This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
From the article:
Looks like these translations are switched, right? - Nat Kraus e 09:22, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I propose expanding the latter and clarifying the definition of sankhara-dukkha. To a non-Buddhist this probably makes little or no sense, so I think it needs to be explained a bit better. I'll toy around with it a bit, but if someone can rewrite it better, go for it.- Theli 93 13:53, 16 Aug 2005
This section is maybe an idea or opinion of one teacher but it is definitely not common buddhist theory. I propose to remove it. Wintermute314 15:41, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
dukkha Yahoo Group with researched posts Dhammapal 12:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Spelling should be dukh jal--13:05, 10 November 2022 (UTC) 150.129.52.182 ( talk)
Interesting to note that the kanji for suffering 苦 has a cross in the middle of it... Andycjp 07:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 16:22, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
While this project may be laudable, and apparently uses the word "dukkha" in its literature, its aim "to reduce human suffering inflicted by individuals acting through governments, institutions, professions, and social groups" really has nothing to do with the Buddha's teaching about dukkha, its cause and its cure. If someone wishes to inform Wikipedia readers about the Panetics project, an entry under that heading would be more appropriate. Homohabilis ( talk) 14:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
"suffering inherent in the nature of conditioned things" If it were inherent, it would be inescapable. This one sentence negates all of Buddhism! Mitsube ( talk) 17:54, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Along these lines, does someone have a good source explicitly saying that the whole key is that dukkha is itself empty and not truly existent, thus negatable? Mitsube ( talk) 01:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
I am going to remove the wikilink for the word "suffering" in the lead paragraph. It's confusing to have that wikilink in the lead, since we are trying to provide translations for the term "dukkha", and the wikilink for suffering seems to imply that "suffering" and "dukkha" are synonomous (and they are not). So instead of the link in the lead paragraph, I have added a link to suffering in the section, "see also". - Dorje108 ( talk) 23:58, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
I've made a lot of updates and added a lot of citations and references. If you have comments, please leave them here. Dorje108 ( talk) 01:35, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Aung San Suu Kyi listed the Six Great Sufferings of Dukkha at her Nobel Lecture, delivered on 16 June, 2012.
Reference: Nobel Peace Prize transcript
I thought that this would be of note to this article as these seem to differ with the number and specifics of each suffering on the article. This may be her interpretation although I think that translations from different people aren't always absolutely identical, especially on a philosophical or theological topic.
— RW Marloe ( talk) 12:47, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
The same problem:
More of the same does not necessarily lead to greater clarity or understanding. Sorry. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 10:23, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
In my opinion, Yadojado's comment is comparing apples and oranges; this is neither a math nor science page. Keeping the mission of - and audience for - any written project uppermost in mind is basic to the writing's effectiveness. It is therefore key (again, in my opinion), to think about the purpose of this page for most readers: defining dukkha in sufficient detail that those unfamiliar with the term can get a basic understanding of it, which (I believe) this page pretty much accomplishes in its first 'graph. This is not to suggest the myriad translational inferences and points of view which follow that basic definition be excluded, but if our true interest is in "cleaning up" this page, has any consideration yet been given to grouping all qualifications and descriptions subsequent to the basic definition on a separate page (or pages), or at least structuring this page so that elaborations on/further theorizing about the basic definition are clearly labeled as such? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.3.227.105 ( talk) 15:03, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Dukkha can be translated from Pali a number of ways, and one is "bad hub."
This practical concrete translation distinguishes Dukkha from Sukha which is the desirable state of relative freedom from Dukkha. Sukha can be translated from Pali as "good hub."
Analogies to ox carts abound in the Pali scriptures in the Pali scriptures. Even the Dhammapada, a widely-studied text of teaching verses from earliest Buddhism, begins with with an analogy based on how predictably the wheel of an ox cart follows the ox.
The Four Noble Truths presents the eight aspects of the Noble Eightfold Path as the way to the cessation of dukkha. Each of eight aspects must be present to support liberation from dukkha. A common ox cart wheel has eight spokes. The analogy of the eight aspects of the path to the eight spokes of a wheel is common sense to one familiar with ox carts. The more that one or more of the spokes is short, the more the hub will be off-center (dukkha), and the more the difficulties of moving along will increase. A wheel with dukkha resists forward motion half of the time, as the off center hub must be raised by the effort of the ox, an analogy to the resistance of aversion ( Dvesha). The wheel would be pushing the cart forward as its off-center hub descended after reaching the apex, an analogy to the uneasy rushing of greed ( Taṇhā). By following the eightfold path aspirants lengthen the too-short spokes to free themselves from the problems caused by the off-center hub (Dukkha) so that a centered hub (Sukha) and smooth progress results.
