Jump to content

Talk:Chakravarti (Sanskrit term)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Chakravartin)

Proposed merge into Chakravartin

[edit]

The Chakravartin article already exists. The original Sanskrit word transliterates as that. Ref [1] Imc 16:25, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a policy concerning the preferred citation of Sanskrit words? Cakravartin is the stem form, but cakravartī is the nom. sing.; arguably, the word is better known in its Pāli form cakkavatti, or in the Thai and Sinhala derivatives thereof (there is, for instance, a perhaps spurious but nonetheless significant literature on the relationship of the "cakkavatti ideal" to the modern Thai monarchy). It does appear, though, from Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(Indic)#Naming_and_transliteration, that chakravatin is a deprecated transliteration, as is chakravarti. Is there consensus on these issues? Rājagṛha 17:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources for the term dharmic religions?

[edit]

Where are the reliable sources that use the term dharmic religions in the context of this article? Dharmic religions is a now deleted obscure neologism and should not be used throughout Wikipedia. a good alternative is Indian religions. The number of google scholar results for "Indian religions"+"Indian religion" is (45.600 + 84.200) while it is only (492+475) for "dharmic religions" +"dharmic religion". See Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_September_8. Andries 19:21, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The five hindrances

[edit]

Here, for example, Women in the Pure Land: Eshinni's View of Rebirth as Expressed in Her Letters the five hindrances are said to be the following: sorry, I have been wrong, the correct term in this context is the five obstacles. And wrong again, it is the five obstructions.

Okay, footnote 21 says: "originally referred to as "five states"; for some reason it was translated into Chinese as "five obstructions". Nagata, "Transitions in Attitudes toward Women," 280.

Quotation from pages 11 and 12 of this text:

"It was argued by early sutras, in a somewhat circular fashion, that it was impossible for women to attain any of those states:
One of the qualities of a wise person is that he knows that a female cannot become a ruler of the worlds of humans and gods.....He knows that it is not reasonable for a woman to become an arhat or truly enlightened one. He know that it is resonable for a man to become an arhat or truly enlightened one. He knows that it is not reasonable for a woman to become a Cakravartin king, Indra, Mara or a Brahma. 24"
taken from the above mentioned book of Nagata:

As you can see, the name of those early sutras are not mentioned.

Here, for example WOMEN IN ZEN BUDDHISM: Chinese Bhiksunis in the Ch'an Tradition by Heng-Ching Shih it is said:

The daughter of an official named Mu-jung was very interested in Buddhist teaching. She came to Wu-hsiang and said, "As a woman, I am not free in that I have the obstacles and The Five Hindrances. I am restricted by the female body. Now I come to you for the purpose of cutting off the source of transmigration [in the cycle of life and death]."
Wu-hsiang then said, "Since you have the aspiration [to seek liberation], you are already a great 'man'.....Non-thought is non-male; non-thought is non-female."21
As the story indicates, the woman had accepted the traditional image of women and the idea of the inferiority of the female body. To counteract this stereotyped misconception, Wu-hsiang pointed out that as soon as she had brought forth the aspiration for Enlightenment, she trancended the gender limitation. The realm of Enlightenment, which Wu-hsiang interpreted as non-thought, is neither male nor female.

Seems as if a woman had the obstacles plus The Five Hindrances.

P.S. In this text it is also said: "Women are said to have five obstacles, namely being incapable of becoming a Brahma King, `Sakra` , King `Mara` , Cakravartin or Buddha." I have inserted this quotation into the article.

Austerlitz -- 88.75.85.98 (talk) 11:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here, too, are mentioned the "five obstacles": [http://www.thebuddhadharma.com/issues/2006/spring/women_of_the_way_review.html The Lost Lineage].

Austerlitz -- 88.75.83.135 (talk) 19:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

quotation from the text above: “A foundational belief of Buddhism is that the attributes of the self are without essence.…We are taught in our first lesson as Buddhists that to grasp at something as permanent is the very source of suffering.…To treat men and women unequally is to act as though gender were permanent, eternal, with intrinsic self-identity—exactly the opposite of all other phenomena. It is to contradict the teaching.”

Austerlitz, -- 88.75.79.162 (talk) 19:37, 21 February 2008 (UTC) added[reply]

Still no quotation to be used for the article. I'll go on searching.

Austerlitz -- 88.75.83.135 (talk) 19:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This book The Power of Denial: Buddhism, Purity, and Gender (Buddhisms) in the table of contents mentions "The Five Obstacles and the Three Dependences 62".

Austerlitz -- 88.75.83.135 (talk) 19:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Source: I've found some German article referring to Majjhima-Nikaya (115,A, 1,20). I'll try to find an English text of the very spot.

