Talk:Dharmic tradition

Merge?
Shouldn't this be merged with Indian religions? Yes, Dharmic religions is a better name, but there's no point in having two articles on the same subject, is there? 124.185.197.226 06:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

DRV
discussion at Deletion_review/Log/2007_September_8. --dab (𒁳) 07:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The result was stay as disambiguation, with an overturn to restore editing history. Hornplease 18:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Dab page to one article
Ok, so this page actually winds up being here to disambiguate one term among .. one other term, Indian religions. The fact that four subcategories of that topic have their own articles listed under it isn't really disambiguation. Seems more like inconvenient redirection to me. And this page looks to me like one of those unfortunate and ill-conceived articles that survives AfD merely to placate someone -- in this case, those who believe dharmic religion (like taoic) is not the neologism of a wiki-editor. Just my outside opinion, I have no interest in it either way. Eaglizard 08:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I know. This is properly a dab page between dharma and Indian religions. the former is the more narrow sense of "dharmic", while the latter is the referent of the Encarta/Frawley neologism. This should be made more clear. --dab (𒁳) 11:22, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * why not simply redirect and add a hatnote at the redirect target? -- Fullstop 23:29, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Listing of the religions
I think this phrase is simply a list of religions (Buddhism, Jainism, Hinduism, and Sikhism) and I think it should be list for clarity. Andries 08:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Should the debate on this auspicious auspice now be re-opened?
Awaits consensus.

Namaste in agape

Walking my talk in Beauty

B9 hummingbird hovering (talk • contribs) 02:40, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Namaste. The material you added is interesting, but will need to be supported by verifiable sources. Otherwise it will be deleted as original research(OR), which is not acceptable in Wikipedia. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I entirely agree. There were some good ideas in there, but this page recently went through a deletion process specifically because it was not supported by reliable sources.  I was sorry to see so much work lost, but this page needs much more careful referencing.  bikeable (talk) 04:36, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Help requested to substantiate this view by citations
Dharmic tradition (Dharmic religion) refers to any religion, worldview, philosophy, ethos, coterie or tradition that has a conception, notion and/or doctrine of the meme of Dharma. "Dharma", as the cogent substratum and demarcation of commonality, is the favoured auspice; not the provincial (in the locational sense) "India" -- as not all Dharmic Traditions originated in India, e.g. Zen. Dharmic Traditions are living traditions throughout the World and are not circumscribed to the locale of India and the sphere of Indian peoples.

In scholarly discourse, the ambiguous and nebulous "Indian religions" is sometimes employed to denote "Dharmic Traditions"; that is: Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Tantrism, and Sikhism, etc., and individuals and coteries not necessarily identified with larger traditions, for example Mahasiddha, Alvars, siddha, rishi, pundit, sadhu, yogi, tantrika, babaji, etc. In exegesis of the aformentioned "ambigious and nebulous" nature of the term "Indian religion", it is disfavoured in academic discourse as it may refer to "indian" in the denotation of "indigenous", indian as in Indian "continent" or Indian "nation"; and/or any religion or tradition originating, at one point evident in, or currently extant in India. Dharmic religion is also problematic as certain schools and sects of the Dharmic Traditions neither envision nor style themselves as "religion" due to interplay of nirguna brahman, mysticism and anatman, etcetera. Tradition is also favoured as the term "religion", rooted in the etymon "fetter" connotes the binding of dogma as has been evident in the general Judæo-Christian experience, whereas the entwined traditions of parampara and sadhana and the knowledges and realisations that emerge have perennially encouraged and valued direct realisation and experience of Divinity and/or Mysterium Magnum; refer Perennial philosophy. That said, "Dharma" is also an etymon of "to fetter, to hold". Hence, it is to be remembered that the nesting of the term "Dharma" within the Judeo-Christian Graeco-Roman lexical paradigm "Religion" though comfortable, is guarded. Therefore, Dharmic Traditions as an inclusive and unifying auspice is increasingly favoured in scholarly discourse and common currency.

