Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) m Archiving 3 discussion(s) to Talk:Four Noble Truths/Archive 4) (bot |
Joshua Jonathan (talk | contribs) |
||
(19 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 350: | Line 350: | ||
[[User:Robertinventor|Robert Walker]] ([[User talk:Robertinventor|talk]]) 11:16, 6 April 2017 (UTC) |
[[User:Robertinventor|Robert Walker]] ([[User talk:Robertinventor|talk]]) 11:16, 6 April 2017 (UTC) |
||
:Robert, we've been going over this over and over again already, and frankly, I find it quite disruptive that you bring up your points again, despite the concencus on the present state of the article. Nevertheless, I'll answer your concerns again. |
|||
:* 1 & 2: ''"cessation of all dukkha [in this lifetime]"'' & ''"The idea that the aim is to end rebirth and escape from this "mundane world" is an attempted reconstruction of the original teachings by some academics."'' |
|||
::* What you seem to mean here, together with ''"the four truths as they are undestoood by modern Buddhists,"'' is the idea that the four truths are "a path to happiness," a worldly happiness which ends all concrete suffering, here and now, in this lifetime. It surely may be so that [http://events.r20.constantcontact.com/register/event?llr=chpytxjab&oeidk=a07ebzrcfzs8b9c8b6e some modern teachers present Buddhism in this way], as a means to well-being; and, granted (yes, here [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Four_Noble_Truths&type=revision&diff=775488949&oldid=775433998 I concede]!) [http://fakebuddhaquotes.com/there-is-no-path-to-happiness-happiness-is-the-path/ happiness is ''part'' of the way], but it's not the ''final aim'' of classical Buddhism. It's ending rebirth. See [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Noble_Truths#cite_note-Moksha-32 the references in the article]. See also this verse from the Maha-Parinibbana Sutra, which is quoted in the article: |
|||
::::''"Through not seeing the Four Noble Truths, |
|||
::::''Long was the weary path from birth to birth. |
|||
::::''When these are known, removed is rebirth's cause, |
|||
::::''The root of sorrow plucked; then ends rebirth."'' |
|||
::* Regarding "a path to happiness," you state, citing Walpola Rahula: |
|||
::::''"For modern practitioners who base their understanding on the sutras themselves, it is a path to happiness, which also can be realized in this very lifetime. As Walpola Rahula put it in his exposition of the first truth [https://sites.google.com/site/rahulawhatthebuddha/the-first-noble-truth]: "It tells you exactly and objectively what you are and what the world around you is, and shows you the way to perfect freedom, peace, tranquility and happiness.”."'' |
|||
:::* This is your personal reading of two words of Walpola Rahula, taken out of the context of a much longer exposé. Rahula is not talking about "happiness" in the ordinary sense, which is ''dukkha''; he is talking about a "perfect happiness," a happiness which is not based on transitory pleasures. Even ''dhyana'' is regarded as ''dukkha''! |
|||
:::* See Jeremy Carrette and Richard King (2005), ''Selling Spirituality'', on the "commodisation" of spirituality, and the reduction of eastern spirituality to personal well-being: |
|||
::::* ''"A basic misunderstanding is that many people have come to see Buddhist training as no longer about bringing compassion to the whole world, and have, instead, started to see it as a means to a private and personal salvation." (p.102)'' |
|||
::::* ''"The purpose of these contemplative techniques is to unravel or deconstruct the fixed boundaries of the individual self so that one might see things as they really are and live one's life for the sake of the flourishing of all beings, not just oneself." (p.102)'' |
|||
:::* See also Gombrich (1996), ''Theravada Buddhism'', "Using Buddhism for this world" (p.207-208): |
|||
::::* ''"... to use one's states of altered consciousness for the good of others is the recognized role performance of the religious virtuoso, or the professional. But the urban and suburban middle-class Sinhalese is coming to use meditation as something usefull in everyday life." (p.207)'' |
|||
::::* ''"To use meditation for secular purposes is to try to adapt Buddhist soteriology to life in the world." (p.208)'' |
|||
:::* See also [[:Bodhisattva]], [[:Guanyin]], and [[:Tara (Buddhism)|Tara]]. For a personification of this ideal of compassion, see [[:Etty Hillesum]] (not Buddhist, but Jewish) and her ''An interrupted Life: The Diaries of Etty Hillesum 1941 -1943''. She declined the possibility to hide from the Germans, and went to the camps, with her fellow Jewish citizens, knowing she would be killed, yet choosing to stay with the ones whose fate she shared. ''That's'' what spirituality is about!!! Not about "happines" and never being in pain again, but about compassion and 'doing the right thing,' even when this means to be in pain. |
|||
::* You also cite Walpola Rahula as stating; |
|||
::::''"Buddha reached cessation in the sense of the four truths, already in his own lifetime."'' |
|||
:::That's not what the quote says; it says: |
|||
::::''"In almost all religions the summum bonum can be attained only after death. But Nirvana can be realized in this very life; it is not necessary to wait till you die to ‘attain’ it."'' |
|||
:::* The cessation you're referring to is [https://sites.google.com/site/rahulawhatthebuddha/the-third-noble-truth stated by Rahula] as |
|||
:::::''"the Cessation of dukkha (Dukkhanirodha-ariyasacca), which is Nibbāna."'' |
|||
::::Indeed, in this life, and implying that it comes with the "perfect happiness" Rahula refers to. Yet, this does not change the basic fact that the ending of samsara is the ultimate goal of Buddhism (a fact which Rahula hardly mentions in ''What the Buddha Taught'', which is a strange omission, given the myriad debates in Buddhism about what exactly it is that transmigrates. Really curious). |
