Talk: Dharma
From open-encyclopedia.com - the free encyclopedia.
| Contents |
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)
