From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Dharmacakra)
Jump to: navigation, search

Old talk[edit]

It seems to me that Dharma-chakra was intended to refer to the same symbol as Dharmacakra, and so could just be converted to a redirect. As far as content, there's not too much in the Dharma-chakra article that's not in Dharmacakra, but it would be good to have a section that would say more about the Jain use of the symbol (which I don't know anything about). RandomCritic 07:14, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Is there any reason why the spelling "Dharmacakra" is used over "Dharmachakra"? The latter seems to be more common, at least from a Google search. zaiken 07:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

It's the standard transcription of the Sanskrit word. Sanskrit distinguishes "c" (unaspirated) from "ch" (aspirated). RandomCritic 14:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

thats wrong, on the indian flag is a spinning wheel not the wheel of dhrama 21:24, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

There's a full discussion of this at Flag of India. The original symbol was a spinning wheel, it's true, but in 1947, it was changed to the same design as the Dharmacakra on the Asoka pillar. RandomCritic 00:14, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Three turnings[edit]

I could find no textual justification for the statement that the "three turnings" refers to "hearing, understanding, and internalizing", and no source was provided, so I eliminated the paragraph. RandomCritic (talk) 13:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Jainism logo.png[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Jainism logo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

Save_Us_229 18:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Spelling Error: The title is spelled wrong along with the title preceding the "disambiguation" link. It should be spelled "Dharmachakra" not "Dharmacakra". —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Title of the Article[edit]

Please change the title of the article to 'Dharmachakra' and not 'Dharmacakra' as the previous one is the correct spelling.

Version 0.7 nomination[edit]

This article has been nominated for Version 0.7 of the offline Wikipedia release but did not meet the standards for importance. It has been put on Wikipedia:Release_Version_Nominations/Held_nominations for further review. Please see that page for details.

This article would be nice to include in our offline releases, but I think it needs to be improved to B-Class first. Walkerma (talk) 05:03, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

complete misuse of this symbol[edit]

before there used to be a picture of the buddha that was in the buddhism infobox. now all of a sudden it is the dharmachakra???

Besides, this is the nautical wheel. Fifty years back, I worked in my father's letterpress print-shop in Sri Lanka (Ceylon). We printed a lot of pamphlets for BPS then edited by Nyanaponika_Thera. We had graphics called blocks that were lead plates in relief of graphics mounted on wood. Whenever we had to show the Dharma Chakra, we used the Nautical Wheel block that had eight spokes. I remember this discussion. What was important was the EIGHT spokes symbolizing Noble_Eightfold_Path the sage reassured us. The actual Dharma Chakra is a plain CART WHEEL. It also symbolizes the rise and fall of everything as the wheel of time turns. In my humble opinion, we should change this symbol to a SIMPLE cart wheel with eight or more spokes. That is what Ashoka used.

the dharmachakra was made by the indian emperor ashoka, yes it is true that he made the symbol as a buddhist symbol but still i dont know why someone is removing the fact that it is an indian buddhist symbol.

japan uses the swastika and other countries use the image of buddha as buddhist symbols. the infobox needs to be changed back immediately to the picture of the sitting buddha. the image of the dharmachakra is wrongly used. HannibalLecter5 (talk) 04:58, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

The dharmacakra is the international symbol of Buddhism. Mitsube (talk) 07:06, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

the sitting buddha was an international symbol for buddhism long before the dharmachakra. i did not say that the dharmachakra symbol is not related to buddhism but for some reason you dont want to say that symbol was used by the buddhist INDIAN king ashoka. i am not sure why you dont want to mention this fact. the symbol was first used in indian buddhism by the indian emperor ashoka.HannibalLecter5 (talk) 11:32, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

The Buddha was also Indian, did you know that? Mitsube (talk) 19:17, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

mitsube please give proper reasons before removing something. i would also like to thank you for providing the references, i have copied and saved the intro along with the references. your references itself prove my point. please take the time and read your references.

i have never said that the dharmachakra is not a buddhist symbol. i have only mentioned facts that it was FIRST used in indian buddhism. LATER it was adopted by other buddhist countries. please explaim to me why you have a problem in admitting that this symbol was first used in INDIAN buddhism.

your references itself clearly state that the symbol was used by the INDIAN buddhist emperor ashoka. i do not see any problems with the intro now, it clearly states that the dharmachakra is a buddhist symbol BUT also mentions that it was made by ashoka for use in INDIAN buddhism and was later adopted by other buddhist countries. there should be no problems with the intro now.

you yourself have provided the references to back the statements.

so please do not remove facts. HannibalLecter5 (talk) 03:15, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Of course I have no problem with the fact that it was first used in India. It is obvious that it came from India. Buddhism itself developed primarily in India and this is common knowledge. Ashoka did not invent the symbol, you are wrong there. Mitsube (talk) 07:37, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

please do proper research. can you not see the name?

the name is dharma chakra, it was made by ashoka. why else would it be called "dharma chakra"

dude i am getting tired of discussing this. i made the proper changes to the article and everyone agrees that the symbol was made and used FIRST in india, obviously because buddhism started in india and existed in india for a long time before the other surrounding countries gradually adopted buddhism.

i have alread said a thousand times that the symbol is a BUDDHIST symbol but it was made by the buddhist indian king ashoka that is also a fact.

you should not have any problems with the edit. i dont know why you are trying to remove facts. i feel that you are a biased person who is trying to take away credit from india. HannibalLecter5 (talk) 01:34, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Ashoka did not invent it. In fact the Buddha's very first sermon is called the Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta. Mitsube (talk) 04:35, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Article restore[edit]

I have attempted to revert the multiple changes made by . Not sure whether everything is in place now. Please, somebody double check it. Gantuya eng (talk) 01:27, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

soccer is fun — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:37, 17 September 2013 (UTC)


This would be one bumpy chariot, wouldn't it? Are you sure it's not a ship's wheel? It sure looks like one. (talk) 14:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)


Please provide proper references when posting artiles. The chakra a symbol of dharma is first referenced in the Vedas, Upanishads, and Bhagvad Gita. The symbol predates Budhism but is references in Budhism as Sidharth was Hindu and so much of Hindu concepts seed Budhism. Please do not turn this into an ego match of religions, let us not forget the intent of the message. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rkrazdan (talkcontribs) 13:21, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Hindu origins[edit]

The dharmachakra appears to be one of the oldest symbols of Buddhism. When Buddhism emerged, around 500 BCE, there was no Hinduism (Geoffrey Samuel, The Origins of Yoga and Tantra, 2010). To state that the dharmachakra originated in Hinduism is therefor anachronistic. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:55, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

