Robertinventor (talk | contribs) |
Dharmalion76 (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 693: | Line 693: | ||
:::::''"An English term that does not have an exact correlate in Buddhist languages, rendeered instead by arange of technical terms, such as the Sanskrit PUNARJANMAN (lit. "birth again") and PUNABHAVAN (lit. "re-becoming"), and, less commonly, the related PUNARMRTYU (lit. "redeath")."'' |
:::::''"An English term that does not have an exact correlate in Buddhist languages, rendeered instead by arange of technical terms, such as the Sanskrit PUNARJANMAN (lit. "birth again") and PUNABHAVAN (lit. "re-becoming"), and, less commonly, the related PUNARMRTYU (lit. "redeath")."'' |
||
::::So, less common, but not non-Buddhist. Regarding [[WP:UNDUE]]: this is not about a minority view, it's about using Buddhist terminology, mentioned in multiple reliable sources. [[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>]] 21:00, 1 May 2016 (UTC) |
::::So, less common, but not non-Buddhist. Regarding [[WP:UNDUE]]: this is not about a minority view, it's about using Buddhist terminology, mentioned in multiple reliable sources. [[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>]] 21:00, 1 May 2016 (UTC) |
||
:::::It ''isn't'' a Buddhist term and it most assuredly is a minority view. Please find three sources for general readers (not a scholarly work looking at the influences on Buddhist etc.) that uses the term "redeath". You will not find that term in anything by [[Jack Kornfield|Kornfield]], [[Joseph Goldstein|Goldstein]], [[Henepola Gunaratana]], [[Thich Nhat Hanh]], [[Thanissaro Bhikkhu]], [[Walpola Rahula]], etc. It is exceptionally [[WP:UNDUE]] to use a term not found in ''any'' Buddhist introduction texts, nor was it used in suttas to explain 4NT. [[User:Dharmalion76|Dharmalion76]] ([[User talk:Dharmalion76|talk]]) 23:19, 1 May 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:::::(ec) @Dharmalion76: Punarbhava (re-becoming) is too. As are punarjanama, purvajanama, punabhava, punarmrityu (oldest layer texts), janam*, jan* or ja* etc. The historical links shouldn't be an issue in an encyclopedic article. Further, only birth implies death in the ancient texts of Indian religions, but death does not necessarily imply rebirth, nor rebirth implies redeath (in some dualistic subtraditions), nor redeath implies rebirth. That is what moksha, jivanmukti, videhamukti, nirvana, kaivalya etc are aiming for – stop the samsara cycle, reach eternal bliss now and forever. [[User:Ms Sarah Welch|Ms Sarah Welch]] ([[User talk:Ms Sarah Welch|talk]]) 21:20, 1 May 2016 (UTC) |
:::::(ec) @Dharmalion76: Punarbhava (re-becoming) is too. As are punarjanama, purvajanama, punabhava, punarmrityu (oldest layer texts), janam*, jan* or ja* etc. The historical links shouldn't be an issue in an encyclopedic article. Further, only birth implies death in the ancient texts of Indian religions, but death does not necessarily imply rebirth, nor rebirth implies redeath (in some dualistic subtraditions), nor redeath implies rebirth. That is what moksha, jivanmukti, videhamukti, nirvana, kaivalya etc are aiming for – stop the samsara cycle, reach eternal bliss now and forever. [[User:Ms Sarah Welch|Ms Sarah Welch]] ([[User talk:Ms Sarah Welch|talk]]) 21:20, 1 May 2016 (UTC) |
||
:::::@JJ: Indeed. [[User:Ms Sarah Welch|Ms Sarah Welch]] ([[User talk:Ms Sarah Welch|talk]]) 21:22, 1 May 2016 (UTC) |
:::::@JJ: Indeed. [[User:Ms Sarah Welch|Ms Sarah Welch]] ([[User talk:Ms Sarah Welch|talk]]) 21:22, 1 May 2016 (UTC) |
||
::::::Then let's do a [[WP:RFC]] and see if you can find a majority of Buddhist editors on here agree that "redeath" is a common term. [[User:Dharmalion76|Dharmalion76]] ([[User talk:Dharmalion76|talk]]) 23:19, 1 May 2016 (UTC) |
|||
{{OD}} |
{{OD}} |
||
{{yo|Dharmalion76}}Just to say, I totally agree. The repeated use of Hindu sources and Hindu ideas, without alerting the reader to the fact that they are Hindu ideas is one of the main issues in the current treatment. It would be fine to compare and contrast Buddhist ideas with Hindu ideas. But to merge them together into a single treatment as if there was no distinction between the two approaches is not fine, in my view. It's been a recurring theme in this discussion that the Buddhist concept of Nirvana and the Hindu concept of Moksha are for all practical purposes identical, just taught differently. I don't think they are. I think the distinction is a valuable one giving practitioners the opportunity to follow different paths, Hindu or Buddhist, depending on their inclinations and understanding and connections. [[User:Robertinventor|Robert Walker]] ([[User talk:Robertinventor|talk]]) 22:06, 1 May 2016 (UTC) |
