Jump to content

Talk:Dharma/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Adding To Dharma

Dharma is a huge topic. Why does it look like, from the article, it's limited to a couple of Buddhist ideas? I'm researching some good stuff on it from the original Hindu understanding, but we need help to give this page the sort of depth it ACTUALLY deserves. --LordSuryaofShropshire 21:02, Apr 3, 2004 (UTC)

Have at it. I suspect that the editors of this article in the past have mostly been Buddhists. Since, for Buddhists, dharma basically just means "Buddhism", I think that's why they haven't put together a very long article on the subject. I'll be interested to see what you come up with. -- Nat Krause 04:04, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I have an interest in the word/concept/concepts that includes its Buddhistic, Hinduistic, and Sanskritistic dimensions, but it's also really hard to explain in English, so I've been avoiding it for a bit. I'm sure part of the problem is the headers in the Buddhist section, but that's just because I needed to link from a different page to a particular meaning of the word, and had to make a header in order to do so. Oh, you dog, someone speaks.

Language and Transcription

I'm tentatively culling "Rta (rhymes with fit)" as it is, I assume, a Hindi pronunciation. (Which is problematic only inasmuch as this is a discussion of an ancient word and its meanings.) A Sanskrit-speaker might possibly say "rituh" (the vocalic r>ri transfer being made I'm not sure when), but a Vedic speaker would have said "rrtuh".

Well, I'm Bengali, but anyway :) But nice addition. Actually, in lieu of a more precise transcription, I just added that in. In reality, the R briefly rolled, as you indicated, but the 'tuh' implies a second syllable, whereas most Sanskrit-derived words have a 'half-matra' duration at the end, which is not a whole syllable, more like a brief aspiration. That's why there's so much confusion with 'mahabhart"a"' and 'ram"a"', etc.
Sure; it might get a ɪ instead of a schwa in IPA.कुक्कुरोवाच
Could you, ummm... show me where I can learn to or teach me how to use ITRANS for Devnagari?
ITRANS itself is something to do with LaTex, and I have absolutely no understanding of anything related to LaTex. However, if you're a recent-version windows-user, you're in luck, as we have the lovely Itranslator 2003, provided by a nifty group whose ultimate religious purpose eludes me, but part of it is to provide delightful free software. (Make sure to get the 2003 version, as that's unicode-compatible.) If you aren't a window user, or you dislike installing software, we have the equally delightful Online interface to Itrans. This has the added benefit of allowing you to choose between several language modes, and of giving you the option of html output (latin-1 or utf), or GIF image output, or PDF output. And for either Itranslator or Itrans proper, the encoding table can be found here.
You might also take a look at workaround that I put together for transliterating using unicode. It uses the msg: feature. It would be considerably more effort-requiring to do the same thing in devanagari, as that would require, like, 50 individual characters. Maybe more. But it does have the decisive advantage that {msg:a} is considerably less wearisome on the eyes than ā. (This benefit will diminism somewhat after the English wiki goes unicode, but there's no saying when that will happen.)
The above workaround is deprecated, since it stresses the server unnecessarily and breaks if overused in a given page. --Aponar Kestrel (talk) 19:58, 2004 Sep 5 (UTC)
Also, I'd love feedback on what's missing in this nascent operation. I am also interested in the 'dharman' appearance in the Rig Veda. Could you tell me where to find it, as I can consult and maybe incorporate it into the 'proto-dharma' discussion. --LordSuryaofShropshire 19:47, Apr 4, 2004 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm just going by the Monier-Williams entry, which identifies "dharman" as Vedic. No text references, which is unlike him. Hold on, maybe he hid them under a separate entry...Hmm. Well, it just gives Rigveda and Atharvaveda, and VS, which I'm not sure what that stands for. The whole entry is pasted below from http://www.uni-koeln.de/phil-fak/indologie/tamil/mwd_search.html.कुक्कुरोवाच 20:19, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

dharman m. bearer , supporter , arranger RV. ; N. of a son of Br2ihad-ra1ja and father of Kr2itam2-jaya VP. ; (%{dhA7rman}) n. (older than %{dha4rma} q.v. , in later language mostly ifc. ; cf. below) support , prop , hold RV. VS. ; established order of things , steadfast decree (of a god , esp. of Mitra-Varun2a) , any arrangement or disposition ; will , pleasure ; law , rule , duty ; practice , custom , mode , manner (%{dha4rmaNA} , %{-mabhis} ; %{-maNas@pa4ri} in regular order , naturally ; %{svAya@dhar@maNe} at one's own pleasure ; %{dharmaNi} with the permission of , %{a4dhi@dh-} against the will of [gen.]) RV. AV. VS. ; (esp. ifc.) nature , quality , characteristic mark or attribute S3Br. (cf. %{an-ucchitti-}) MBh. (cf. %{uJcha-} [add.] , %{kSatra-} , %{phala-} , %{phena}.) Var. (cf. %{dasyu-} [add.]) Kap. (cf. %{cid-dh-} [add.]) Ka1v. (cf. %{vinAza-}.).