|||
:::* Rahula's comment about "the summum bonum" is questionable, at closer consideration: |
|||
::::* ''Nirvana'' means "extinction," of craving, which fuels the process of rebirth. Craving can be extinquished in this life, which gives peace of mind, in this life. So, what happens when the body dies? Is there a residue which still enjoys this "perfect happiness" after death? Is ''Nirvana'' some kind of Heaven, akin to Christianity, which continues after death, as Rahula seems to imply here? |
|||
:::;* Note that Christian mysticism states that the "Vision of God" can be attained in this life, in line with its Neo-Platonic origins, which strives toward the realisation of ''the One'' in this life. Just like, in Hinduism, ''moksha'' can be attained in tbis life. Rahula's comment about this "summum bonum" seems to be quite inaccurate! |
|||
:::* Rahula's metaphysics are problematic: |
|||
::::* Rahula seems to turn "Nirvana" into some kind of metaphysical entity; the proof of it's existence is the fact that "it" can be experienced. Gombrich, a student of Rahula, was astonished by this kind of epistemologival naivity. |
|||
::::* Such reifications, turning elements of the Buddhist teachings into a metaphysical highest priniple, are not restricted to Rahula; see [[:Buddha-nature]] and [[Shentong]]. But it is also deeply disputed; see [[Rangtong]] and [[:David J. Kalupahana]], ''A History of Buddhist Philosophy''. |
|||
:::* This 'cessation of dukkha' does not mean that there is no concrete suffering anymore; the Buddha died in pains, Dogen suffered from depression. It means that they didn't cling any longer to fleeting pleasures. See also Jack Kornfield, ''After the party, the laundry'', and Ton Lathouwers, ''More Than Anyone Can Do''. |
|||
::* The article ''does'' refer to reaching happiness in this life, but balances it, ''with'' [[WP:RS]]: |
|||
::::''"The four truths describe dukkha and its ending as a means to reach peace of mind in this life, but also as a means to end rebirth. Some contemporary teachers tend to explain the four truths psychologically, by taking dukkha to mean mental anquish in addition to the physical pain of life,[61] and interpreting the four truths as a means to attain happiness in this life.[62] Yet, though happiness is part of the way, it is not the goal.[web 18][note 15] Spiro notes that "the Buddhist message is not simply a psychological message," but an eschatological message.[14]"'' (The section is longer than just this quote) |
|||
::* A previous version of the article contained a large collection of quotes from modern teachers; this was deleted because of [[WP:OVERQUOTE]] and [[WP:OR]]; there was a strong concencus to do so. |
|||
:* 3. "Redeath": this is a referenced term; see the previous discussions. |
|||
:* 4. "Authenticity of the sutras": the article says, with extensive notes: |
|||
:::''"three positions held by scholars of Buddhism can be distinguished:[83] |
|||
::::''1. "Stress on the fundamental homogeneity and substantial authenticity of at least a considerable part of the Nikayic materials;"[note 21] |
|||
::::''2. "Scepticism with regard to the possibility of retrieving the doctrine of earliest Buddhism;"[note 22] |
|||
::::''3. "Cautious optimism in this respect."[note 23]"'' |
|||
::So, this topic is covered. Additional info on the Theravada-view can be added at "Emphasis within different traditions," which does have a section on Theravada. |
|||
:* Regarding your statement ''"the earlier version of this article was much more mainstream. It presented the four truths as they are undestoood by modern Buddhists in the sutra traditions"'': |
|||
::* If this "mainstream" understanding is the idea that Buddhism offers a path to happiness in this life; that this is based on the sutra's; that the sutras preserve the original teachings of the Buddha himself verbatim; that the Buddha himself therefore offered a path to happines in this life: that's a very limited understanding and presentation of what Buddhism is, based on a personal interpretation of what the sutras entail. At best, this "happiness" is ''part'' of the Buddhist path to liberation, and a means to present this path to a lerger audience. It may be how some "modern Buddhists in the sutra traditions" present Buddhism in a nutshell. But it is far from an comprehensive understanding or presentation of Buddhism, not even of what you call "the sutra traditions;" nor an accurate scholarly presentation of Buddhism. Basically, it is your ''personal'' understanding of Buddhism and a few selected sources. And, note: the "earlier version of this article" was not even accurate in it's presentation of the "sutra traditions." See the thread below on "Maha-Parinibbana Sutra." |
|||
:And no, I do not only see the views here of Gombrich and Anderson; I see the views of Norman, Cousins, Paul Williams, Spiro, Geoffrey Samuels, Patrick Olivelle, Peter Harvey, Anderson, Stephen Batchelor, Schmitthausen, Ui, Vetter, and Bronkhorst. And those are only the scholars who are mentioned explicitly; the list with sources is much longer. |
|||
:So, to summarize: |
|||
:* The present article is based on [[WP:RS]], and gives a reliable overview of scholarly views on the four truths; |
|||
:* The ultimate goal of Buddhism is the ending of rebirth, as [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Noble_Truths#cite_note-Moksha-32 referenced by 14 sources in the article]; |
|||
