This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
the word "orthodox" links here: Astika, a brewery. Something is wrong. --- Jeiki Rebirth 08:59, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that out. RandomCritic 15:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
The latest additions to this page are far from satisfactory -- poorly cited ("Thanissaro Bhikkhu" is not a proper citation), vaguely worded, attributing views to "some people", and in part irrelevant to this article. Anyone want to have a go at editing them? RandomCritic 03:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
What is the age of the word 'samsara', I say approximately. It´s necessary to explain it. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.59.202.195 ( talk) 10:56, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
I think the word you're looking for is "etymology" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.162.89.237 ( talk) 02:15, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, really :)-- Procrastinating@ talk2me 00:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I have to agree. The section on Samsara in Tibetan Buddhism is especially well written and can most likely be agreed upon by all the lineages. It's very clear; the authors accomplished. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.234.5.138 ( talk) 23:12, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Please, could someone verify if ALL the interwikis are wrong? I think they should head to Samsara, not to the particular article for Buddhism. -- Meldor ( talk) 14:29, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Saṃsāra which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 19:13, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on
Saṃsāra (Buddhism). 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 05:10, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
One of the sources cited is not reliable. Norman C. McClelland's Encyclopedia of Reincarnation and Karma reads as more New Age writing and less Buddhism and it also fails to give footnotes for its claims. Typically, in every school of Buddhism I have studied, the hungry ghost realm is second only to the hell Realms for the amount of suffering undergone. The animal realm, which is closer to and in places overlaps with the Human Realm is considered the "mildest" of the three lower realms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.20.184.203 ( talk • contribs) 20:03, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
This is a good example of where McClelland has problems. If he had bothered with a footnote in his work, we would have something to go on. Footnotes matter. I am a lay disciple of the Jodo Shu, have studied within the Korean Zen lineage and taken the the Ten Precepts there, active within my local Chinese Temple, graduating from the Bright Dawn Institute of American Buddhism this month and have hosted Tibetan monks in my home. From all of these points of view the statement is simply wrong. Buddhism is a big religion so I cannot rule out a minority view but as yet, I have seen no evidence of one and the one other website where I find this bit of misinformation again goes back to McClelland.
The Six Paths are always given in the same order. The Deva and Asura at the top, the human and animal in the middle and the hungry ghost and hell at the bottom and suffering is presented as graduated from top to bottom. The problem with the Deva realm is not that they suffer but rather than tend to be on the clueless side of things. Heck, even the Bhavacakra entry on Wikipedia has the order correct: /info/en/?search=Bhavacakra
The Wiki entry on Hungry Ghosts (aka Preta) goes so far as say, "The sufferings of the pretas often resemble those of the dwellers in hell, and the two types of being are easily confused. The simplest distinction is that beings in hell are confined to their subterranean world, while pretas are free to move about." from /info/en/?search=Preta
It is difficult to prove something this basic but Barbara Allen in Animals in Religion: Devotion, Symbol and Ritual does remark on p. 175 "For a hell being or hungry ghost to be reborn in the animal realm would be good fortune and the result of posituive karma."
It is also worth stating that the article would read just as well without the statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.20.179.168 ( talk) 23:31, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Would you also add "Also Barbara Allen in Animals in Religion: Devotion, Symbol and Ritual observes "For a hell being or hungry ghost to be reborn in the animal realm would be good fortune and the result of posituive karma." and reference the above work, Animals in Religion: Devotion, Symbol and Ritual, p.175 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.20.190.105 ( talk) 14:37, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Why is there a table with interwiki links to this article? It doesn't seem to add any meaningful information other than links to other wikipedias (in some cases) and takes up valuable real estate at the top of the page. Interwiki links are already present on all articles as a norm so I'm curious to see if there is/was a special reason for sacrificing this space for highlighting interwiki links. Is this a case of "it's been there so just leave it there" and not much thought has been given?
Thanks for your answers to an honest question.
अभय नातू ( talk) 23:49, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
p.s. That table does have value in Wiktionary, I don't see it here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by अभय नातू ( talk • contribs) 23:49, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
@ Farang Rak Tham:,
Yes.
