Talk:The Buddha/Archive 18

Hijacked
I believe this talk page discussion has been hijacked. The ilk of thought that anyone can write the lead, a belief in a literalist interpretation of the Wikipedia banalities about "anyone can edit," seem to be prevailing

Jimbo Wales who knew better considered it an oversimplification, indeed a misconception, way back in 2007 in his NY Times Magazine interview.
 * Interview by Edward Lewine Nov. 18, 2007
 * Greatest misconception about Wikipedia: "We aren’t democratic. Our readers edit the entries, but we’re actually quite snobby. The core community appreciates when someone is knowledgeable, and thinks some people are idiots and shouldn’t be writing." (where by "idiots," he meant "not knowledgeable") What is the situation here?

Once a lead is complete, we can write the lead sentence, so that the lead sentence jibes with what will follow it. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  13:35, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Joshua Jonathan has written the bulk of this article.
 * Johnbod has recently written  Life of the Buddha in art.
 * Patliputra has written large parts of Mauryan art, which has many depictions of the Buddha, including the one that currently graces the lead. A few months ago, I rewrote Lion capital of Ashoka, the earliest surviving commemoration (ca. 250 BCE) of the Buddha's first sermon at Sarnath.
 * As for the Ganges, I drew a map of the Ganges headwaters by hand in 2007: File:HeadwatersGanges1.jpg by hand.
 * I visited India to take pictures of the headwaters: File:Bhagirathi alaknanda ganges devprayag2008.jpg, File:Confluence of Alaknanda and Mandakini at Rudraprayag.JPG, File:NandprayagConfluence.JPG, ...
 * Yet one version says that the Buddha wandered the basin. When I asked the proposer if they meant to use "wander" transitively, they dismissed it by pointing to dictionary links,  but without waiting to consider that the transitive is subordinate usage, commonly employed in a general sense (wandered the streets, wandered the bars on the weekend, ...) and in the instance of the object (of the verb) being well delineated, "wander" has the meaning of "traverse by wandering" (from the OED, the most detailed entry on wander in the English language). We don't say "wandered the Mississippi basin, when someone has been commuting from La Crosse to Praire du Chien. The Ganges basin is huge.  The Buddha didn't even wander the middle Ganges basin, (i.e. traverse the middle Ganges basin by wandering). He wandered in the middle Ganges valley, or better yet preached his ideas in the middle Ganges valley.
 * So where are we, 15 years after Jimbo's NYTimes interview? The talk page mavens and the drill-masters of WP:This and that have taken over. If you emphasize knowledge, you get WP:OWN and WP:Kitchen sink thrown at you.
 * I reiterate: Joshua Jonathan is the major author of this page. Let them write the lead based on the excerpts of the major text-books I have provided, in turn based on WP:SCHOLARSHIP and the relevance of WP:TERTIARY in determining due weight.  But they should at first do so without using Wikilinks.  This will enable us gauge what they are attempting to say, to simplify it, smooth it, and to then wiki link it to the most appropriate wikipedia page.
 * I reiterate also that if an RfC is forced now, I will request a broader admin-supervised RfC under WP:ARBIPA discretionary sanctions. This has happened in South Asia-related topics before.


 * You get WP:OWN thrown at you because you keep delivering masterclasses in it. The sum total impact of the above useless diatribe will be exactly zilch. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:58, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * And the sum total of your doozy: "the Buddha wandered the Indo-Gangetic plain?" Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  14:12, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Have him wandering wherever you want him to be wandering. Again, if you spent half as much time making constructive comments as opining... Iskandar323 (talk) 17:04, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting, there can't be an admin-supervised RfC under WP:ARBIPA in a controversial but vital South Asia topic area (broadly construed)? Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  14:15, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * You can request what you like. It didn't require you to write that in a talk thread. You either make the request or you don't. That's your choice. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:02, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

The only comment I will make here, is that the purpose of an article Talk page is to host discussions on how to improve the article, and not to discuss user behavior. As all of my contributions at this talk page are made in good faith in order to better the article, I will have nothing further to say on that point. As to your comments about "hijacking the page", I am unable to respond here, for two reasons: 1) I have no idea what that phrase even means; but more importantly, 2) it sounds like an accusation of editor misbehavior of some sort, and therefore it is off topic for this page. I would invite you to add whatever comments or accusations you wish to make about my behavior to my Talk page, where any discussion about my behavior belongs. Please use this page exclusively to discuss article content, not users. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 17:31, 11 November 2022 (UTC)


 * It is not about editor misbehavior but a rejection of a ritual by which knowledge is not made on Wikipedia, only oppressively systemized and thereafter abused by people who don't know the topic area, only the process. Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  17:48, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Your proposal predictably is all form and no content. Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  17:49, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Why do you bother writing this stuff? We all know that you are contemptuous of the Wikipedia process, policies and many of its editors. Good for you. You don't have to be here. But while you are, how about being more constructive and less raging against the machine. Who is meant to be your audience for this? It comes across as borderline trolling. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:41, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm registering a protest. I don't have to have an audience. One previous protest  was reported in The Atlantic.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:32, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Gautam Buddha, the description as given in Magadhi Prakrit and Pali texts of Anga
In case you are still seeking ideas for the opening lead sentence:

Siddhartha Gautama, also known as Gautam Buddha and popularly referred to as The Buddha, was a sage and spiritual teacher who lived during the late Iron Age in what is today the Indian subcontinent, and whose teachings regarding the nature of reality and the associated human suffering, as well as the cessation of suffering by liberation from desire, form the basis for the world religion of Buddhism. Born into an aristocratic family of the Shakya clan during the 5th century BCE, he...

This is what is taught in the CBSE school textbooks in India, and an identical version, replacing the "Sage" with "Mendicant," is taught in the Gelug schools of Buddhism at Dharamshala, home of the Dalai Lama.

Thank you, and good luck with the rest of the article! 2402:3A80:19A2:A3F8:278:5634:1232:5476 (talk) 11:16, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank YOU, IP contributor! We appreciate your opinion and your personal experiences. BusterD (talk) 11:20, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The NCERT (National Council of Educational Research and Training) textbook used in CBSE (Central Board of Secondary Education) schools in India at the high school senior year level is Themes in Indian History-1, Theme 4, accessible around the world.
 * I have already linked it in a discussion above. There is a Background section, pages 84 to 87 and a more focused section on the "Buddha pages 89 to 94, on the Buddhist legacy in art, architecture, and so forth for quite a few pages thereafter.   The discussion does not use words such as "sage," or "spiritual teacher," only "teacher."  It does not use "Indian subcontinent," only "the subcontinent," which in the meaning of cultural space as opposed to geophysical on WP is "South Asia."  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:51, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, thanks IP 2602. My impression from what you wrote is that you copied or translated it from a textbook, and if that's the case, we can't use that exact version; it would have to be reformulated (not just closely paraphrased), but if you (or someone) can do that, this would certainly be worth adding to the candidate list for the rfc (which is currently on hold while the other one is running). Mathglot (talk) 18:00, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Buddha (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 08:46, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * That move discussion actually does not affect this page (at least not directly). This page is at . That RM is only about and, not . —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 16:22, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The discussion concerns moving 'Buddha' from this page to the disamb page, a notion already discussed at a 2021 RM, so it directly affects this page when taking into account where someone lands when searching for 'Buddha'. Randy Kryn (talk) 07:48, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I think my comment was pretty clear about which titles are directly affected by that RM, and I think that should have sufficed to clarify what was meant by being directly affected. The title of this article is not proposed to be changed by that RM and is not the proposed destination title of that RM. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 17:45, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I guess the bot just follows redirects when making notifications. It doesn't seem like a big issue to me, but if you think the potential for confusion is significant, you might want to reach out to the bot operator to request adjustments. --Paul_012 (talk) 15:00, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I think having RM notices appear at redirect targets is desirable, although perhaps a refinement of the wording would be helpful. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 15:08, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It does affect the page in that the move has the potential to break intended redirects; adding Buddha to an article intending to link here would unintentionally then be linking to a different page. An incoming link to this page would no longer link here, which affects the page even if it's not actually changing anything on this article itself, it changes how other articles potentially interact with it, so with that in mind the bot's wording is accurate in that the RM has the potential (if successful) to affect this page's relationship with other pages. - Aoidh (talk) 15:23, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Birth place in Kapilavastu
According to Buddhist texts he was born in Kapilavastu, Lumbini falls under Kapilavastu, in historical Shakya Repbublic.117.198.113.177 (talk) 11:07, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Can you provide a reliable source? "Buddhist texts" is too ambiguous of a source, you'll need to be specific. A secondary source that has reliable scholarship is ideal, and in general secondary sources are preferred over primary sources. Hope this helps! Treetoes023 (talk) 04:06, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I doubt it - the article covers this fine, if either of you had bothered to look. Lumbini and Kapilavastu are a few miles apart, so what "falls under" means I don't know. Johnbod (talk) 04:17, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * No need to be rude, I already knew how this article covers it. I was just trying to say "you need a source" while trying to be nice... if you bothered to read. Treetoes023 (talk) 04:41, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The problem is that Lumbini is what is famous around the world, cited in source after source, memorialized in name after name, not a dubious "republic" which predates the Buddha, the first historical figure of South Asian history. What the boundaries of Kapilavastu were in 500 BCE no one knows.  Asoka did not build a wall around Kapilavastu when he erected his pillar in Lumbini.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  22:51, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Arbitrary header #1
The lead sentence has been thrashing for a while now with various attempts at improving it, without settling on a stable, consensus version. This has been going on altogether too long, and this isn't good for a vital article like this one. It looks to me like the suggestions in above got some support, but with notable exceptions, and it seems highly unlikely that discussion will resolve soon, given the views expressed. Accordingly, I plan to open an Rfc fairly soon to seek additional support from the community in an attempt to break the logjam and settle on a consensus version. I will word it neutrally, as required, and I want to make sure that all views are considered.