{{yo|Dharmalion76}}Just to say, I totally agree. The repeated use of Hindu sources and Hindu ideas, without alerting the reader to the fact that they are Hindu ideas is one of the main issues in the current treatment. It would be fine to compare and contrast Buddhist ideas with Hindu ideas. But to merge them together into a single treatment as if there was no distinction between the two approaches is not fine, in my view. It's been a recurring theme in this discussion that the Buddhist concept of Nirvana and the Hindu concept of Moksha are for all practical purposes identical, just taught differently. I don't think they are. I think the distinction is a valuable one giving practitioners the opportunity to follow different paths, Hindu or Buddhist, depending on their inclinations and understanding and connections. [[User:Robertinventor|Robert Walker]] ([[User talk:Robertinventor|talk]]) 22:06, 1 May 2016 (UTC) |
||
:In my opinion, even if Moksha and Nibbana ''were'' the same (which for the record, I am in agreement with you) that would be interesting information for an article about the similarities. This is not that article. [[User:Dharmalion76|Dharmalion76]] ([[User talk:Dharmalion76|talk]]) 23:19, 1 May 2016 (UTC) |
|||
{{yo|Dharmalion76}} Also, to agree with you again - until I read the latest lede here, I had never heard the word "redeath", in any Buddhist context, until I saw this article. Indeed I wasn't sure even what it meant, and am still not very clear on why they use the word "redeath" here rather than just "death". Nor had I come across the word Moksha either until I encountered Hinduism. I hadn't come across it in any Buddhist writings. Now that I know to search for it, yes, it's used, especially in discussions that draw parallels between Buddhism and Hindusim, but it seems to be rare indeed in the Buddhist literature. While the word Nirvana is used frequently. So I agree with you, these don't seem to be common terms in Buddhist teaching. [[User:Robertinventor|Robert Walker]] ([[User talk:Robertinventor|talk]]) 22:58, 1 May 2016 (UTC) |
{{yo|Dharmalion76}} Also, to agree with you again - until I read the latest lede here, I had never heard the word "redeath", in any Buddhist context, until I saw this article. Indeed I wasn't sure even what it meant, and am still not very clear on why they use the word "redeath" here rather than just "death". Nor had I come across the word Moksha either until I encountered Hinduism. I hadn't come across it in any Buddhist writings. Now that I know to search for it, yes, it's used, especially in discussions that draw parallels between Buddhism and Hindusim, but it seems to be rare indeed in the Buddhist literature. While the word Nirvana is used frequently. So I agree with you, these don't seem to be common terms in Buddhist teaching. [[User:Robertinventor|Robert Walker]] ([[User talk:Robertinventor|talk]]) 22:58, 1 May 2016 (UTC) |
Revision as of 23:20, 1 May 2016
Buddhism C‑class Top‑importance | ||||||||||
|
Religion C‑class Top‑importance | ||||||||||
|
What happened to lead
Lead used to be pretty essential before and provided enough content to get idea of whole article that was always huge, it takes like 5 minutes to open on my older PC. So the question is that what happened to the lead? Delibzr (talk) 11:37, 25 January 2015 (UTC) (What happened to the sock? He was blocked indefinitely: [1], [2]. JimRenge (talk) 22:08, 1 May 2016 (UTC))
- You will find the answer to your question here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Buddhism#Recent re-writes of key concepts — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dorje108 (talk • contribs)
- I don't think that link (it would be good if whomever provided it would sign the above), answers the concern at all. In fact, having read it I agree with (what I think is) Delibzr's point; the new lead is really quite inferior to the old one. I reckon that a majority of the visitors to a page attend to the lead without proceeding down the article, so as it now stands this article's lead is way too brief (i.e. it doesn't say enough). Also, not only did the old version provide more information, it gave what seems to me a much clearer formulation -- insofar as that can be done at all in discursive language -- of the FNTs. Some things I think could be done to find a middle way (hah) on the lead:
- The phrases "...is not the place to be" and "get out of it" are too colloquial
- The phrase, "...behaving decently, not acting on impulses, and practicing mindfulness and meditation" is too ... vague ... or maybe even glib? Reducing the Noble Eightfold Path to that feels like the FNT equivalent of saying that π=4.