In addition, the term "Hinduism" is a nominal attribution external to the culture, whereas Sanatana Dharma was and is, self-identification. Sanatana Dharma is often employed simply to denote "Hinduism"; this is a misnomer, as Sanatana Dharma refers to "Eternal Dharma" and all Dharmic Traditions are expressions and permutations of Sanatana Dharma. This resolved unity in divergence would be explained in Dharmic lore through the tale of the Blind Men and an Elephant.
 * Dharmic Traditions is not a neologism, it has been attested in debate (refer archived discussion that brought about the recent deletion of an earlier generation of this page), as well as appearing in peer reviewed literature. Though its usage might not be as common as other auspice and categorical terminology, this does not counter the importance and notability of the topic. Dharmic Traditions resides within the ken of a number of Wikipedia projects, I would appreciate an administrator advising the appropriate way to bring these various stakeholders and communities on board with the development and citation of this article.
 * These articles are subsumed within this topic and may also be used to substantiate and extend the defence of this auspice:


 * Buddhism and Hinduism
 * Jainism and Buddhism
 * Dharma (Buddhism)
 * Indian philosophy


 * Yoga
 * Dharma
 * Chhatra
 * Buddhism


 * Jainism
 * Hinduism
 * Sikhism
 * Vajrayana


 * Dzogchen
 * Zen
 * Dharmachakra
 * Sudarshana Chakra

Speedy deletion
This article failed an AFD. Why is it being recreated? S facets 00:11, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Unless an article gets salted, there is no prohibition in re-creating it, if the contents of the new article is different than the original, and is supported by reliable sources and compliant with other policies. The article that was re-created was a simple disambig page, as per the DRV (see Talk:Dharmic_tradition. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * "Unless an article gets salted, there is no prohibition in re-creating it..."... I would appreciate being informed of this "salted" policy.


 * Laguz: Blessings in blood; the kin of our kith, lifeblood, is within our universal ken


 * B9 hummingbird hovering (talk • contribs) 00:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The deletion was overturned in a DRV. I'm removing the speedy template. Smashville 01:18, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Smashville, if u feel invested with the authority to delete, also respond to all questions and implications "clearly" and with direct interwikies to procedures, processes, policy are archives. I would appreciate administrators' assistance to locate the Wikipedia project forums that fall within the auspice of this umbrella term prior to deletion of article.


 * Svaha: augur auspice


 * B9 hummingbird hovering (talk • contribs) 02:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The main problem is not so much the existence of this article,but the use of the obscure term throughout Wikipedia, as if it were a very common term. There is not a single reputable source that treats the term: there are four or five mere passing references, so this proves that  it is an obscure term,  It is neither common in every day language nor in scholarly discourse. The four available sources prove that the equivalent term is Indian religions. The latter term  is far, far more common.  Andries 08:12, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

The DRV decision was keep as a disambiguation page. Why then is it being built up again? S facets 02:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The debate and dialogue has progressed significantly. Dharmic tradition NOT "dharmic religion" and NOT "dharmic faith" is now open (not all the traditions that are dharmic involve faith nor belief, especially those involving the sadhana of direct experience.


 * Refer: Dharma in religions


 * Aum


 * B9 hummingbird hovering (talk • contribs) 02:47, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Religions in which the concept of dharma plays a role are all religions that originated in greater India. These are Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, and Sikhism. These religions are referred to in India as sanatana-dharma, Buddha-dharma, Jain-dharma and Sikh-dharma respectively. Each of these paths emphasize Dharma as the correct understanding of Nature (or God, as the origin of nature) in their teachings. These religions are called dharmic religions or dharmic traditions by at least four different sources, among others by David Frawley.

