Talk:Dharma (Buddhism)

Relation between Mongolian "nom" and Greek nomos
"In Mongolian dharma is translated as nom, which is noteworthy since it ultimately derives from the Greek word νομος (nomos) (law)."

That sentence makes no sense to me. It seems to link a Mongolian word with a European word ("nom", which could be "name" in french?) with the Greek word νομος. Although I am not a linguist, it seems obvious to me that any similarity between a Mongolian word and a European word is most likely coincidental. If there is a linguistic connection, I'd like to see it traced back to Indo-European and Sanskrit roots from both directions, preferably with some credible citations and sources. Saying that the Mongolian word "ultimately derives" from Greek is nonsense, as I see it. --Lasse Hillerøe Petersen 13:05, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh dear, how embarrassing ! Some people have never heard of loan-words apparently !  Yes, the Mongolian word for "dharma" is "nom" and it is, as I wrote, ultimately derived from the Greek word. This loan is extremely well-known -- have a look in Lessing's Mongolian-English Dictionary.  And read up a bit on Central Asian history and you might learn something you didn't know before.  In the aftermath of the Graeco-Indian kingdoms, a number of Greek words found their way into Sogdian and Uighur and thence, as in this instance, into Mongolian.   I know this because I have studied and read Classical Mongolian, but Berzin's account is also accurate.  FYI, Mongolian has a wide range of loan-words from Tibetan, Sogdian, Uighur, Chinese, Arabic, Turkish, Manchu etc.  I asuggest you be a little more cautious in future about dismissing things that you apparently have absolutely no knowledge about.--Stephen Hodge 00:57, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, it's possible that it's true, due to the influence of Greco-Buddhism. But I agree that it seems much more likely to be a coincidence.&mdash;Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 15:17, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, a bit of googling has found the apparent answer. This is from the Berzin Archives (which, as far as I'm aware is generally pretty reliably accurate):


 * &mdash;Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 15:22, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that this discussion page is rife with contention and one-upsmanship that is inconsistent with even the most basic understanding of Bhuddism. I tend to think that "There's nobody here but us chickens, some of whom like to play bullfrog." I have read much more Hinduism than Bhuddism, though I have read many books on both, so I have tended to view Dharma as one's situation in life and one's responsibilities and duties in relation to it. That is a very important aspect of my view of why and how I live my life. So, how does the Bhuddist concept of Dharma as "teachings" or "law" relate to the Hindu concept of Dharma as "duty?" PMELD5 (talk) 05:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I can't say much about the complexities of the dha*** words. But for the first part of your paragraph, I'll agree that warm or even just polite consideration is at points lacking here. I cringe about this sort of thing leaving people with a sour taste in their mouth as far as dealing with Wikipedia.  And Pali greatly impresses me by giving us the tiny word mettā for what I wish all Discussion could have.  Maybe things get smarter in many ways when we consider rather than bristle.  (At a delay of some years...) I'd like to thank you for bringing up this (met(t)a-)subject of courtesy.  Sean M. Burke (talk) 05:17, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Dharma within Indian religions
I've removed a large chunk of unsourced text which is also WP:UNDUE and WP:OR. It was added at 13 november 2011 by 81.106.127.14, and re-inserted by the same user at 6 july 2015. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   19:32, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Clean-up
anybody in for some cleaning here? Best regards,  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   19:53, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Done.VictoriaGraysonTalk 20:38, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * LOL!  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   20:57, 27 July 2015 (UTC)