Ahah! the internet conquers all. Or at least some. http://www.intratext.com/ixt/SAN0010/GA2.HTM

Thank you! I will familiarize myself as best I can. --LordSuryaofShropshire 23:48, Apr 4, 2004 (UTC)

good work

I love the progress the article is making, keep up the great work! Sam Spade 19:46, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Splitting Up The Dharma Faiths

Hinduism and Buddhism (no one's on the Jain and Sikh viewpoints yet) are very similar in many ways, but when it gets to higher metaphysics or certain key terminologies, they are very different. Perhaps we should make this page a brief summary, maybe inlcuding the intro section and the etymology, and then split the rest into [[Dharma {Hinduism)]] and [[Dharma {Buddhism)]] pages, respectively (later Jain and Sikh)? Now that people are working on this seriously, it's going to get unwieldy pretty soon. --LordSuryaofShropshire 20:02, Apr 4, 2004 (UTC)

I'm also wondering about how the usage of the Dharma/Dhamma concepts would pan out with a seperation of Buddhist sects. I'm not saying that we should analyze the difference, but we should understand that any sort of seperation encourages us to pay attention to even finer details. For example, Theravada Buddhism is almost exclusively restricted to Pali, whereas Mahayana Buddhism has mass translations in almost every language it permeates. Just a thought. --Kanodin 00:26 Nov 18, 2004 (PST)
I think both these suggestions would undermine the basic contextual unity of Indian philosophy--differences over the treatment of concepts like "dharma" and "atman" between Hinduism and Buddhism and Jainism and whatnot are basically all in-house debates...let alone different branches of Buddhism. And while Buddhism has spread beyond India, in terms of the philosophical genealogy, that's insignificant. -- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽ 18:20, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I've been thinking about this for a while, and feel that there is a good cause to split Dharma into at least 3 or more - Dharma (in general) acting as an informative but brief disambiguation page, Dharma (Hindu) and Dharma (Buddhist).

I understand Kukku's complaint, but there is a lot to say about Dharma merely within Buddhism or Hinduism, and one article just won't really do it. (20040302 14:10, 19 September 2005 (UTC))

Nagarjuna

I think the quote from Nagarjuna gives people the wrong impression. It was part of a larger context and he wasn't negating dharma...Nagarjuna isn't really an author you can excerpt from because his ideas are so complex

I disagree, i believe that despite the rigid format that Nagarjuna uses in his writing is mostly a simple resolve to his meaning and that was his reason for the world. That despite its complexities, its answer can be found in one simple and peaceful thought.
I'm not very happy with the Nagarjuna bit in general. The remark "...should not be mistaken with the true Dharma as expounded by the Buddha..." may be arguable, but it certainly isn't NPOV. As a prime expounder of the teachings on emptiness, Nagarjuna's teachings *are* the "true Dharma as exponded by the Buddha". Otherwise one would be claiming that the whole of the Mahayana is non-Buddhist. That may be a view that some people hold, but it certainly isn't mainstream.
If the quoted text seems unclear, surely that's because the teachings on emptiness are incredibly difficult to express, and can only really be pointed at. A lot of discussion of emptiness therefore seems contradictory. In fact contradictions are often used deliberately, to help undermine conceptual thought, as in Koans.
I'm not sure how to improve it, and I don't feel like trying to replace it just now.
From the Heart Sutra: "Therefore, Shariputra, in emptiness there is no ... suffering, no origin of suffering, no cessation of suffering, no path, no wisdom, no attainment, and no non-attainment." That passage says there's no Noble Truths. We can't just be dissing the whole of the prajnaparamita like this.
--MrDemeanour 13:56, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
Basically, I agree with MrDemeanour. As the article states, Nagarjuna is not denying the existence of Dharma, but instead is denying the essential (also inherent) existence of Dharma. I will tidy out what is obviously POV. (20040302 14:07, 19 September 2005 (UTC))

Jainism info box

Please create a Jainism small infobox or portal link, and we can add it in this article. Till then the link has been removed.

Pizzadeliveryboy 19:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Jain portal

Any idea how to add the Jain portal and infobox link?

Pizzadeliveryboy 23:46, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Dear Mr.Bachmann

Apologies, but your user talk page is semi-protected and I'm too new to edit it. I request that you take a look at Muhammad as a diplomat and weigh in, if you can, on the question of whether the religious tract The Sealed Nectar is to be considered a reliable source on findings of historical fact. Your consideration is deeply appreciated.Proabivouac 07:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Merge Proposal

Buddhadharma and other Indian Dharmas is currently a POV article, and rather messy, however parts of it can be integrated into this article. Sfacets 01:40, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Oppose - would prefer merge into Hinduism and Buddhism. Addhoc 20:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
I have added another merge template accordingly. The issue with merging the aryticle with Hinduism and Buddhism is what to do with the Jainism section... Sfacets 21:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Oppose It is the description of a number of different religions, and is the one of the foundations to the modern development of today. Dharma is discussed in popular, without the relation of Hinduism nor Bhuddism. Thks, Dailly Rubbings 16:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, we could put the Jainism section in Jainism and Buddhism. Addhoc 10:54, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

forestdhammabooks.com link -- appropriate?

Hi. Someone used anonymous IPs to add links to http://forestdhammabooks.com to a number of articles about a year ago. Most were deleted but one remained here. The same spammer later added many links to other, more commercial sites such that one of his IPs was blocked today.

I have deleted the forestdhammabooks.com link from this article as part of the overall cleanup, however if there's strong consensus here that it should be added back, by all means do so. --A. B. (talk) 02:09, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

God Dharma and Yama

the Article said that God Dharma is not Yama but the Mahabharata clears links Yama, the God of Death with Dharma.Link to Internet Book on Mahabharata. Also the Yama (Hinduism) article states that Yama is called Dharma.