At a minimum, the Rfc will include two options, namely
 * 1. the current version as of now (rev. 1121137933 of 18:18, 10 November 2022):

Siddhartha Gautama (5th cent. BCE), most commonly referred to as the Buddha, was a South Asian renunciate who founded Buddhism.


 *  Note: a !vote for variants of the above which include wikilinking either or both of "renunciate" or "South Asian", or including or dropping footnotes shall be considered a vote for Option 1. 


 * 2. the proposal from  section  above, with the words 'spiritual leader' replaced by 'religious teacher', as suggested in that discussion:

Siddhartha Gautama, most commonly referred to as the Buddha, was a religious teacher from northern India who wandered the Ganges Basin in the preaching a philosophy of renunciation of earthly desires, and is recognized as the founder of Buddhism.


 *  Note: a !vote for variants of the above which uses wording like, "from the northern India/Nepal area" instead of just "northern India", or which includes additional wikilinks or footnotes shall be considered a vote for Option 2. 

I hope that recent discussants (did I miss any? Please ping below!) can have a look at this, and ensure that the proposed list of Rfc options includes a version that you would be happy to address in a forthcoming Rfc (whether supporting, or opposing). In particular, F&f strongly suggested above that they wouldn't be happy with that option, so I hope to hear an alternative formulation from them to add to the options list. A list of three options to start with would be ideal; if it gets too long, it becomes harder to reach consensus, and also, once the Rfc launches, the community may come up with an option or two that we haven't considered before, and add it to the list.

Note: this section is not an attempt to achieve consensus on the first sentence, so you don't have to argue why your option is the best one or give any reason for it at all; it is strictly an attempt to assemble a list of the best alternative wording options for the lead sentence that expresses the concerns of participating editors here, so that we can present it to the larger community for discussion in Rfc format with several options to choose from based on our previous discussions, and hopefully, reach some sort of consensus out of that process.

I plan to start the Rfc in about a week; longer if you need more time (please indicate), or sooner if it's clear we have all the feedback needed. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 19:23, 10 November 2022 (UTC)


 * To have an RfC on a lead sentence which is the double distilled summary of the article content, when the rest of the lead has not been written is a cockamamie idea. It is impossible to frame the first sentence when the emphasis of topics in the lead has not been decided. That is the reason that both proposed versions are inaccurate and poorly written. An RfC will give a false imprimatur to one sentence. It is a bogus idea.  So please do not propose it.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  01:40, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I will oppose any RfC, and if you try to push it, I will make sure it does not fly. Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  01:41, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Joshua Jonathan is extremely knowledgeable about the general topic. I feel they should be given a chance to present a lead without wikilinks based on the sources I have collected. We can then smooth their version.
 * It is the best option. No RfC is needed.  Otherwise, more clueless people will file in, more talk page mavens will propound, and of all people the Buddha will become subject to a most un-Buddhist hijacking.  It has happened twice already.  A third would be very shameful.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  01:46, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * If you push the lead sentence RfC I will request administrative help under WP:ARBIPA rules and have an administrator supervised RfC, letting the administrator decide what is most appropriate. This has been done several times in South Asia topics.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  01:53, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * An RFC "is a process for requesting outside input concerning... article content. RfCs are a way to attract more attention to a discussion about making changes to pages." No one person owns this article, and it is clear that this has been going around in circles for too long now, and an RFC is one of the recognized ways at Wikipedia of addressing intractable content disputes like this. I would prefer that you offer a wording suggestion that meets with your approval to add to list of RFC options, but the RFC will go forward in either case.
 * In response to your "cockamamie idea", while the lead is a summary of the body, the WP:FIRSTSENTENCE is not. Rather, it is a definition that "should tell the nonspecialist reader what or who the subject is, and often when or where... in plain English." We don't need to know how the rest of the lead shakes out, in order to write a single defining sentence, about who, when, where, and what the Buddha was and did.
 * I'm not going to respond to your other comments, which in no way meet the stated purpose of a Talk page: "Article talk pages should be used to discuss ways to improve an article; not to criticize, pick apart, or vent about the current status of an article or its subject". I hope you change your mind, and decide to participate. You are very knowledgeable about the subject, I value your contributions to a wide range of South Asian topics, and your contributions would be sorely missed by many, me included, if you decide not to participate. Mathglot (talk) 02:15, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I know what an RfC is. When the lead sentences rise to the level of the high-school history textbook used by millions of kids in India (see pages 90 to 104 here), we can have it.  Right now, neither version is close.  They are not even at the grade 8 level, you can check.
 * An RfC does not create knowledge, only chooses between different versions of knowledge. But they have to be knowledge in the first place. Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  02:32, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Since you gave it your imprimatur, I was hoping to find wording at that link which could be used as a defining sentence about the Buddha and qualify as something that might meet with your approval, and then include it as an Rfc option. Unfortunately, although the term 'Buddha' occurs 39 times, there's nothing appropriate that I could find there. The closest was this (p. 95–96):
 * "It also describes places associated with the Buddha’s life – where he was born (Lumbini), where he attained enlightenment (Bodh Gaya), where he gave his first sermon (Sarnath) and where he attained nibbana (Kusinagara)."
 * but that doesn't really qualify. Can you link another page that might have something? Or just use your own words, based on your domain knowledge. And btw, I have nothing against a lead sentence written at an 8th-grade level; I think it could make an excellent choice, if we found the right one. Mathglot (talk) 02:50, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * A lead sentence is a summary of the lead. Why don't we write the lead first at the level of the lucidity and sophistication of the high school textbook but without the lead sentence?  Summarizing that text into one sentence will then be easy.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  02:56, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Because the lead sentence is *not* a summary of the lead; see WP:LEADSENTENCE. You're confusing that, I believe, with the WP:LEAD, which is a summary of the article body. Mathglot (talk) 03:03, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It is still what is most notable in the lead. How will you figure that out when you don't have a lead?  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  03:27, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * A lead is not necessary to have a LEADSENTENCE. You can have an entire, valid, notable, sufficiently cited article in mainspace consisting of only a lead sentence and WP:THREE references. Mathglot (talk) 03:42, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Have you written anything on Buddhism? Or are you just a talk page maven? Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  03:57, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * If you have, then please tell me what. Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  03:58, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Let's focus on addressing what is being said, rather than commenting on the perceived attributes of the person saying it. Even if what you were getting at is true, it's irrelevant and does not diminish the point that they're making. On Wikipedia there is no requirement that a person be an expert in a field in order to comment on a talk page, nor does a person's editing history in a given topic area carry any consideration in a discussion. The answer to your question does not matter. - Aoidh (talk) 07:59, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