- Why isn't it anywhere mentioned in the lead that some serious scholars (e.g. Lopez -- see his Britannica entry) argue that it's not so much the truths that are noble, but rather the people who gain insight (vipassana) into those truths?
- The word "start"in the second truth is ambiguous. It could be taken to mean that people start life without Dukkha and then, when they start craving, Dukkha "starts". Maybe "source" would be better. However:
- Overall, I think the current lead is making the same same mistakes I made several years ago in what I think is a (valiant but nevertheless unsuccessful) attempt to make the FNTs accessible to non-practitioners. As I later concluded, to a large extent, it's simply not possible to do that; they are just not accessible to anyone who has not experienced them.
- Thomask0 (talk) 18:00, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comments. I really liked the comments you made some time ago Talk:Four Noble Truths/Archive 1#The Fundamental Challenge of this Page. The "colloquial" language was an attempt to phrase the FNT is a more accessible language. Food for thought; I'll think it over. Thanks. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:58, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
- Thomask0 (talk) 18:00, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
- I took the existing language and updated it, trying to make it very clear and concise in an accessible language without having a colloquial tone of voice to it. Hope this reads a little better to all of you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.88.235.34 (talk) 19:26, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Experiential knowledge
I've merged the section on "Experiential knowledge" with the section on "Sacca" (satya); after all, that's what Gethin's quote is about. I've removed Chögyam Trungpa's quote from the notes; another fine piece of original research, in whcih the emphasis was shifted from "conceptual framework" to the modern "religious experience" framework. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:56, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
- Ironically, "experiential knowledge" is essential here. The statement "In the Buddhist tradition, the four noble truths, and Buddhist philosophy in general, are understood to be based on the personal experience of the Buddha." is an sich correct (tradition is indeed important in "the" tradition), but the term "noble" does not refer so much to the Buddha, as to the "noble ones" (plural). But the four truths have indeed to be understood personally; not the Buddha's "experience", but one's personal (contradictory term, of course, in this context) matters. So, I've added a short statement on this. The "original research" is in the combination of quotes and statements, and the statement that "noble" refers to the Buddha('s personal experience), instead of "the noble ones." Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:15, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Presentation in this article
It seems to be presented in a form that is very hard to understand especially for the non-practitioner? Life is suffering, Suffering is cause by desire, by understanding and mastering desire we can alleviate our suffering, the eightfold path is the guide to reducing our suffering. Anyone agree to revise the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:6000:6FC0:10:EC4B:7D73:B7EC:4514 (talk) 05:30, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- Have a scroll through the archives... But if "Life is suffering [...] reducing our suffering" is a proposal: no. Misplaced simplification which misses the meaning if the four truths. Taken literally, they say: "This life/wold is suffering; repeated incarnation (which means prolongation of suffering) is caused by desire; by self-restraint we can stop this reincarnation caused by desire; the eightfold path is the way to selfrestraint." Now, let's find a source for this specific interpretation, and reach concencus on it. No source; and probably also no concencus... Ad infinitum. Some even doubt if the four truths can be understood when you're not a practitioner. Maybe they can't; they look very simple, but they're actually a very terse condensation of a large body of teachings. When you know all those teachings, each piece of information recalls other pieces of info; together, they make sense. But on their own, without background? Difficult... Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:36, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Lede is uncited - and doesn't say what the four noble truths are
- **NOTE - THIS SECTION DISCUSSES AN EARLIER VERSION OF THE LEDE**
- This section discusses the lede when it said: (see version on 12th April 2016)
"The Four Noble Truths...express the basic orientation of Buddhism: this worldly existence is fundamentally unsatisfactory, but there is a path to liberation from repeated worldly existence."
