-disambiguation page, while and Indian religions would be much more useful if its scope was changed to History of religion in India. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 23:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: I was asked to comment on the proposal. Unfortunately, I don't feel competent to do so. My general advice would be to consult and discuss this idea with the relevant general wikiproject (and perhaps not a wikiproject on any particular religion, at this stage). Any major changes, even if they improve Wikipedia, should be introduced after a longer debate, if they relate to sensitive subjects such as religion. Even if they are 100% justified, they may make people simply upset (keep in mind, that a seemingly simple topic of Joan Rowling's nationality is a source of a heated and recurring debate - what if not a revert-war can happen after quick changes here?). I am sure that with good sources and arguments a project of a merger stands a good chance of being accepted, but some vote on that and discussion with the competent fellow editors will do no harm and make help in polishing it off. Also, the typical academic division between philosophy and religion may play some role for the users - they should not be confused by finding something else than what they were looking for, as NickPenguin pointed out, so perhaps keeping Eastern philosophy separate from Eastern religions is not such a bad idea. Pundit|utter 00:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

To repeat myself, I have cited sources demonstrating the lack of a distinction between Eastern philosophy and Eastern religion. If you believe that is false, please cite sources to the contrary or else it violates WP:NOR and WP:VERIFIABILITY. On past discussions, there appear to be a lot of people giving their opinions on the matter with the consensus blindly accepting them without first verifying them. Zenwhat (talk) 02:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying you're wrong in any point or source, I'm just saying that philosophy and religion for some users (and academics, too) are not entirely overlapping. Thus, merging Eastern religions with Eastern philosophy must be carefully thought through, if it is indeed to take place, even if only for headwords reason. Good night :) Pundit|utter 03:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Pundit, my comments were in response to NickPenguin. I disagree, believing that inaccurate claims from Wikipedia should be removed ASAP, because they violate policy. There are pages and pages of people saying about this, "I think religion and philosophy are totally different." This is to be expected precisely for the reasons described above: In the west, western philosophy is distinguished from western religion. On a website edited primarily by westerners, naturally most people will have this misconception. Dozens of people stating their belief in this misconception without any sources to verify it doesn't move the discussion forward and doesn't really constitute a valid consensus, since Wikipedia is not a democracy. Zenwhat (talk) 04:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I see your point, and I do sympathize with your position, because in the East the distinction between religion and philosophy is not the same as with the West. However, that doesn't stop of us speaking of different aspects of the same thing in different ways, and thus many people are comfortable speaking of both eastern religion and eastern philosophy. Some citations to back this up? How about any number of books with the words "eastern philosophy" in the title, as opposed to "eastern religions"? Sure, there is some disagreement about how blurry the line is between philosophy and religion, but I think this would be something worth mentioning in the respective articles, rather than a reason for merging the two articles together. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 10:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Nick, this discussion is about a proposal to merge Eastern philosophy with Eastern religion, not a proposal to merge Philosophy with Religion. I agree the latter would be stupid, but the former is true and has been verified. The existence of some sources which use "Eastern religion" and some sources which use "Eastern philosophy" doesn't demonstrate any distinction between the two if both sources regularly use the terms to discuss the same concepts. Zenwhat (talk) 16:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I've got to say, I liked your longer (and now removed/edited) reply, as I think you showed your point rather than just told me; made it much more impactful. Anyways, back to the merge: Even in the Eastern tradition, I don't think religion and philosophy are strictly synonymous. In this case, all their philosophy would be religious, but not all their religious activities/thoughts would be philosophical. And for that reason, I think it is best to keep give these two issues separate, and give them different treatment. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 19:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Strongly Oppose Merge, Neutral to Renaming - mostly per NickPenguin. (Note: Most of this stuff is adressed to Zenwhat.) I don't have the resources to go into anywhere near a thorough analysis of the issue, but there are people (besides me and a few other people whose opinions have no real credence) who do make a distinction between Eastern religion and philosophy. For the most part, such people believe that most Eastern religions have philosophical aspects but that not all Eastern philosophies are religions (Confucianism appears most commonly). I'll just give a small list of sources describing these views in same way, either by explicit mention or implication:

• "Confucianism is Philosophy, Not Religion." Korean Times, 19 January 2007.
• Sharma, Arvind and Katherine K. Young. "Feminism and World Religions." Philosophy East and West, Vol. 51, No. 1 (Jan., 2001), pp. 118-120.
• Tan, Chee-beng. "Chinese Religion in Malaysia: A General View." (this one takes a somewhat interesting stance)

Now I'll address the references given earlier, using the texts provided. I don't have a copy of any of those books available, so I'll work with those directly sourced.