"Buddhism" as "buddhism" during 500 BCE? Bladesmulti (talk) 06:19, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
"During"? No, around. But that's not what you mean, so please explain and enlighten my mind. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:36, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
There were no rigid religions like we have today in those days, people were identified by who they followed/admired. It usually happened after a few centuries A.D. that people made their own identities, and later after british, we know them as "hinduism", "buddhism", etc. "Dharma cakra" (dharma-chakra). It is a Buddhist emblem of Hindu origin."[1](bottom of the page). Bladesmulti (talk) 09:41, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
You've read my explanations about the emnergence of Hinduism several times now; you can also deduce that this source simply is wrong. Which is also clear from the Indo-European origins of the Wheel-symbolism; this does definitaly pre-date Hinduism. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:47, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
"Neo-hinduism" is a WP:fringe theory of dubious validity and recent manufacture. Please do not impose the work of 1 or 2 outsiders attempting to rewrite the history of hinduism. As bladesmulti noted, there was no rigidity of the modern type surrounding the various schools of dharma or dharmic religions as we would say today. The vedas are the fountainhead of the hindu tradition and numerous hindu figures that antedate ashoka in the puranic chronologies were referred to as "Chakravartins" or wheel-turners of the dharmachakra. Attempting to claim it was an "indo-european" symbol is as ridiculous as hitler's claiming of the swastika (not a violation of Godwin's law btw since all sides recognize the nazi appropriation of a hindu/buddhist symbol for europeans). You source has also not gone unchallenged and is far from the established view of hinduism's chronology and antiquity.
As you noted elsewhere, we must deal with facts not nationalism or assorted "centrism's". There is a clear factual basis for asserting the hindu origin of the dharmachakra, and WP:RS citations provided. That it is also a buddhist symbol does not eliminate its hindu nature--certainly not on "anachronistic" grounds. In any event, hope we can reach a mutual understanding that preserves the NPOV aim of wikipedia. Devanampriya (talk) 11:51, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
What we today call Hinduism emerged around the beginningof the Common Era; see Samuel, Geoffrey (2010), The Origins of Yoga and Tantra. Indic Religions to the Thirteenth Century, Cambridge University Press  and Hiltebeitel, Alf (2002), Hinduism. In: Joseph Kitagawa, "The Religious Traditions of Asia: Religion, History, and Culture", Routledge . Calling this "the work of 1 or 2 outsiders attempting to rewrite the history of hinduism" shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the history of Hinduism, and the scholarly mainstream understanding of its history. Using one source, which makes an anachronistic use of the term Hinduism, does not "prove" your point of view. The fact that you mention this in the lead, and don't explain it in the article, is a form of POV-pushing. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:02, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Again, you keep citing Samuel, whose very recent work is vehemently contested. You shouldn't be casting aspersions on other people's knowledge of the history and tradition of hinduism, when yours is clearly very limited. Neo-hinduism is a fringe theory that doesn't have wide currency whatsoever--let alone predominance. It is of recent manufacture, see Malhotra's work, Indra's Net, which points out the flaws with this theory. Even if one doesn't accept Malhotra's view, it establishes how this debate and "chronology" is far from decided or in your favor. I have provided a citation that clearly asserts dharmachakra was hindu in origin--and it is a work by Non-hindus to boot. Your own exceedingly flawed chronology which you keep pov-pushing is not accepted on the hinduism article itself (where multiple sources support the view of hinduism as the "world's oldest religion", thereby ante-dating buddhism, which very clearly draws from hinduism itself).
If you have a problem with the hinduism chronology, contest it on the main article on hinduism first. Then you can bring your revisionist wp:fringe views and assert your theory of anachronism. Until then, the reliable source I provided should remain.Devanampriya (talk) 12:26, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Reply by JJ:

  • Show the criticisms of Samuel; also for Hiltebeitel
  • What does neo-Hinduism got to do with this topic?
  • Malhotra is not WP:RS
  • You "reliable source" is a footnote without further references; it contradicts the scholarly chronology of the emergence of Hinduism
  • This chronology is not accepted by people like you; it is the mainstream scholarly view on the history of Hinduism
  • The "multiple sources" which call Hinduism the oldest religion are decontextaulized quotes, and not in accord with this scholarly concencus
  • Buddhism emerged around 500 BCE; the Hindu-synthesis around the beginning of the CE (Hiltebeitel, Samuel).

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:09, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