:* Happiness, and the interpretations of some popular modern teachers, are presented with the lines ''"there is a way to reach real happiness"'' (prominent in the lead!), ''"Some contemporary teachers tend to explain the four truths psychologically, by taking ''dukkha'' to mean mental anquish in addition to the physical pain of life"'', and the comment [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Four_Noble_Truths&type=revision&diff=775488949&oldid=775433998 happiness is part of the way]; that suffices; |
|||
:* Eventually missing Theravada-views can be expanded in the Theravada-section. |
|||
:I hope <s>we</s> you can now finally put this matter to rest, and accept the concensus on this article. Improvements are welcome, of course, by ''editing the article''. Best regards, [[User:Joshua Jonathan|<font size="2"><span style="font-family:Forte;color:black">Joshua Jonathan</span></font>]] -[[User talk:Joshua Jonathan|<font size="3"><span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;color:black">Let's talk!</span></font>]] 16:02, 14 April 2017 (UTC) / last update [[User:Joshua Jonathan|<font size="2"><span style="font-family:Forte;color:black">Joshua Jonathan</span></font>]] -[[User talk:Joshua Jonathan|<font size="3"><span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;color:black">Let's talk!</span></font>]] 13:28, 15 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
== Maha-Parinibbana Sutra == |
|||
I just added a quote from the Maha-Parinibbana sutra to the thread above, and noted that the Wiki-article said: |
|||
:''"In this sutta, the Buddha emphasized the importance of the four noble truths with the following statement:"'' |
|||
I checked the [http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.16.1-6.vaji.html source]; in it's introduction, is does not make such a statement; nor does the sutra itself make such a statement. With other words, a piece of [[WP:OR]] which was still left. I've [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Four_Noble_Truths&type=revision&diff=775431619&oldid=773081396 corrected] it. [[User:Joshua Jonathan|<font size="2"><span style="font-family:Forte;color:black">Joshua Jonathan</span></font>]] -[[User talk:Joshua Jonathan|<font size="3"><span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;color:black">Let's talk!</span></font>]] 21:01, 14 April 2017 (UTC) |
Revision as of 13:28, 15 April 2017
Buddhism B‑class Top‑importance | ||||||||||
|
Religion B‑class Top‑importance | ||||||||||
|
Three things wrong with this article
I hope that this comment will be of interest and value to other editors, whether you agree with what I say here or not. I will only say what I see as wrong with this article, and not present a way forward to solve it, nor will I attempt an RfC at this stage. I think that was one of the things I got wrong before in the long collapsed discussions above. The starting point is to decide if they are issues first.
The ideas in the article are presented in some detail and to explain what I see as wrong with them requires a similarly detailed reply. These points are not easy to follow if split over a thread consisting of many comments, and I see that as one of the other main things that I got wrong in the previous discussions. So, to avoid breaking up and confusing this exposition, please add any comments in the #4. Discussion section below. Your co-operation in this is much appreciated. Thanks! Robert Walker (talk) 02:15, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
What's wrong - short summary - Four Truths incorrectly stated, Redeath technical, and POV statements on authenticity
The Four Noble Truths of the old lede have been replaced by four statements which describe a non Buddhist aim to end rebirth back into the "mundane world" of Samsara.
- According to the Pali Canon Buddha, although Buddha went on to grow old, get sick, and die like everyone else, he had already realized cessation of all dukkha as a young man aged 35 - the new statements imply that this can only happen after death. The collapsed sections below go into this in detail as explained by Walpola Rahula, whose book "What the Buddha Taught" is widely regarded as one of the best expositions of the central teachings in the Pali canon by both Eastern and Western scholars alike.
- The idea that the aim is to end rebirth and escape from this "mundane world" is an attempted reconstruction of the original teachings by some academics. It's not based directly on the sutras but rather on what these academics think the teachings were before the sutras were recorded. For modern practitioners who base their understanding on the sutras themselves, it is a path to happiness, which also can be realized in this very lifetime. As Walpola Rahula put it in his exposition of the first truth [1]: "It tells you exactly and objectively what you are and what the world around you is, and shows you the way to perfect freedom, peace, tranquility and happiness.”.
- The article has ten uses of the highly WP:TECHNICAL term "redeath". All of these could be replaced without loss of meaning by "death".
The footnotes also make an inaccurate parallel with a non Buddhist idea of preventing Punarmrtyu, or "redeath" from a heavenly state back into Samsara. Therevadhans don't have the concept of an intermediate state between death and rebirth of any sort, heavenly or otherwise. Instead, they say that the next thought moment after your death is the first thought moment of the process of your next rebirth. - The article presents a single WP:POV on authenticity according to which only a few very early teachings in the Pali Canon are by the historical Buddha. This is just one of many attributions according to scholars. The opposite end of the spectrum is the WP:POV according to which the earliest sutras were passed down through memorization, word for word, in a similar way to the Vedas and record the teachings as memorized shortly after Buddha died. There are many intermediate views too.