• "Most Jains and Buddhists, of course, don't regard themselves as 'orthodox' Hindus, but as, well, orthodox Jains and Buddhists... ...This approach to life turned out to have tremendous appeal outside of India, even though Indian Buddhism eventually faded." You have interepreted this as meaning that these religions are not distinctly Indian. You have a point here, especially when it comes to Buddhism, and I have to admit that, although your generalization to Jainism is not only unsupported by the text but incorrect, you are correct on the point as a whole.
• "The mixing of ideas and beliefs is common throughout the history of Eastern philosophy." You interpreted this as meaning that there is little to no distinction between philosophy and religion. However, all that means is concepts from different philosophies (and religions, although they were not mentioned) came together, which is true. It does not mean that religion and philosophy became one.
• "Westerners often describe the difference between religion and philosophy in terms of devotional and intellectual practice. These two kinds of activity have been separated for centuries in the West, thanks to the phenomenal success of Western science. In the East, however, the two are thought to complement one another." The statement about Eastern religion and philosophy being complementary could be interpreted in many ways. A helmet and a bicycle, a 30° angle and a 60° angle: Are they complementary? Yep. Are they the same? Hopefully not (or my math teacher was wrong).
• "In the introduction, the authors note that Buddhism was traditionally considered a philosophy engaged in "rational inquiry" by 19th century scholars, but how modern scholars now tend to acknowledge the role that devotion and ritual have played in the development of Buddhism." This discusses the differences between what Westerners and Easterners believe about Eastern religion; these differences are irrelevant to what they are in reality. Essentially, the fact that 19th century scholars were wrong, and about Buddhism, changes nothing about the common opinion that Confucianism (and, it is occasionally argued, Taoism) is/are/may be philosophy/ies without being religion(s).

I'm fine with renaming Indian religions to "History of religion in India" or whatever was suggested, because those suggest similar topics. However, merging Indian religion with Eastern philosophy would be like merging quark with cheese, or Jainism with Jainism and non-creationism (a specific topic with a general one). My main problem is not with acknowledgment that some religions spread outside of India, as did Buddhism, but with the claim that the Eastern world does not distinguish between religion and philosophy. Just as a disclaimer, I know relatively little about this topic, and I may have misinterpreted my sources; don't hunt me down and kill me if that is the case. --Qmwne235 22:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Just to add on to this, even if Eastern religion and Eastern philosophy are merged, both are still quite different from Indian religion. From my many experiences with Hinduism and Jainism, both are not only unrelated but dissimilar (is that a word?) to traditional Eastern religion/philosophy. I see the point of and agree with your arguments regarding Buddhism, but that is not enough to end up putting Sikhism and Taoism, which are very different, in the same general article (of course, either way this goes, they'd maintain their specific articles; I'm not referring to that). --Qmwne235 22:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Response to Qmwne235: Your first source isn't reliable. A simple google search shows that the "Korean times" has malware. Even if it were legitimate, how am I supposed to verify it without being able to read Korean? And how do I know it is not an opinion piece, based on the title? Furthermore, you used the source to contradict my claim cites Confucianism and Confucianism alone. There is specific contention over whether "Confucianism" is a philosophy, a religion, or both. Opponents of Confucianism generally regard it as a religion, while supporters will call it a philosophy. The Idiot's Guide to Confucianism likely either refers to as both a philosophy and a religion, or notes the fact that the ambiguity is a point of contention.

Second, your second source seems to contradict your own claims: If Eastern philosophy and Eastern religion are distinct, why would discussion of a book about Feminism in Eastern religion be in a journal of philosophy entitled, "Philosophy East and West"? Your source demonstrates the exact opposite of your point and it's something I can now use to establish my point even further.