In my personal opinion, I had always known that the father of Yudishtra was Yama(Dharma). Also there is a tale about Yama been cursed to take the human birth of Vidura.--Redtigerxyz 05:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Other Forms of Dharma

I was wondering whether or not we should include dharmas associated with duty (svadharma, patridharma, etc) within the context of this article. I've looked else where for reference to the concept of svahdharma on Wikipedia and have found no mention of it. Should we perhaps mention this here? References to this principle could include the Manusmirti. Afakirani 16:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

user:Andries/Dharma_in_religions

I created user:Andries/Dharma_in_religions because several editors at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_September_8#Dharmic_religion stated that there should be an article about this subject. It is mainly a copy from dharma. Feel free to improve it. Andries 17:52, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Highly Innacurate Sentence in Buddhist Dharma Section

In discussing the Buddhist use of the term "dharma" to mean "phenomenon" (such as sabbe "dhamma" anatta or the seventy-five "dharmas"), the article includes this sentence:

"Rejecting the substantial existence of permanent entities which are qualified by possibly changing qualities, Buddhist Abhidharma philosophy, which enumerated seventy-five dharmas, came to propound that these 'constituent factors' are the only type of entity that truly exists"

The problem, of course, is that over history dozens of different Buddhist "abhidharma philosophies" have differed as to the true existence or non-existence of any number of dhammas. The acceptance of the seventy-five dharmas as the only "truly existent" reality is not a universal Buddhist notion. Within Buddhism, we find schools rejecting the inherent existence of any dharms, schools positing the reality of all dharmas, schools recognizing two distinct "levels" of reality for dharmas (relative and ultimate), and everything in-between. This sentence needs to be fixed. Calaf 18:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Introduction change

I changed the introduction so that it starts from the what, when, where, and by whom parts. The previous version directly started off with the meaning, which can come a little later. Indian_Air_Force (IAF) 03:43, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

IAF's edit has been reverted because: 1) To restrict Dharma to a religious/spiritual term is incorrect. Dharma has a wider meaning. 2) The cleanup template is unnecessary; this is a B-Class article that has been developed over a long period. 3) The other information added is already present within the introduction so is unnecessary. Thankyou. Langdell (talk) 15:07, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Langdell's edits have been reverted because, Dharma is indeed a spiritual term that arose from a religious appeal and still centers around religious spheres (except of course in the discourses of Osho, Rajneesh and the like). The earlier introduction lacked encyclopaedic language, failed to mention some facts and was far too subjective. Indian_Air_Force (IAF) (talk) 16:19, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Rev to the earlier edit of mine because

  1. Dharma's place of origin is mentioned (India).
  2. That it is a spiritual and religious connotative term. Also, its meaning in the most common sense of the term in most Indian languages.
  3. It's emphasis in all the Indian religions, in fact one of the geneses of Indian faith system(s) is Dharma.

Thanks. Indian_Air_Force (IAF) (talk) 18:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I have once again reverted the edits by Langdel, who has still not tried to explain his version of edits in the talk page, as of yet. However, I will continue to give an explanation of my latest edits :-

Langdel's version fails to mention in the opening line that Dharma is an Indian spiritual and a religious term. There was over emphasis on explaining the philosophy behind Dharma in the opening para itself, while ignoring facts. All and all, Langdel's version seemed less like an encyclopaedic article, and more as though straight out of an ISKCON manual. That is why his version is not kept. Thanks. 06:00, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


Reverted Langdell's version again for the following reasons :-

  1. The article seems less encyclopaedic, and more of an Osho discourse. The language used was awfully meaningless. Sample these "gems" from Mr. Langdell :-

In common discourse, Dharma may be employed to explain .. .. the binding metaphysical system, laws of reciprocity and comportment in, and of, an ethical and energetic complex.

The idea of dharma as appropriate action or righteousness becomes possible when the concept of a universal order is reached within early vedic culture.

The next two take the prize ;-)

An early demonstration of the continuity of thought from rta to dharma is a brief but "pregnant definition" ((3) of dharma given in the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad,

The longest incomprehensible gibberish in the world :-

This latter signification has nothing to do with the personality of the spiritual teacher Siddhartha Gautama but rather signifies the importance of the attitude of bodymind that enables an adept or practitioner to re-harmonise their personal nature with the underlying principle (Dharma) behind natural phenomena leading towards the undoing of all egoistic falsehood constituted by the aggregates and ultimately release in nirvana - generically referred to in Indian religions as liberation (moksha).

I cleaned up all the above scrap and have attempted to make the article free of adjectives, and have helped to ebb the ooze of ISCON-ishness. This article was written with a massive overdoze of hallucinants. "Pregnant Definition".........yeah, truly amazing. Indian_Air_Force (IAF) (talk) 06:57, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Dharma and Governance

Dharma is often mistaken to be religion. Oxford dictionary describes it as the universal law of nature. It is often said to be wider than religion. It has two components. One, rituals and practises as in all religions, but here too with a difference. While many tribal faiths and even Greek beliefs were polytheistic, and faiths such as Christainty and Islam are monotheistic in that they believe in one god and one prophet, Dharma is henotheistic in that it believes in various manifestations of the only superconscious. As result it respects other faiths, sarva dharma sambhaav, and does not proseltize. This is sometimes mischieviously misinterpreted to mean that a person can be Hindu only by birth when it truly means that one has simply to say that he is Hindu to be one!

The other component of Dharma is rights and duties of various functionaries of society such as the state, business, teacher, husband, wife, father, mother and the youth. The first two define the ideology. According to ancient Hindu scriptures the Dharma or duty of the state is to allow every local entity, village and city cordinated by the janpad (district,county)to govern itself, and demand not more than one-sixth of its revenues for higher level functions and coordination. Controlling five-sixth revenues, the local governments prosper, the one-sixth of the state shoots up and it too becomes prosperous! Omnipotent (Chaktravarti) monarchs such as Ram monitored such democracy in neighbouring kingdoms thus making Bharat (India) akhand, that is one nation at a time when Europe was divided.

Gandhi advocated such true democracy. Desire of the then leadership to centralise power led to the partition of India, the traumas of Kashmir and the all round social, environemntal and political degradation witnessed today. For restoring India's ancient tradition of true democracy, People First, a trust dedicated to instituting good governance, has conceptualised that apart from parliament and an independent judiciary, contemporary democracy needs another institution, an independent Sovereign Rights Commission with authority to direct referendums, except on issues fundamental to democracy or the integrity of the nation. There can, for example be no referendum on making the state theocratic or a region seceding. Superior to the Royal Priest of bygone days, more like Gandhi, the Commission will on the bases of the wishes ascertained for the people prepare a proposed Constition and refer the present versus the proposed Constitution to the people through referendum. The people will overwhelmingly vote in favour of the latter. The Commission will then authenticate it this time truly in the name of the people as the supreme law of the nation. India will be on the path of rejvenation and lead the emergence of a just world order based on social justice and equity.

