Closest meaning of Dharma in English[edit]

The article claims that the term Dharma is untranslatable into English. While this is true, the closest meaning of Dharma in English is the term ``Sustainability. A dharmic framework is a normative framework that promotes sustainability (of life and the ecosystem). The saying, "Dharme rakshati rakshitaha" (Dharma, if protected, protects) which characterizes the concept of Dharma indicates the sustainability characteristic of Dharma. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.192.226.214 (talk) 14:07, 10 October 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Seeing how Sanskrit and Pali are both Aryan (Indo-European) languages it does not make any sense saying there is no (single-word-) translation in "western languages" seeing how closely those languages are related (Sanskrit, Pali.... with English, German etc.). Also obviously no one trying to actually understand this article would want a one word translation because it would counteract the sense of the article itself which makes it redundant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.108.9.185 (talk) 03:00, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Orlog" (aka Ørlög, Örlögr, Örlög, Orlǫg, Orlæg, Orlay (English-specific version)[1], etc) is the closest single-word meaning of Dharma in English [2]. “Örlogr” is the Primal Law, the (Sanatana) Dharma of the Hindus, the ‘expression’ of the Divine on earth." — Highcraft (talk) 23:06, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/orlay
  2. ^ https://gangleri.nl/articles/531/the-primal-law/
Actually, "dharma" is a word in English. It appears in every English dictionary that I checked. See Wikt:dharma. Wikt:orlog and wikt:orlay seem to refer to war, destiny, or fate, which don't seem synonymous with dharma. —BarrelProof (talk) 21:12, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Dharma" is an Indian/Sanskrit word that may have made it's way into English, but only as an import (borrow-word). As for Orlog/Orlay as defined by Wiktionary, the (oldest) meaning equating Orlog/Ørlög to Dharma is discussed in the above mentioned article which itself cites multiple sources for its conclusions which stretch back to as early as 1866. — Highcraft (talk) 23:06, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Highcraft: welcome to wikipedia. Wiktionary, any wiki and blogs such as this one are questionable and unacceptable sources for wikipedia. We must stick with mainstream peer-reviewed scholarly sources, avoid creative blog writers with novel proposals. Any suggestions citing mainstream scholarly sources that link dharma to "orlog or whatever" would be welcome. Please see WP:RS, WP:OR, WP:FRINGE, and WP:TALK guidelines for further assistance. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:10, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would be willing to bet ₹1,000 that there are at least ten times as many native speakers of English who are familiar with the meaning of the word "dharma" than with the meaning of the words "orlog" or "orlay". So trying to explain the meaning of "dharma" in terms of those words does not seem very helpful, even if it would be valid. It also does not seem very valid, since "dharma" does not refer to war, destiny, or fate, which are the primary meanings I find for "orlog" and "orlay". Wiktionary doesn't even identify "orlog" as an English word – it only identifies it as Low German. I fully agree with Ms Sarah Welch regarding what sources are appropriate for citation in Wikipedia articles, although I see no harm in consulting other sources casually for Talk page discussions (e.g., checking the Wiktionary to reach a rough understanding prior to finding better sources to cite in the article). —BarrelProof (talk) 17:51, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Phenomenon" Misdirect[edit]

Buddhism uses "phenomenon" in a particular sense. However, this article references a Wikipedia article on "phenomenon", which describes only this word as it is used in Western Philosophy and offers no explanation for the use in Buddhist context. I suggest that either the link here be deleted or the WP article expanded to explain what the term means in Buddhism.

--50.68.140.76 (talk) 22:30, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Learning, Practicing and Realizing the Dharma[edit]

Please excuse me as I'm a novice wiki editor/user.

I would suggest the word pariyatti point towards [dharma].

My first attempt was probably preachy and not sourced properly. I intended to source it but forgot.

So here is my proposal Take the text from the current page on pariyatti below "In Theravada Buddhism pariyatti is the learning of the theory of dharma as contained within the suttas of the Pali canon. It is contrasted with patipatti which means to put the theory into practice and pativedha which means penetrating it or rather experientially realising the truth of it."

This is essentially sourced from this webpage https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/thai/lee/triplegem.html#sorts3

Which itself is from an Article entitled "What is the Triple Gem?" by Ajaan Lee Dhammadharo translated from the Thai by Thanissaro Bhikkhu © 1994

thoughts?