(If you wish to comment, please use the section #4. Discussion below). Robert Walker (talk) 12:57, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
In detail:
Details
| ||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
The previous lede stated the truths correctly as the truths of suffering (or more generally unsatisfactoriness), origin, cessation and path.[1]. This is how most books, articles and online WP:RS sources introduce them, followed by a detailed exposition of each truth in turn [2]
Cite error: A One of the most distinctive features of Buddhism is that Buddha taught that cessation is something you can realize in this very lifetime. This can be challenging for readers who come to it with the background of another religion. Indeed, though we can all directly realize what suffering and dissatisfaction is from our own experience, according to the Pali Canon, only one of Buddha's first disciples, venerable Kondañña, directly realized the truth of what he was saying about cessation right away when he first taught them[9]. Several readers posted to the talk page complaining that they didn't understand the four truths, not surprisingly, and that is why the lede got rewritten. Unfortunately, this rewrite turned them into statements describing a way of escape from "this mundane world" at death. This may indeed make them more familiar to you, and so easier to understand, if you are used to other religions. However, that doesn't make them more correct. (If you wish to comment, please use the section #4. Discussion below). Robert Walker (talk) 02:15, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Professor Walpola Rahula's book "What the Buddha Taught" is widely regarded as one of the best expositions of the central teachings in the Pali canon by both Eastern and Western scholars alike. By way of example, Richard Gombrich in the preface to his new book "What the Buddha Thought" says "The title of this book is a gesture of homage to the late Ven. Dr Walpola Rahula, who taught me much of what I understand of early Buddhism"[2]. It has 67 citations in google scholar in the last year alone [3]. He was a Pali expert thoroughly familiar with the canon of the Therevadhan sutras. He put it like this in his exposition of the Third Noble Truth[4]:
The four truths are understood in this way in all the main sutra traditions, Zen [5], Tibetan [6], Therevadhan [7], etc. (If you wish to comment, please use the section #4. Discussion below). Robert Walker (talk) 02:15, 12 December 2016 (UTC) Far from the Buddha having to die to reach enlightenment, the Pali Canon also states in the Mahaparinibbana Sutta that Buddha didn't have to enter paranirvana either when he did. Ananda could have asked him to remain to the end of this world period, but he didn't get the hint. [8]
Although the historical Buddha entered paranirvana when he died, in the Tibetan traditions at least they also have the idea that other Buddhas can "emanate" after they die and take birth as young babies again over and over [9] (If you wish to comment, please use the section #4. Discussion below). Robert Walker (talk) 02:15, 12 December 2016 (UTC) It's also worth noting that the wheel turning sutra[10] does not include the word "rebirth" in any form. Instead the teachings are based around dukkha. This is makes them far more accessible, as all that is required of the practitioner is to recognize the truth of suffering or unsatisfactoriness, which is a truth easy of access to anyone. After that, all that is needed to follow the path is an open mind, and a dedication to seeing the truth and to recognize clearly what you know and what you don't know. That open mind also applies to what happens when you die. If the truths were based around an aim to end rebirth, then you would need to affirm a belief first, such as "I believe in rebirth", before you could start on the path. This would close your mind to other possibilities. It would be a way of declaring that you are have decided in advance that any other ideas about what happens when you die are wrong. But Buddhists don't have any such creed, even in the Tibetan traditions, which have the strongest emphasis of any on the process of rebirth, including recognition of reborn Tulkus. Instead, you commit to an open mind when you become a Buddhist. See for instance Trungpa Rinpoche's exposition of requirements for taking refuge[11], in the ceremony during which one affirms that one has chosen to follow the Buddhist path. I know that there is a movement amongst some Westerners to try to identify what they take to be the original authentic teachings and to reinterpret the sutras. In the previous discussion then the other editors provided cites which they claimed presented the view that when Buddha became enlightened, all that happened is that he got an intimation that after death he would never be reborn again. But they were cites to densely argued complex technical discussions in the academic literature, and I was not convinced that these discussions were interpreted correctly. Whether or not any WP:RS present such views, this is certainly not how the four truths are presented by most Buddhist scholars or teachers, nor is it how Buddhist practitioners understand them, and nor is it how they are presented in the original wheel turning sutra in the Pali canon. (If you wish to comment, please use the section #4. Discussion below). Robert Walker (talk) 02:15, 12 December 2016 (UTC) None of the editors in the previous discussion found a Buddhist sutra cite for this word (mentioned in note 1 in the current version). It is used in Hindu and pre Buddhist texts but these texts are not recognized as sutras by Buddhists. (If you wish to comment, please use the section #4. Discussion below). Robert Walker (talk) 02:15, 12 December 2016 (UTC) Instead they gave cites to the Pali phrase agatigati, where agati means coming and gati means going. This is translated as
Most Buddhist readers will not be familiar with the term "redeath". If I can take myself as an example reader, I have listened to teachers from many traditions including Therevadhan, Korean Zen and three branches of Tibetan Buddhism (Nyingmapa, Gelugpa and Kagyupa), over a period of 30 years. I have never heard any of them use it. Nor have I ever heard any fellow Buddhists use the word. The word "rebirth" is familiar to most but not the word "redeath". Another Buddhist who responded to the RfC was also not familiar with the term. Perhaps it is only familiar to those who have read many Western scholarly papers on the topic. If one needs a translation of agatigati, what is wrong with "rebirth and death" which avoids need for this technical term at all? The article currently has ten uses of the word "redeath". All of those could be replaced by "death" with no loss of meaning. As evidence that "redeath" is a rare word in English, and therefore WP:TECHNICAL, it's not found in these online dictionaries: (If you wish to comment, please use the section #4. Discussion below). Robert Walker (talk) 02:15, 12 December 2016 (UTC) In the Pali Canon, in the Kalama sutta, Buddha made a clean break with the past, saying that scriptures and other sources such as the Vedas must not be followed just because they are scriptures but must be tested by "the results it yields when put into practice; and — to guard against the possibility of any bias or limitations in one's understanding of those results — they must further be checked against the experience of people who are wise." (quoting the translator's note). This makes it different from the situation of Christianity or Islam which both treat the Old Testament as sacred. For Buddhists, the Vedas are not sacred in this sense. So, should the article use the the word Punarmrtyu in note 1? That note gives it as an internal link to Saṃsāra#Punarmrityu:_redeath which is pre-Buddhist. Wikipedia describes it as
In more detail it is described here "Buddhist rituals of Death and Rebirth":
This is a historical section called "Some historical roots : time of death". It is not describing Buddhist ideas at this point. The four statements in the new lede seem to be based on this idea. Buddhists don't have this idea of heaven as a state between death and rebirth. The sutras do describe states of bliss that one can enter, in this life or future lives, or rather many such, each more refined than the last. Some are described with "luminous bodies"[15], and some as just pure mind. But all this is a part of the cycle of rebirth. These blissful realms, are treated as another rebirth of the many possible in the cycle of Samsara. They are not thought of as separate from Samsara. The new lede describes a way of escaping Samsara through somehow "stopping karma" so that you no longer have to take rebirth back into this "mundane world". This would seem to have close parallels with this non Buddhist idea of Punarmrtyu or stopping "redeath from heaven":
These four statements do not occur in this form in any Buddhist source. Though that section is heavily cited to the Buddhist literature, it is a WP:SYNTHESIS made up of ideas from many Buddhist sources combined together to make a whole that is no longer Buddhist. Compare the four truths as they were stated in the previous lede:
(If you wish to comment, please use the section #4. Discussion below). Robert Walker (talk) 02:15, 12 December 2016 (UTC) Therevadhans don't have the idea of an intermediate state between death and the next rebirth at all. Instead, they say that the next thought-moment after your death is the first thought-moment of your new rebirth. Here is professor Walpola Rahula describing this Therevadhan view on death and rebirth in "THE SECOND NOBLE TRUTH: SAMUDAYA: THE ARISING OF DUKKHA".