Is "Dharmic tradition" an accepted term, or is it also a neologism? S facets 03:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * In the course of the afd that was overturned by deletion to a disambugation, it turned out that it was very difficultn to find sources for this subject. So that is why I think the best solution is to keep this article as a disambiguation. Some contributors who wanted to retain this article repeatedly removed requests for citations for unsourced statements without providing sources. Andries 07:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * A definition other than merely having a notion of dharma and thus an Indian religion could not be found in the sources. Andries 07:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it is clear per the discussions above and below that this article should be only kept as a disambiguation page, and should not be built up any further. S facets 00:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Article recreation and writing style
I have a bit of a problem with recreating an article that just failed an AfD; if the DRV says that keeping it as a disambig is appropriate, we should probably stick to that.

Regardless, I find the current state of the article absolutely unreadable.


 * In exegesis of the aformentioned "ambigious and nebulous" {[fact}} nature of the term "Indian religion", it is disfavoured in academic discourse as it may refer to "indian" in the denotation of "indigenous", indian as in Indian "continent" or Indian "nation"; and/or any religion or tradition originating, at one point evident in, or currently extant in India.

This might be translated as


 * Since the word "Indian" has numerous meanings, academics prefer the term "Dharmic religion" to "Indian religion"

I believe this sentence to be false, but at least it's intelligible. Translating the rest of this might cut the article by 3/4, and we would perhaps be a little less in violation of the AfD. bikeable (talk) 14:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Making the article unintelligible is a cheap way to smokescreen original research. Besides what you already pointed out, the article is altogether into connecting disconnected concepts, another example being the artifice run-on sentence that begins with "Tradition is also ..."
 * Everything between the first and last sentence is OR, and patently so. And while all three citations are only to support the first sentence, citing Frawley there destroys all chances that the article might have of being taken seriously.
 * -- Fullstop 19:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I fully agree that the writing style is unncessaril complex and that everything after the first sentence is orginal research. Andries 18:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Zen is generally considered part of Buddhism
Zen is generally considered part of Buddhism, so there is no contradiction and hence the word "but" is misleading. Andries 17:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Problem seems unaltered as disambig
Reducing the article to a disambig page doesn't seem to at all address the central problem with the term, which is that no one has been able to source the simple assertion that the phrase Dharmic tradition "refers to any religion, religious philosophy, or tradition that has a notion of dharma."

There was nothing so terrible about any of the details in the longer article - it was the POV/OR classification scheme that was the problem. And stripped down to a disambig page, that POV/OR classification scheme is the only thing that remains.

Dybryd 18:07, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * There are a few passing references to the term in reputable sources. These references say that dharmic traditions/religions are Hinduism, Sikhism, Buddhism, and Jainism. That is all that the available sources say. Andries 18:12, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Really. Well, for goodness' sake, why weren't those sources brought up in the AfD? If the grouping of these religions under this name wasn't OR, then it seems a real shame to have deleted all of somebody's work on the text! Dybryd 18:16, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * They were brought up, but that is all that all the sources say. All that all the sources state. The grouping is identical to Indian religions. Andries 18:19, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