- Current version (as of writing this) states that:
"The Four Noble Truths...express the basic orientation of Buddhism: repeated rebirth and "redeath" in the realm of samsara is fundamentally unsatisfactory, but there is a path to end this cycle"
- However, it's the same basic idea, the 4NT is presented as a path to end the cycle of repeated reirth and "redeath", rather than just as a path to cessation of suffering and unsatisfactoriness (Dukkha).
- This discussion thread is rather long - if you want to jump to the most recent part of it see Main point - lede should alert the reader if it departs from the usual statement of the four noble truths.
- More eyes on this would be welcome to help improve the article :). Robert Walker (talk) 09:07, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
A reader of this article would surely expect a statement of the four noble truths, followed by explanation of the four truths.
Instead, the lede says
"this worldly existence is fundamentally unsatisfactory, but there is a path to liberation from repeated worldly existence."
What is the cite for this statement? It's hard to tell what it means but it sounds like either a "multilife suicide" or escape to some other heavenly realm.
In the four noble truths, Buddha taught liberation from dukkha (suffering, anxiety, unsatisfactoriness), not liberation from worldly existence, whatever that's supposed to mean. Indeed, as often explained in some of the Buddhist schools at least, when you see through ignorance, you see there is nothing that needs to cease to exist.
Four of the unanswered questions cover this topic "Does the Tathagata (Buddha) exist after death? ...or not? ...or both? ...or neither?" He refused to answer the question:
"The Buddha remained silent when asked these fourteen questions. He described them as a net and refused to be drawn into such a net of theories, speculations, and dogmas. He said that it was because he was free of bondage to all theories and dogmas that he had attained liberation. Such speculations, he said, are attended by fever, unease, bewilderment, and suffering, and it is by freeing oneself of them that one achieves liberation." The_unanswered_questions
Also as traditionally explained, Buddha taught for decades after he realized nirvana and cessation. He didn't cease to exist or disappear into some other realm when he reached nirvana. So how could nirvana be "liberation from repeated worldly existence"?
So surely neither paranirvana nor nirvana are to be understood as "liberation from worldly existence"?
The article I see goes on to list four "precepts" in the next section - but if these are meant to be the four noble truths - who else calls them precepts? Buddha taught there is no value in affirming the truths as a creed. You can follow precepts on the path, such as not lying, not stealing, not killing etc as part of the path, and the monastic vows are precepts, but with the four truths - what could it mean? Any citation for this?
Then it talks about "redeath". Again what's the cite for this, who else uses this word in the context of the four noble truths? What does it mean? And then the summary of the "noble eightfold path" in this "precepts" section has few points of resemblance with the eightfold path as usually stated.
This is just to touch on issues with the current lede, not a suggestion for an alternative lede :). Please don't use my words either.
The old version of the article states the four noble truths in the lede, explains what they are, and summarizes the aim of the Buddhist path. And everything in the old lede is cited. Robert Walker (talk) 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Old lede
The original lede was as follows:
- "The Four Noble Truths (Sanskrit: catvāri āryasatyāni; Pali: cattāri ariyasaccāni) are regarded as the central doctrine of the Buddhist tradition, and are said to provide a conceptual framework for all of Buddhist thought. These four truths explain the nature of dukkha (Pali; commonly translated as "suffering", "anxiety", "unsatisfactoriness"[a]), its causes, its cessation, and the path leading to its cessation.
- "The four noble truths are:[b]
- The truth of dukkha (suffering, anxiety, unsatisfactoriness[a])
- The truth of the origin of dukkha
- The truth of the cessation of dukkha
- The truth of the path leading to the cessation of dukkha
- "The first noble truth explains the nature of dukkha. Dukkha is commonly translated as “suffering”, “anxiety”, “unsatisfactoriness”, “unease”, etc., and it is said to have the following three aspects:[c]
- The obvious physical and mental suffering associated with birth, growing old, illness and dying.