For more information, visit website www.peoplefirstindia.org. or email peoplefirst@devalt.org.

SK Sharma, Manging Trustee, People First


Mr. Sharma, what you have said above has no place on the talk page of a wikipedia article. This page is used to discuss the article of Dharma, and ways to improve it.

Your post above is a sort of solicitation for something else altogether and so shouldn't be here in the first place. Indian_Air_Force (IAF) (talk) 06:54, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Parsism

Parsism is also a Indian religion it was developed around 17th century see Parsi people the only major Parsi community is in India and has its own literature.

The Parsis also hold Dharma and is derived from the Sanskrit word. Please do not remove Parsi information as it is also realated to Dharma and share Indian philosophy --ParsiWala (talk) 23:31, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

PW, I'm going to have to strongly disagree with you. Parsis and other Zoroastrians don't believe in karma, dharma, reincarnation and other fundamental "pillars" associated with the Indic Religions. It believes in a Day of Judgment, non-cyclical time and sin. There should be nothing about Zoroastrianism on this page because it is about Indic Religions - faiths part of the common, inherited system of Indic culture, which Zoroastrians are explicitly not. em zilch (talk) 02:42, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Can you help?

Dear friends. As the editor of a recent book on Buddhism and a long term student of Indian religion I have taken considerable pains to develop this article in a manner that bridges 'Hindu' and 'Buddhist' conceptions of Dharma. If one studies both spiritual traditions one gets a better and clearer picture of what dharma means. The problem has been that buddhists have an insufficient knowledge of Hindu religion and culture and Hindus likewise with Buddhism so that the account of each is rather one-sided and lacking in explication of the underlying philosophiocal basis for the idea. Studying the two traditions helps one to gain a clearer idea of what Dharma means. Regrettably, over the lengthy period that this article has developed there have been considerable difficulties due to the disruptive interventions of User:IAF. We do not know anything about this user's identity as he has carefully avoided giving us any information by keeping a blank User profile page. If you look at this user's talk page you will find a history of similar behaviour with respect to other articles that have required blocking the user. I am afraid that previous attempts to reason with this User have been unsuccessful. To anyone who is seriously interested in maintaining and developing the quality of this article (we managed to get a 'B' rating in the assessment) I would be grateful for their assistance. Thanks. User:Langdell

In my view, User:Langdell appears to be a novice or a rank amateur in knowing and appreciating the basic precinct of wikipedia :- that the quality of edition is important; the editor, his identity and least of all, his user-page is irrelevant. The last is solely the prerogative of the editor, and is a facility provided merely to assist "socializing".

Langdell could be a convict in a jail who has been provided Net access; he could be an out-of-work hippie, or just the guy-next-door. Who knows, and who can confirm this ? So his user page has nothing to do with the veracity of his edits on Dharma, all of which are totally, wholly and fully wrong.

Hence, this direct upfront attack by questioning or demanding my identity in this manner, is a crass attempt at a personal attack. This desperation is understandable, because his arguments so far on his version of the article have not stood scrutiny (they've only been composed of threats and warnings on my page). So Shri. Langdell is advised to bring a tangible argument to the discussion table, in order to justify his edits and to reserve mud-slinging like this on somebody else. Indian_Air_Force (IAF) (talk) 16:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Langdell, it's quite common for Wikipedians to keep their identity private; there's no need to comment about this on an article talk page. IAF, your comments "convict in a jail" etc. are, in my opinion, way out of line. Would both of you please comment about the article content, not about each other. Would both of you please justify your edits here on the talk page using references, and discuss it with each other in an attempt to reach consensus. Langdell, even if previous discussions have failed, please make a genuine attempt to discuss and reach compromise: maybe this discussion will succeed, especially if you try to be very civil and understanding. I notice that this article has only one reference. I suggest that you both seek out more references, and use them to justify your edits. Wikipedia article content is based on material from reliable sources, not on arguments about the reputations of Wikipedian editors. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 17:58, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


I have had a discussion on improving the introduction of the article here : [1]. There too, Langdell has failed to reply. His only argument is that since his versions of edits led to the article getting a B-rating, so they must be maintained. I think my version can get it an A-rating, provided all the highly religious tones and language in the various sub-sections of the article are thoroughly cleaned up. AT least the introduction needed cleaning up. Indian_Air_Force (IAF) (talk) 03:13, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

References

This page has only one reference. Maybe the books in "further reading" and the links in "external links" can be used as references. (See WP:RS for how to decide whether a source is reliable.) Here are some possible sources:

You can find other sources, too. When you edit, and especially when there is disagreement about edits, please explain how your edit is supported by reliable sources. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 12:28, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Etymology section

I came here to get a quick take on the term and it's context. I hate to say this, but the "Etymology" section left me even more confused. I had to re-read the first paragraphs about three times to get it.

Could the regular editors here, and I know there have to be some, please consider revising this section for clarity; or if the consensus is to have a detailed etymology section, consider moving it way down the page. It detracts from an otherwise very good article.

Kudos for accomplishing that on an article covering so many religions. That took a lot of work and patience all around. Then again edit wars on the Dharma would be just wrong in so many ways.

Ciao, MARussellPESE (talk) 04:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree, that seems too detailed a discussion than is necessary here, at least as it now appears. I'm not going to go cutting out big chunks without more discussion, but I am going to try to make it a little clearer. Any other input is, of course, welcome. /Ninly (talk) 14:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

"Without discussion" (?)

Statements that are really ugly from a wikipedian WP:NPOV perspective:

Dharma is the core of all the religions of India.