No, it doesn't contradict the scholarly chronology, you do. Malhotra isn't used for reliance on the dharmachakra article--but to demonstrate the criticism of the neo-hinduism wp: fringe you're relying on. The wikipedia article on hinduism is the place to discuss your issues with chronology, not here--and it clearly contradicts your and your invented "mainstream". Begin your critique of chronology there and start a full discussion on talk. When that debate is completed, then you can import it to less popular articles like this one. Otherwise, all this does is create a thousand mini-debates on the same issue, instead of one large one which will then disperse the result. This is a far more efficient process than what you are doing here, by piecemeal disputing the chronology.
Again, the neo-hinduism concept is a recent idea and wp:fringe. Dharma as a concept is clearly delineated in the vedas and the upanishads, both are hindu texts that antedate buddhism. You also conveniently ignored my point about hindu chakravartins antedating ashoka in the king lists. So it's your view that is anachronistic, not mine. Hash it out on the appropriate page/talk page, then you can disseminate to your heart's content. Devanampriya (talk) 13:36, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Indo-european origins don't pre-date any Hinduism's element. Because there's no literature from European origin which pre-dates literature of Indians. Also it would be really incorrect to use the "Indo-european" as argument. Because this wheel has been used since the Harrappan civilization(2600 BCE), as explained here: [2]. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:46, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Anyways, I have made it better than before now. Don't keep it "Origin", keep it "history", hope there will be no more arguments now. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:58, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
@Bladesmulti, I appreciate your good intentions, but this edit only creates confusion, to my opinion. It may be correct in the literal use of its references, but its unclear what it means. Also, the quote you give is already used in {{refn|group=note|name="Grunwedel"}}; you could have copied that one. And why did youremove the other info? Regarding "Indo-european origins don't pre-date any Hinduism's element", get real. Reading suggestion: David W. Anthony (2010), The Horse, The Wheel and Language
@Devanampriya, the chronology of Hinduism has been thoroughly dicussed at the Talk page of Hinduism. This far, there is a concencus that my sources are correct. The Vedas and Upanishads are Vedic texts, which are still being referred in Hinduism. The term "chakravartins" predates Buddhism; to call those kings in Ashoka's list is also anachronistic.
@Both: maybe we should leave the topic for today, and take a break?
Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:10, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Wasn't aware of source. The argument about origins will never end, the Indus valley civlization has the oldest known traces of this sign, since it was used by the community as whole, it was pre-shaped or re-innovated by King Ashoka. That's the whole story. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:15, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
@JJ. I just saw your response here. Yes, I have seen the hinduism talk page and the article itself. This is ancillary to our debate, so I'm just responding on the basis of pure intellectual discussion, because you seem to be a sincere student of the Buddha, I feel I should make this clarification. The Vedas and Upanishads are central to hinduism--not distinct from it. The recent western tendency to deconstruct and separate the two is without merit. The western academy has not taken the time--or simply refuses to the understand the tradition on the basis of native sources, and does piecemeal study rather than a systemic one. I say this as someone who actually appreciates the european enlightenment very much(particularly Spinoza)--but even figures such as Leibniz severely criticized the tendency towards induction (associated with Bacon) rather than deduction in the promulgation of theories.
The Vedas and Upanishads are themselves conjoined, because the Upanishads merely expound the philosophy of the Vedas (which deal primarily with ritual). As has been said previously--vedic hinduism's tradition is primarily oral (difficult for most to accept given the breadth of scripture, but true). Thus, dates of written composition do not necessarily align with actual antiquity. Without properly reviewing traditional hindu scholarship, one cannot understand this. That is the crux of the critique against Samuel, et al. There is a reason why the article consensus on the Hinduism article included the vedas as part of the "hinduism" article--for the simple reason that it is central to it. The hindu tradition has undeniably gone through many changes, but that doesn't mean these are two distinct religions (periods perhaps, but not religions). This deepak chopra notion of "popular hinduism" vs "vedic religion" is false (hence the malhotra-samuel et al debate about integral unity and homogeneity). Even Christianity itself had various heresies like Arianism (and still has dogmatic distinctions and evolutions--it doesn't make protestants & catholics any less christian than the greek orthodox).
In any event, I just wanted to mention that fact, and dispute the notion that the article starts the clock with this artificial"hindu synthesis" notion, when it clearly points out the antiquity of the hindu tradition and commences with the Vedas (which are an integral part of hinduism). I understand that is your viewpoint, and am not intending for my comments to be personal. I am merely explaining the logical basis for my disagreement to it. Even AIT has come apart as a theory--with major western scholars such as witzel retreating to a "migration" position from the previous "invasion". This field of study is still very much undergoing flux--and I imagine genetics will continue to facilitate an ultimate determination of autochthonous vs. exogenous. Given where the mainstream western academy is today ( I am not claiming the indian academe to be any better--quite the opposite actually--but for different reasons), I don't see a point to pushing the autochthonous view at present--but I do believe the scholarship will ultimately catch up to this. Anyhow, just wanted to drop my two cents. We won't reach alignment, but just thought I should mention this. Take care.Devanampriya (talk) 08:12, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Proposal for History-section[edit]

Before we all three get blocked for the 3rr-rule, I'd would like to propose to re-insert my version of the Hindu-origins:

"According to Storl, the Dharmachakra is an ancient Indo-European symbol.[1] In northern Europe it was depicted in the spinning wheel on which the three goddesses of faith, the Norns, spun out the destinies of all beings.(Storl 2011 p.56) According to Xiaojing Yan, the dharmachakra is of Hindu origin.(Yan 2009 p.386)"~

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:10, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