As an uninvolved editor, I don't like either sentence. I think option 2 is better but our article on religious leader (a redirect to clergy) does not fit. "Spiritual teacher" is better. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:06, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Spiritual leader was actually my first effort (see here) . We could certainly include your suggestion as an option (but see this comment) . Would you change anything else in #2, or are you happy with the rest of it? Depending on how other suggestions shake out, your suggestion could either be "Option 2a" (if you're okay with that, since they're otherwise very similar), or "Option 3" if there's not a lot of options with completely different wording. Mathglot (talk) 03:42, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * So, Mathglot, you have written: Siddhartha Gautama, most commonly referred to as the Buddha, was a religious teacher from northern India who wandered the Ganges Basin in the 5th century BCE preaching a philosophy of renunciation of earthly desires, and is recognized as the founder of Buddhism.
 * Do you want wander in the transitive sense? If so what do you understand by it?  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  04:20, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Standard English transitive usage: e.g, M-W, AHD, dict.com, and so on. Mathglot (talk) 07:14, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @Fowler&fowler: 'Wander' is perfectly standard, recognizable English, and it does not solely and literally mean 'traverse' as you extracted from a single example in a single dictionary definition (OED) below. Clearly the sense here is 'to roam/rove', as should be obvious. Critiquing the least relevant definition is uncompelling strawman argumentation. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:54, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The OED is the final arbiter of British English (in which this article has been written). In Webster's Unabridged, the final arbiter of American English, it is roam over, a single secondary meaning and example (wander woodlands) following 8 versions of the intransitive with longer examples.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  14:37, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * A single example? Here is a sampling:
 * 1798   R. Bloomfield Winter in Farmer's Boy 390   Seedtime and Harvest let me see again; Wander the leaf-strewn wood, the frozen plain.
 * 1892   W. B. Yeats Countess Kathleen (1912) v. 108   I gaze upon them as the swallow gazes Upon the nest under the eave, before She wander the loud waters.
 * 1970   Globe & Mail (Toronto) 26 Sept. 29/5 (advt.)    When you are wandering the attractive shops..you can pause for luncheon.
 * 1976   Times Higher Educ. Suppl. 12 Nov. 9/2   Born into a London Jewish family in October, 1936, he remembers the excitement of wandering the bomb sites of postwar London.
 * 1981   E. Ward Baltic Emerald x. 71   First you wander this place for me, find Suite A.
 * It is either general use, "wander the loud waters," or delimited use, "wandering the bomb sites of post war London." Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  14:46, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, the general use, meaning roving or roaming, i.e.: walking about - still do not see what the problem. Still makes absolute sense to me. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:00, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Arbitrary header #2
Preliminary thoughts (and I will try to resist getting sucked into this): a) I think "renunciate" is too obscure a word for the first sentence, plus his life has several different levels of "renunciation"; b) I don't like "wandered" because (as I mention above) it only really applies (according to the accounts) to the relatively short middle period between the Great Departure and the Enlightenment. His later travels seem often to have had clear destinations, and indeed a degree of regularity. Johnbod (talk) 04:50, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I note for example that Kulke and Rothermund above say he "wandered" in that mid-period, then "toured" after Enlightenment. Johnbod (talk) 05:01, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * My preference would still be something like "Gautama Buddha or Shakyamuni Buddhi (5th c. BCE), most commonly known as The Buddha, was a shramana (wandering renunciate) from whose teachings developed Buddhism." To be twisted a little bit further, and from whose teachings developed Buddhism, because, from what I understand about it, the early sangha was a 'community of like-minded wanderers', who found inspiration in the Buddha. I figure that wanderers were impressed by him, asked him qurstions which he answered, remembered his answers (which were not the fill-blown "sermons" we find in the suttas), and at some point 'regulated' admittance into their band of brothers, which could also been done by a small gathering of such 'good friends'. But, that's my take, and while there may be sources which describe this as such, I don't have them (yet). It's probably too nuanced.
 * But I like Mathglot's first proposal too, as I've already stated (except for the phrase "spiritual teacher"; New Age shops, incense, and everlasting well-being...). A RfC is a perfectly fine instrument to come to a decision on this matter. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  04:59, 11 November 2022 (UTC)


 * PS: @JohnBod: good points about "wanderer." It all bowls down to: how to translate "sramana"? Mendicant? "Ascetic and religious teacher"? "Itinerant religious teacher"? Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  05:01, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * , I totally agree about "renunciate" (especially as a noun; this word was discussed above at ), if I had my druthers, I'd drop it; but since F&f proposed it as a noun (see @10:06, 3 Nov.) I was bending over backwards a bit trying to meet him halfway by including it in its verb form in my proposal (as: renunciation of earthly desires) hoping he would accept that as a compromise.
 * Wrt your proposal just above: I find from whose teachings developed Buddhism a bit awkward; would from whose teachings Buddhism developed be an equal proposition that would adhere to your view of things? I think that wording would likely garner more !votes, *if* it's faithful to what you wish to express. If that's not okay with you, we'll go with your version. Whichever the case, I think we can add your version as Option 3, if there's no objection. Mathglot (talk) 07:08, 11 November 2022 (UTC)


 * "Founded Buddhism" is more to the point. With regard to "earthly desires," that's correct, but not complete: complete is 'let go of desire and aversion'. Non-abiding, perfect equanimity, etc. And: there remain 'heavenly desires'? Once we start digging into the exact meaning of words, more and more nuances are revealed... As I stated above, it all boils down to the question: how to translate "sramana," which sums it all up, if you don't want to use that word in the first sentence? ;) Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  07:49, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * JJ, Can't advise how to translate it, but based on /Lead paragraphs data, here's what I found for the "what" and the "where", according to lead sentences of the past:
 * What:
 * ascetic (śramaṇa) and sage: 2016, 17
 * ascetic and a religious teacher: 2022 May
 * ascetic and spiritual teacher: 2022 Jun, Jul, Aug, Sep, Oct
 * ascetic, a religious leader and teacher: 2021 Dec, 2022 Jan, Feb, Mar, Apr
 * monk (śramaṇa), mendicant, and sage: 2018
 * monk (śramaṇa),mendicant, sage, philosopher, teacher and religious leader: 2019
 * philosopher, mendicant, meditator, spiritual teacher, and religious leader : 2020
 * renunciate: 2022 Nov 4, Nov 11
 * sage: 2013, 14, 15
 * spiritual leader: 2004
 * spiritual teacher: 2003, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12
 * śramaṇa: 2021 Nov
 * wandering ascetic and religious teacher: 2022 Nov 1
 * Where:
 * ancient India: 2007 8, 10, 2020, 21, 2022 Jan, Feb, Mar, Apr, Sep, Oct,
 * ancient Indian subcontinent: 2006,
 * Indian subcontinent: 2005, 11, 12,
 * Nepal and South Asia: 2022 Jun,
 * north eastern region of the Indian subcontinent 2009
 * South Asia: 2022 May, Jul, Aug, Nov 1, Nov 4, Nov 11
 * As far as his principal role, virtually every version said either that he was the "founder of Buddhism", or cast it in the passive, describing him as the person "on whose teachings Buddhism was founded". HTH, Mathglot (talk) 09:00, 11 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Regarding the "what," summarized: sramana (ascetic, monk, sage, mendicant, philosopher ) and religious/spiritual teacher (sage, philosopher). "Monk" is too western, and has the association of living in a monastery; "mendicant" summarizes both sramana and teacher, but may not be 'plain English'; ascetic is not exactly correct, but not incorrect either, and may be the best choice, when accompaniex with a short note (do I hear grunts of despair and disapproval?) Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  11:24, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * As a native speaker of English, to me mendicant and ascetic are approximately equivalent on the difficulty scale, although I find mendicant slightly less difficult. But since both mendicant and ascetic each have a Wikipedia article, simply linking the term would be a good solution, and I don't know that you'd need a separate explanatory note to explain what those articles already do in detail. That said, I'm not opposed to a note, especially if the point of the note is to link the English term to śramaṇa, so no grunts of despair, a note is fine. Mathglot (talk) 22:04, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * >>>As a native speaker of English, to me mendicant and ascetic are approximately equivalent on the difficulty scale, although I find mendicant slightly less difficult. ... Mathglot (talk) 22:04, 11 November 2022 (UTC
 * OED: The final arbiter of British English in which the article ahs been written:
 * OED "It" This word belongs in Frequency Band 8. Band 8 contains words which occur more than 1000 times per million words in typical modern English usage. This includes the most common English words, such as determiners (the, a, an, this, that), pronouns (I, you, he, she, him, he, that, which, what, who)
 * OED "run" (v): This word belongs in Frequency Band 7. Band 7 contains words which occur between 100 and 1000 times per million words in typical modern English usage. This includes the main semantic words which form the substance of ordinary, everyday speech and writing. Nouns include basic terms for people (e.g. man, woman, person, boy, girl), body parts (e.g. hand, eye, head, foot, blood)
 * OED "ascetic": This word belongs in Frequency Band 5. Band 5 contains words which occur between 1 and 10 times per million words in typical modern English usage. These tend to be restricted to literate vocabulary associated with educated discourse, although such words may still be familiar within the context of that discourse. The shift away from the everyday language found in bands 8-6 is apparent in nouns (e.g. surveillance, assimilation, tumult, paraphrase,
 * OED "mendicant": This word belongs in Frequency Band 4. Band 4 contains words which occur between 0.1 and 1.0 times per million words in typical modern English usage. Such words are marked by much greater specificity and a wider range of register, regionality, and subject domain than those found in bands 8-5. However, most words remain recognizable to English-speakers, and are likely be used unproblematically in fiction or journalism. Examples include overhang, life support,, embouchure, insectivore
 * American English:
 * It: Word Rank:	9th
 * Grade Level (Approximate):	Elementary or Middle School
 * Fog Reading Ease Complex Word:	No
 * Dale-Chall Reading Ease Difficult Word:	Noword analyzer
 * Run: Word Rank:	396th
 * Grade Level (Approximate):	Elementary or Middle Schoolword analyzer
 * Fog Reading Ease Complex Word:	No
 * Dale-Chall Reading Ease Difficult Word:	No
 * Ascetic: Word Rank:	7038th
 * Grade Level (Approximate):	Elementary or Middle Schoolword analyzer
 * Mendicant: Word Rank:	10146th
 * Grade Level (Approximate):	Junior High Schoolword analyzer Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  21:21, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, I think we'll never get to both correct and complete in the lead sentence of a major figure from the late Iron Age, and we'll just have to trade off some completeness for "good enough to start with", and hope they continue reading the lead, where we can get into a bit of detail, and the body, where we get into some of the nuances. Mathglot (talk) 22:20, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * >>>Also, I think we'll never get to both correct and complete in the lead sentence of a major figure from the late Iron Age,
 * For a minor figure, we will? Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  21:33, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * With respect to wandered: I've modified my wording above to use roamed instead. The verb to roam has a dual meaning (per m-w.com, et al.), which includes both the purposeless or directionless sense of wander, as well as the purposeful sense of traveled, and could be ideal here. Mathglot (talk) 23:45, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Maybe, & I think its better, but it stikes me as something mostly done by animals, I must say. Johnbod (talk) 19:04, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Good point. I checked books and scholar, and your intuition holds up; there are more references to animals (maybe 3 or 4 to 1) than to people. But still, there are some about people, like Krisha Roamed the Forest. When it describes human activity, it seems to work better in ancient or prehistorical contexts (e.g., here). Do you think roam is too tainted by connotations about animals to use in this context? Perhaps there is something even better. Mathglot (talk) 21:36, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Do you feel compelled to pursue fruitless threads?  Do you know how many poems I have memorized from childhood with wander applied to all sorts of things? Quite a few:
 * a little child: The storm came up before its time, She wander'd up and down; And many a hill did Lucy climb, But never reached the town. (Wordsworth)
 * the moon: Save that from yonder ivy-mantled tow'r, The moping owl does to the moon complain, Of such, as wand'ring near her secret bow'r, Molest her ancient solitary reign. (Thomas Gray)
 * a cow: She wandered lowing here and there, And yet she cannot stray, All in the pleasant open air, The pleasant light of day. (RL Stevenson). (I can keep going for hours)
 * At some point such relentless arrogations begin to look tiresome. I recommend that you not inform us anything about the English language. My point is that texts are not written by looking up words in dictionaries. Many words can be used. It all depends on how the word is used and in what context. Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  22:22, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * And roaming can be used as well, but in context. You could say, for example, "Several years of itinerant roaming following his first sermon at Sarnath."  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  22:42, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * And wandering can be used as well, e.g. "Wandering from town to town, proselytizing to ever newer audiences, the Buddha picked up followers." Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  22:56, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Blast from the past
Maybe it would help us find the best competing wording options to present in an Rfc, if we could easily recall some of the versions the lead sentence has taken in the past. Here is a selection of them spanning the more than twenty years since the article was created in 2001 (the same year Wikipedia began) through the present day, in the context of their lead paragraphs: 