Probably false. F.ex. Christian Indians don't regard Dharma. This could probably easily be fixed by substituting "the religions of India" for "the religions that are classified as 'dharmic'", which however makes it a little bit of a tautology.

Dharma is a set of simple, fundamental principles which are beyond all intellectual argument.

No. Everything that cannot be discussed or explained is dictatorially asserted, and thus always invariably in error, the "beyond all intellectual argument" is just a covert way to hide falsity behind a veil of authority. I think this is a misrepresentation and misunderstanding on axiom, which is quite possible to discuss, but they are asserted as a convention in order to easily derive knowledge.

While it may be true that many philosophical arguments cannot be objectively resolved because they remain open to interpretation, the principles of Dharma are beyond such discussion because they are self-evident, and they always prove themselves correct.[citation needed]

I agree with [citation needed], nothing else. The part "and they always prove themselves correct" should in principle be proved by an infinite number of citations, indicating the fact that the statement is a quite awkward concept. That statement must be fixed by letting an outside source saying so, in fact that whole sweeping and non-specific sentence of what dharma is supposed to be, should be attributed to an outside source or be substituted for something that makes any logical and semantic sense whatsoever. In forum language the statement is a perfect "flamebait".

Superficially, Ahimsa as a form of Dharma may appear to be another category of philosophical idealism, but it withstands scientific scrutiny quite well.

Explain why! There are a couple of reasons why a statement can "withstand scientific scrutiny", but is it because it is immesurable by the-measuring-affecting-the-measured-paradox, or is it because it is logically malformed? (the former to be preferred) ... said: Rursus (bork²) 19:17, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

The statements are now gone. Thanks everybody! ... said: Rursus (mbork³) 12:12, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

language un-equivalence

Dharma is wrongly said to be equivalent to religion.

Hinduism and budhism are wrongly stated as religions, religions which have dharma as main center of focus. Instead, when in reality, hinduism and budhism are them selves Dharma.

i think english is forcefully used to en-shorten the article, because if we stop using the word religion, then it would take a lot to describe these terms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Khoks (talk • contribs) 17:15, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

How is Panña — Wisdom the result of fate?

A myriad of websites have quoted the wikipedia article, but I haven't found anything that points to Panña — Wisdom being the result of fate.

My understanding is that fate (or destiny) has nothing to do with what happens to the individual, his kamma is the result of cause and effect.

"Svakkhato (Pali) The Dharma is not a speculative philosophy, but is the Universal Law found through enlightenment and is preached precisely. Therefore it is Excellent in the beginning (Sila — Moral principles), Excellent in the middle (Samadhi — Concentration) and Excellent in the end, the only end that could result through fate. (Panña — Wisdom)." Bill Gatlin (talk) 18:29, 25 September 2009 (UTC)Bill Gatlin

Dharma ~=~ doctrine

I think the western counterpart words of dharma are foremost doctrine in most cases, and laws of nature in some fewer cases, having both meanings simultaneously. ... said: Rursus (mbork³) 12:12, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

dharma has a huge variety of meanings and is hard to sum up. Trying to settle on one predominant meaning is tilting at Windmills. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.69.115.141 (talk) 11:31, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Dharma has but one meaning - ration law . ( in keeping with the dedication to rationalism and canonical nature of the ancient vedic texts. - D Chakravarty Gautama. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.173.224.216 (talk) 22:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Dharma heir/lineage holder

How do they belong together?

-- 88.75.211.45 (talk) 10:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

How is Dharma important? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.47.14.157 (talk) 20:33, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Righteous duty

The Garcia source has that meaning: [2], clearly connecting it to the social hierarchy. Mitsube (talk) 19:20, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I think it's not suitable to discuss references to dharma in Popular culture here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dharma#References_in_pop_culture For example, Jesus has more references in popular culture, but we don't have a section in Jesus page on references to him in popular culture. Kavas (talk) 21:32, 18 August 2010 (UTC) Yes, it is removed due to WP:Trivia now. Kavas (talk) 02:56, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

What is Dharma

What is DHARM? 

The term Dharma is an Indian spiritual and religious term that means one's righteous duty, or any virtuous path. A Hindu's dharma is affected by a person's age, class, occupation, and gender. In Indian languages it can be equivalent simply to religion, depending on context. The word dharma translates as that which upholds or supports, and is generally translated into English as law.

According to the various Indian religions, such as Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, and Sikhism, beings that live in accordance with Dharma proceed more quickly toward dharma yukam, moksha or nirvana (personal liberation). The antonym of dharma is adharma meaning unnatural or immoral. In traditional Hindu society, dharma has historically denoted a variety of ideas, such as Vedic ritual, ethical conduct, caste rules, and civil and criminal law. Its most common meaning however pertains to two principal ideals: that social life should be structured through well-defined and well-regulated classes (varna), and that an individual's life within a class should be organized into defined stages (ashrama, see dharmasastra).[4]

Lots of stuff most other editors can't read; stuff that really fails WP:NOR

श्रीर्वै धर्म: , राज्यं वै धर्म: , धर्मणो धारयति ! जै 3.231 

           According to Vedic traditions

“Dharma is that which sustains a welfare state”, and consists of Don’ts and Duties अपने चित्त वृत्तियों में उपलब्ध करो अन्यथा नि:सार रह जावोगे Cultivate the virtue to gather strength, otherwise you will suffer deprivation यद्येकवृषोSसि सृजारसोSसि ! अथर्व वेद 5/16/1 यदि द्वि वृषोSसि सृजारसोSसि ! अथर्व वेद 5/16/2 यदि त्रि वृषोSसि सृजारसोSसि ! अथर्व वेद 5/16/3 यदि चतुर्वृषोSसि सृजारसोSसि ! अथर्व वेद 5/16/4 यदि पञ्चवृषोSसि सृजारसोSसि ! अथर्व वेद 5/16/5 üयदि षड्वृषोSसि सृजारसोSसि ! अथर्व वेद 5/16/6 यदि सप्त वृषोSसि सृजारसोSसि ! अथर्व वेद 5/16/7 üयद्यष्ट वृषोSसि सृजारसोSसि ! अथर्व वेद 5/16/8 यदि नवष्टषोSसि सृजारसोSसि अथर्व वेद 5/16/9 यदि दश वृषोSसि सृजारसोSसि अथर्व वेद 5/16/10 यद्येकादशोSसि सृजारसोSसि अथर्व वेद 5/16/11