Austerlitz -- 88.72.6.193 (talk) 12:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Text in English [2]
  • Text in English [3]
Austerlitz -- 88.75.79.162 (talk) 14:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • [4] The word Cakravartin is not used, it is Universal Monarch instead.
Austerlitz -- 88.75.79.162 (talk) 19:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no translation by Thanissaro Bhikkhu, [5].

Austerlitz -- 88.75.203.73 (talk) 11:37, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quotations about men and women

[edit]

I'd like to quote a longer part of the Majjhima-Nikaya:

"It is impossible that two rightfully Enlightened Ones should be born in the same world element at one and same time. It is possible that a single rightfully Enlightened One should be born in the world element at one time.It is impossible that two Universal Monarches. should be born in the same world element at one and same time. It is possible that a single Universal Monarch should be born in the world element at one time. It is impossible that a woman should be the perfect rightfully Enlightened One. It is possible that a man should be the perfect rightfully Enlightened One. It is impossible that a woman should be the Universal Monarch It is possible that a man should be the Universal Monarch.It is impossible that a woman should be the King of Gods. It is possible that a man should be the King of Gods.It is impossible that a woman should be the King of Death. It is possible that a man should be the King of Death. It is impossible that a woman should be Brahmaa. It is possible that a man should be Brahmaa."
The Majjhima-Nikaya is a Hinayana text. In Mahayana all sentient beings are seen as possessing buddha-nature which is inherent and uncorrupted from the beginning. Yet even in the Pali Canon it is mentioned that the Buddha accepted to teach and ordain women after his enlightenment. I think the article should reference that, lest someone should conclude that all Buddhism is openly misogynistic.

As far as I am informed, Buddha Shakyamuni is thought to have stated somewhere else that women can be Buddha, too. Where is it to be found?

Austerlitz -- 88.75.70.84 (talk) 11:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I also went looking for something about this when I saw it. Thanks for linking here, so I could take a quick look. I've heard that some scholars have refuted the authenticity of sutras that denigrate the place of women as being authored a couple hundred years after the time of the buddha. All sutras begin "Thus I have heard" so there is an element of hearsay in all of them. But specifically I've heard there's some scholarly discussion about whether the buddha likely made a demarkation by gender or if that was added later as the monastic situation began to evolve. But I don't know enough about that work to find relevant citations. Personally, since the Buddha began teaching specifically on the truth of non-self which includes that the skandha of form is a mere aggregate, then I can't see how philosophically there's any basis for making a gender distinction aside from the cultural situation. It's inconsistent. - Owlmonkey (talk) 20:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I guess the Buddha must be enormously angry about the situation of women in buddhist history and paradise, all of it against his will and philosophy.
Austerlitz -- 88.75.200.27 (talk) 22:51, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cakkavatti

[edit]
  • The Life of Buddha "Five days after the birth the name-giving ceremony was held to which a number of brāhmans were invited. All, except Koṇḍañña, foretold: either the child would be a great Emperor (Cakkavatti Rājā) or an Enlightened One, a Buddha. Koṇḍañña, however, said quite decisively that the boy would be a Buddha. The boy was given the name of Siddhattha, meaning one whose aim is accomplished."
Austerlitz -- 88.72.10.229 (talk) 11:35, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Raja

Austerlitz -- 88.72.10.229 (talk) 11:35, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mahapajapati Gotami "At the birth of each sister, interpreters of bodily marks prophesied that the children would be cakkavattins" In case there is any source for that, it has to be mentioned, too.

Austerlitz -- 88.75.205.173 (talk) 19:04, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[6] "Siddhattha was the son of Suddhodana. His mother was Siri Maha Maya of Koliyas, the other group of the Mongoloid people. Siddhattha was born in 623 B.C. in Lumbini Park, between Kapilavatthu and Devadaha. He was the "son in the hope" of the Sakyans. He possessed the thirty-two marks of a Superman. The astrologist foretold that if he lived the life of the House, he would become the Supreme Monarch -- the Cakravartin; but if he went forth from the life of the House into the Homeless State, he would become an Arahant, A Buddha Supreme, rolling back the veil of ignorance from the world.[3] He, thus, was the "goal in the hope" of the Sakyans. His father and people loved him and wanted him to be the Supreme Monarch. For it meant that they wanted to throw off the yoke of the Kosalans' power. Their dream might be realized in the near future." Somebody should insert the fact, that the term cakravartin has been applied on the Buddha to be around his birth.