By the way, how would the Buddha have felt about our grumbling? Kitchen-duty and an extra round of meditation for the three of us, I'm afraid. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:13, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for starting this new section to head off administrative wrangling. This is the optimal way to resolve our differences.
Regarding substance, I must agree with Bladesmulti's point about significant associated literature being a requirement before one can claim it as an "indo-european" symbol. So I don't think this is a reliable view we can incorporate into the article.
However, given western symbology's predominant association of the dharmachakra with buddhism, I am fine with your asserting this as "part of a series on Buddhism" on the article page. Also, though I myself would prefer the original "Origin" heading, I'll accept the new proposal for "History" instead, just to keep things going. As a further compromise, I am willing to accept your phrasing of the hindu origin text (despite the minimizing implications). This is probably the most expedient and still accurate way to resolve this dispute. I am sure we all have better things to do with our time.
Regarding the Shakya-muni, while I do hope our collective attempt at polite collegiality holds, I believe the noble Tathagatha would emphasize the importance of "Right Speech", or specifically the truth in this case (or npov according to the wiki-muni), as our primary guidepoint through this impasse. Satyam bruyat as we hindus would say ;). I do appreciate your efforts to diffuse the tension and believe you too are look for the most accurate recounting of the facts. Hopefully we will find alignment. Best, Devanampriya (talk) 16:50, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Hindus don't certainly claim this symbol, it has been attributed already, we don't have to dig the origins too much, or else we will need to add the claimed origin which is Indo-european, then if it is attributed, it will become POV pushing, because there's someone who will come up with anything like "no, buddhists made this symbol this symbol has its own meaning, its not just a wheel" So i disagreed with such version. The last edit by Joshua Jonathan was better, If any section that needs to be edit is "Other uses", which is now "Beyond Buddhism", the Jainism line is misleading, since it has no sources, I am yet trying to confirm if the source that I got for Jainism is reliable or not. If anyone is going to make change, kindly discuss, we should not be edit warring like joshua added already. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:47, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
From Chakra:
"The word derives from Proto-Indo-European *kʷekʷlos, and its cognates include Greek kuklos, Lithuanian kaklas, Tocharian B kokale and English "wheel," as well as "circle."(Mallory, J.P. (1997). Encyclopedia of Indo-European Culture. p 640 London: Fitzroy Dearborn Publishers. ISBN 978-1-884964-98-5.)"(also in Anthony, The Horse the Wheel etc. p.33)
Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:39, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
All proto-indian-european languages derives from each other, although Sanskrit is agreed by most to be oldest, and even Telugu(which is not indo-euro). The current languages that we use have some recent changes too. Bladesmulti (talk) 20:06, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I've re-inserted the two pieces of info, with attribution, and expanded the info from Beer. I hope we can all three agree on these changes. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:17, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I can, but some confusion remains. You think Storl's claim about Indo-european origin pre-dates Indus civilization? You should research about it. If it doesn't, then the Indus civilization's reference should be first sentence. Bladesmulti (talk) 20:20, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Of course ot does. According to Anthony (The Horse etc) wheels were invented by the proto-Indo-Europeans between 4000 and 3500 BCE. (p.63). That's a thousand years before the IVC, and a two-thousand years before the Indo-European migrations into India. Which, by the way, raises the point that we (you, me, Devanampriya) actually do not have exact information. Our scattered quotes connect the dharmachakra with the Indo-Europeans, the IVC, and Hinduism. Maybe it's both: IE and IVC. Anyway, the name is clearly Sanskrit, and therefor IE/Vedic. Which makes sense; after all, Buddhism also emerged in a Vedic milieu, just like Brahmanism. Which leads me to another by the way: the more I read about it, the more I think that Brahmanism and Buddhism were not two totally distinct traditions, nor was their spread to southern India; it might be more realistic to speak about the Brahmanic-Shramanic cultural complex, or Ganges cultural complex, which spread to the rest of India in the course of history. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:11, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Guess we are done with this now. Bladesmulti (talk) 05:12, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
One more comment from my side: the association of dharmachakra with chakravartin reminds me of the position of Buddhism at the royal courts until the eight century. Buddhism had a central position there. Inden:
"before the eighth century, the Buddha was accorded the position of universal deity and ceremonies by which a king attained to imperial status were elaborate donative ceremonies entailing gifts to Buddhist monks and the installation of a symbolic Buddha in a stupa....This pattern changed in the eighth century. The Buddha was replaced as the supreme, imperial deity by one of the Hindu gods (except under the Palas of eastern India, the Buddha's homeland)...Previously the Buddha had been accorded imperial-style worship (puja). Now as one of the Hindu gods replaced the Buddha at the imperial centre and pinnacle of the cosmo-political system, the image or symbol of the Hindu god comes to be housed in a monumental temple and given increasingly elaborate imperial-style puja worship." (Ronald Inden (1998), Ritual, Authority, And Cycle Time in Hindu Kingship p.67. In: JF Richards (ed.), Kingship and Authority in South Asia)
So, the image of world-renouncer has another side, closely related to state-power. That's interesting, isn't it? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:50, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
There were many followers of Buddha, but especially before 11th century, there was higher prominence of Buddhism in India. Although China wasn't really invaded as badly, but since communism its almost impossible to find such legends, otherwise we would had referred to China some more. People usually forget that Buddhism was most populated religion in 1951, by some sources(2nd was hindu prob). Speaks enough. Bladesmulti (talk) 06:04, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
really? I didn't know that. Buddhism is resurging though in China - under state-supervision... And it's remakably popular in western "modern spirituality", although without all the philosophy, empahisizing meditation instead. After all, Indian Yoga is conquering the world! But serious, it's interesting that there is this "warrior-side" to Buddhism and Yoga and the like. Actually, I like that; facing the suffering one meets in life without wavering, like a warrior, gives quite another feeling than the archetype of the friendly hippie. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:12, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Improvements were made after the end of Cultural Revolution/during the reign of Deng Xiaoping, but after that I couldn't confirm. Most Buddhist institutions are within the confines of the state, in China. But dictatorship is always bad. And obviously, buddhism has some great theories and philosophies, it suggest more than "God did this", or "if you don't believe this you will be in hell", Cheers. Bladesmulti (talk) 06:19, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
I disagree that the previous version edit before our discussion was the best--and also that we shouldn't do any digging. The whole point is to dig (albeit through Reliable secondary sources), no matter how uncomfortable the finding. The Indo-European attribution of the dharmachakra is very questionable--as bladesmulti pointed out, there is no associated literature. I wish there hadn't been a rush to consensus before I had a chance to respond to new suggestions(unfortunately, I do have other obligations, so I regret my absence these past few hours).
However, the indo-european attribution is very open to question, since the dharma chakra is distinctly associated with the hindu/buddhist concept of dharma. Storl's discussion associates it with three goddesses of faith. Merely the symbol of the wheel isn't what makes it the dharmachakra. It is the idea of dharma associated with it. The lunar dynast Bharata is referred to as one of hinduism's "chakravartins". The wheel turner is significant as the turner of dharma, not merely the turner of a random wheel. As such, I would insist that we not prioritize the indo-european theory in the history--we can place it in a separate paragraph within the same section. There is clear associated literature backing up the hindu origin--especially since dharma itself is central to hinduism.
I will wait for a response for at least 24 hours before making any changes. I don't mean to be a stick in the wheel (bad pun, I know), but I believe this is important enough to delay finalization of our consensus (we have come very far--so I hope we can hang together just a bit longer). In sum, I will (reluctantly) accept the suggestions with the following change: de-prioritization of the "indo-european theory". I frankly don't even think it belongs in the article, but if it must be mentioned, it should be mentioned as merely an alternate view. The facts we know based on secondary sources, are that it is a buddhist symbol, from India (and different versions actually have been used by hindu chakravartins) and hindu origin is attributed and backed up by associated literature.
I certainly empathize with the desire for chronological order, but I must insist that we prioritize the reliability of the theory. Thank you very much for your understanding. Best, Devanampriya (talk) 07:39, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I think that you're right that the dharma-chakra is not specifically Indo-European, but Vedic. That the wheel-symbolism has Indo-European origins is clear, though, I think. But then I'll have to come back once more to the supposed Hindu-origins: I think you're confusing "Hindu" with "Vedic", one of the contributants to Hinduism. The fact that Vedic terms and ideas form part of Hinduism, does not mean that the Vedic religion can be equated with Hinduism. Just like the fact that the "Old Testament" is part of Christianity, does not mean that Christians have the same religion as 6th century BCE Jews. To give one quote, from Nath (2001), From 'Brahmanism' to 'Hinduism': Negtiating the Myth of the Great Tradition:

"The most remarkable development in the field of religion during Gupta/post-Gupta times was the rise of 'Hinduism', which like a colossus striding across the religious firmament soon came to overshadow all other existent religions. Certain features which distinguished it from its Vedic Smarta roots were its ever widening horizon and popular base, its theological and sectarian pluralism, its Tantric veneer and an extraordinary thrust on devotion or bhakti.
Whereas Brahmanism had represented more or less a single religious strand drawing mainly upon Vedic ideology and throughout manifesting an elitist outlook Puranic Hinduism proved to be a multiplex belief-system which grew and expanded as it absorbed and synthesized polaristic religious ideas and cultic traditions. So that quite in contrast to Brahmanism, Puranic Hinduism through its gargantuan powers of assimilation and synthesis was able to bring within its vortex all possible classes and segments of society, literate as well as preliterate.
The transition from 'Brahmanism' to 'Hinduism' was neither sudden nor abrupt nor was it a complete breaking away from the past tradition. It was more the outcome of a slow and gradual process of evolution and growth, reflecting a remarkable continuity along with significant shift in ideological thrust and approach. What however, is really noteworthy is the precise time of its efforescence. Puranic Hinduism developed at a time when society was in the throes of a changinge conomic and political order.T he periodr epresenteda watershed in Indian history, when a flourishing market economy was giving way to a closed landed economic order; when foreign and indigenous tribal groups had begun staking their claims to political power, leading to its fragmentation and the eventual rise of a feudal order."