Veda is saying here that there are ten aspects of Dharma. All of these aspects of Dharma have to be cultivated in your temperament. Leaving out even one of them will render you at default. वेद के अनुसार यदि धर्म के एक अंग को ही गृहण कर चुके हो तो नि:सार रह जावोगे, यदि धर्म के दो अंगों को भी गृहण कर चुके हो तो भी नि:सार रह जावोगे. यदि धर्म के दसों अंगों को भी धारण कर चुके हो तो बिना प्रभु भक्ति के नि:सार रह जावोगे. RV 10.47.6 Dharma comprises of sustainable duties of people 

प्र सप्तगुमृतधीतिं सुमेधां बृहस्पतिं मतिरच्छा जिगाति ।

य आङ्गिरसो नमसोपसद्यो।Sस्मभ्यं चित्रं वृ षणं रयिं दाः ।। ऋ 10-47-6

प्रसप्तगुमृतधीतिं सुमेधा- सप्त मर्यादा पालक उत्तम वृत्ति युक्त बृहस्पति- good articulate skills मतिरच्छा जिगाति - invokes good common sense (Dharma sustains the Society by सप्त मर्यादा seven tenets. These are human values that sustain the society. Vedic Dharma did not entail personal ritualistic procedures for individuals in the society) The seven tenets that form the Vedic Dharma are spelled out in Atharv Veda as:

सप्त मर्यादा: कवयस्ततक्षुस्तासामिदेकमभ्यं Sहुरो गात् ! आयोर्हस्कम्भ उपमस्य नीदे पथां विसर्गे धरुणेषु तस्थौ !! अथर्व 5/1/6

These seven trespasses are 1.Theiving. 2, Adulterous behavior,3. Anti knowledge activities,4. Abortions, 5. Drunken behavior,6. Habitual addiction to wickedness,7, Giving false evidence

1. चोरी,2.अगम्यागमन ,3. ब्रह्महत्या,4. भ्रूणहत्या,5. मद्यपान,6.पुन: पुन: पाप कर्म में प्रवृत्ति,7. पाप करके झूट बोलना बोलनाये निषिद्धाचरणा परित्याग रूप सात नियम बताए गए हैं. इन में से जो एक का भी उल्लंघन करता है वह पापी है. यही सात मर्यादाएं वैदिक दृष्टि से मानव धर्म हैं. यही समाज को धारण कर के प्रलय तक स्थिरता देती हैं. 2. 

सुख की वृद्धि करने हारा, सब ऐश्वर्य का दाता धर्म है, उस का जो जो लोप करता है उस को विद्वान लोग वृषल समझते हैं : दयानन्द संस्कार विधि 1/5

(धर्म के दस अंग क्या हैं ?) 

मनुस्मृति के अनुसार वृषो हि भगवान्‌ धर्मः। 
धर्म वही है जो सुख की ऐश्वर्य की वर्षा करता है।
 वृषो हि भगवान्धर्मस्य यः कुरुते ह्यलम्‌ ।
वृषलं तं विदुर्देवास्तस्माद्धर्मं न लोपयेतऽ ॥ मनु 8-16

धर्म लक्षणम्‌ - Creative Duties 

सकारात्मक आचरण -Positive actions
धर्मो  मनुष्याः।  Humanity itself is Dharma.
धर्मो वा अधिपतिः । That which governs a Human is his Dharma

" धृति क्षमा दमोऽस्तेय शौचमिन्द्गिय निग्रहः। 

   धी विद्या सत्यमक्रोधो दशकं धर्म लक्षणम्‌  ॥" मनुः 6-92

धैर्य,क्षमा,असत्प्रवृत्तियों का दमन, चोरी छल कपट त्याग, मन वाणी शरीर की पवित्रता,इन्द्गिय निग्रह, ज्ञानार्जन, सत्यपालन, क्रोध त्याग, ये दश लक्षण धर्म के बताये जाते हैं।)


There are ten attributes of Dharma viz: 

1.धृतिः- Forbearance, Sobriety, Resoluteness
2.क्षमाः- Forgiveness- covering a wider range of meanings 
           such as Amnesty, Charity, Clemency, Mercy, Non 
           violence
3.दमोः- Suppression of unbecoming tendencies
4.अस्तेयं :- To avoid Stealing, Deceit, Dishonesty, Blackmail, Scam
5.शौच :- Purification- cleanliness, internal & external

6. इन्द्गियनिग्रहः :- Control over desires 

7. धी :- Cultivation of right mentality by expanding 
        intellect & avoiding negative influences 
8.विद्या :-   Knowledge, about every thing in this world and beyond
9.सत्यम्‌ :- Truthfulness

10.अक्रोधो :- Avoiding Anger, Hatred, Unhappiness 

    to Cultivate calmness, happiness

These ten are the attributes of DHARMA

दश आजीविकायें 

 " विद्या शिल्पं भृतिः सेवाः गोरक्ष्यं विपणिः कृषिः।
   धृतिर्भैक्ष्यं  कुसीदं  च  दश  जीवनहेतवः  ॥ मनुः 10-116