(If you wish to comment, please use the section #4. Discussion below). Robert Walker (talk) 02:15, 12 December 2016 (UTC) Some Buddhists do think in terms of an intermediate state between death and the next rebirth, for instance in the Tibetan teachings. However, it is not described as a heavenly state. Rather, it is described for most beings as like being overwhelmed by exceedingly bright lights and loud noises like the loudest thunder, which most beings run away from, terrified, at that point and so take rebirth again. In the Tibetan Book of the Dead (translation by Chogyam Trungpa with Francesca Fremantle)
This could hardly be further from the pre-Buddhist Vedic idea of alternating between this life and a heavenly state with the aim of avoiding redeath in order to remain in the heavenly state. (If you wish to comment, please use the section #4. Discussion below). Robert Walker (talk) 02:15, 12 December 2016 (UTC) Tibetans do have the idea of a Bardo state between death and rebirth, but the aim is not at all to remain within Bardo which is seen as terrifying and bewildering for most beings, and not a heavenly state at all. Rather the idea in the Tibetan Book of the Dead is to find a way to awaken from the Bardo, to awaken to those bright lights and loud sounds, or failing that, to find your way to a fortunate rebirth where you may be able to awaken as Buddha did during that lifetime. Therevadhans don't have the idea of an intermediate state between death and rebirth. For them your last moment of death is followed immediately by the first moment of the process of rebirth in another lifetime. So, the idea behind Punamrtyu of avoiding "redeath" from an intermediate state between death and rebirth can't even be stated in a Therevadhan context. The note doesn't make it clear that this is a non Buddhist idea. I think this is another reason to avoid the use of the technical word "redeath" in the article in translations of Agatigati. Scholars can be expected to understand "rebirth and redeath" in a Buddhist context as meaning repeated ordinary deaths, with each "redeath" leading to the start of the next rebirth in the next moment of thought (in the Pali canon at least). However, a non scholar reader could easily confuse this with the non Buddhist idea of death leading to heaven and "redeath" leading from heaven back to Samsara. This confusion seems especially likely to happen since the footnote links to a passage in wikipedia describing "redeath" in the non Buddhist sense. (If you wish to comment, please use the section #4. Discussion below). Robert Walker (talk) 02:15, 12 December 2016 (UTC) This article presents the view according to which the Four Noble Truths are a later development and were not taught by the historical Buddha. This is a view at one end of a continuum. At the other end of the continuum is the view of Prayudh Payutto and several other scholars according to which the teachings of the Pali canon for the most part consist of the words recorded at the time of the Great Council after Buddha died. The only exceptions are some obviously later texts. This is not a view based on faith but rather on scholarship. In the Pali Canon it's said that after the death of Vardhamana, or as Buddhists refer to him, Nirgrantha, leader of the Jains, Buddha's followers noticed that his followers fell into discussion and dispute about what his teachings were. They didn't want that to happen to Buddha's teachings. At the time Northern India didn't have writing. However, as scholars generally agree, the Brahmins were able to preserve the Vedas word for word through memorization, and many of Buddha's disciples were Brahmins trained to do this. So, the sutras say, they committed his teachings to memory while he was still alive. After he died, then they held a great council during which they agreed on the material in the Pali Canon and recited each sutra in unison. With this internal evidence from within the sutras themselves, it is at least possible that what we have preserved are the teachings as memorized in the first great council, pretty much word for word. After all, it is generally agreed that the Brahmins achieved that with the Vedas. In support of this view they present these main reasons:
For the details of this view, see
Many scholars hold intermediate views. For example: Peter Harvey, "Introduction to Buddhism: teachings, history and practices", says
Richard Gombrich says in an interview [16]
By presenting only one view, and such an extreme view in the debate, the current article is very WP:POV. The wikipedia article on the Pali Canon under: Attribution according to scholars presents the full range of views on this matter, in a WP:NPOV way. Surely the approach used in the Pali Canon article is more in accord with wikipedia guidelines. (If you wish to comment, please use the section #4. Discussion below). Robert Walker (talk) 02:15, 12 December 2016 (UTC) Once again, if anyone reading this objects to this post, please just let me know. I have no wish to post here if my posts are unwelcome, thanks. It's six days since my last post so hopefully this is not seen as excessive. And probably this is all that I have to say at this stage but I felt I should post a bit more after reading Gombrich's book which gave me some more insight into what I think the issue may be here. Robert Walker (talk) 11:38, 18 December 2016 (UTC) I've just been reading Gombrich's "What the Buddha Thought"[17] and was surprised to find that he presents an "escape from this mundane world" interpretation. He is a top scholar in the field of Western academic Buddhism, though he admits that he doesn't have Walpola Rahula's depth of understanding of the vast encyclopedia sized Pali Canon - few Westerners do. Richard Gombrich's main thesis (if I understand it right) is that:
He also presents this thesis in short form on his Oxford home page[18]. The basic message according to him is
As I said above, at least for someone approaching this as a Buddhist in the sutra traditions, what he says seems to be inconsistent in almost all respects with the way that Walpola Rahula and other modern Buddhist scholars and teachers in these traditions present it. He seems to be of the view that these interpretations don't quite make sense as is, but that with his humanist reinterpretation they can be transformed into something that does make sense. Please correct me if I have made any mistakes in this summary of his views. His approach can be especialy hard to understand if you are used to the way the four truths are traditionally understood and explained in the main sutra traditions, perhaps just as hard to understand as the traditional approach clearly is for those who approach this in the other direction.. (If you wish to comment, please use the section #4. Discussion below). Robert Walker (talk) 11:38, 18 December 2016 (UTC) |
Conclusions
In summary:
- The four statements in the lede correspond roughly to some views of Western academic Buddhist scholars of what they think the historical Buddha taught
- They are not consistent with the views of typical modern practicing Buddhists including many Buddhist scholars such as Walpola Rahula and leading teachers in all the main traditions of Buddhism.
