Talk:Saṃsāra (Buddhism)

Untitled

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)

New additions

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)

Age

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)

the age of a word? You mean when was its first appearance on any language?--Esteban Barahona (talk) 23:29, 8 September 2008 (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)

I think that etymology is important but also the origin of the idea of samsara in Buddhism. It might be helpful to explain, if possible, when this idea originated and how it made its way into Buddhism. When was it first written down as a concept and has it changed since then? Overall, great article with helpful information! AnneD17 (talk) 02:42, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

I found a source from the Oxford Dictionary of Buddhism about the concept of cyclic existence and the date that it ages back to and added it to the characteristics section of the page.Mackenzie1010 (talk) 00:17, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

amazing article...!:)

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)

Interwikis

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)

Move discussion in progress

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)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100709231112/http://www.buddhanet.net/budsas/ebud/whatbudbeliev/297.htm to http://www.buddhanet.net/budsas/ebud/whatbudbeliev/297.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130621235028/http://www.siddharthasintent.org/gentle/GV23.pdf to http://www.siddharthasintent.org/gentle/GV23.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130621235028/http://www.siddharthasintent.org/gentle/GV23.pdf to http://www.siddharthasintent.org/gentle/GV23.pdf

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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} 05:10, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Unreliable source

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)

Welcome to wikipedia. Labeling McClelland source is inappropriate. You write, "in every school of Buddhism I have studied...". Would you list a few of these sources please? Assuming these are reliable sources per WP:RS guidelines of wikipedia, we can then attempt to review / summarize them. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:17, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Six realms

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: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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)

The sequence in this article and the Bhavachakra article are the same? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:40, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

And this undermines the unsupported statement (because McClelland failed to provide a footnote) that the hungry ghost realm is more benign than the animal realm. The problematic statement is "This realm is considered in Buddhist texts to be the mildest of the three evil realms.[51]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.20.190.105 (talk) 16:53, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Here you go: "The intensity of the suffering of the beings born intherealm of the hungry ghosts is less intense than that of those born in the hell realms, but far more intense than that of those born in the animal realm." - from Practicing the Path: A Commentary on the Lamrim Chenmo by Yangsi retrieved from https://books.google.com/books?id=wjM6AwAAQBAJ&pg=PT99&dq=suffering+is+greater+in+the+hungry+ghost+realm+than+the+animal+realm&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjLwZjw4NHTAhVk94MKHVHcCMAQ6AEIIzAA#v=onepage&q=hungry%20ghost&f=false

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.20.190.105 (talk • contribs)

Thank you. Let me check and revise, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:10, 2 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)

Rationale for interwiki links in a table

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)

You mean, the translation infobox?--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 07:26, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

@Farang Rak Tham:,

Yes.

अभय नातू (talk) 15:23, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

अभय नातू, the template is used in many articles on Buddhism. I have personally used it, so as to help clear up confusion with regard to Buddhist terminology in different languages. E.g. in Faith in Buddhism, and even in Maudgalyayana.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 15:40, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. It is almost identical to the one I got on w:mr - "I have used it, hence it's useful" :-)

Can you address my points about interwiki links already being present and simply the links in the infobox not adding any real value to the article? In fact, the infobox taking up valuable real estate at the top of the page.

A user(s) on w:mr is citing use on w:en as the rationale for its use on w:mr, which I don't think is appropriate there. Given that, I'm trying to understand the rationale, not oppose your use of it on w:en. w:en can and should set its own rules.

Thanks again.

अभय नातू (talk) 15:45, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't see any overlap between the inter-wiki-links of Samsara and the words in the infobox, but if everything is covered by the inter-wiki-links, you could argue it is not of any use to have an infobox as well.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 22:57, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Lakhey

Kind 45.123.222.226 (talk) 15:20, 4 October 2022 (UTC)