सप्त मर्यादा

सप्त मर्यादाःकवस्ततक्षुस्तासामिदेकामभ्यं हुरो गात्‌। 

आयोर्हस्कम्भ उपमस्य नीडे पथां विसर्गे ध्रुणेषु तस्थौ ॥ अथर्व 5-1-6
 सात मर्यादाएं

1। चोरी,2ऽगम्यागमन,3।ब्रह्म हत्या, 4भ्रूण हत्या,5।मद्यपान,6।पुनः पुनः पाप कर्म में प्रवृत्ति,7।पाप कर के झूठ बोलना

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Subodh1934 (talk • contribs) 16:32, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Please read the reliable sourcing guidelines, neutral point of view guidelines, the no original research guidelines, and understand that Wikipedia is not a means of promoting any belief. You you state simply what you would like to accomplish here? Ian.thomson (talk) 16:38, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The common problem with all spiritual teachings

The common problem with all spiritual teachings is that with the author not available for comment all objectivity evaporates. With Hinduism and Hinduism originated teachings (religions are semitic in origin) that is not a particular issue, as at their core subjectivity rains supreme.

As this is only relevant for those who wish, and are cabable, of reaching a deeper understanding of said teachings, I do not expect to see a wikipedia article attempting to explain that. However, for all those reaching this article in search for something more than a basic understanding of the subject or a brush with "dry philosophy", along with examples of dharma as structure, order, law etc in the introduction, a brief reference should be included hinting to the existence of more profound versions of dharma.

The section that attempts to explain dharma as pertaining to Jainism does the truth a lot more justice by mentioning that "dharma is of two kinds, for the householders and for the monks" As the closest equivalent to a monk, would be referred to as a mystic in Hinduism, an analogous phrase should be included to the introduction.

An alternate suggestion would be to include another version of dharma amongst all those already provided. That of Arya Dharma. "Arya Dharma 'Noble' Truths): the four central tenets of Buddha's original teachings." Quote from "The Oneness/Otherness Mystery" by Sutapas Bhattacharya, in Commentary, page 177. That is how it appears in the book, with the missing " ( ". Doing so though, would, in my opinion, simply add to the confusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.199.145.90 (talk) 15:55, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

jainism section is terrible

it doesn't read well and is full of unexplained foreign language. could someone clean it up please? as it is it adds nothing understandable to the article that has any relevance, and adds nothing to the understanding of jainism either. the hindu and buddhist sections are fine, but a native english speaker familiar with the subject would be a better author (translations of the foreign language would do, barely) teknotiss (can't be bothered to sign in, too much hassle for just this) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.220.151.59 (talk) 10:12, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Law & natural law

I added Natural_law#Dharma to "Natural Law" and in the lede linked both that term and "Law". Consider removing those links from the lede, and putting them in See also. --Pawyilee (talk) 05:14, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Unsourced

The main claim of this article is unsourced:

Wikipedia requires the use of WP:RS. Given the repeated discussions on Template:Modern Dharmic writers, this is even more important. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:29, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Tantra

Shouldn't Tantra be included? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:29, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Why should it? It is not a world religion by itself. If tantric texts discuss Dharmic concepts, it can be included in Hinduism or Buddhism.--Trphierth (talk) 00:42, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Rta

How is this pronounced please?Iztwoz (talk) 16:12, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Footnote

One of the quotes used a link like [[#references]] to reference, so I used the ref name function to lead to 2. of references, not the bulleted list, so I may be wrong.Curb Chain (talk) 23:11, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

typo

"In Abrahamic religions only the believe in a certain teachings is..." needs revision 99.224.43.0 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:01, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Abrahamic religions

With this edit, Jujhar.pannu reinserted the following text to the lead:

In Abrahamic religions only the belief in a certain teaching is sufficient to allow a follower to be enlisted as a member of that religion. Whereas in Dharmic religions certain obligations must be fulfilled to be considered part of the religion.

This is nonsense:

  • One becomes a Christian by Baptism and/or enlisting as a member of a congregation, not by simply believing something;
  • As far as my knowledge goes, a male becomes a Jew or Muslim by circumcision (I've got no idea how that works for woman).
  • Nothing is being mentioned in the article about how to become a member of one of those faiths, so mentioning this in the lead is not a summmary of the article.
  • Apart from that, the term "Dharmic religions" is not the common name; that's "Indian religions".

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 03:57, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Tibetan quotes

What gives Buddhist 'scholars' in the west the idea that it helps westerners comprehension of the teachings to quote text in Tibetan? -- Could ego be involved here???

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.231.188.9 (talk) 05:31, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Why is this page part of Hinduism

Hello, I just clicked Dharma in Buddhism and was directed here. Then I typed Buddahdharma and was again directed here. This page should be representation of all darma related religions. I will off "WikiProject Hinduism". FWBOarticle

Where´s the problem? --91.34.250.83 (talk) 01:29, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Issues with sources used, balance and undue emphasis

The article has multiple issues.

  1. Sources for some sections: The Buddhism section is far more extensive than section on Dharma in Hinduism, even though there is a dedicated article on Dharma (Buddhism). The subsections on Buddha's teachings and Buddhist phenomenology cite no sources.
  2. Incomplete coverage of Dharma (Hinduism): Dharma is a central concept and widely considered by scholars as one of the innovative yet complex ideas in Hinduism. The current article does not cite or summarize major scholarly publications on Dharma (Hinduism) such as those by Paul Horsch (1967), Paul Hacker (1965), Daniel Ingalls (1957), Albrecht Wezler (2004), and many others. The article relies on one of many definitions of Dharma, thus placing undue and misleading emphasis on one aspect of the concept Dharma.
  3. Jain and Sikh Dharma sections need reliable secondary or tertiary sources.