 * Notes


 * Refs

It's interesting to just browse the page (full page here), and watch how the lead paragraph has ebbed and flowed over the years, with certain perennial themes recurring again and again and again; if only we could find a way to break that cycle and escape that endless recurrence... Anyone? Mathglot (talk) 07:39, 11 November 2022 (UTC)


 * That's a nice gadget! I have another proposal: we let the tides roll on forever and ever, and keep changing the lead. It's quite amusing, I think! Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  07:57, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think the lede will ever be "finished" to everyone's satisfaction. I suspect impermanence will have its way even here (in fact I'm sure of it), but we can try to move it in an improved direction in the meantime. It's interesting to see the changes over time though. I very much do not like the lede in 2006 where it implies that Gotama Buddha is simply the Pali version of the name Siddhārtha Gautama; however the lede ends up I think it's important to avoid potentially misleading wording like that. - Aoidh (talk) 08:12, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @JJ: Buddha would not approve. Your next life will be a snake. Mathglot (talk) 08:15, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @Aoidh: indeed; it's a wiki. But I think if we can find some consensus, it may stabilize things for a while, which will at least allow editors to apply their talents on improving other parts of it, or other articles. Mathglot (talk) 08:15, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah editing and changes are to be expected, but with this article in particular the lede sentence itself seems particularly fluid. With the exception of minor formatting and language additions, the lede of Jesus for example has been stable since mid-2018, and even before that the lede wasn't that different. Granted that's a FA that's been hashed out, but many articles have very stable lede sentences even if the rest of the content is in flux. I think getting a good consensus for the lede sentence is important for that same reason; though it certainly won't set the lede in stone it'll give stability to the lede and the rest of the article can then follow suit. - Aoidh (talk) 08:24, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * That is exactly the problem. The lead sentence will become etched in stone, its validity asserted by hoi polloi voting in an RfC.  When the people with knowledge complete the lead, the lead sentence will look ludicrous, but hard to budge.  As you will have seen in the link I provided above, the language of the one proposed by Mathglot does not rise (in sophistication, grammar, or lucidity) to the level of the history textbook used by millions of high school kids in India.  They will find it ludicrous. Please read those pages.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  13:56, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * That's why I said, "I'll just rewrite the lead." I can very likely do it much better than most, given the evidence thus far. A lead sentence cannot be written before the lead, and it can't be written by a committee of people with little knowledge of the subject, which is what in effect an RfC is. Alternatively, both  and  should rewrite the lead, including the lead sentence.  There was an earlier talk page consensus for them to do this (from May or June 2022).  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  14:06, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * If other proposals are ludicrous and you can do it better than most, then that is all the more reason for you to use your knowledge about the topic and contribute your best wording for the lead sentence now, so it can be included in the options before !voting begins. Then your version may carry the day, and the effect of consensus will keep your improved version stable for some time, perhaps years, as in the case of Jesus. But if you don't offer anything, then it can't be considered, and that would be a lost opportunity and a shame. If the consensus version becomes "etched in stone", shouldn't it be your version? Please come up with the best lead sentence you can so we can include it in the options. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 17:15, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I can make the proposal up in a New York minute. But Joshua Jonathan has spent a considerable time writing the article, they are knowledgeable.  They should be given the first dibs, the right of first refusal, and only if no consensus is reached on their version should other proposals be made.
 * You have contributed nothing to the article. Your editing history shows little or no contributions to South Asian, indeed Asian, topics. Where do you fit in?  If three people have to make proposals, it should be Joshua Jonathan, JimRenge, and Patliputra, who have spent considerable time on the article, and Johnbod who has worked on a related article, and not drive-bys such as you or Iskander of 323 BCE.
 * Let's have an RfC with those three. You are completely irrelevant to the process.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  17:58, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * And if you think I don't have ideas of my own, here is one: Siddhartha Gautama or Gautama Buddha, commonly the Buddha and the founder of Buddhism, was a historical figure in South Asia in the mid-first millennium BCE  who aimed to overcome suffering by privileging awareness over ritual, preached  precepts of conduct  that recognized all sentient beings,  and spread his ideas through a monastic tradition  that disvowed  heredity.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  18:03, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * But I refuse to propose anything until, , the main authors of this page and
 * , the author of Life of the Buddha in art, have made proposals, or better yet, have together come up with something. Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  18:09, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you; that looks like a good proposal to me. I'll be sure to include that as Option 3 (or 4, depending how the numbering goes). Mathglot (talk) 18:13, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * No, please do not. I have said only Joshua Jonathan, JimRenge, Patliputra and Johnbod should made proposals. Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  18:17, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * If you add it, disregarding my precondition, I will take it out. Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  18:19, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Besides, I can't write the lead sentence unless I have written the lead first, and I have only collected the references yet. I have not even had to time to read them, let alone digest them, combine them judiciously and turn them into a balanced precis.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  18:32, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I think you are very well meaning and conscientious, but have become fixated on a process. Why does an RfC have to be conducted in a week's time?
 * The article is 15 years old. Why can't we wait a month? What great disservice will be done to knowledge?  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  18:36, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * is it true that if I make a proposal on a talk page but do not want it to be included in an RfC, another editor can use it nevertheless and mangle it? I am pinging you Tito, as when an academic had copied my famine articles, you had said we had some rights. Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  23:05, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello @Fowler&fowler, yes, the content is posted under the CC-SA-3.0 and GFDL license, Mathglot is half-right, that anyone can use/reuse the content. However this part is incorrect that you have no copyright on the words you add here. You definitely have some rights still, as the content is shared under CC-SA, and not CC0. So CC-SA terms of attribution etc still applicable. To me this is a question of courtesy, than licensing. If an author does not want their argument to be included, what's the reason to forcefully include it unless there is a very convincing reason to do so. Regards. --Titodutta (talk) 23:31, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Before you consider removing any content added by another user at an Rfc, take a look at the words right above the "Publish" button you clicked when you saved your last post (and every post). It says:
 * By publishing changes, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL.
 * In other words, you have no copyright on the words you add here, and if they are appropriate for an Rfc, anyone can freely reuse them. If re-used and you wish not to be credited or mentioned, I will honor that request. Mathglot (talk) 20:10, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I like this wording, but would prefer "5th century BCE" to "mid-first millennium BCE". And "aimed to overcome suffering by privileging awareness over ritual" may need unpacking/work. Please don't try to railroad me to produce a draft of my own! I've hardly edited this article, & don't want to be used to discourage others from doing so, or proposing things. Johnbod (talk) 18:45, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. I tried to unpack that part, but the only way I get there doubled its length to this:
 * "to avoid the painfulness of human existence caused by transitory desire by following a Middle Path that dispels the ignorance that leads to desire"
 * but that's quite a mouthful, and for a first sentence, probably would leave a reader more confused than when they started. My feeling is that maybe it's just too subtle and complex an idea for the first sentence? I tried the opposite approach, shortening the phrase considerably (with inevitable loss of detail, but hopefully a corresponding increase in clarity) and came up with this (altered portions underlined):
 * A few other things:
 * "historical figure" seems overspecified; unless we say he was fictional, he was real. Maybe, was a prince?
 * heredity seems wrong (that's genetics); what I think was meant here is heredit ar y, or inherited title or position, but I don't see an article we can link for that, as hereditary rule is a redirect which leads to "Hereditary monarchy", and not sure if that applies here or not.
 * preached precepts is unfortunately alliterative, and distracting. How 'bout: preached a doctrine of, or changing it the other way to: taught precepts of?
 * How does the revised version with the shorter, "unpacked" bit work for you, and any thoughts on the bullets? Mathglot (talk) 20:57, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Johnbod: As you had asked, here is one unpacking: Siddhartha Gautama or Gautama Buddha, commonly the Buddha and the founder of Buddhism, was a historical figure in South Asia in the fifth-century BCE who viewed the cause of human suffering to lie in desire; proposed a corrective in detachment; set forth rules of moral conduct based in sentience, and proselytized through a monastic order that rejected status based in heredity  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:01, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Johnbod: As you had asked, here is one unpacking: Siddhartha Gautama or Gautama Buddha, commonly the Buddha and the founder of Buddhism, was a historical figure in South Asia in the fifth-century BCE who viewed the cause of human suffering to lie in desire; proposed a corrective in detachment; set forth rules of moral conduct based in sentience, and proselytized through a monastic order that rejected status based in heredity  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:01, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Biography and teachings can be saved for the second alinea. "Historical person" is meaningless (the source from it comes speaks of "first historical person of India"; that's something different, but not explained in the body of the article. He didn't set out to seek a middle path, but discovered a middle path (according to tradition). Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  21:06, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Refining and including:
 * Need a noun for hereditary _____. (&apos;Alinea&apos; is Frans en Nederlands; ik denk dat je bedoelde, &apos;paragraph&apos;. ) Mathglot (talk) 21:17, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I am out,, after Mathglot's post about signing my rights away. Mathglot's version is not idiomatic English; it is no regional variety of English I am aware of and I've written History of English grammars; it is not remotely at the level of the high school book read by millions of Indian students. It is full of bizarre, turgid, constructions. That they also know very little about South Asia produces further doozies such as a prince in South Asia.  Good luck to you JJ.  please do not post on my talk page, nor send me email.  I will be silencing all pings from you besides.  This is a public notice.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  22:53, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Noted. As you are likely already aware, prince is used in dozens of tertiary sources, and the term South Asia remains intact from your original wording above. As for your comments about my prose, my abilities, or my good faith, you were previously warned about this on your Talk page. The fact that your parting shot here sounds like another thinly veiled attack and includes an interdiction on responding to it there (where it ought to be addressed, and not here) is really poor form. Mathglot (talk) 23:14, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * "I did not say anything about your abilities. Your submitted text is not written in idiomatic English nor in the language of South Asian historiography.  A prince in South Asia is as meaningless as a prince on the Indo-Australian tectonic plate, for it seems to assume these categories have existed independently of time. The city-states of the period were caste-based chieftaincies, barely oligarchies. There were no monarchies.
 * A historical figure is very relevant as the Buddha is the first historical figure of South Asia. Recorded South Asian history began with chronicles of the Buddha's life. The "authors" of contemporaneous Hindu epics of that period, on the other hand, were legendary.
 * You have now also written an ungrammatical sentence, "discovered a Middle Path to overcome human suffering," not once but twice. The object of discover is a noun phrase "a Middle path to overcome human suffering" That itself has a head "path," a premodifier "middle" and a complement which is a prepositional phrase. But prepositional phrases are simple in structure, when they occur as a complement, they are always preposition + -ing participle. So you can say, "discovered a middle path to/for overcoming human suffering," but not "overcome."
 * You saw that the admin I asked about your mangling my prose say it is a matter of courtesy. You have chosen to be discourteous, relentlessly discourteous.   Johnbod made a comment to me.  How did you presume to answer and then also offer misguided criticism, without waiting for me to clarify something I wrote on the spur of the moment?  You have repeatedly argued with me about things (whether of South Asian history or English grammar) in which your constructions have fallen short.  When I say, "You cannot say wandered the Ganges basin," of someone who for a few years crisscrossed a small portion of it, you assert your right to throw improbable examples at me.  So, what exactly is going on? I haven't engaged in any personal attacks.  You have engaged in relentless discourtesy.  You need to do some soul searching.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  02:30, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Further refinement based on @12:01, 12 Nov.:
 * Two brief points: I commented previously on my reservations about the word heredity in this context, but I've kept it as is for now. Also, your wikilink piped to tanha goes to a disambig page; I assume you meant taṇhā instead, and I've replaced it with that. Mathglot (talk) 02:47, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * OK. I did not realize heredity went to genetics. Thank you for correcting taṇhā.
 * How about:   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  11:23, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * OK. I did not realize heredity went to genetics. Thank you for correcting taṇhā.
 * How about:   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  11:23, 13 November 2022 (UTC)