- The anxiety or stress of trying to hold on to things that are constantly changing.
- A basic unsatisfactoriness pervading all forms of existence, due to the fact that all forms of life are changing, impermanent and without any inner core or substance. On this level, the term indicates a lack of satisfaction, a sense that things never measure up to our expectations or standards.
... For the rest of the old lede, see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Four_Noble_Truths&oldid=629066305
Robert Walker (talk) 26 March 2016 (UTC)
References
- ^ Dhamma 1997, p. 55.
- ^ Buswell 2003, Volume One, p. 296.
- ^ Geshe Tashi Tsering 2005, Kindle Locations 246-250.
- ^ Goldstein 2002, p. 24.
- ^ Epstein 2004, p. 42.
Why depart from the usual way of presenting it?
What was wrong with that?
This used to be an excellent wikipedia article before the rewrite. The lede of a wikipedia article is not supposed to be a "teaser taster".
"The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents. It is not a news-style lead or lede paragraph."
Following that guideline, surely a lede summarizing the most important contents of an article on the four noble truths must list the four truths?
Also, I think you would need compelling reasons, well cited, to depart from the usual way of presenting this, the central teaching of the Buddha.
Thanks!
Robert Walker (talk) 09:20, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
[edited for brevity and clarity Robert Walker (talk) 14:30, 28 April 2016 (UTC)]
- I agree that the old lede was better than the current version. The changed appeared to have been made by Ryubyss with no discussion beforehand. Dharmalion76 (talk) 13:09, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- Glad you agree.
- I'd just like to point out though, the version of the lede that he shortened also had the same problem. It says
- * "The Truth of the Cessation of Dukkha is that putting an end to this craving and clinging also means that rebirth, dissatisfaction, and redeath can no longer arise;"
- The four noble truths are the subject of many books. Many teachers and scholars have worked on the best ways of presenting them in the English language. Do they really need to be rewritten by a wikipedia editor in his or her own words using new concepts?
- E.g. "redeath" here as far as I know is a word coined by the editor who wrote that as his version of the third truth. Gives no cite for it. I don't even know what it is supposed to mean. Why not just use one of the many versions of the four truths already available in English? There were similar problems with the expression of the other three truths. The lede from October 2014 is accurate. Robert Walker (talk) 17:52, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- I also agree with Robert Walker. The article would be much improved by reinstating the lead from October 2014, and working onwards from there. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:17, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- Edited what I said above for clarity and brevity, added a bit about the truths presented as "precepts" and added a citations needed tag to the lede of the article. Robert Walker (talk) 15:18, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- I've undone Ryubyss's edits, and added two explanatoy notes, on "redeath" (Paul Williams) and ending the cycle of rebirth (the Buddha himself).
- The lead of october 2014, as wella s the contents of that version of the article, were highly problematic. Those issue have been discussed through and through; see this talkpage and its archives.
Re-opening this discussion is clos eto WP:DISRUPTIVE... But, for those who need extensive explanations,let's go through the october 2014 lead again:
- "The Four Noble Truths (Sanskrit: catvāri āryasatyāni; Pali: cattāri ariyasaccāni) are regarded as the central doctrine of the Buddhist tradition" - they're not; they're regarded as such in modern western Buddhism. They weren;\'t even formulated by the Buddha himself.
- Note b was symptomatic of the kind of WP:QUOTEFARM-overkill from popular sources: not trying to represent the relevant sources, byt trying to find sources for a specific, limited understanding;
- "The first noble truth explains the nature of dukkha" - no; the first truth explains that this earthly existence is dukkha. That's the essence of Buddhism: earthly existence is wrong; we've got to get out of here. It's not a paracetamol to get happy lifes; it's a medicine to stop embodied existence. Hard to swallow for those who are not familiair with the sources, but only with popular Buddhism, which sees Buddhism as a way to promote a happy, healthy life. That was not what was at stake in India, were life-expectations were low, and people wnated to escape from the shit of repeated existence.
- Mentioning those three aspects in the lead is WP:UNDUE.
- "The central importance of dukkha in Buddhist philosophy has caused [etc]"- also WP:UNDUE.