- The WP:POV that the historical Buddha taught the views summarized in these four statements is academically respected, but only one view of many in a wide ranging debate about what Buddha taught. Other scholars like Alex Wynne, Prayudh Sujato etc have an equally carefully reasoned WP:POV that Buddha taught the four truths and other central teachings just as recorded in the Pali Canon.
So first, is this an accurate summary of the present day situation, of what is said in the WP:RS that I summarized?
(If you wish to comment, please use the section #4. Discussion below). Robert Walker (talk) 11:38, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
If the conclusions are correct
What should we do if those conclusions about what is said in the WP:RS on this subject are correct? I think we can learn a lot by looking at the articles on Christianity. Most Buddhists don't speak English (over half are Chinese, and the next most common by population are the Thai and Japanese [19]), and there are only 535 million Buddhists world wide compared with 2.2. billion Christians. Also, the majority of English speaking editors of Wikipedia are much more familiar with Christianity than Buddhism. The wikipedia articles on theology are of a high standard.
So, let's take a similarly central article in Christianity: Resurrection of Jesus. In the section on Historicity and origin you learn that there is a wide range of scholarly views about whether this event happened and what the event was. However, the lede relies on the biblical account, and there is no suggestion that the lede be rewritten to mention these views.
In a similar way, the old lede presented the four truths as they are presented in the canon. As with the lede for Resurrection of Jesus, this is not taking a WP:POV on the scholarly debate about what Buddha originally taught, it just gives the teachings as they are presented in the sutras, just as the lede for Resurrection of Jesus gives the teachings as presented in the Bible. Of course Richard Gombrich's views are notable, and interesting, and need to be mentioned. It's a matter of where and how this is done.
Whatever the decision is, as a modern Buddhist reader myself, I feel that it is especially important that the lede does not give the false view that most modern Buddhists aim to escape from this "mundane world" and to prevent rebirth when they die. That is so different from the views and practice of most Buddhist practitioners including many of the most respected Buddhist scholars and teachers like Walpola Rahula as described in many WP:RS. It is as if the lede of Resurrection of Jesus falsely promulgated the idea that most Christians don't believe in the resurrection.
The way it is done at present in the lede for Four Noble Truths is a bit like someone rewriting the lede of Resurrection of Jesus to attempt a coherent "best account" of what "really happened" according to the views of theologians that the wikipedia author of the lede thinks "got it right". That surely can't be the right way to do it, and the way that it is handled in theological articles on wikipedia may show the way to an alternative approach to this issue.
(If you wish to comment, please use the section #4. Discussion below). Robert Walker (talk) 11:38, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
4. Discussion
Please discuss here to avoid breaking up and confusing the exposition above. Robert Walker (talk) 02:15, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
- @JimRenge: - I can understand that you want to collapse part of what I wrote since nobody has commented on it yet. But I think at least the discussion section needs to be left in case anyone wants to comment, and the material in the conclusion is important and not mentioned in the summary as I added it later. Plus I hope you agree that if anyone decides they want to take up the discussion then it would then be appropriate to uncollapse it. I'm going to do some more editing of the uncollapsed sections as they were written on the assumption that the whole lot is visible to the reader. Thanks! Robert Walker (talk) 13:40, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- @Joshua Jonathan: I can also understand collapsing the references section as the collapsed section does have rather a large number of cites. Just a remark to anyone reading this - if you want to be able to jump to the citations then please uncollapse the References section as well as the collapsed section above. Robert Walker (talk) 15:45, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- As the only remaining uncollapsed area of this page available for me to say anything, I'd like to say briefly: the neutrality of this article is disputed. I think it needs a POV tag. See WP:NPOVD. Please see collapsed sections of this talk page for details. Robert Walker (talk) 11:12, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
References
References
|
---|
References
|
Short summary of the issues with this article
I thought I'd just briefly state the main points again, perhaps I went into too much detail. Check the collapsed sections above for the sources, quotes and details for what I say below and if you have any questions do say.
I think it can't be denied that Walpola Rahula said that Buddha reached cessation in the sense of the four truths, already in his own lifetime. Also it can't be denied that Walpola Rahula is highly respected by Western and Eastern academics alike as an expert on Therevadha Buddhism and the Pali Canon. And Richard Gombrich also agreed that this is the view of modern Buddhists. I gave cites and quotes that support this without question, in the collapsed section above.
Then, it's true that Richard Gombrich says that in his view this is the result of later authors rewriting some of the Pali Canon and is inauthentic, not the view of the Buddha himself. He doesn't deny that it is the view of modern sutra tradition Buddhists. He just finds it puzzling and thinks that Buddha's original teachings must have been misunderstood and rewritten.
