|WikiProject Buddhism||(Rated C-class, Top-importance)|
|WikiProject Philosophy||(Rated C-class)|
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.
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
Is "dukkha" the Pali version of Saksrit "duhkha"? Must be.
- Yes; I've added the Sanskrit. However, I think the entry should remain primarily under "dukkha", as that is the more familiar term in Western Buddhism, used often informally by Mahayana practitioners as well. (Where, for instance, the Sanskrit "karma" is more commonly familiar than the Pali "kamma", so that entry is under the former.) Homohabilis (talk) 14:37, 14 January 2008 (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 126.96.36.199 (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)
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)
- 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 188.8.131.52 (talk) 02:33, 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 184.108.40.206 (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 220.127.116.11 (talk) 01:41, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
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)
The Six Great Sufferings
- 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.
- Awesome. :) Thanks very much for the reference. I'll work this into the article. Peace, Dorje108 (talk) 13:30, 13 October 2012 (UTC)