- "The second noble truth [...] to this cessation" - embedded in the present version.
- "According to the Buddhist tradition [...] subsequent teachings" - WP:UNDUE, and needs clarification: the Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta developed after his death, and are not his words.
- "The two main traditions [...] the Mahayana path of the bodhisattva" - WP:UNDUE; WP:SYNTHESIS. Incorrect emphasis: the four truths are not differently taught in Mahayana; they hardly play a role there. The four truths play an essential role in popular Buddhism. It is this popular, western Buddhism, which was represented in this old version of the article, which was hardly representative for the scholarly understanding of the four truths.
- Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:10, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- It's one thing to say that when you realize nirvana, you are free from the cycle of birth, old age, sickness and death - Buddha did teach that. But it's a big step from there to say that the aim of the four noble truths is to liberate yourself from repeated worldly existence. He didn't say that as far as I know, and what could it mean? Especially since he clearly continued to exist in the ordinary sense after he realized nirvana, and said it was unproductive to ask "Does the Tathagata (Buddha) exist after death? ...or not? ...or both? ...or neither?". Does he ever say the aim is to cease to exist in any sense?
- He did teach that we can come to see that there is no self there in the sense we think there is - but that's not a matter of something ceasing to exist, because if it isn't there, how can it cease to exist? It's not the self that ceases in the truth of cessation :). It's dukkha and the cause of dukkha that ceases.
- I see the main problem as that you have rewritten the four truths in your own words - why not just quote from one of the statements of the truths available in the many translations and scholarly works on the subject? I don't see the need for this. If any scholar did such a novel rewrite in the Buddhist literature it would be bound to be subject to much scrutiny and discussion, while yours is not peer reviewed at all. So it would be no surprise at all if some subtle errors were to creep in. Robert Walker (talk) 16:35, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- (This is not meant as confrontation and if you don't find what I just said constructive, I will stop right away, leave it to others to comment if they have further thoughts on it). Robert Walker (talk) 16:41, 28 April 2016 (UT)
- See Jivanmukti for staying alive while being liberated. Did you read the explanatory note I copied from within the article?
- "...cut off is the craving for existence, destroyed is that which leads to renewed becoming, and there is no fresh becoming." [...]
- 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."[1]
- From Moksha:
- "Moksha is a concept associated with saṃsāra (birth-rebirth cycle). Samsara originated with new religious movements in the first millennium BCE.[web 3] These new movements such as Buddhism, Jainism and new schools within Hinduism, saw human life as bondage to a repeated process of rebirth. This bondage to repeated rebirth and life, each life subject to injury, disease and aging, was seen as a cycle of suffering. By release from this cycle, the suffering involved in this cycle also ended. This release was called moksha, nirvana, kaivalya, mukti and other terms in various Indian religious traditions.[2]"
- See Jivanmukti for staying alive while being liberated. Did you read the explanatory note I copied from within the article?
References
- ^ Maha-parinibbana Sutta: Last Days of the Buddha, translated by Sister Vajira & Francis Story
- ^ R.C. Mishra, Moksha and the Hindu Worldview, Psychology & Developing Societies, Vol. 25, Issue 1, pp 23, 27
- See Rita Langer (2007), Buddhist Rituals of Death and Rebirth: Contemporary Sri Lankan Practice and Its Origins, p.26-28, on "redeath" (punarmrtyu). see also Google Books on buddhism "redeath" and redeath. For example:
- "Whatever earlier Tibetan beliefs may have been, the Buddhist conception of redeath,” of death after death striking even the gods, must have been a terrifying discovery." [3]
- Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:51, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- See Rita Langer (2007), Buddhist Rituals of Death and Rebirth: Contemporary Sri Lankan Practice and Its Origins, p.26-28, on "redeath" (punarmrtyu). see also Google Books on buddhism "redeath" and redeath. For example:
- You are giving Hindu cites, and cites about paranirvana here, to support a sentence in the lede that is supposed to be about the four noble truths. And it doesn't support that as an interpretation about paranirvana either - Buddha wouldn't answer any questions about whether he exists or doesn't exist or both or neither after paranirvana. How can you interpret that as support for a summary that the aim is to "cease from worldly existence"?
