Yes and no.

Your question basically boils down to whether or not there is a monolithic "East" with one, solid, concrete philosophical tradition being produced by this "East". No. There is no monolithic East anymore than there is a monolithic "West"; however, it is impossible to deal with many academic fields, whether it's philosophy, history, sociology, etc., without adressing these terms and giving some meanings to them. That the "West" doesn't really exist, but is viewed to exist by "Westerners" and "Easterners" matters; as does the fact that many "Westerners" view the "Others" in the form of "Easterners" in a light that can be, to put it lightly, condescending and inaccurate.

This matters historically because it's lead people from the "West" to treat people from the "East" horribly, and it's lead people from the "East", who have occasionally accepted this distinction, to view their own cultures, societies, and thoughts in "Western" terms, which has lead to great intellectual and societal trauma and a great deal of academic inaccuracy.

Where it matters philosophically is in this regard: philosophers from the "West", intentionally or otherwise, often subscribe to the same prejudices about the "East" that other "Westerners" do; as such, they have a tendency to adress "Eastern philosophy" on "Western philosophy"'s terms, which leads to misunderstanding, at the very least. Ask around the sub and I guarantee you'll find examples of "Western" students who have heard their professors denigrate, misunderstand, or outright dismiss all philosophy that might be considered "Eastern", usually on "Western" grounds.

The distinction is, unfortunately, inescapable, but to a point it can be useful, in the sense that it gives a net or an umbrella on which/under which many varied schools or traditions of thought that have been dismissed by the "West" can be grouped together and tagged as needing a second, more thorough, go-over both by this same "West" and by "Easterners" who may have, through the lense of the "West" dismissed themselves unduly. It is useful for bringing to people's attention things that they have ignored or misunderstood and helps them move a little bit closer to understanding.

So, while the distinction is, for historical and social reasons, inescapable in discourse, it can, hopefully, serve a purpose in terms of making up for the very long period of time when the "West" wasn't even attempting to understand the "East" or its philosophical or religious traditions on their own terms.

Also:

theyre talking about chinese and indian philosophy

No, their also talking about philosophy that could be Japanese, Korean, Nepalese, Tibetan, etc.; so there is actually even more of a range of differences than you seem to be aware of.