Parts of this article needs a rewrite, some parts need clarification. I plan to edit it, add reliable scholarly sources. However, if someone is already planning to do so, or has objections to the above comments, please let me know. It will save me effort. Kind regards, Mark.muesse (talk) 00:55, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Image infobox, kama as dharma

I have added back the infobox, with citations, but taken out kama as dharma. However, this is not necessary. Several scholars, in peer reviewed journal articles have explained kama and artha are a form of dharma, in some of the ancient Sanskrit literature on dharma. See, for example: Austin Creel (1975), The Reexamination of Dharma in Hindu Ethics, Philosophy East and West, 25(2), pp 161-173; Quote: In the scheme of trivarga (artha, kama, dharma), dharma sometimes refers to one temporal value alongside others (such as are represented by artha and kama) and at other times dharma refers to the totality of social or temporal values (including artha, kama, and dharma in the first sense) in contrast to moksa, the fourth and supreme value or final end of man. As J. A. B. van Buitenen has pointed out, artha, kama, and dharma should not be deemed to refer to distinctly different practices - "In principle, all three are dharma." Mark.muesse (talk) 15:16, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Dharma is not Dhamma

Sorry there is a mistake here. The Pali text does not support the idea of Dharma as written in Sanskrit the ideas are very different. Dhamma is Sidarta Guttam correction of the Vadas, and therefore written in Pali with no equivalence in Sanskrit. NO EQUIVALENCE IN SANSKRIT!

Dhamma should not redirect to Dharmma as they are two different languages with two different ideas. Very subtle differences but with very different goals in mind, Dharmma is about maintaining the status quo, the idea of a cast system. Whereas, the idea of Dhamma, in the Pali text, is to throw the idea of a cast system out the window, and hence why Hinduism begins to expunge Dhamma (Buddhism) from India, rewrite the text in Sanskrit to ensure that the ideas of Buddhism adhere to the Vadas.

Moving on, to have different ideas, that come from different languages, which have different pronunciation, and suddenly mean the same thing, is not good academic research, not good scholarship. Cleaning up web pages should not be used as a reason to change history, rewrite the facts, and miss inform the uninformed.

This conflating of the two ideas of Dhamma and Dharma also affects historical accounts of ideas, meaning of words, the issue of linguistic drift, social and political reference.


Pali explanations of the Tripitaka needs to have their own pages to accurately explain their ideas of

Kamma Nibbana Dhamma

(And many other ideas)

As they are vastly different from the Vadas, do not share the same ideas of Jainism, not written in Sanskrit, a completely different language that predates the appearance of Sanskrit by some 600 years. A language that is often found to be the root of Sanskrit words much like Greek or Latin is to English today.

So please do not confuse the Pali Tripitaka with other texts written in Sanskrit, they are not equivalent. Karma is not equal to Kamma, Narvanna is not equal to Nibbana, Dharma is not equivalent to Dhamma, the ideas are not the same, so please leave the Pali text alone and their explanations. Do not have PALI words redirect to Sanskrit words or meanings.


The Pāli Canon (Tripitaka) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.157.215.103 (talk) 16:16, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Dharma is not Dhama

Sorry there is a mistake here. The Pali text does not support the idea of Dharma as written in Sanskrit the ideas are very different. Dhamma is Sidarta Guttam correction of the Vadas, and therefore written in Pali with no equivalence in Sanskrit. NO EQUIVALENCE IN SANSKRIT!

Dhamma should not redirect to Dharmma as they are two different languages with two different ideas. Very subtle differences but with very different goals in mind, Dharmma is about maintaining the status quo, the idea of a cast system. Whereas, the idea of Dhamma, in the Pali text, is to throw the idea of a cast system out the window, and hence why Hinduism begins to expunge Dhamma (Buddhism) from India, rewrite the text in Sanskrit to ensure that the ideas of Buddhism adhere to the Vadas.

Moving on, to have different ideas, that come from different languages, which have different pronunciation, and suddenly mean the same thing, is not good academic research, not good scholarship. Cleaning up web pages should not be used as a reason to change history, rewrite the facts, and miss inform the uninformed.

This conflating of the two ideas of Dhamma and Dharma also affects historical accounts of ideas, meaning of words, the issue of linguistic drift, social and political reference.


Pali explanations of the Tripitaka needs to have their own pages to accurately explain their ideas of

Kamma Nibbana Dhamma

(And many other ideas)

As they are vastly different from the Vadas, do not share the same ideas of Jainism, not written in Sanskrit, a completely different language that predates the appearance of Sanskrit by some 600 years. A language that is often found to be the root of Sanskrit words much like Greek or Latin is to English today.

So please do not confuse the Pali Tripitaka with other texts written in Sanskrit, they are not equivalent. Karma is not equal to Kamma, Narvanna is not equal to Nibbana, Dharma is not equivalent to Dhamma, the ideas are not the same, so please leave the Pali text alone and their explanations. Do not have PALI words redirect to Sanskrit words or meanings.


The Pāli Canon (Tripitaka) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.157.215.103 (talk) 16:18, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Difference from religion

How us dharma different from religion? Isnt dharma hindi word for religion except for two instances work and jain philosophy. Why are there multiple pages on Wikipedia for each word in all languages? -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 09:05, 3 September 2015 (UTC) -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 09:05, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Hinduism portal shifted

There must be dozen of different indian origin religion which use dharma. There is no point and no space to put all of it in intro. Each portal should be placed where each secton of respective religion are. Plus, previous placement was bit biased toward Hinduism. FWBOarticle — Preceding unsigned comment added by FWBOarticle (talk • contribs) 10:17, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, still bais towards hindus

This page is still bais towards hindu concepts of Dharma — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dosey (talk • contribs) 21:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Because Dharma is a concept originating from Hinduism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.192.226.214 (talk) 14:03, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

"Phenomenon" Misdirect

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)

Closest meaning of Dharma in English

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)

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)

"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)

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)
"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)
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)
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)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dharma/Archive_1&oldid=1255160681"