George (talk) 20:55, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see two encyclopedic issues:
1. The source/citation suggested (https://accesstoinsight.org) is a self-published blog (WP:RSSELF) & not a Reliable Source. Please read up on what are considered Reliable Sources. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources
2. The heading "Therevada Buddhism" under "Buddhism" & it's single sentence introducing three new Pali words doesn't seem to further the readers understanding of dharma specifically. It doesn't seem to have a purpose. I would remove it. It dharma has a very different interpretation in Theravada that may be useful text here.
Eturk001 (talk) 21:35, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There should be a Buddhism and Hinduism page[edit]

The most academic way to cover this topic would be to have Dharma (Buddhism) and Dharma (Hinduism). Not everything that's related gets put on one page! As it is, the article is limited to a dull comparative study. 64.222.90.15 (talk) 05:33, 29 January 2021 (UTC)John Dee[reply]

I disagree. The user finds this encyclopedia article on the word "dharma" then an overview of many usages. There's also usage in Jainism, Sikhism, & symbols on this page. We'd need to fragment those off into separate articles also, if every usage gets it's own page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eturk001 (talk • contribs) 17:53, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed changes[edit]

I have reverted this edit: [1] by JaMongKut, which was also previously reverted by Joshua Jonathan. JaMongKut, please explain why you think these changes are necessary, in order to establish consensus for making them, thanks. --IamNotU (talk) 13:29, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@IamNotU: I've already mentioned the reason in the edit. According to WP, I think you are liable to state the reason for the revert. Please mention it.JaMongKut (talk) 13:38, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@IamNotU: Just wanna know the reason for the revert done.JaMongKut (talk) 13:32, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You removed relevant info, making the sentence less nuanced; and you added trivia to the lead. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:36, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Joshua Jonathan: Please explain the relevance of the info and what kind of trivia I added to the lead.JaMongKut (talk) 14:45, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do you please explain why it's relevant, c.q. should be removed. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:22, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I too am concerned about the removal of the text describing different points of view of different traditions, and leaving a single point of view. Also, some of the links added are against the Manual of Style, see MOS:DUPLINK, and there were similar problems with formatting, redundancy, etc. --IamNotU (talk) 15:11, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@IamNotU: Please understand the difference betn Dharma and Dharmakaya as I've already mentioned. The description I've removed is of Dharmakaya not Dharma. Also, There is no Ultimate truth in Buddhism, there's only Shunyata. Dharmakaya itself is a type of it, but Dharma is Different. @Joshua Jonathan: Please don't ask for the same which I've asked for the revert(I've already mentioned the reason in edit summary) as you are liable for the reason of revert.JaMongKut (talk) 05:49, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, you are. And stop bolding your answers. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:52, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I don't get what are you saying. What I am ??? Please explain.JaMongKut (talk) 08:38, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@IamNotU: @Joshua Jonathan: Please respond in order to resolve the dispute. Or please reply if you agree now to make changes.JaMongKut (talk) 05:42, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't agree to your changes, for the reasons I stated above. I have added a "citation needed" template to the section you removed. --IamNotU (talk) 17:39, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@IamNotU: I myself will give yoou citation. It's 100% correct information, but it refers to Dharmakaya, not Dharma. Both are different terms and things. Please understand.JaMongKut (talk) 02:58, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@IamNotU: @Joshua Jonathan: Please respond in order to resolve the dispute.JaMongKut (talk) 03:59, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously, some traditions use tbe term "dharma" also for metaphysics. Don't forget that 'the' Buddhist tradifion is enormous... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:17, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For the third time, I don't agree to your changes, for the reasons I stated above. Please stop pinging me about it. You have proposed to remove the statement "The status of Dharma is regarded variably by different Buddhist traditions", leaving the text to imply that there is one single agreed-upon definition. I find that this is not in line with WP:NPOV. The section could no doubt be improved, and some of it - for example the comparison with the logos - should maybe be removed if citations are not provided, but I don't think that simply deleting that entire text is helpful. You have not cited any reliable sources supporting your arguments, nor given a concrete proposal for the changes you wish to make now, which would address the various other errors you made in your edit that contributed to the need to revert it. --IamNotU (talk) 11:55, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As a rule, does Wikipedia always require citation for proof a translations bearing in mind 'Dharma' - or more correctly (Sanatan Dharma) from Sanskrit is considered a belief system as well the natural order - in which case 'Logos' would be the closest English equivalent
term meaning the principle of order and knowledge? 86.22.43.187 (talk) 00:02, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reinsertion of Christian philosophy[edit]

@Joshua Jonathan: Regarding this edit diff, the content about the Christian philosophy doesn't have any citations with its relation to Dharma, I'm not sure why we need that to be included, that's the reason I removed that unsourced material. Do we really need that to be included, since idea of “eusebeia” is already mentioned in previous paragraph? Wiki Linuz (Ping me!) 05:39, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It seems interesting to me; we can ask User:Kraftdelfinen to add citations; they added it diff. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:02, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to fail WP:NOR because citation (or reference rather) to Biblical doctrines suggests original research from their end. I'm inclined towards removing them for now until they cite those doctrines' relation to Dharma with reliable sources. Wiki Linuz (Ping me!) 06:09, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Categories