 * It's very terse, but sums up the basic points. Some comments:
 * "historical figure" - should be "the first historical figure"; ""historical figure" is nondescript, as there are so many hisstoeical figures;
 * "suffering" is an inadequate and outdated translation; as explained elsewhere it's more something like "standing unstable, unsatisfactoriness." in your sentence, it could be "unease";
 * "sentience" - ahimsa would be more to the point; it's not clear to me what you mean here with "sentience";
 * "rejected caste" - could be incorporated in the present lead.
 * Regards, Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  12:52, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * You have already proposed one version which is a part of the RfC. I have proposed mine. Please don't keep muddying the waters.  My version is linked to dukkha.  You have early today made large-scale edits to dukkha, which I have just reverted.diff  What is going on JJ?  Relentless gray-zone editing, changing links that are being used in the discussion here, ... Is nothing sacrosanct? Please don't incorporate anything here into anything elsewhere; otherwise what is the point of an RfC? Your suggestion about adding "first" is a good one and I can look into incorporating it, but you shouldn't take bits from here and add them somewhere else.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  13:08, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

arbitrary break #3 - dukkha

 * This break added 18:49, 13 November 2022 (UTC); the first comment below is a reply to the 13:08, 13 Nov. comment in the previous section; this break represents roughly the point where the conversation shifted to discussion of dukkha.
 * I can incorporate some changes. Suffering is still the commonly used word; sentience is explained in the link.
 * My preference though it not to use "first" as we will inevitably get into a tussle with the Mahavira page editors who might claim that M. was the first. Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  13:36, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * "Suffering" is not the preferred tanslation in scholarly treatments, as explained by multiple authors. I see your point about "first"; how about "one of the first"? "Historical person" is still nondescript. NB: it would be relevant to explain "[first] historical person" in the body of the article, but apart from Kulke & Rothermund I could find only one other source which explains this; have you got more? Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  13:57, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * One of the first is a good suggestion. Will "anguish" work instead of "suffering?" The others such as unsteadiness etc are not lead-worthy, in my opinion.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  14:04, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * To the extent this is a serial sentence there are some limitations of meter. Early might be better than one of the earliest. Also rejection of caste might be problematic in terms of what really happened.  This might be more precise    Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  14:22, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

"Suffering" is a common translation of dukkha, but not the one that covers it's meaning in this Buddhist context. I think that "anguish" is not exactly to the point; it may be a form of dukkha (I gather), but it's not exactly that. Please read Monier-Wiliams etymology; it reminds me even of 'wobbliness', but also of 'being pushed by the wind[s of desire]', 'not standing firm', 'being driven [by feelings and passions one is unaware of]'. It is a complicated term; that's also what so many authors have explained: there's no exact matching word in English. Compare the Greek philosophers, striving to apatheia: not being driven by the storms of the animal instincts. In Dutch, I could refer you to a number of poems, for example Het huwelijk; but in English, I lack the vocubulary. Again, please read Monier-Williams, and Beckwits; it's their explanation. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  14:32, 13 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Are you talking about the etymology of the Sanskrit word दुख​:? If so, there are more modern dictionaries than Monier-Williams of a century ago.  I'll see what I can do.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  14:46, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * दुःख I meant. Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  15:30, 13 November 2022 (UTC)