- If you want to present such a radical interpretation as your thesis "That's the essence of Buddhism: earthly existence is wrong; we've got to get out of here" (quoting from you above) - why not publish it as an academic paper or a book? This doesn't seem the right place to publish something like this, especially as a summary of the four noble truths.
- Surely what we need to present here is Buddhism as based on the sutras, just as the articles on Christianity present Christianity as based on the Bible. The Sermon on the Mount was written long after Jesus died, yet, that doesn't mean that it has to be rewritten. It's still considered as carrying many of the essential teachings of Christianity even though it's very unlikely that Jesus taught it in exactly the words that got written down. That doesn't make it "popular Christianity" that it's based on the Bible. You can say that Jesus didn't say the words exactly as written, but still the Sermon on the Mount presents core ideas of all the main traditions of modern Christianity, whatever it was he said exactly, which we can never know.
- In the same way the translations and teachings on the four noble truths present some of the core ideas of all the main traditions of Buddhism, the "sutra traditions". So, if you look up an article on the "four noble truths", then whatever else it might say, you expect it to present the truths in their traditional form, as expressed in the sutras.
- To back this up, none of the other tertiary encyclopedic articles on Buddhism find a need to rewrite the four truths in the way you have done here. They all just present it exactly as in the old lede, as about a path to freedom from dukkha, not a path from freedom from "worldly existence" whatever that's supposed to mean here. See for instance, BBC, buddhanet encyclopedia Britannica. None of them say that the aim of the path is to cease to exist in any sense, worldly or otherwise.
- I hope these thoughts help! Robert Walker (talk) 18:15, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- I'd better stop at this point, whatever you say next :). Didn't want to get caught up in a long discussion, just wanted to make what seemed a clear and straightforward point, but it obviously isn't for you, and this attempt at clarification probably isn't helping, oh well. You are welcome to have the last word, as I am not writing this to win an argument :). Robert Walker (talk) 18:42, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- [note, first sentence in lede has been rewritten somewhat - but much of what I say above still applies. The aim of the path is neither to "get out of here" nor to "cease to exist". Those are isolationist sentiments quite alien to the teachings of the Buddha as usually taught] Robert Walker (talk) 02:34, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
- Tibetan Buddhism is not Hinduism. You also wrote '"a path to freedom from dukkha, not a path from freedom from "worldly existence". What do you think that dukkha is? Entrapment in this life, repeated re-embodiment. Following the Buddhist path stops this re-embodiment. NB: the line now says "repeated rebirth and "redeath" is fundamentally unsatisfactory, but there is a path to end this cycle." I've added a quote plus reference from Donald Lopez, and a quote plus reference from Patrick Olivelle, to the note:
- "According to Donald Lopez, "The Buddha stated in his first sermon that when he gained absolute and intuitive knowledge of the four truths, he achieved complete enlightenment and freedom from future rebirth."[web 4]"
- "See also Patrick Olivelle, Encyclopedia Britannica, on "moksha": "Moksha, also spelled mokṣa, also called mukti, in Indian philosophy and religion, liberation from the cycle of death and rebirth (samsara). Derived from the Sanskrit word muc (“to free”), the term moksha literally means freedom from samsara. This concept of liberation or release is shared by a wide spectrum of religious traditions, including Hinduism, Buddhism, and Jainism."[web 3]"
- Tibetan Buddhism is not Hinduism. You also wrote '"a path to freedom from dukkha, not a path from freedom from "worldly existence". What do you think that dukkha is? Entrapment in this life, repeated re-embodiment. Following the Buddhist path stops this re-embodiment. NB: the line now says "repeated rebirth and "redeath" is fundamentally unsatisfactory, but there is a path to end this cycle." I've added a quote plus reference from Donald Lopez, and a quote plus reference from Patrick Olivelle, to the note:
References
- Your thoughts about the unponderables applies to the question "But what happens when there is no rebirth?!?" Unponderable!