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Dukkha. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 08:56, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Long-due clean-up: removal of an overkill of quote and details which detract and confuse. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:44, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
The pali word "DUKKA" is wrongly translated as suffering,pain or unsatisfactorines. Real meaning of the pali word ,"DUKKA" is more closer to term insecurity of life. That's what lord Bbuddha meant.-- Rs Ekanayake 09:43, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
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)
it has been reincarnatedLol.-- Farang Rak Tham ( talk) 02:51, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
@ Fowler&fowler: what RfC are you referring to diff? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 13:14, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
My version directly links suffering to dukkhaah 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)
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)
This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
From the article:
Looks like these translations are switched, right? - Nat Kraus e 09:22, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I propose expanding the latter and clarifying the definition of sankhara-dukkha. To a non-Buddhist this probably makes little or no sense, so I think it needs to be explained a bit better. I'll toy around with it a bit, but if someone can rewrite it better, go for it.- Theli 93 13:53, 16 Aug 2005
This section is maybe an idea or opinion of one teacher but it is definitely not common buddhist theory. I propose to remove it. Wintermute314 15:41, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
dukkha Yahoo Group with researched posts Dhammapal 12:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Spelling should be dukh jal--13:05, 10 November 2022 (UTC) 150.129.52.182 ( talk)
Interesting to note that the kanji for suffering 苦 has a cross in the middle of it... Andycjp 07:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 16:22, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
While this project may be laudable, and apparently uses the word "dukkha" in its literature, its aim "to reduce human suffering inflicted by individuals acting through governments, institutions, professions, and social groups" really has nothing to do with the Buddha's teaching about dukkha, its cause and its cure. If someone wishes to inform Wikipedia readers about the Panetics project, an entry under that heading would be more appropriate. Homohabilis ( talk) 14:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
"suffering inherent in the nature of conditioned things" If it were inherent, it would be inescapable. This one sentence negates all of Buddhism! Mitsube ( talk) 17:54, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Along these lines, does someone have a good source explicitly saying that the whole key is that dukkha is itself empty and not truly existent, thus negatable? Mitsube ( talk) 01:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
I am going to remove the wikilink for the word "suffering" in the lead paragraph. It's confusing to have that wikilink in the lead, since we are trying to provide translations for the term "dukkha", and the wikilink for suffering seems to imply that "suffering" and "dukkha" are synonomous (and they are not). So instead of the link in the lead paragraph, I have added a link to suffering in the section, "see also". - Dorje108 ( talk) 23:58, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
I've made a lot of updates and added a lot of citations and references. If you have comments, please leave them here. Dorje108 ( talk) 01:35, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Aung San Suu Kyi listed the Six Great Sufferings of Dukkha at her Nobel Lecture, delivered on 16 June, 2012.
Reference: Nobel Peace Prize transcript
I thought that this would be of note to this article as these seem to differ with the number and specifics of each suffering on the article. This may be her interpretation although I think that translations from different people aren't always absolutely identical, especially on a philosophical or theological topic.
— RW Marloe ( talk) 12:47, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
The same problem:
More of the same does not necessarily lead to greater clarity or understanding. Sorry. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 10:23, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
In my opinion, Yadojado's comment is comparing apples and oranges; this is neither a math nor science page. Keeping the mission of - and audience for - any written project uppermost in mind is basic to the writing's effectiveness. It is therefore key (again, in my opinion), to think about the purpose of this page for most readers: defining dukkha in sufficient detail that those unfamiliar with the term can get a basic understanding of it, which (I believe) this page pretty much accomplishes in its first 'graph. This is not to suggest the myriad translational inferences and points of view which follow that basic definition be excluded, but if our true interest is in "cleaning up" this page, has any consideration yet been given to grouping all qualifications and descriptions subsequent to the basic definition on a separate page (or pages), or at least structuring this page so that elaborations on/further theorizing about the basic definition are clearly labeled as such? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.3.227.105 ( talk) 15:03, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Dukkha can be translated from Pali a number of ways, and one is "bad hub."
This practical concrete translation distinguishes Dukkha from Sukha which is the desirable state of relative freedom from Dukkha. Sukha can be translated from Pali as "good hub."
Analogies to ox carts abound in the Pali scriptures in the Pali scriptures. Even the Dhammapada, a widely-studied text of teaching verses from earliest Buddhism, begins with with an analogy based on how predictably the wheel of an ox cart follows the ox.
The Four Noble Truths presents the eight aspects of the Noble Eightfold Path as the way to the cessation of dukkha. Each of eight aspects must be present to support liberation from dukkha. A common ox cart wheel has eight spokes. The analogy of the eight aspects of the path to the eight spokes of a wheel is common sense to one familiar with ox carts. The more that one or more of the spokes is short, the more the hub will be off-center (dukkha), and the more the difficulties of moving along will increase. A wheel with dukkha resists forward motion half of the time, as the off center hub must be raised by the effort of the ox, an analogy to the resistance of aversion ( Dvesha). The wheel would be pushing the cart forward as its off-center hub descended after reaching the apex, an analogy to the uneasy rushing of greed ( Taṇhā). By following the eightfold path aspirants lengthen the too-short spokes to free themselves from the problems caused by the off-center hub (Dukkha) so that a centered hub (Sukha) and smooth progress results.
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Dukkha. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 08:56, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Long-due clean-up: removal of an overkill of quote and details which detract and confuse. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:44, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
The pali word "DUKKA" is wrongly translated as suffering,pain or unsatisfactorines. Real meaning of the pali word ,"DUKKA" is more closer to term insecurity of life. That's what lord Bbuddha meant.-- Rs Ekanayake 09:43, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
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)
it has been reincarnatedLol.-- Farang Rak Tham ( talk) 02:51, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
@ Fowler&fowler: what RfC are you referring to diff? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 13:14, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
My version directly links suffering to dukkhaah 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)
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)