So, if we skip the Norns, I think we also have to skip the Hindu origins. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:37, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I've posted a request for third opinions at Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics#Dharmachakra. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:59, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
JJ, thank you very much for your prompt response. To begin, I think rather than us mutually attempting to correct eachother about hindu vs vedic--let's accept the fact that there is a difference of opinion based on divergent scholarship (certainly not unanimous or even preponderant). Indian tradition does not separate orthodox hinduism from the vedas (there are nastika traditions within hinduism which reject the vedas, but 6 orthodox schools that don't). The view of Samuel et al of a "hindu synthesis" being a starting point may now be fashionable in the western academy, but is certainly not accepted among the traditional hindu scholarship. In fact, Malhotra's book on the neo-vedanta page highlights why this is problematic and in fact flat wrong. So I am not confusing the two--the distinction itself is false--but as I stated above--that is another matter. And for the sake of our continued polite discourse, I will side-step it here.
Also, brahmanism may be the archaic terminology in the west, but it is akin to the term "papism" for catholicism. As I noted in the preceding section, the Upanishads and dharmasutras expound the philosophy of the vedas--rather than evolutions, they are extensions. Western scholarship may refuse to accept this (since that is what is priortized on wikipedia, I have not challenged the consensus on the article regarding the term), but since you have interest in dharma at a personal level, I feel I must make this clarification. Even caste is the wrong word (it is portuguese not sanskrit). Varnashramadharma is the correct term--meaning all the four varnas (or estates, if you will) have a distinct duty to society, subject ultimately to sanatana dharma. This means dharma depends on class duty and stage in life. Yes, the brahmin caste had certain privileges--but they also had obligations (i.e. vows of poverty) and were subject to the raja or chakravartin. Thus, the notion that it was a religion of brahmins is a very archaic, colonial view, since the other three classes were part of the tradition as well with varying degrees of involvement. Brahmins being the scholarly class--naturally had the preponderant scholarship, but there are a number of religious figures from the kshatriya class like Janaka (and arguably Vishwamitra who rose from the kshatriya class to the brahmin class). Priestly power was placed above political/military power to restrain warfare and check tyranny. I am not denying that there were ever abuses within the system--but what system has been free of abuse? Certainly the divine right of kings and european feudalism had its share.
Similarly the analog is not old testament vs christianity, but the early church, arianism, orthodox christianity, catholicism, and protestantism. All are forms of christianity (heresy or not in the church's eyes) despite their occasional dissonance, difference, even contradiction. The various rituals and chantings of the veda have passed on from the historical vedic period to modern times unchanged (due to the oral tradition). The proper experts therefore are not the academy, but the trained brahmin priests and monks following the traditional lifestyle. But sans western approved sources, these will not be accepted on wikipedia--which is why I haven't corrected this glaring misconception on the article. I am not here to convince, just explain why you and Samuel et al are incorrect in thinking the actual practitioners, students, and teachers of the religion are confused, when it is actually the reverse.
Regarding the heart of the matter, yes, as much as I trenchantly disagree with the Indo-European attribution, we are far too close to a fruitful and polite consensus for me to play spoiler (I do wish to "part as friends" as Gandhi would say). You have provided a source for your assertion, in the spirit of cooperation I will accept it, but let's place this beneath the others (i.e. Beer, Yan, etc). The hindu reference is certainly not an analog, since it is directly related to the tradition and literature. I think I have been very reasonable in accepting alternate viewpoints, and have made a number of compromises. I believe this is a very fair request on my part. In the interest of ending this issue, I would hope you can meet me at this halfway point. Best, Devanampriya (talk) 12:00, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

The word "Hindu" has multiple meanings. The constitution of India uses the word "Hindu" to mean collectively the followers of Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism and Sikhism. The word "Hindu" is also sometimes used synonymously with the word "Indian". This seems to be the case in the book "Hidden Treasures" where it is used in same essence everywhere else. I would be in favor of removing the term "Hindu origin". We could replace it with "Indian origin". Robert beer also writes that it is an "Indian Symbol". --Rahul (talk) 14:00, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Use "Hinduism" instead then. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:01, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Sure, if you have the sources. But the word "Hindu" is clearly confusing in this case. --Rahul (talk) 14:07, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
It's not confusing, read Hindu, it is specific term for the followers of Hinduism, won't be changing thousands of other articles now for opposing something that is already obvious. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:10, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Rahul, the sources are there. The word hindu is very clearly used on wikipedia whatever your confusion may be, but the author was clear in distinguishing Buddhist from Hindu. Please reread. Also, it's rather odd that you are in favor of removing "hindu" but no quibbles with the left-field view of "indo-european" origin (with no accompanying literature), which is seriously defective. There are the traditional hindu chakravartins pre-dating ashoka in the king lists such as Bharata of the lunar dynasty--no such links for the indo-european view. Lastly, I have been a proponent of including both the Jain and Hindu associations in the text. You do realize that if the hindu associations are removed, the Jain will be as well. Food for thought.Devanampriya (talk) 14:19, 22 January 2014 (UTC)


Devanampriya, thanks for your extensive reply. I think you've made the matter quite clear: western and Indian views diverge; since Wikipedia asks for scholarly sources, the Indian views will be neglected - and this is painfull for the Indian tradition.

