Talk:Duḥkha

Switched?

From the article:

• Dukkha-dukkha (all pervading pain) is the obvious sufferings of physical pain, illness, old age, death, the loss of a loved one.
• Sankhara-dukkha (pain of pain) is a subtle form of suffering inherent in the nature of conditioned things, including the skandhas, the factors constituting the human mind.

Looks like these translations are switched, right? - Nat Krause 09:22, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Expansion

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

Remove Chakras and dukkha section

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)

Definitely. Arrow740 03:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Proposed External Link: dukkha Yahoo Group

dukkha Yahoo Group with researched posts Dhammapal 12:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Spelling

Spelling should be dukh jal--13:05, 10 November 2022 (UTC)150.129.52.182 (talk)

Kanji

Interesting to note that the kanji for suffering 苦　has a cross in the middle of it...Andycjp 07:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Chinese ideographs were composed more than a millennia before Christ. Also, China, being a completely different culture (if you can imagine that) has an altogether different viewpoint on what a cross-like symbols represent. The radical 十 can just mean the number ten. Nothing to do with Christian mythology. Please don't promote your own biased perspectives. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.9.146.243 (talk) 08:05, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

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)

Remove external link to "Panetics"

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)

"Inherent"

"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)

In Theravada, dukkha IS inescapable as long as a refuge is sought among causes and conditions. Only unconditioned phenomena (nirvana) are entirely free from suffering. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.241.228 (talk) 02:33, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes. What I am saying is this. Is there suffering inherent in eating? If yes, then when the Buddha ate he suffered. But he did not. So suffering is not inherent. Mitsube (talk) 04:22, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Only in Theravada, yes. Eating, like all other conditioned experiences is deemed "unsatisfactory in and of itself", not necessarily "suffering" as it's used in English. So "eating" is not worth grasping at (as self or grouped self) being impermanent, not self, and empty. Before the Buddha attained paranirvana, he still experienced dukkha (conditioned consequences that are unsatisfactory in and of themselves; "suffering" or otherwise) from the unwholesome actions of his previous lives including dualistic existence, the need to eat, sickness, etc. He even suffered from dysentery once. But since he had become an Arahant, physical suffering did not give rise to any suffering or aversion in his mind and he reacted to all experiences with understanding, equanimity and compassion. So even when his body was suffering from dysentery, his mind never once wavered from it's attentiveness and tranquility. The Mahayana formula is slightly different though, reflecting the tighter coupling of the body and the mind suggested by Mahayana scholars. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.193.47 (talk) 02:35, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Of course, if a dhamma is "unsatisfactory in and of itself", that doesn't mean it can't be satisfactory in the right context. This is slightly closer to the Mahayana formula. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.254.77 (talk) 01:41, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikilink for "suffering"

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)

Recent updates

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)

The Six Great Sufferings

Aung San Suu Kyi listed the Six Great Sufferings of Dukkha at her Nobel Lecture, delivered on 16 June, 2012.

• To be conceived
• To age
• To sicken
• To die
• To be parted from those one loves
• To be forced to live in propinquity with those one does not love

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)

Awesome. :) Thanks very much for the reference. I'll work this into the article. Peace, Dorje108 (talk) 13:30, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Aung San Suu Kyi's Six must originate from her Theravada branch of Buddhism in Burma. — RW Marloe (talk) 12:16, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Clean-up

The same problem:

• Overreliance on primary sources from contemporary popular teachers
• Too many quotes
• Too many details

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)

Jonathan, your views are not supported by the Wikipedia guidelines, and so far there is not a consensus on the Wikiproject Buddhism page. The RFC will be listed for one month on the Wikiproject page. Please be respectful of the views of other editors and allow the RFC process to take its course. Dorje108 (talk) 04:41, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

"Too many details". Ah, erm... Isn't this actually a good thing?--AldNon^Ucallin?☎ 14:27, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes. Clean-up is right, but painful. So it is dukkha too:) Nimelik (talk) 15:53, 4.01. 2015 — Preceding undated comment added 13:57, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree that the article might need to be cleaned up, but "too many details" seems silly, especially if you look at the amount of detail that goes into the math and science pages. Yadojado (talk) 01:06, 31 January 2015 (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 translation as "bad hub" contrasts with Sukha "good hub."

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.

External links modified

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:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130313141505/http://www.shambhalasun.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3207&Itemid=244 to http://www.shambhalasun.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3207&Itemid=244

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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:56, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Shortened

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)

Real meaning of DUKKA is not the suffering "pain" or "unsatisfactorines

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.--RsEkanayake 09:43, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

@Rsekanayake: that's a nice translation. Would be good to add it, but have you got soiurces for it? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:59, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

source ? why not. the word DUKKAදුක්ඛ itself is the source.You refer one pali dictionary ,or study the Pali.--RsEkanayake 10:37, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

@Rsekanayake: This article already summarizes content from Pali-English references. If you know of another reliable source which states "Dukkha really means insecurity" or something equivalent, please identify. Please see wikipedia's WP:OR and WP:RS guidelines for content. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:16, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch sources you referred is reliable to you but it is not reliable to me. this is totally deception. wikipedia is lying always. by realization i know it . we have made researches. i dont want to teach anybody. yes ! "Dukkha" is suffering according to common people who follows dictionaries. --RsEkanayake 17:35, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Rsekanayake, this is not a forum for general discussion about Dukkha. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article - based on reliable sources. You may wish to ask factual questions about Dukkha at the Reference desk. Thank you JimRenge (talk) 18:13, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

@JimRenge The great thing about wikipedia is there are no gatekeepers. just delete it.Thank You.--RsEkanayake 15:07, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

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

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)

What RfC

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

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

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

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)

@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)

@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)

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)

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)

@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)

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