 * See the dukkha-article for the Sanskrit. Of course there are more modern dictionaries, but that's not the point; the point is the alternative etymology given by Monier-Williams, Anayola, and Beckwith. Try to be open-minded, contemplate it, and use images and associations. Dukkha is suffering from the grip of passions, the lack of self-control that makes one a slave. Like a ship without a stir, going in all directions. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  15:57, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I do know some Sanskrit. (One year standing now, and still ramping up.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  20:54, 13 November 2022 (UTC))
 * The modern meaning is: 1 Sorrow, grief, unhappiness, distress, pain, agony See Apte's dictionary for the noun.
 * It is the same word in Hindi, but spelled differently. McGregor's Oxford Hindi-English dictionary 1999, has: दुःख, duḥkh, noun, masculine = दुख, dukh, masculine = sorrow, grief, distress, dejection.
 * I will look at Monier Williams next, but old sources are generally problematic. Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  16:03, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * >>>Dukkha is suffering from the grip of passions, the lack of self-control that makes one a slave. Like a ship without a stir, going in all directions.
 * I don't think that is the common meaning in Sanskrit. I'll have to dig into my memory, but I'm sure I can come up with a few shlokas with duhkha in it. Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  16:07, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Here's one from the Gita:
 * सुखदु:खे समे कृत्वा लाभालाभौ जयाजयौ |
 * ततो युद्धाय युज्यस्व नैवं पापमवाप्स्यसि ||
 * सुख/sukha(happiness) दु:खे/duhkhe(distress) समे/samay(same) कृत्वा/kritva (task) लाभा/laabha (gain) लाभौ/laabhau (loss)
 * जया/jyaa (victory) जयौ/jyau (defeat) ततो/tatau (after) युद्धाय/yudhyaay (battle) युज्यस्व/yujasva (?) नैवं/naivam = na + aivam (not ever) पापम/paapam (sin) वाप्स्यसि/vaapsyasi (?)||
 * I can't figure out all the words, but the import is: Those who battle to make happiness and distress, gain and loss, victory and defeat the same task (?) will never commit sin. Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  16:46, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * That is ca. 400 BCE to 200 CE. Here is another from ca. 1600 CE, Tulsidas's Awadhi language Ramcharitmanas, which has a handful of Sanskrit prayers in it.
 * जरा जन्म दुःखौघ तातप्यमानं, प्रभोपाहि आपन्नामामीश शम्भो
 * = जरा/jaraa (old age) जन्म/janm (birth) दुःखौघ/duhkhau (pain/distress) तातप्यमानं/taatapyamaanam (burning), प्रभो/prabho (lord) पाहि/paahi (?) आपन्नामामीश/aapannamsheesh = aapan + namaamim + sheesh (I bow down) शम्भो/shambhau (Shiva)
 * Burning with the distress of birth and old age, I bow down to my lord Shiva
 * Unless, there is some special meaning in Pali, the word in Sanskrit is mostly sorrow or distress. Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  16:56, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It has limited use in Urdu, but similar meaning. See Platt's Urdu English dictionary. diff
 * دکهہ दुख dukh (p. 521)
 * H دکهہ दुख dukh [Prk. दुक्खं = S. दुःखं], s.m. Pain, ache, ailment, affliction, suffering, distress; misery, trouble, sorrow, grief, uneasiness, unhappiness Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  17:03, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Have been watching, and first let me say say what a pleasure it is just observing a deeply informed discussion of this caliber at Wikipedia. I don't read Sanskrit so cannot contribute at this level, unfortunately. I can glimpse the difficulty of the problem of how to render dukkha by searching  in books, and seeing the large number of results, including many which explain why the author is *not* translating it in their work. The best I can do is to reach out for some sources, and see if they might provide English renderings that might help, although at some level, they are all inadequate (but then, that's the nature of translation, isn't it?). I found four non-book sources, with a variety of approaches: Somewhere between the despair of ever coming up with an adequate translation, and the hope of conveying something about the importance of the concept to an uninformed reader, we have to formulate something in the first sentence that will keep them engaged, and eager to read on. Although a number of authors refuse to translate it at all, I don't think that approach works for us here at a Wikipedia article. Maybe we just have to go with what everybody says is "usually translated as suffering", and either pipe it to Dukkha, or include an explanatory note? Mathglot (talk) 18:56, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Britannica – brief encyclopedic article for the general reader; uses suffering, and links the concept to "impermanence (anichcha) and the absence of a self (anatta)".
 * Buddhist Dictionary(by Binh Anson, an engineer in Perth) – a long entry for dukkha, including: "is not limited to painful experience as under (1), but refers to the unsatisfactory nature and the general insecurity of all conditioned phenomena which, on account of their impermanence, are all liable to suffering"
 * Oxford Bibliographies (Carol Anderson) a monograph with a good bibliography, which begins, "most often translated as 'pain,' 'suffering,' 'stress,' or 'dis-ease' (and as an adjective, 'painful, stressful')". She stresses the centrality of the term in Buddhist teachings, and "one of the most difficult understand in a comprehensive manner". The bibliographic reference that sounds the most interesting, or at least, most in depth, is Harvey (2009) "Translating Dukkha", but unfortunately that part of her article is behind a paywall
 * Tricycle (Andrew Olendzki) – this was the most in depth of the four; he writes: "usually translated as 'suffering,'” and in the interesting part (for me) goes on to characterize it as "best understood alongside the related word sukha" and contrasts word pairs sumanas/dumanas, and somanassa/domanassa and how they apply. I found this very interesting and informative, but again, difficult to render in a single word in English.


 * Yeah, suffering was my initial choice, and the one I remember from the little Buddhist literature (mostly SAian history related) I have read. I forgot then that it was being linked to duhkha, a word I do know a bit. Actually I was complicit in the linking but not paying attention to the word much, thinking it was a Pali word.
 * duhkha in Sanskrit (through dukh in Hindi) is a commonly understood word in South Asia, pretty much everyone, the Urdu speakers, the Bengali speakers, possibly even the Tamil speakers, know it, mainly because the Hindi speakers loose no opportunity to use it. gham is the preferred word in Urdu/Persian which is used in Bollywood songs, but dukh is too.
 * They all have all those meanings: unhappiness, distress, suffering, grief, sorrow, ..., but not commonly the more esoteric meanings JJ is alluding to.
 * Mathglot has a good solution. Simply use "suffering" (my preferred and original) and link it to duhkha (note it is duhkha in Sanskrit (दुःख = दु + : + ख = du + h + kha (with a short a sound at the end) or maybe with a dot under the h, but not dukkha which would be spelled दुक्ख​ = du + k + kha (unless it is the Pali or Prakrit spelling, which it might) Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  21:15, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Good work, btw.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  21:17, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * As I'm clearly the least knowledgeable about the topic of anyone here, I very happy if any of my contributions can help in some small way, and I appreciate the accolade. Thanks. Mathglot (talk) 22:04, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

F&f's final version

 * And thanks,, for your earlier responses. Based on them and based on my reading of Sanskrit dictionaries (even Monier Monier-Williams, ca 1899) and the Princeton Dictionary of Buddhism, and 's input about "unsatisfactory" I feel comfortable in this version:

The noWiki version, showing the links, is: Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  22:52, 13 November 2022 (UTC) Updated. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  23:37, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

I take back my earlier prohibitions about you not posting on my user talk page, pinging me, etc. Updated Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  23:50, 13 November 2022 (UTC)


 * A shorter second sentence to balance the longer first might be in order: His teachings, supported by monastic orders and spreading to many parts of Central Asia, Southeast Asia, and East Asia, form one of the world's major religions.
 * We could then move to the second paragraph with the details. Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  00:07, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Re "not posting", etc.: Understood; that's a good move, and will improve collaboration, which can only be a good thing. Re: latest version: looking very good. Btw, I will take into account all links, piped or not, so no need to nowiki-fy it on my account, just in case the question comes up again. Mathglot (talk) 00:43, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Btw, I'll still be around today, but will have very spotty wifi for a couple of days after; I may or may not respond until mid-week, or at most, only briefly. Mathglot (talk) 00:47, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Additional possible candidates
I was browsing both the lead paragraphs of the past, as well as our compendium of tertiary sources, and noticed the following excerpt from Encyclopedia of World History:

