Talk:Dhyana

Untitled

Shouldn't the table go Sanskrit-Chinese-Korean-Japanese? -- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽ 22:46, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

A request dor someone to write a seperate page on Jhana, which is now just a redirect to dhyana. --81.153.184.207 23:17, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Aren't those words synonyms? - Nat Krause 15:30, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, synonymy across languages and across sects is kind of tricky, but I think the ultimate point is that they should be in the same article. Unless we're talking about some *other* jhana. -- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽ 15:00, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Hi, the main article on Buddhist jhana is good, though could do with some expansion to show how jhana fits in the path, as suggested by the end comment on psychic powers. But i am worried by the external links, which for the most part point to highly idiosyncratic interpretations of jhana; the Dhammakaya link doesn't even talk about jhana directly. I think these links should point to places that expand and give details on the mainstream understanding of jhana as explained in the article itself. Sujato—Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.131.123.82 (talk) 22:54, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Article name

Hello, shouldn't the name of the article be Dhyāna so that Dhyana would redirect there and not vice versa? With the macron the transcription of the term is more precise and correct. -Oghmoir 09:10, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be any firmly established convention.Sylvain1972 17:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Could someone please explain the pronunciation of dhyana, and other Buddhist words, such as dharma? Alan Joe Skarda 15:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

"Dhyāna" is pronounced [dʱjanə]; it rhymes with the name "Donna" (if you have an American accent) . The [dʱ] sound does not exist in English, so we typically just say [djanə]. As for "dharma", if you go to the article dharma, you can hear a recording of the pronunciation.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 16:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

isn't that more like "dYa" ("soft d" as in "soft g" used in italian, ie: gli, famiglia)? I've pronunced jhanna dYāna always anyway... as a mantra, and that's the sweetest pronunciation I can think of.--Esteban Barahona (talk) 02:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Splitting

I think this article should become a redirect into three different articles: Dhyana in Hinduism, Dhyana in Mahayana, and Jhana. The word is used differently in the different traditions, it seems. In the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad it means "thinking" for example. Mitsube (talk) 07:36, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

merger

Jhāna and Dhyāna should be merged because they apparently mean the same thing(in different languages). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.248.159.52 (talk) 20:19, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

While that is true in one sense, in another jhana is a more specific term, I think. Mitsube (talk) 23:11, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

It is true that they are the Pali and Sanskrit variants of the same word. I think they probably should be combined. But the question of whether or not it should be under Jhāna or Dhyāna is an interesting one. The Sanskrit is more universal, but the Pali term is more important to and more widely used by its respective tradition. Maybe we should move them both to "Dhyāna (Buddhism)" and get the Hindu stuff out of there to keep it from being unwieldy.Sylvain1972 (talk) 14:08, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

equivalent words for jhana and dhyana

I took this sentence from out the lede. These are clearly not equivalent terms and are simply the meaning of Zen in several languages. Perhaps the non-dual state could be used in Tibetan? as an equivalent for jhana, but I think that jhana itself is the proper equivalent phrase. There are the pictures of gradual enlightenment, and of Mahamudra, so there is an equivalent concept, but this is not the correct phrase. Equivalent terms are "Chán" in modern Chinese, "Zen" in Japanese, "Seon" in Korean, "Thien" in Vietnamese, and "Samten" in Tibetan. makeswell (talk) 17:29, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

It should not be removed entirely. Those terms were all the direct terms used to translate the word dhyana from Sanskrit into each of the respective languages. Whether or not those traditions subsequently began to understand the word in new ways is another issue.Sylvain1972 (talk) 01:58, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Kanji

I'm puzzled by the variation in kanji used on this page and the zen page. Here we have:

• Japanese 禅; trad Ch, 禪; Simplified 禅; And chan-na written as 禅那

Compare from the Zen page:

• Kanji: 禅/禪; Chinese: Traditional: 禪, Simplified: 禅. Under 'Chán in China' 禪 is used.

Do the Japanese use both 禅 and 禪? A quick visual search on 'zen kanji' revealed only 禅. Either way the two articles should be standardised. When we cite a character in the text are we supposed to use trad. or simplified Chinese? Or both? And how would readers (like me) know the difference? mahaabaala (talk) 08:15, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Requested move 9 July 2022

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: Moved (non-admin closure) >>> Extorc.talk 11:34, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

---

• Dhyāna → Dhyana
• Dhyāna in Hinduism → Dhyana in Hinduism
• Dhyāna in Buddhism → Dhyana in Buddhism

– as per WP:USEENGLISH. Oxford, Collins, Merriam-webster, Macmillian spell it as Dhyana, rather than Dhyāna. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:34, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

• Support per nomination. There are six entries listed upon the Dhyāna disambiguation page, three of which do not use a diacritic. This dab page's main title header was created without a diacritic in October 2001 and remained so until it was unilaterally moved to the form with the diacritic in February 2008. As for the three entries under dab page section header "Meditative practices in Indian religions", since standard English-language reference texts do not use a diacritic, there is no need for English Wikipedia to use a diacritic. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 02:25, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
• Support per WP:DABNAME: dab pages use the simplest form for the title, even if that doesn't represent the majority of entries. – Uanfala (talk) 23:34, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• Above, I commented only on the move of the dab page, though absent-mindedly neglected to mention that I didn't have an opinion on the moves of the the two articles. I would be inclined to oppose: dictionary entries only demonstrate that "dyana" is accepted as an English word, but the articles are not about the common meaning of the word, they're about specific technical concepts in Buddhism and Hinduism respectively, and if I'm not mistaken, Wikipedia practice has been to use the scholarly transliteration in such cases. – Uanfala (talk) 12:22, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

@Uanfala there is no precedent policy to use "scholarly transliteration" in Wikipedia (WP:DIACRITICS). Dhyana without diacritics is common in Indian English [1][2][3] as well as transliterated without diacritics is regarded as an "English word". We have Ganesha, Bhagavad Gita, Adi Shankara, Avatar and other using popular English spelling, rather than diacritics. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:26, 16 July 2022 (UTC)