This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Satya article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Text and/or other creative content from this version of Sat (Sanskrit) was copied or moved into [[1]] with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
Untitled
editCopyright on this highly personal essay, unlike other edits from this anon. IP? --Wetman 14:13, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Importance of Mahavaratas?
editI believe that this and other articles dealing with the five Mahavratas of Jainism should be high importance because they are the fundamental tenets of the religion. I'll change their importances to high for WikiProject Jainism, and if any objects, he/she can change them back. --Qmwne235 20:01, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Gross inaccuracy in translating 'sate hitam satyam' and other deviations
editThis article constantly implies that for Hindus, Buddhists and Jains, Satya or the truth is equated with God. This is fundamentally inaccurate and clearly a case of personal interpretation by the author. The Buddha never commented on God, let alone equate the concept of the Ultimate Truth being the same as Almighty God. There are many different interpretations as to what constitutes the Ultimate Truth, and only some of them suggest that the Ultimate Truth is the same as God. Sadly, I cannot cite any sources for this information. However, even in terms of simple linguistic translation, Satya does _not_ translate to 'God'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DarkseidX (talk • contribs) 19:00, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Devanagari
editStop breaking WP:INDICSCRIPTS. This is the English wikipedia and it is completely unnecessary to add devanagari to these articles because if you can't read it, it's gibberish, and if you can read it, you already know the Sanskrit because we provide the romanisation. Ogress smash! 09:42, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
- Have placed the Devanagari in the etymology section. I think is reasonable. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 17:31, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
- Sadly that section is original research. Ogress smash! 19:29, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Satya
editEnglish 112.79.63.231 (talk) 02:58, 30 January 2023 (UTC)