Austerlitz -- 88.75.205.173 (talk) 19:43, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Monks, I don't envision any other single strength so hard to overcome as this: the strength of Mara. 3 And the adopting of skillful qualities is what causes this merit to increase." 4 footnote 4 4. This is the refrain repeated with each stage in the account of how human life will improve in the aftermath of the sword-interval. Here, "merit" seems to have the meaning it has in Iti 22: "Don't be afraid of acts of merit." This is another way of saying what is blissful, desirable, pleasing, endearing, charming — i.e., acts of merit."

Is there another commentary or another translation?

Austerlitz -- 88.75.93.130 (talk) 22:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Siddhartha Shakyamuni Buddha

[edit]

"On the fifth day of his son's life, the king invited five wise men to witness the naming ceremony and to suggest a good name for the prince. The wise men examined the birthmarks of the prince and concluded, "The prince will be King of Kings if he wants to rule. If he chooses a religious life then he will become the Wisest — the Buddha."

The youngest of the five wise men, Kondanna, then said, "This prince will be the Buddha and nothing else."

Then the wise men gave him the name Siddhartha meaning "wish-fulfilled" or "one who has accomplished his goal"."

I still want to insert this story. How best?

Austerlitz -- 88.75.75.119 (talk) 11:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Austerlitz -- 88.75.75.119 (talk) 12:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's great to include, but would need to be resolved with the Ashoka comment that implies it appears there. Right now Jainism and Buddhism are conflated in one section, maybe add a specific paragraph about Buddhist historical usage and mention the references to Asoka and the Buddha in contrast in some way? The content on women is suspect to me, and could be a separate paragraph. I've heard that, though don't have citations for, some scholars hold the view that things attributed to the buddha that denote women as obstructed in some way were added later by monastics and were not traceable all the way back to the time of the buddha. Wish I had a reference for that handy, because it would be nice to include in contrast. like "And scholar so-and-so believes that similar passages restricting women were added to the tritipaka centuries after the time of the buddha", etc... I have a hard time believing the Buddha really saw the sexes as ultimately different, even though culturally or relatively it may have been very restrictive for women at that time. Political corruption is my guess. - Owlmonkey (talk) 20:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 15 July 2019

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved – Still no convergence after a week relisted. (non-admin closure) Dicklyon (talk) 04:52, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Chakravarti (Sanskrit term) → Cakravartin (mythological figure) – The term is not only used in Sanskrit texts, but also in Pāli texts of Buddhism[8] and Jainism,[9] so the current name will not do. Also, the Sanskrit spelling, following the standard Monier-Williams dictionary, is cakravartin, not chakravarti.[10] Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 19:46, 15 July 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. Andrewa (talk) 01:25, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Srnec:, it isn't clear to me what you are proposing. Please expand.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 12:44, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I was proposing moving the article to the undisambiguated base name Chakravarti and overriding the redirect currently there, although I now think that JimRenge's proposal is better. Move this page to Cakravartin. Srnec (talk) 14:30, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Srnec: Thank you. I understand what you mean now.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 11:29, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Per WP:COMMONNAME we generally prefer the name that is most commonly used in independent, reliable English-language sources. Chakravarti does not appear to be commonly used in English sources. Cakravartin is used in high quality Sanskrit dictionaries (Monier Williams) and specialized dictionaries [11], [12], [13], [14], [15]. Chakravartin is also in use [16], [17], [18], [19]. I do not think we need to add (mythological figure). JimRenge (talk) 23:24, 18 July 2019 (UTC) corrected: JimRenge (talk) 15:20, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, JimRenge. Do you think we should keep the addition Sanskrit term? Some addition may be needed to prevent confusion with the article Chakravarti. That's why i propose to add mythological figure.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 12:34, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt that we need an addition in brackets. According to the statistics of pageviews, the probability of readers confusion with the article Chakravarti is not very high [20]. Btw, I have found this guideline [21] about Indic name conventions. JimRenge (talk) 21:23, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks, Jim.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 08:06, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment: It seems to me that there is much still to discuss. There should probably be either an article or a DAB at Chakravarti rather than the present redirect. Heads-ups at the talk pages of other affected articles would also be good. Andrewa (talk) 01:25, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Ap

[edit]

Tagalog 152.32.99.143 (talk) 14:03, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Chakravartin-Buddah restriction on women was proved to be false

[edit]

Part of the text in one of the Nikayas (the "possible vs impossible" text) was proven false by an american historian. The scrapped segment said "a woman cannot be a Buddha, Chakravartin or a Brahma", and it was probably inserted later in history (according to her). I can't cite the source at the moment because I lost the article, so you'll have to search it on your own. Go for it, because the evidence she presents is no mere hearsay. 2804:7F3:59C:5C36:890F:7E76:D1CD:D011 (talk) 23:22, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chakravarti_(Sanskrit_term)&oldid=1241750877"