अभय नातू ( talk) 15:23, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
the word "orthodox" links here: Astika, a brewery. Something is wrong. --- Jeiki Rebirth 08:59, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that out. RandomCritic 15:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
The latest additions to this page are far from satisfactory -- poorly cited ("Thanissaro Bhikkhu" is not a proper citation), vaguely worded, attributing views to "some people", and in part irrelevant to this article. Anyone want to have a go at editing them? RandomCritic 03:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
What is the age of the word 'samsara', I say approximately. It´s necessary to explain it. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.59.202.195 ( talk) 10:56, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
I think the word you're looking for is "etymology" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.162.89.237 ( talk) 02:15, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, really :)-- Procrastinating@ talk2me 00:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I have to agree. The section on Samsara in Tibetan Buddhism is especially well written and can most likely be agreed upon by all the lineages. It's very clear; the authors accomplished. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.234.5.138 ( talk) 23:12, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Please, could someone verify if ALL the interwikis are wrong? I think they should head to Samsara, not to the particular article for Buddhism. -- Meldor ( talk) 14:29, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Saṃsāra which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 19:13, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on
Saṃsāra (Buddhism). 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 05:10, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
One of the sources cited is not reliable. Norman C. McClelland's Encyclopedia of Reincarnation and Karma reads as more New Age writing and less Buddhism and it also fails to give footnotes for its claims. Typically, in every school of Buddhism I have studied, the hungry ghost realm is second only to the hell Realms for the amount of suffering undergone. The animal realm, which is closer to and in places overlaps with the Human Realm is considered the "mildest" of the three lower realms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.20.184.203 ( talk • contribs) 20:03, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
This is a good example of where McClelland has problems. If he had bothered with a footnote in his work, we would have something to go on. Footnotes matter. I am a lay disciple of the Jodo Shu, have studied within the Korean Zen lineage and taken the the Ten Precepts there, active within my local Chinese Temple, graduating from the Bright Dawn Institute of American Buddhism this month and have hosted Tibetan monks in my home. From all of these points of view the statement is simply wrong. Buddhism is a big religion so I cannot rule out a minority view but as yet, I have seen no evidence of one and the one other website where I find this bit of misinformation again goes back to McClelland.
The Six Paths are always given in the same order. The Deva and Asura at the top, the human and animal in the middle and the hungry ghost and hell at the bottom and suffering is presented as graduated from top to bottom. The problem with the Deva realm is not that they suffer but rather than tend to be on the clueless side of things. Heck, even the Bhavacakra entry on Wikipedia has the order correct: /info/en/?search=Bhavacakra
The Wiki entry on Hungry Ghosts (aka Preta) goes so far as say, "The sufferings of the pretas often resemble those of the dwellers in hell, and the two types of being are easily confused. The simplest distinction is that beings in hell are confined to their subterranean world, while pretas are free to move about." from /info/en/?search=Preta
It is difficult to prove something this basic but Barbara Allen in Animals in Religion: Devotion, Symbol and Ritual does remark on p. 175 "For a hell being or hungry ghost to be reborn in the animal realm would be good fortune and the result of posituive karma."
It is also worth stating that the article would read just as well without the statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.20.179.168 ( talk) 23:31, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Would you also add "Also Barbara Allen in Animals in Religion: Devotion, Symbol and Ritual observes "For a hell being or hungry ghost to be reborn in the animal realm would be good fortune and the result of posituive karma." and reference the above work, Animals in Religion: Devotion, Symbol and Ritual, p.175 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.20.190.105 ( talk) 14:37, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Why is there a table with interwiki links to this article? It doesn't seem to add any meaningful information other than links to other wikipedias (in some cases) and takes up valuable real estate at the top of the page. Interwiki links are already present on all articles as a norm so I'm curious to see if there is/was a special reason for sacrificing this space for highlighting interwiki links. Is this a case of "it's been there so just leave it there" and not much thought has been given?
Thanks for your answers to an honest question.
अभय नातू ( talk) 23:49, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
p.s. That table does have value in Wiktionary, I don't see it here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by अभय नातू ( talk • contribs) 23:49, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
@ Farang Rak Tham:,
Yes.
अभय नातू ( talk) 15:23, 21 May 2018 (UTC)