On rebirth and redeath, then it's true that the sutras use a phrase "coming and going" that can be translated this way. But it is just ordinary death and rebirth within samsara. No evidence at all has been given that Buddhists have the idea of redeath from a heavenly state from Hinduism. Cites to the Vedas can't establish this as the Vedas are not sacred texts for Buddhists. Also the word is not used in the wheel turning sutras.
On the view of inauthenticity of the Pāli Canon, Anderson's view is at an extreme range of a spectrum. And even she, as a Buddhist herself, agrees that the sutras are the basis for the practices of modern Buddhists, whatever it is that Buddha himself orignally said.
The Pāli Canon article here presents the full range of views. That includes the view of authenticity, held by many scholars, that most of the Pali Canon, apart from some obviously later texts, was memorized by the same process used to memorize the Vedas and records nearly word for word what the monks recited together in the first great council after Buddha died, and that they started to memorize his teachings before he died, as recorded in the Pāli Canon. All are agreed that Mahayana texts are a later composition, and that some Pāli Canon texts are too. But for many internal reasons, also supported by archaeology, many scholars are of the view that much of the Pāli Canon dates back to shortly after the death of the Buddha and records events that happened during his lifetime, the technology of his lifetime, and surely also, the speeches of the Buddha as they were memorized by monks during his lifetime.
So, given that, then the earlier version of this article was much more mainstream. It presented the four truths as they are undestoood by modern Buddhists in the sutra traditions, as Gombrich himself agrees. It is true that it did not present Richard Gombrich's views or Anderson's views and the views of a few other Western Buddhist scholars. But surely the solution is not to rewrite the article so that it only presents the views of Gombrich and Anderson. The previous article did not discuss the authenticity of the sutras. Again surely the solution, if such a section is needed, is to include the entire range of views on this matter rather than just the views of Gombrich and Anderson. I am sure that Gombrich and Anderson themselves, as good scholars, would not want an article on the Four Noble Truths to present only their views.
Robert Walker (talk) 11:16, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
- Robert, we've been going over this over and over again already, and frankly, I find it quite disruptive that you bring up your points again, despite the concencus on the present state of the article. Nevertheless, I'll answer your concerns again.
- 1 & 2: "cessation of all dukkha [in this lifetime]" & "The idea that the aim is to end rebirth and escape from this "mundane world" is an attempted reconstruction of the original teachings by some academics."
- What you seem to mean here, together with "the four truths as they are undestoood by modern Buddhists," is the idea that the four truths are "a path to happiness," a worldly happiness which ends all concrete suffering, here and now, in this lifetime. It surely may be so that some modern teachers present Buddhism in this way, as a means to well-being; and, granted (yes, here I concede!) happiness is part of the way, but it's not the final aim of classical Buddhism. It's ending rebirth. See the references in the article. See also this verse from the Maha-Parinibbana Sutra, which is quoted in the article:
- "Through not seeing the Four Noble Truths,
- Long was the weary path from birth to birth.
- When these are known, removed is rebirth's cause,
- The root of sorrow plucked; then ends rebirth."
- Regarding "a path to happiness," you state, citing Walpola Rahula:
- "For modern practitioners who base their understanding on the sutras themselves, it is a path to happiness, which also can be realized in this very lifetime. As Walpola Rahula put it in his exposition of the first truth [20]: "It tells you exactly and objectively what you are and what the world around you is, and shows you the way to perfect freedom, peace, tranquility and happiness.”."
- This is your personal reading of two words of Walpola Rahula, taken out of the context of a much longer exposé. Rahula is not talking about "happiness" in the ordinary sense, which is dukkha; he is talking about a "perfect happiness," a happiness which is not based on transitory pleasures. Even dhyana is regarded as dukkha!
- See Jeremy Carrette and Richard King (2005), Selling Spirituality, on the "commodisation" of spirituality, and the reduction of eastern spirituality to personal well-being:
- "A basic misunderstanding is that many people have come to see Buddhist training as no longer about bringing compassion to the whole world, and have, instead, started to see it as a means to a private and personal salvation." (p.102)
- "The purpose of these contemplative techniques is to unravel or deconstruct the fixed boundaries of the individual self so that one might see things as they really are and live one's life for the sake of the flourishing of all beings, not just oneself." (p.102)
- See also Gombrich (1996), Theravada Buddhism, "Using Buddhism for this world" (p.207-208):
- "... to use one's states of altered consciousness for the good of others is the recognized role performance of the religious virtuoso, or the professional. But the urban and suburban middle-class Sinhalese is coming to use meditation as something usefull in everyday life." (p.207)
- "To use meditation for secular purposes is to try to adapt Buddhist soteriology to life in the world." (p.208)
- See also Bodhisattva, Guanyin, and Tara. For a personification of this ideal of compassion, see Etty Hillesum (not Buddhist, but Jewish) and her An interrupted Life: The Diaries of Etty Hillesum 1941 -1943. She declined the possibility to hide from the Germans, and went to the camps, with her fellow Jewish citizens, knowing she would be killed, yet choosing to stay with the ones whose fate she shared. That's what spirituality is about!!! Not about "happines" and never being in pain again, but about compassion and 'doing the right thing,' even when this means to be in pain.
- You also cite Walpola Rahula as stating;
- "Buddha reached cessation in the sense of the four truths, already in his own lifetime."
- That's not what the quote says; it says:
- "In almost all religions the summum bonum can be attained only after death. But Nirvana can be realized in this very life; it is not necessary to wait till you die to ‘attain’ it."
- The cessation you're referring to is stated by Rahula as
- "the Cessation of dukkha (Dukkhanirodha-ariyasacca), which is Nibbāna."