As for the order of info in the history-section: I'm fine with your proposed order, but still object to the Hindu-origins. But I also feel uncomfortable now about the Storl-info; I think you're right he's incorrect (too). Also, your comment is just that: a comment. So, best would be to remove both, and merge the etymology and history section. Or move your comment to a note (and expand it, since you've got a valid point), but/and also add a note to Yan. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:44, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

@JJ, Thanks for your prompt response. I believe we've come along way, and are now being stalled by changes of heart rather than our triple-editor effort to focus on logic, facts, and reliable sources. My comment is not merely a comment. I have propounded facts, which you have avoided (i.e. hindu chakravartins, etc). As bladesmulti pointed out, there is no accompanying literature with the indo-european storl view--which is clearly a fringe view with no supporting basis (nordic goddesses???). There is for hinduism (a preponderance of dharma literature and association with the chakra, and chakravartins, giving a clear basis for Yan's assertion).
Also, during my brief absence you had previously agreed to both IE and Hindu, now you are suddenly backing out, making me wonder whether the indo-european theory was merely a bargaining chip rather than a good faith inclusion (it was your addition after all). I still stand by the hindu origin quote. If you wish to delete storl--by all means, go ahead. I accepted it in the interest of collegiality--with the proviso of de-prioritization in the order--an eminently fair compromise, it's not much to ask the same of the other side.
As such, I move that the three of us (I believe our new entrant Rahul has an prior dispute with Bladesmulti elsewhere coloring his involvement here) decide on keeping this status quo. It's upto JJ whether storl stays, but I can compromise no further with respect to hindu origin--particularly given the order I've proposed. Hope we can all be reasonable and accept this to move on from this tedious matter. Thank you. Devanampriya (talk) 15:08, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
I just wanted to add that, despite our antipodal views, I would like us to part as friends. So in this spirit of collegiality I propose the following in tandem with my immediately preceding motion (prev comment):
Responding specifically to JJ's "note suggestion", I don't believe Yan's assertion merits a qualifying note (though a supporting note is fine by me). To avoid sticking points however and to end this damned debate which has clearly gone on longer than the issue merits (we're down to a mere sentence now, boys), I will leave it up to JJ as to whether my recent "note" aka minimizing sentence to Storl remains in the article. If deleting my Storl/IE qualifying sentence while keeping everything else in the status quo the same gives us consensus, great, we can all go our merry ways. Hope this works, gents. Sincerely, Devanampriya (talk) 15:59, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
I've removed Storl; your argument convinced me :) Nevertheless, my point about "Hindu origins" still stands. See WP:CONTEXTMATTERS: "The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content." It's clear that this one source is not reliable for the statement being made, as it gives this "info" in a note on an unrelated subject, without further reference, and is flat-out contradicted by reliable sources on the history of Hinduism. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:51, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Is there any other reliable source which specifically terms this symbol as of "Hindu origin"? --Rahul (talk) 16:56, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

No. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:59, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
WP:RSN or WP:FTN might help, in that case. --Rahul (talk) 17:05, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
There are many, named about 2-3 before myself. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:12, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
@JJ, Storl was your addition, not ours, so it was your prerogative/obligation to remove it. Comparing it to the "hindu origin" theory is false equivalency. Storl's was clearly a fringe theory. Yan's is not (you failed to properly respond to the accompanying literature/chakravartin points).
Remember, this entire debate was focused on hindu origin and began with it. There was a standing consensus between me and bladesmulti before you reviewed my contrib history and decided to remove it because it didn't suit your views as a practicing buddhist and because you didn't like my neo-vedanta edit (you eventually conceded there). It is not news that there are many western practitioners of yoga and buddhism who don't wish to associate them with hinduism due to their own dislike for the latter(fine by me, we all have our views)--but it doesn't mean they are right.
You have not provided a single source contradicting Yan, nor have you properly explained how she is not reliable. The onus is on you to demonstrate this, not to posit fringe theories like storl, then remove them as a bargaining tactic to remove a reliable source like Yan. Rahul clearly has a preceding bone to pick with bladesmulti, which explains his sudden presence despite his unfamiliarity with the sources. So the discussion is between the original three of us. I had given you a number of different options, even changed the order of precedence to reach a consensus, and yet you don't wish to reciprocate. Is that fair? I think you should respond to the accompanying literature/hindu chakravartin points before further holding back resolution and running out the clock. We've both been cooperative and have made a number of changes to accommodate your views, but it does take two hands to clap. Best, Devanampriya (talk) 17:56, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
I should add--with all due politeness--that the your WP: Contextmatters seems more like WP: IDONTLIKEIT. Your accusation that Yan "is flat-out contradicted by reliable sources on the history of Hinduism" is prima facie false. It's clear even from the hinduism article that the preponderant view is that hinduism is oldest religion and certainly older than buddhism. This may offend you as a western convert to buddhism, but it doesn't mean that Yan is flat out contradicted by reliable sources--when on the hinduism article the preponderance is against you and your preferred view. Hinduism is viewed as older than buddhism, making your individual opposition original research. Either you provide a secondary source contradicting her origin assertion, or the issue is moot. I'm sorry, but this is not very collegial/collaborative on your part to suddenly take us back to square one. Devanampriya (talk) 18:10, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I'm sorry to note again that you simply don't get the essential point: there was no "Hinduism" at 500 BCE; neither were there "Hindu chakravartins". You simply ignore the relevant sources. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:32, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't have problem with either your version or other user. I had thought that it will be solved quick but seems endless already. Bladesmulti (talk) 18:36, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
I get it--and I get that you're wrong, as several reliable sources have contradicted and demonstrated your assertion of hinduism's age is not the predominating view let alone the unanimous one. The hinduism article alone retained that consensus. You have been giving several reliable sources establishing that hinduism dates back not only to 500BCE but 1500BCE, predating buddhism (Buddha was himself a hindu kshatriya prince). It's clear you don't get that, and have been dragging this issue on, even apparently providing bad faith edits (storl) to negotiate out the hindu origin reference.
Furthermore, you again failed to address the point of accompanying literature dharma. And there were hindu chakravartins, you have been given sources for this, yet you persist in denying it and Yan. That's WP: Original Research. I'm sorry, you can't use original research as a basis to drag on this dispute. Devanampriya (talk) 18:44, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Since it is clear that Devanampriya doesn't get the point, I've added a nuance and a contextualization. I also have to note that you're removed the {{dubious}}-tag twice now, without even mentioning this in the edit-summary. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:48, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Recent change, word itself is mentioned 3 times now. The current history section seems to be enough explanatory. If there are no agreement, the issue can be further brought to Noticeboard. Bladesmulti (talk) 18:49, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Never said that the sources by Devanapriya are unreliable, but neither the sources from Joshua seems to be. If you can't agree, you should not add, simple as that. There has been no resolution yet, for enforcing the edit, on this page. Bladesmulti (talk) 19:00, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
The word is mentioned 3 times, but that is not justification for removing the text about hindu origin. @JJ, Please do not make unilateral reverts. Since word frequency was an issue I replaced "vishnu hindu god" with vishnu "vedic" god. But I restored the sourced Yan text that was unilaterally deleted without consultation or explanation. Since there is no agreement, then DRN is the next step. I would like to reiterate that Original Research is not a basis for attacking sourced content. It is obvious that JJ doesn't understand this and is unwilling to compromise on anything. A pity. Devanampriya (talk) 19:01, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── There are evidences that worship of Vishnu existing pre-vedic times, thus he's not limited with vedic period only. Bladesmulti (talk) 01:04, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh I agree. But the quote that JJ added specifically stated "Vedic" (and was JJ's specific wording), and I am trying to compromise since you both thought hindu was too frequently mentioned. That the dharmachakra is of hindu origin is a distinct idea from Vishnu being a hindu God. Since you are his friend please advise him to stop edit-warring. Technically, edits should have stopped from when he started this section. Hindu origin text preceded his edit--so he shouldn't delete it. This is stealth edit warring by him. The only reason I didn't revert back to 0 hour is because we would lose the Indus Valley compromise text you proposed.
In addition, his view of buddhism preceding hinduism is not controlling--and is considered risible by tradional indian scholars. I have sources that cancel his out--but he is refusing to be reasonable and stealth adding nuances even though not everyone agrees to this. Everyone agreed that Storl/IE was silly (even JJ even though he added it), which is why JJ himself removed it out of chagrin. His new-fangled/minority view of buddhism preceding hinduism is not uncontested even on the hinduism article. TO be accommodating, I even kept his template. What more can be done?! Please reason with him. Devanampriya (talk) 05:01, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
You are verey well aware that your "tarditional scholars" do not count as WP:RS. The fact that some editors contest the scholarly concencus on the history of Hinduism reveils the lack of understanding of those editors, not of the scholars. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:08, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
I assume you mean "traditional"--and I haven't sourced them here. You have been given multiple WP:RS sources that were accepted on the Hinduism article and Yan is certainly not traditional either. If you have an issue with the Age sources, do what I said several days ago---tackle it on the hinduism article, not here. You have been conducting original research asserting that Yan is wrong because of your own invalid opinion of hinduism's age vs. buddhism's age. Here is yet another "non-traditional" WP:RS source specifically stating that Buddhism is an "outgrowth" of Hinduism. The weight is clearly against your imagined view of scholarship on Hinduism-Buddhism. Furthermore, you need to stop edit warring. Editors have been cooperating with you by discussing this issue, but you pulled the rug on our near-consensus on a whim, and are now proceeding to edit war again.
It appears that certain "editors", who do not have tangible knowledge of the subject matter, wish to impose original research and contested sources to WP: POV-PUSH their invalid views. This issue about age has been treated on the hinduism article. If they have a problem they should tackle it there, not here. Also, should remember WP: CIVILITY.
The only reason I didn't restore the very first version before you started reverting was because we would lose Bladesmulti's IVC stuff--otherwise, the status quo ante is the edit that should stand. Unlike me, you have shown no willingness to compromise whatsoever--not the path to consensus. I have clearly noted your premature and unilateral changes as stealth reverts in the edit summary history. Stealth edit warring is still edit warring. If you have an issue, take it to DRN, otherwise, status quo or status quo ante bellum stands. WP:IDONTWANTTOHEARIT and WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH is not an acceptable or civilized basis to destroy consensus. Devanampriya (talk) 06:31, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── "Stealth edit warring", as in twice removing {{dubious}}-tags, or changing sourced info (Vedic god - Hindu god), without mentioning this in the edit-summary?