You acknowledge I'm somewhat correct about Buddhism. That alone seems like grounds to at least clean up Indian religions. You're right that my claim about Jains isn't correct. I agree that Jainism is largely an "Indian religion." No disagreement there.

I never claimed that philosophy became one or that they are in fact the same. What I'm saying is that they are perceived that way in the East, this is acknowledged by mainstream philosophers, and that there are no mainstream sources to demonstrate a tenable distinction, although there is some original research by Stephen Batchelor on the matter [2] and there is likely original research by others.

Your final summary of your claims about Eastern philosophy and religion seem to contradict WP:VERIFIABILITY. Even if it is true there ought to be a distinction between Eastern philosophy and Eastern religion (a proposal that I, myself, agree with since I find Asian superstitions absurd and I'm a fan of Stephen Batchelor), such a claim is not verifiable. The fact that it is "occasionally argued" (to use your own words) that Taoism can be regarded as philosophies without being religions seems to violate WP:NOR. Zenwhat (talk) 00:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

My feeling is that more would be lost from the merger than gained. Indian religion, Eastern religion, and Eastern philosophy although overlapping in certain areas, are still seperate areas of interest. Philosophy and religion are clearly distinct, even if they cross-over, each article will have a different emphasis. What does worry me however is that the current title Indian religion is somewhat vague. There is a link on the page pointing to the historical article. So if it's not historical, what is it exactly? I'm assuming it's what's left of the old Dharmic religions article, but I've had little or no input into the article to know the story. Regards, Gouranga(UK) (talk) 11:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Gouranga, "it would cause harm" is an appeal to consequences, which is why it's an argument to avoid in deletion discussions. I think the same applies to proposed mergers. You invoke a slippery slope of potential disastrous effects, without logically addressing the factual accuracy of the article division. Your claim "Philosophy and religion are clearly distinct" is again an unverified claim that reflects the bias of western philosophy and western culture. As noted above, please, folks, don't repeat such claims without backing them up with citations. Consensus is about meaningful, rational discussion, not just putting forth our own unverified opinions on how we think things are or ought to be, and deciding based on what the most predominant opinions or misconceptions are. Zenwhat (talk) 10:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Might I suggest that "Eastern" itself might be considered a somewhat arbitrary category, invented by Westerners? Peter jackson (talk) 09:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Do not support merge. User:Zenwhat has invited me to comment on the proposal. After reading through the above arguments, I can see no compelling reason to merge the articles. Think of it from the encyclopedia user's point of view: although "eastern" readers might not recognize a clear distinction between philosophy and religion, most western readers do and they know (or think they know) whether they are looking for information on religion or philosophy, Indian or Chinese. All three articles are comprehensive and provide clear links to relevant topics. I see no merit in further broadening the article; where would one stop?

There will always be a massive overlap between the Eastern philosophy and Eastern religion articles (not "religions" as the proposal has it) but that is not necessarily a bad thing. However, I do think the article should be renamed Eastern philosophies. There is of course no Eastern philosophy as such, and having this title perpetuates the myth.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 10:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The East Asian and Indian religions are unique and important enough to have their own articles, IMO. Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 02:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

obviously, the two articles are closely related, but just as obviously, they should not be merged. Nobody would suggest we merge Hindu philosophy into Hinduism, for example. --dab (𒁳) 08:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Jewish philosophy

The Jewish people are as much a part of the East (where they originate) as they are the West, so I think it would be a good idea to include them on here as well. I'm not really sure how to do that yet, though. I apologize for the brevity, but I am heading out as I type this.Evildoer187 (talk) 07:56, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I think Jewish philosophy is more influenced by Europe than Asia. Typically, when individuals hear "Eastern philosophy", they understand it is philosophy from the Far East or Indian subcontinent, not the small slice of Asia in the Middle East. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:36, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Split

The content of this article is too broad and the organization is random - not historical or topical. I think this does a disservice to all of the philosophical traditions involved. Also, what is happening here is that a bunch of many unrelated philosophical traditions are being mashed together into one category because it was basically the article where all other 'non-Western philosophy' content gets thrown into.