- Indeed, in this life, and implying that it comes with the "perfect happiness" Rahula refers to. Yet, this does not change the basic fact that the ending of samsara is the ultimate goal of Buddhism (a fact which Rahula hardly mentions in What the Buddha Taught, which is a strange omission, given the myriad debates in Buddhism about what exactly it is that transmigrates. Really curious).
- Rahula's comment about "the summum bonum" is questionable, at closer consideration:
- Nirvana means "extinction," of craving, which fuels the process of rebirth. Craving can be extinquished in this life, which gives peace of mind, in this life. So, what happens when the body dies? Is there a residue which still enjoys this "perfect happiness" after death? Is Nirvana some kind of Heaven, akin to Christianity, which continues after death, as Rahula seems to imply here?
- Note that Christian mysticism states that the "Vision of God" can be attained in this life, in line with its Neo-Platonic origins, which strives toward the realisation of the One in this life. Just like, in Hinduism, moksha can be attained in tbis life. Rahula's comment about this "summum bonum" seems to be quite inaccurate!
- Rahula's metaphysics are problematic:
- Rahula seems to turn "Nirvana" into some kind of metaphysical entity; the proof of it's existence is the fact that "it" can be experienced. Gombrich, a student of Rahula, was astonished by this kind of epistemologival naivity.
- Such reifications, turning elements of the Buddhist teachings into a metaphysical highest priniple, are not restricted to Rahula; see Buddha-nature and Shentong. But it is also deeply disputed; see Rangtong and David J. Kalupahana, A History of Buddhist Philosophy.
- This 'cessation of dukkha' does not mean that there is no concrete suffering anymore; the Buddha died in pains, Dogen suffered from depression. It means that they didn't cling any longer to fleeting pleasures. See also Jack Kornfield, After the party, the laundry, and Ton Lathouwers, More Than Anyone Can Do.
- The article does refer to reaching happiness in this life, but balances it, with WP:RS:
- "The four truths describe dukkha and its ending as a means to reach peace of mind in this life, but also as a means to end rebirth. Some contemporary teachers tend to explain the four truths psychologically, by taking dukkha to mean mental anquish in addition to the physical pain of life,[61] and interpreting the four truths as a means to attain happiness in this life.[62] Yet, though happiness is part of the way, it is not the goal.[web 18][note 15] Spiro notes that "the Buddhist message is not simply a psychological message," but an eschatological message.[14]" (The section is longer than just this quote)
- A previous version of the article contained a large collection of quotes from modern teachers; this was deleted because of WP:OVERQUOTE and WP:OR; there was a strong concencus to do so.
- 3. "Redeath": this is a referenced term; see the previous discussions.
- 4. "Authenticity of the sutras": the article says, with extensive notes:
- "three positions held by scholars of Buddhism can be distinguished:[83]
- 1. "Stress on the fundamental homogeneity and substantial authenticity of at least a considerable part of the Nikayic materials;"[note 21]
- 2. "Scepticism with regard to the possibility of retrieving the doctrine of earliest Buddhism;"[note 22]
- 3. "Cautious optimism in this respect."[note 23]"
- "three positions held by scholars of Buddhism can be distinguished:[83]
- So, this topic is covered. Additional info on the Theravada-view can be added at "Emphasis within different traditions," which does have a section on Theravada.
- Regarding your statement "the earlier version of this article was much more mainstream. It presented the four truths as they are undestoood by modern Buddhists in the sutra traditions":
- If this "mainstream" understanding is the idea that Buddhism offers a path to happiness in this life; that this is based on the sutra's; that the sutras preserve the original teachings of the Buddha himself verbatim; that the Buddha himself therefore offered a path to happines in this life: that's a very limited understanding and presentation of what Buddhism is, based on a personal interpretation of what the sutras entail. At best, this "happiness" is part of the Buddhist path to liberation, and a means to present this path to a lerger audience. It may be how some "modern Buddhists in the sutra traditions" present Buddhism in a nutshell. But it is far from an comprehensive understanding or presentation of Buddhism, not even of what you call "the sutra traditions;" nor an accurate scholarly presentation of Buddhism. Basically, it is your personal understanding of Buddhism and a few selected sources. And, note: the "earlier version of this article" was not even accurate in it's presentation of the "sutra traditions." See the thread below on "Maha-Parinibbana Sutra."
- And no, I do not only see the views here of Gombrich and Anderson; I see the views of Norman, Cousins, Paul Williams, Spiro, Geoffrey Samuels, Patrick Olivelle, Peter Harvey, Anderson, Stephen Batchelor, Schmitthausen, Ui, Vetter, and Bronkhorst. And those are only the scholars who are mentioned explicitly; the list with sources is much longer.
- So, to summarize:
- The present article is based on WP:RS, and gives a reliable overview of scholarly views on the four truths;
- The ultimate goal of Buddhism is the ending of rebirth, as referenced by 14 sources in the article;
- Happiness, and the interpretations of some popular modern teachers, are presented with the lines "there is a way to reach real happiness" (prominent in the lead!), "Some contemporary teachers tend to explain the four truths psychologically, by taking dukkha to mean mental anquish in addition to the physical pain of life", and the comment happiness is part of the way; that suffices;
- Eventually missing Theravada-views can be expanded in the Theravada-section.
- I hope
weyou can now finally put this matter to rest, and accept the concensus on this article. Improvements are welcome, of course, by editing the article. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:02, 14 April 2017 (UTC) / last update Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:28, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Maha-Parinibbana Sutra
I just added a quote from the Maha-Parinibbana sutra to the thread above, and noted that the Wiki-article said:
- "In this sutta, the Buddha emphasized the importance of the four noble truths with the following statement:"
I checked the source; in it's introduction, is does not make such a statement; nor does the sutra itself make such a statement. With other words, a piece of WP:OR which was still left. I've corrected it. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:01, 14 April 2017 (UTC)