The point is still the reliability of your single source, which is contradicted by WP:RS. Here's another quote for you:

"The establishment of Brahmanical Hinduism as a state religion can be associated above all with the Gupta dynasty in North and Central India (c. 320-c. 510 CE). I use the term 'Brahmanical Hinduism' here, because I think that if we want to use the term Hinduism at all before the nineteenth century then this is the point at which we can reasonably start using it." (Geoffrey Samuel (2010), The Origins of Yoga and Tantra, Cambridge University Press, p.195)

Regarding your "latest" source: Time Magazine, 1959. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:42, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

You said you were removing storl but didn't ask us about including your "nuance"/aka minimization of hindu origin. Then you deleted the hindu origin text completely--which predates your edit war and contravenes the purpose of discussion here and good faith. That is stealth edit warring.Further, there is a basis for removing the dubious tag that you added without asking--again. The only reason I didn't remove it a third time was so you can stop wasting everyone's time by distracting us from the core issue of hindu origin. See, look how many attempts I've made to accommodate you--yet still you continue to be difficult in order to pov-push your contested theory (Samuel et al whom you used are clearly challenged by Malhotra as seen on the "neo-vedanta" article).
"The point is still the reliability of your single source, which is contradicted by WP:RS"
No, it's not contradicted by RS--only your original research. You can't make things up. Samuel himself is contested, and those theories are not controlling as the long-standing view is that hinduism is older than buddhism. You haven't provided a source that directly deals with Yan's assertion--you only conduct original research based on a tangential source.
You have been given multiple reliable sources from both the hinduism article and the request for comment--clearly your view of hinduism's antiquity is not controlling. Further, time magazine is a reliable source per wikipedia's own definition. Also, the fact that it's dated to 1959 only proves that your "neo-hinduism"/buddhism older than hinduism theory is new and the long-standing view is that buddhism itself is an offshoot of hinduism--lending further credibility to Yan's assertion about the hindu origin of the dharmachakra (for which you've provided only your original research rather than direct RS on the dharmachakra).
Again, please discuss in good faith and stop talking past me. The Hinduism article clearly states that there's strong ground for calling Hinduism the world's oldest religion. Multiple reliable sources back that assertion up. If you have a problem with that, deal with it on that article not this one. WP:IDONTWANTTOHEARIT and WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH does not an argument make. Devanampriya (talk) 08:20, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

At RSN[edit]

At RSN, there is a discussion related to a source which has some information about Dharmachakra. All opinions welcomed. Bladesmulti (talk) 06:08, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Multiple disputes[edit]