That really seems like quite a good formulation. It's a bit longer than some of the others, but includes aspects such as "legend", his background as a Hindu prince, and an allusion to Nirvana (which needn't be spelled out at this juncture, imho). I think it's pretty good, and worth including as an option, although we'd have to paraphrase it in order to avoid copyright issues. It's different enough from the others, and a bit more information-inclusive, so it seems like a worthy candidate to me. What do others think about this? If you like it, can you propose a rewording that works? If you don't like it, have another look at /Tertiary sources, and maybe something will inspire you to come up with an alternative. Mathglot (talk) 19:44, 11 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Serious? A Hindu prince? There was no Hinduism at the time of the Buddha; there was Brahmanism at the western Ganges basin; sramanas; and local religions. The Hindu synthesis started at ca. 500-300 BCE, when Brahmins incorporated sramanic ideas and non-Vedic gods in their practice and worldview. And the Buddha did not live in the 6th century. And he didn't 'seek enlightenment'; he sought liberation, a life freem from passions and aversion. Bodhi ("enlightenment") probably meant no more than the realisation that he had found a way that worked. Joshua J. Mark and his Encyclopedia of World History are perennial untrustworthy. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  20:30, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay, we can drop that one; thanks for the feedback. Btw, maybe your comments should be added as well at WP:RSN, and possibly added to their List of perennial sources. That still leaves us with three candidates; do you see any other formulations, either in past versions, or in tertiary sources that would be a reasonable alternative for the community to consider? Mathglot (talk) 21:23, 11 November 2022 (UTC)


 * The first sentence as it is now, with a link to "sramana," is fine. A short description of his teachings can be confined to the second alinea. "A middle path to overcome human suffering" is an inadequate summary; it's too literal. The Buddha wanted to overcome the overriding influence of passions and aversions, called "dukkha" in just one og many formulas in the Buddhist texts; "suffering" is just one, and not too accurate, translation. Too repeat: the first sentence is fine. 'If it ain't broke, don't fix it'. Name, date, 'what' and 'where' are given; biography and teaching are given in the second alinea. If you compromise on "renunciate," and F&f compromises on a link to "sramana," we're finished. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  05:55, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I've been watching what has developed here and I must say these recent discussions reflect well on those participating. You folks seem to have disagreed yourselves into a lasting consensus. Very impressive wikipedians working here in a contentious area. You guys are making us all look good. BusterD (talk) 07:50, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I thought you were watching the other page and attributed the prevailing calm there to your presence. :)
 * As for here, Blind men and an elephant is a Buddhist parable. I know it from a poem of Saxe that I had memorized in middle school. It has recently been merchandized.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:12, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I forgot: welcome to the page, BusterD, and thank you! Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:17, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid, JJ, I can't agree to a lead sentence being a haiku of links, each link a trapdoor to obscurity. Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:33, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I've asked you before, JJ, please write the lead in your own words, based on the sources I have provided. Please write it without links.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:36, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * What's obscure about Buddhism? Not using links "limit[s] further inquiry and understanding." WP:LINK: "Linking through hyperlinks is an important feature of Wikipedia. Internal links bind the project together into an interconnected whole." Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  14:30, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

In my own words
I'm asking again: please write the lead in your own words without using hyperlinks, explaining the concepts as you proceed, so we can simplify and smooth it. You had agreed to it earlier. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  14:48, 12 November 2022 (UTC)


 * I already did:


 * "Siddharta Gautama" - personal name; obvious, I think, but sourced by Buswell & Lopez, amnog others, as provided by you;
 * "5th cent. BCE" - scholarly consensus;
 * [7] Stein]: "is now thought to have been born, in the fifth century bce";
 * [8] Kulke & Rothermund: "archaeological evidence also seems to indicate that the Buddha lived in the fifth rather than in the sixth century";
 * "most commonly referred to as the Buddha" - could also be "commonly called the Buddha";
 * [e] - note on the names, including Gotama Buddha and Shakyamuni Buddha, mostly sourced to Busweel & Lopez, as provided by you;
 * [f] - note on the translation of "bodhi" and "Buddha";
 * "South Asian" - imprecise, but according to contemporary nomenclature and nationalistic sensibilities; specified in the second alinea. Your sources also use "India";
 * "renunciate" ( "renunciate" ) - renunciate per Thapar and Ray, who elaborates on Thapar:
 * Thapar: "As a general category they were referred to as sramanas or samanas"
 * Thapar: "Renunciation was not necessarily identical with asceticism and a distinction between them might be useful. The ascetic ideally lived in isolation, discarding all social obligations and performing his death-rites before leaving home. The renouncer discarded the social obligations required through family and caste ties, but entered an alternative society - that of the Sangha, where new obligations were assumed relating to the life of renouncers."
 * MOS:UNDERLINK: "In general, links should be created for: [...] Articles explaining words of technical terms, jargon or slang expressions or phrases."
 * "religious teacher":
 * [1] Coningham & Young: "religious identity"
 * [2] Thapar: "he founded a religion"; "the two parallel streams of religious articulation"; "the Buddha's teaching"; "The Buddha did not see his teaching as a divine revelation";
 * [4] Fogelin: "a wide variety of religious traditions emerged"; "Jainism and Buddhism became major religions"; "multiple overlapping religious sects, all competing for the support of the laity. Of these, Brahmanism, Jainism, and Buddhism"; "Buddhism was only one of many religious traditions"; "their teachings";
 * [5] Gilbert: "The teachings of Siddhartha, who later was known as a bodhi (possessor of wisdom) or Buddha (Enlightened One), came to form the basis of Buddhism, a religion"; "the teaching"; "The Buddha’s followers codified his teachings";
 * [7] Stein: "The teachings of the Buddha"; "he commenced teaching"; "particular great men – usually the founding teachers";
 * [8] Kulke & Ruthermond: "the teaching of Gautama Buddha"; "Buddha’s teachings";
 * [9] Ludden: "the teachings of Gautama Buddha";
 * [10] Fischer: "Jainism and Buddhism. These new religions"; "These two religious movements";
 * NB: your sources also use the term "spiritual";
 * "who founded Buddhism.":
 * [2] Thapar: "he founded a religion";
 * MOS:UNDERLINK: "In general, links should be created for: [...] Relevant connections to the subject of another article that will help readers understand the article more fully [...] Articles with relevant information."
 * For additionial requests I'll have to charge you a fee; I'm just a volunteer, remember? Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  15:52, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I have said repeatedly&mdash;three or four times now&mdash;please write the lead in your own words, not the lead sentence. Please write the lead without using wikilinks, explaining the jargon in common English as you proceed.  Thanks.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  18:41, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Forget the references for now. Simply write the lead in ordinary English without wikilinks, explaining what Sanskrit terms you use as you proceed, just as you would in a paper encyclopedia.  It will be a big step forward.  It will give us something to work with, to further hammer into shape.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  18:44, 12 November 2022 (UTC)


 * I have repeatedly said: the second alinea already gives a short overview of the (legendary) biography and his teachings. This summarizes the body of the article in an adequate way, and suffices. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  19:29, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * And it is adequate according to whom? Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  20:09, 12 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Wow. Just wanted to call out an admirable job of documenting the specific word choices in this version in a clear, thorough, and methodical manner. Rarely have I seen the thought process behind the wording of a single sentence documented this well. Bravo! So, take a break, have a beer, eat a double-chocolate sundae, or some cookies; smell the roses, contemplate your navel, or whatever kind of present you can give yourself. You've earned it. Mathglot (talk) 03:20, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

