Talk:Duḥkha

Buddhism Top‑importance

	This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Buddhism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Buddhism. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page for more details on the projects.BuddhismWikipedia:WikiProject BuddhismTemplate:WikiProject BuddhismBuddhism
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Philosophy: Religion / Eastern Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Philosophy of religion
	Eastern philosophy

Archives

Index

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

Dead link is live again

The last external link, for "Ku 苦 entry" in the Digital Dictionary of Buddhism, was marked as "permanent dead link". I checked, and it has been reincarnated, so I removed the tag. --Thnidu (talk) 16:34, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

it has been reincarnated Lol.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 02:51, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect web link

It is beyond my editing skills, but the web link to Bhikku Bodhi is incorrect, and leads to a commercial page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harmonybelle (talk • contribs) 13:04, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Done. Teishin (talk) 14:19, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Remove devanagari transliteration of Pali Term.

Recently a user reverted changes that I've made to the article. The change I made as removing the devanagari transliteration of the Pali term for Duhka. I've already stated that Devanagari has no historical or scholarly basis for it to be used as a script for transliteration Pali. The sinhala script and the Thai script are more apt for representing Pali. Writing Pali with Devanagari is like writing Japanese with the Nastaliq script . It makes no sense historically and there's no basis for such use. Bodhiupasaka (talk) 11:48, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What RfC

@Fowler&fowler: what RfC are you referring to diff? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:14, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The one Mathglot had been discussing on Talk:The Buddha and plans to begin shortly. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 13:26, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your explanation. It's inconsequnetial, though, to this article. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:50, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My version directly links suffering to dukkha.

PS I see Patliputra has rudely reverted the dukkha page, relentless rudeness being his wont. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 13:55, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Fowler&fowler:, you do not seem to realize how mass-reverting the painstaking work of another seasoned editor diff is highly offensive (talk about "rudeness"...), but also totally inappropriate as a means to improve the encyclopedia: your mass-revert here actually erases many peripherical or janitorial improvements in addition to material you supposedly object to. At the minimum, you should take the time to identify and explain which content you specifically object to, explain it on the Talk Page, and remove that content only if you think it is absolutely necessary to delete it. WP:BRD or WP:ONUS is not a blank check to wipe out any and all of someone's contributions, especially in the case of an editor of high repute. Doing so is disruptive. पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 14:05, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Fowler&fowler: My version directly links suffering to dukkha ah yes, I see. Link it to sources; wiki-links provide additional info, but are not sources (as our policies say). But before you rush yourself to collect another pile of quotes and sources, just take some time to read this page; there are abundant sources here which explain why "suffering" is inadequate. Note that Monier-Williams himslf provided an alternative (or better) etymology. Shall we take a break here, then? We've already invested quite a lot of time yet, haven't we? Regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:08, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And are you the policemen Patliputra? The edits were all made earlier today in a couple of hours. And why are you butting in here, reverting? You have made no contributions to the page? You aren't a part of the discussion. JJ did not care to revert my reversion. So why are you edit warring? Old habits die hard? Fowler&fowler «Talk» 17:11, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Issues with Beckwith source

hey @Joshua Jonathan, I noticed you reverted my removal of the Beckwith source. My main concern with it is that the viewpoint it holds does not reflect the consensus of scholars about the influence between Buddhism and Pyrrhonism. Other scholars, cited on the Pyrrhonism page, do not think that the conclusions drawn by Beckwith are supported by the evidence. I'm happy to provide additional references as well, there really is a lot of research that's been on this topic and it's fairly clear that if there was any mutual influence, it's not as clearcut as Beckwith's account.

that particular block of text was also pasted in by an (indef blocked) user that I now believe willfully added original research and unsourced claims to support Beckwith's theory in exclusion of more accepted theories, which is why I removed it. If you think that there's other scholarly material supporting a link between Dukkha and Greek philosophy I'm happy to hear it but I strongly think this particular WP:FRINGE source should be removed. - car chasm (talk) 07:25, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Carchasm: thanks for your message. I wasn't sure about thiz text either; that's why I moved it into a note. I'll take another look at it. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:42, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've shortened the note. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:19, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]