I am not sure that "eastern philosophy" is the best way to even define all of this, and as a category it is all but useless. Iranian and Muslim thought have nothing to do with Chinese and Buddhist thought, they have basically never been part of the same discourse. So this is a problem, and I propose a division of the article into Middle Eastern philosophy and leaving this Eastern philosophy as is with the Indian and Chinese content (since there was contact between the two cultures, mainly through Buddhism).

I will note that this way of using "Eastern philosophy" to refer to mostly South Asia and East Asia (and not the Middle eastern traditions) is a common way of dividing the disciplines in the modern academy, as exemplified by Chakravarthi Ram-Prasad's "Eastern philosophy" (2005) and the "Encyclopedia of Eastern Philosophy and Religion" (1994, Fischer-Schreiber, Ehrhard , Friedrichs). In the Introduction to "Eastern Philosophy: The Basics", Victoria S. Harrison notes that this definition of "Eastern philosophy" is common in the academy and that this is because the Islamic tradition is deeply tied with Hellenic philosophy and Western philosophy and cannot be lumped into the same category as Chinese and Indian thought. At the same time, she notes that the whole idea of "Eastern philosophy" is spurious and based on Eurocentric assumptions - either way we are stuck with the term for now as it is.

Edit: Performed the major edit of moving of Middle eastern material to its own page as per my last comment on this. I also:

• Removed the unsourced section on God and also the one on Religion, there was no reason to have that and God (Isvara, Tian, etc - even the concepts used are not equivalent to the western conception of God) is only one of the many topics in Eastern thinking - and not the most widely discussed one. Comparative religion is a different field than philosophy and should not be on this article.
• Placed the section on South Asian philosophies in the beginning, since it where Buddhism starts, then it makes sense to have the East asian section afterwards chronologically (since it is easier to make sense of the expansion of Buddhism to China)
• A section on 'modern developments' has been added - the work on 'synthesis' between east and west has been moved there.

This article still needs a lot of work, but at least the basic structure makes sense now and is consistent with modern scholarship. Javierfv1212 (talk) 14:36, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

• @Javierfv1212: No comment on the merits of the fork (other than to say starting a discussion and then proceeding with it 2 hours later can be seen as bad form), but please see WP:CWW and follow the steps to attribute the split content, which our license requires (the "BY" in CC-BY-SA). Thanks, Crow^Caw 21:14, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Eastern philosophy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080328000932/http://www.utm.edu/staff/jfieser/vita/teaching/eastphil.htm to http://www.utm.edu/staff/jfieser/vita/teaching/eastphil.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041205035315/http://www.atmajyoti.org/spirwrit.asp to http://www.atmajyoti.org/spirwrit.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:10, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Rishabhdev Tirthankara.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot (talk) 06:37, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Amsuman and Kapila.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:22, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

What is "East'? Who created such thing?

So, in scientific terms, what are the criteria to define what is "East" and "West"? Do you guys really believe that there are only these two cultures?

Its not necessary to be an expert to realize that the "East-West" division originated in the Roman Empire, and that the Western Roman culture and identity was stolen by the Germanic tribes after the Barbarian Invasions (as is evidenced in the name of their first civilization, the Holy Roman Empire).

I will not even mention the fact that today's self-proclaimed "Westerners" were not even true Western Romans but their slaves or their mortal enemies, while half of the real Westerners today are called "Middle Easterners," like the Berbers who by the way were the elite of Rome.

The fact is, if we are going to take this fake cosmography seriously, we will have to add in the so-called "East" the ancient Greeks, who until the London Conference of 1832 were still called "Orientals", and also Jesus Christ, who was not the "blue-eyed blond Western European" that some like to imagine, otherwise the removal of the article will be necessary.

I thought Wikipedia was supposed to be a neutral place instead of another mean of ethnocentric propaganda of a fake ethnicity. 2804:14C:5BD7:AE55:478:E75A:ACD7:B0CA (talk) 23:28, 7 September 2020 (UTC)