This page has obviously got multiple issues now. The whole quotation by Inden, and acclaimed "dubious" tag. I am in favor of removal with both though. Bladesmulti (talk) 10:01, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I concur with both your concerns here.Devanampriya (talk) 10:06, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
I am in favor of removing the "hindu origin" since if we are getting no where to agreement. The indus civilization cites enough about its origin. Bladesmulti (talk) 10:17, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
I disagree. You previously thanked me for this edit and you yourself included this as part of a series on Hinduism, making your reversal curious. I understand that you and JJ are friends--that is fine, but opposition should be based on principle and reliable sources, which neither of you have provided. As you can see for Indus Valley article, the controlling scholarship does not claim IVC is Hindu--this makes it important to distinguish between the Indus Valley and hinduism (so not sure how you can say indus civ is enough). Since you added Indus Valley, you are welcome to remove it. But I did add hindu origin, which you have previously supported. If you have an WP:RS, please provide. But JJ's original research can't be a basis for change.
Since you believe we are getting nowhere, you or JJ are welcome to start a DRN. Devanampriya (talk) 10:36, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Again, "indus civilization" has been mentioned, and it's related role with Vishnu, which is probably enough for attributing to Hinduism, if you go further, you may have to attribute some more, which would be in favor of Buddhism. I think. Bladesmulti (talk) 10:41, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm afraid that's not the case, Bladesmulti. With all due respect, you can see how JJ has made an artificial distinction between Vedic and Hinduism, treating them as two diffent religions. The distinction has been treated as even more pronounced regarding hinduism and IVC (which controlling western scholarship associates with non-vedic/non-hindu dravidians). It is very important to emphasize this relationship between hinduism and the dharmachakra--particularly since even Yan states it is of Hindu origin--not Harappan/or IVC origin.
The article is already emphatically in favor of Buddhism and almost totally associates the symbol with it. So I'm not sure why you think the attribution would increase in favor of buddhism--in fact, my source does the opposite and shows its hindu origins. JJ's opposition is premised precisely on the fact that he doesn't want any hindu association with the dharmachakra--despite multiple adverse WP:RS--one of which even showed buddhism is an offshoot of hinduism.
I have already accepted his phrasing for the hindu origin sentence--this was a big compromise as it is. Where has he compromised? His reliance on his own original research to oppose my reliable source shouldn't be a basis to switch votes just to break the impasse. After all, shouldn't the priority be accuracy? Given your recent comments, my suggestion is to leave the status quo as it is. This lets JJ dispute it with his tag, but also keeps the hindu origin sourced content there. But as his friend, please advise him to also be willing to compromise. This can't be a one way street. Devanampriya (talk) 11:01, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Bladesmulti, how many times have I reverted you already? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:54, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Big zero. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:56, 23 January 2014 (UTC)


Hello all, given our impasse, I have submitted a request for Dispute Resolution here. Please refrain from any changes here or on the article and direct comments to DRN until that process has been completed. Thank you. Regards, Devanampriya (talk) 12:32, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Vedic/Indo-European origins[edit]

According to Samuel (2010), the ideal of the cakravartin, the "warrior-king", developed in the later vedic period (1000-500 BCE) in the western Ganges plain.(p.71-76) This ideal developed together with the concept of the dharmaraja, the "wisdom king".(p.72-73) Ironically, the cakravartin is more connected with the Brahmanic ideology of the Kuru Kingdom, while the dharmaraja is more connected with the central Ganges plain, were Buddhism developed.(p.73) Samuel further argues that these models may have older antecedents in Indo-Aryan or Indo-European thought:

"The warrior king model does, though, look like the kind of model of kingship associated with a mobile and originally horse-riding pastoralist population." (p.74)

John S. Strong (1989) gives further information on the cakravartin and the use of the dharmacakra as a Buddhist symbol of the cakravartin, and dates the cakravartin back to "at least the 10th century BC".(p.48)

Let me remind us here again of Samuel's comments on the use of the term "Hinduism" :

"The establishment of Brahmanical Hinduism as a state religion can be associated above all with the Gupta dynasty in North and Central India (c. 320-c. 510 CE). I use the term 'Brahmanical Hinduism' here, because I think that if we want to use the term Hinduism at all before the nineteenth century then this is the point at which we can reasonably start using it." (Samuel 2010 p.195)

Also Samuel on the discernment of "separate religions":

"To an anthropologist like myself, at least, it comes fairly naturally to argue for a wider and more inclusive understanding of religion, and to see Brahmanical Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism as variant developments from a shared basis of relationships to the problems of everyday life [...] In arguing for the fundamental commonality of the Indic religious background (a very different position, it should be added, from seeing Buddhism merely as a development from or a reaction to 'Hinduism', which is a position that by now has hopefully lost any scholarly respectability it may once have had)" (Samuel 2010 p.13)

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 22:26, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

No, we don't really need dating here about it, it will become WP:Undue, because this article is limited with buddhism, you may add hinduism, but you will have to also add that its series of Hinduism, then even Jainism(see the talk page's projects). Once the former issues are over, I will definitely look into this one. Bladesmulti (talk) 02:05, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Oh, I don't know if we have to add this info; this is about cakravartin, not dharmacakra. It gives some more background-info. But they are related, and it gives a hint. Anyway, read again what Samuel writes about 'distinct religions': according to him, they have a shared background; reducing one to the other makes no sense, according to Samuel. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:20, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Title change[edit]

"Dharmcakra" should be "Dharmachakra", "Dhamachakra" has 4 times higher search results than "Dharmcakra". Bladesmulti (talk) 10:10, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I guess you're right, but let's leave it for the moment. There's been enough going on at this page for the moment. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:09, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Spam is most likely not allowed on Wikipedia. This is not a social networking site. -- (talk) 19:34, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

The Unicode Given On This Wikipedia Page[edit]

It doesn't work. It creates an N. -- (talk) 19:26, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

And, someone put a weird thing under this section that is literally spam, linking to spam on this page, without any explanation. These "Talk" pages are not for directionless chatter, and personal conversations, that is spam. -- (talk) 19:31, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Another wheel[edit]

More ancient,

On page found, attributed to Wikimedia Commons:

Here's the wheel as shown on click-through

Note the eight spokes and ox-cart design of this wheel. Could relate to dukkha, one translation for which is hub uncentered. This representation suggests that if any of the 8 factors in the Eightfold path is shorted, the result will be a dukkha, rather than sukha (translatable as smooth movement along the road, equanimity.) The deer looking on are a traditional depiction of the deer hearing the Buddha's delivery of the first sutta at Deer Park. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ocdcntx (talkcontribs) 02:09, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Dharmachakra. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:32, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

  1. ^ Storl 2011, p. 56.