I see that Joshua Jonathan has been editing the lead throughout his time. I thought we had an agreement that the lead would remain inviolate until there was talk page consensus. I received many holier-than-thou admonitions. When I am ready, I will edit the lead. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  12:27, 13 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Just a little amendment, to incorporate dukkha: change
 * into
 * Dukkha, of course, is a notorious term to translate; as I've stated before, "suffering" does not suffice. See Talk:The Buddha. And see, ironically, Bhikkhu Bodhi (2013), I Teach Only Suffering and the End of Suffering. “Nope, I didn’t (quite) say that” —The Buddha:
 * As for the sources for "standing unstable, unsatisfactoriness" (or "unsatisfactory"):
 * Monier Monier-Williams doesn't need an introduction; Analoya is a respected scholar-monk; and Christopher I. Beckwith is "an American philologist and distinguished professor in the Department of Central Eurasian Studies at Indiana University in Bloomington, Indiana." Regards, Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  12:32, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I've just read MMW's entry. You have to look at all the uses of दुःख through the word combinations, not the etymology.
 * It is mostly sorrow, suffering, distress, and pain over unsteadiness, standing unstable, or unsatisfactoriness.
 * See MMW's
 * duhkha-moksha, deliverance (or moksha) from pain;
 * duhkha-duhkin, or sorrow upon sorrow;
 * duhkha-loka, the world of pain;
 * duhkha-yantra, application of pain, torture;
 * duhkha-jivin, (with jivin related to jiva), living with pain or distress);
 * duhkha-moha, perplexity from pain or sorrow;
 * duhkha-patra, a vessel or receptacle for sorrow;
 * The primary meaning is sorrow, distress, pain, suffering, and so forth
 * The transferred or figurative meanings are difficulty, as in duhkh-"dohiya" (milked with difficulty) or duhkh-laabhdika (gained with difficulty).
 * Etymologies can lead us astray into Indo-European roots etc. I'm reasonably sure about this now. You can ask at WT:INDIA if you'd like.  There are Sanskrit speakers there, one such posted on my page after the lead of Sanskrit was finished.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  22:21, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * And I just checked the Princeton Dictionary of Buddhism. It has a long entry.  Here are the first few lines:
 * duḥkha Sanskrit (Pali. dukkha; T. sdug bsngal; C. ku; J. ku; K. ko 苦). In Sanskrit, “suffering” or “unsatisfactoriness”; the first of the FOUR NOBLE TRUTHS (CATVĀRY ĀRYASATYĀNI) of Buddhism and a concept foundational to Buddhism’s worldview and religious practice. The emblematic description of duḥkha, as found in the first noble truth, is, “Birth is suffering, aging is suffering, sickness is suffering, death is suffering. To be conjoined with what one dislikes is suffering and to be separated from what one likes is suffering. Not to get what one wants is suffering. In short, grasping at the five aggregates (SKANDHA) is suffering.”
 * Suffering thus not only includes the suffering that will invariably be associated with ordinary life, such as birth, aging, disease, and death, but also subsumes a full range of mental, emotional, and spiritual dissatisfactions, and ultimately is seen
 * to be inherent to life itself. ... Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  22:42, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The transferred or figurative meanings are difficulty, as in duhkh-"dohiya" (milked with difficulty) or duhkh-laabhdika (gained with difficulty).
 * Etymologies can lead us astray into Indo-European roots etc. I'm reasonably sure about this now. You can ask at WT:INDIA if you'd like.  There are Sanskrit speakers there, one such posted on my page after the lead of Sanskrit was finished.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  22:21, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * And I just checked the Princeton Dictionary of Buddhism. It has a long entry.  Here are the first few lines:
 * duḥkha Sanskrit (Pali. dukkha; T. sdug bsngal; C. ku; J. ku; K. ko 苦). In Sanskrit, “suffering” or “unsatisfactoriness”; the first of the FOUR NOBLE TRUTHS (CATVĀRY ĀRYASATYĀNI) of Buddhism and a concept foundational to Buddhism’s worldview and religious practice. The emblematic description of duḥkha, as found in the first noble truth, is, “Birth is suffering, aging is suffering, sickness is suffering, death is suffering. To be conjoined with what one dislikes is suffering and to be separated from what one likes is suffering. Not to get what one wants is suffering. In short, grasping at the five aggregates (SKANDHA) is suffering.”
 * Suffering thus not only includes the suffering that will invariably be associated with ordinary life, such as birth, aging, disease, and death, but also subsumes a full range of mental, emotional, and spiritual dissatisfactions, and ultimately is seen
 * to be inherent to life itself. ... Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  22:42, 13 November 2022 (UTC)


 * For the record: this is my preferred version, to which the above should be added; plus "like-minded seekers rejecting caste," as proposed by F&f. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  12:59, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * J J, I see your linked preferred version, but I don't know what the word "above" means in "to which the *above* should be added", and then the part after "plus" as well is unclear to me. I'm trying to keep track of preferred versions; could you please explicitly perform the substitutions you refer to, and paste the new text below in its entirety? Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 19:59, 13 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Ehm.... I'm losing track 'duhkha and it's cessation'; when you start the RfC I'll make an edit to my preferred lead and revert it, to have a link to show it. But I'dd add duhkha and "rejection of caste."
 * @F&f: you're right, it's an etymology. I found an author who states that the etymology is probably correct, but that the Buddhist tradition uses duhkha. I'll add it to the duhkha-article. It could be, of course, that the Buddha did use duh-stha; we'll never know. "Suffering, unsatisfactory" is acceptable, with a link to duhkha; a note would be too much, I think; there's too much subtlety to explain in a note. Regards, Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  16:38, 14 November 2022 (UTC)


 * At further thought, maybe I know what I find problematic about "who viewed human suffering or dissatisfaction to spring from desire" or "teaching dukkha ("standing unstable," "unsatisfactoriness") and it's cessation." Try to follow me through:
 * From the Alagaddupama Sutta:
 * Now, when we look at the Four Noble Truths, they begin with duhkha. The stock-description then sums up what is duhkha: birth, old age, sickness, etc. Last they say: "In short, the five aggregates of grasping are duhkha. That is, they refer back to the stock-description quoted above. The second truth is duhkha samudaya, the third dukhka nirodha, "cessation, extinction." We can take that literally, as the cessation of duhkha, or the cessation of suffering, in the popular understanding. But we can also understand it as the sequence above: nirodha = seeing with right wisdom - disgust - dispassion - liberation. So, 'cessation of dukhka, then, is not the literal end of 'suffering', but the end of the fetters (chains) of one's passions. So, a better, but still short description, would be ""who viewed the human suffering or dissatisfaction (duhkha) of bondage to one's negative emotions to spring from desire," or "teaching the unsatisfactory (dukkha) bondage to one's negative emotions, and the cessation of this bondage."
 * And please, there's no need for another round of extensive discussion and quotes; just contemplate it. I found F&f's remark on "sorrow," which he removed, insightfull in this regard; I see it as a sign that the discussion leads to insight and wisdom, and that's good. So please, just think about it; I don't ask to incorporate it, but just to contemplate it. Regards,  Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  19:22, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * JJ Contemplation is good. I removed my edit because even sorrow (in the English language) can be problematic. Rivers, for example, which cause major floods were once called, "'s sorrow," e.g. "Bengal's sorrow," (Damodar River) or "China's sorrow," (Yangtze river). People experiencing sorrow from a natural event can't really be helped with the advice that they are experiencing a surfeit of desire, or craving, or attachment. In other words, Buddhist principles can be easily misinterpreted. That is why I went back to my version which has "human suffering or dissatisfaction." Like you JJ I'm in no hurry. Contemplation and reading is good. The Indian high-school book is not bad. It has material on Mahavira as well, and Buddhist legacy in art, and even something on how historians reconstruct histories from traditional accounts. Mathglot, though, was simply attempting to clarify.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  01:17, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * JJ Contemplation is good. I removed my edit because even sorrow (in the English language) can be problematic. Rivers, for example, which cause major floods were once called, "'s sorrow," e.g. "Bengal's sorrow," (Damodar River) or "China's sorrow," (Yangtze river). People experiencing sorrow from a natural event can't really be helped with the advice that they are experiencing a surfeit of desire, or craving, or attachment. In other words, Buddhist principles can be easily misinterpreted. That is why I went back to my version which has "human suffering or dissatisfaction." Like you JJ I'm in no hurry. Contemplation and reading is good. The Indian high-school book is not bad. It has material on Mahavira as well, and Buddhist legacy in art, and even something on how historians reconstruct histories from traditional accounts. Mathglot, though, was simply attempting to clarify.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  01:17, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

alternative etymology - duḥ-stha
The article on dukkha contains an eye-opening alternative etymology of dukkha, "suffering," namely duḥ-stha, " standing unstable." In this etymology, the famous trilaksana becomes 'all dharmas are impermanent; unsatisfactory, imperfect, unstable; and without an innate self-identity'. The Buddhist path, then, does not aim at ending literal suffering, but ending [mental] unstability, ending the swaying of the mind/person/life caused by the winds of desire. This extended etymology makes much more sense, also with respect to dhyana/samadhi, 'detached awareness', being aware of the passions without swayed by them. Also 'extinguishing the fires (of craving, passion)': they lose their fire, the fuel is burnt up, one becomes cool (nirvana). Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  05:53, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

on hold
The most recent RM just closed (maybe we should assign them numbers, so we can tell them apart; or maybe names, like hurricanes, because I feel like I've been through one). I don't know about anybody else, but I've got a serious case of TPF (talk page fatigue) and would appreciate a hiatus so I can go think about and work on other things for a while. From what I recall from previously expressed comments, this wouldn't disappoint anyone. So let's all take a break for a bit, and we can come back to this later. Hope that's okay with everyone. Mathglot (talk) 01:24, 3 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Sure. The fatigue is not so much subject fatigue as RM fatigue, or "Talk-page-conversation-fatigue".  It is nothing new.  It began a few months ago. The way I see it is:
 * RM 1, Gautama Buddha ==> Siddhartha Gautama was the only one we paid real attention to. It was not successful.
 * RM 2, the nominator came back and tried Gautama Buddha ==> The Buddha, by that time, we only groaned and rolled our eyes. It was successful.
 * RM 3, another nominator came back and tried The Buddha ==> Buddha and it has been closed as "no consensus," which is what RM2 should have been.
 * I can't say I agree with user:Sceptre's close but it has happened. I see this article to have been ill-served by people who had no history of serving the page.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  02:36, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * And I don't mean user:Sceptre. Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  02:38, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * You'd not be entirely wrong in your assessment, to be fair; the underlying current throughout the RM was basically "oh god, do we have to argue about this again?". I completely understand that the current title has its problems, but there's no consensus to move it away right now, and I think everyone would appreciate wants a bit of a breather before the next RM. Sceptre (talk) 23:11, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * So, just to clarify, I am not supporting you, Mathglot, on taking a break from discussions on adding reliable and due content to the page, only from talk page discussions unrelated or obliquely related to content.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  11:13, 3 December 2022 (UTC)