nothing has been deleted. The article now resides at Indian religion. The point is that "dharmic" is used in a narrow and in a wide sense. The narrow sense relates to the notion of dharma itself, while the wider use is just an umbrella term for the religions summarized at Indian religion. This page is now a disambiguation page between Indian religion and Dharma. --dab (𒁳) 07:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Dharma: a narrow sense?  Dab, PLEASE (vocalized as an expletive).  From your statement I identify that there is a fundamental conceptual difference between our Worldviews in relations to the "traditions" that embrace Dharma and what Dharma constitutes.  In your above comment, what is your conception and definition of Dharma?
 * B9 hummingbird hovering (talk • contribs) 07:46, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * B9, chill out for heaven's sake. What dab quite obviously means is "specific sense" and "general sense". And if you have some understanding of the term that lies between "specific" and "general", its high time you spat it out in plain language here on talk, and stopped carping about how inadequate we all are.
 * Further, nobody's - not yours, dab's or anyone else's - "conception and definition" (in plain English: "understanding") of dharma is relevant here: It is not pertinent to *this* article, which is not about dharma, and it is misplaced on wikipedia, which is not a WP:FORUM. We don't care - or need to care - what XYZ constitutes. We don't need to know that glass is a supercooled liquid to be able to look through it.
 * -- Fullstop 06:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I am chilled out NOW, but yesterday... is another story. I KNOW the Wikipedia rules through experiential learning by BREAKING them *chuckle*. I am just incredulous, dismayed and disappointed that there is no reputable published information in peer-review literature re: Dharmic Traditions. I am just endeavouring to manifest it on Wikipedia because I conceive it as a scholarly flaw. I know in Wikipedia jargon it is "original research" and "point of view", but truly within my heartmind it doesn't feel new nor unchartered. It just feels like it SHOULD already be there within the published corpus of human knowledges. I truly didn't mean to annoy my peers and I know that some of my Wikiquette has been reprehensible, I appreciate that even though other editors haven't explicitly stated it that they appreciate the finesse of this conundrum.
 * Yours in super-sincere liquid glassy koolness
 * B9 hummingbird hovering (talk • contribs) 06:31, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It is not an encyclopedia's place or duty to rectify "scholarly flaws." If you perceive it to be a academic lapse or oversight, then you need resolve it through the appropriate - academic - channels. For instance, by submitting your correction to a peer-reviewed journal.
 * Then, after it has circulated for a while and has been suitably acknowledged by other members of the academic community, you're welcome to add it to WP.
 * -- Fullstop 07:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Exhibition on Hindu Culture and Dharmic Traditions 2007
GQQgling, I retrieved/accessed a wealth of online information regarding conferences, exhibits and summits utilizing the term "dharmic tradition"...Have a look @ this exhibition: (accessed: October 16, 2007); here is the sexy poster with "dharmic traditions" blazoned  (accessed:  October 16, 2007)

Yes what I add to articles looks a lot like original research doesn't it? No, No, No.

LIVING TRADITION

B9 hummingbird hovering (talk • contribs) 05:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:CFORK. You want to edit Indian religions. --dab (𒁳) 07:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I am just endeavouring to reference "Dharmic Traditions", that is not Content Forking according to WP:CFORK. If the article "Indian Religion" is retitled "Dharmic Tradition" with a referenced summary of the 'sentiment of the content' in this page, my intention will be achieved.  Any auspice other than Dharmic Tradition, is the bone of contention.  I have clearly illustrated why this term is preferred.  Discussion on THAT would be welcome:  it is needed!  I am open to discussion and dialogue, but NOT being bullied by ill-informed consensus.  If Dharmic Tradition is relegated to a disambiguation page, it is a disservice to Wikipedia and Dharma.


 * B9 hummingbird hovering (talk • contribs) 07:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

this was discussed extensively at Articles for deletion/Dharmic religion and then again at Deletion review/Log/2007 September 8. The result was clearly the solution we have now. You are just rehashing this closed debate. --dab (𒁳) 09:47, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

B9 hummingbird hovering's additions
if this article talks about Dharmic religions as a class of religions, it should rely on substantive discussions in reliable sources on comparative religion, stray one-sentence references would only merit a disamb or redirect. much of the discussion on terminology is unsourced or poorly-sourced original research and synthesis, and is pov, to top it. Doldrums 10:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Hummingbird's revert
"may (though not necessarily)"s are not needed on a disamb page, it's a given that the term being disambiguated has multiple uses. i see no reason why three among the various sects of Hinduism and Buddhism need to be singled out for mention here, rather than simply link to the Hinduism and Buddhism article, in which all sects are given due mention. for these reasons, i've tried to rework the page to this. pls explain why these changes have been reverted. Doldrums 08:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)