- @Ms Sarah Welch: can you explain to Robert about the escape from rebirth as the basic orientation of the sramanic religions? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:35, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
@Joshua Jonathan: Indeed, it sure is. It is as basic to sramanic traditions as "Buddhism is spelled with a B, Jainism is spelled with a J". It should be included in this article. @Robert Walker: For source on samsara and its central role to the Four Noble Truths, please see Anderson's first chapter or just the opening pages,[1] and Gombrich's preface and first chapter.[2] I read the old 2014 version @RW linked above, and the current one reflecting recent edits of @JJ and others. The current version is a significant improvement. The article still states "the essence of the Buddhist teachings", but it now is far more encyclopedic, complete and NPOV. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:16, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
References
- ^ Carol Anderson (2013). Pain and Its Ending: The Four Noble Truths in the Theravada Buddhist Canon. Routledge. pp. 1–2. ISBN 978-1-136-81325-2.
- ^ Richard Francis Gombrich (2009). What the Buddha thought. Equinox. ISBN 978-1-84553-614-5.
- @Ms Sarah Welch: Anderson is presenting only one view in a spectrum of many scholarly views on the nature of the original teachings of the Buddha. It's a bit like theological speculations about the original teachings of Jesus before the Bible was written down - short of invention of a time machine we are unlikely ever to have a scholarly consensus here. She herself says that she doesn't want her book to be used in a revisionist way. She says in her conclusion:
"But if I suggest that the four noble truths are not the legacy of a particular religious experience which may have actually occurred in history, is that to undercut their authority as a symbol of the Buddha's enlightenment? No, for the simple reason that the authority of the four noble truths, as an evocative symbol of a specific experience, does not rely upon the truth or falsehood of the four noble truths and other encyclopedic statements within history. The authority of the four noble truths does not rely upon the historical claim that they were in fact the first teaching of the Buddha. The authority of the four noble truths as a symbol relies, in the end, upon the memory of the Therevada Buddhist tradition as recorded in the Therevada canon".
- That's from page 230 of Pain and its ending
- Also she follows her own advice here - in her book "Basic Buddhism" she presents the four noble truths exactly as they are presented in all the main traditions of Buddhism
- "The Four Noble Truths deal specifically with the existence of suffering and they are the root from which all teachings arise. According to Buddhist tradition, the Buddha taught the Four Noble Truths in the very first teaching he gave after he attained enlightenment and he further clarified their meaning in many subsequent teachings throughout his life. These four truths are:
- A. Dukkha / Dukha: All life is marked by suffering.
- B. Samudaya: Suffering is caused by attachment and desire.
- C. Nirodha: Suffering can be stopped.
- D: Magga: The way to end suffering is to follow the Noble Eightfold Path"
- "The Four Noble Truths deal specifically with the existence of suffering and they are the root from which all teachings arise. According to Buddhist tradition, the Buddha taught the Four Noble Truths in the very first teaching he gave after he attained enlightenment and he further clarified their meaning in many subsequent teachings throughout his life. These four truths are:
- She then goes on to present each in turn following the usual pattern. So, she just talks about the path to end suffering, as usual in presentations of the four noble truths.
- There is no mention there of this idea that the aim of the path is to escape from worldly existence. That I think is much more of a Hindu idea, associated with Moksha. Indeed I don't remember anything about it in "Pain and its Ending" either. Surely citations about Moksha should not be used as source material for articles on Nirvana and the four noble truths?
- Also, she doesn't mention her thesis that the four noble truths are a later addition to the original teachings of the Buddha anywhere in this introductory book about Therevadhan Buddhism. So I'm pretty sure she would not support the idea that her thesis should be used to rewrite encyclopedic articles about central ideas Buddhism.
- Basically I'm saying that we need compelling reasons to recast the four noble truths into truths about "escape from worldly existence" when they are always presented in terms of dukkha and freedom from dukkha. I don't think it is the place for a wikipedia editor to offer what is essentially a new translation and interpretation of the four noble truths, which has never been subject to peer review. And adding citations based on Hindu concepts such as Moksha to support this new version of them is a synthesis and OR. Robert Walker (talk) 14:10, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Robert Walker: Where does this article state "the aim of the path is to escape from worldly existence"? where, I presume you mean [path = four noble truths]. On your "I think is much more of a Hindu...", it is inconsistent with most Hindu/Buddhist/Jaina traditions, but you are free to believe in whatever opinion/wisdom/prejudice you have. Samsara is not "worldly existence", it is a basic concept about the cycle of rebirth in Indian traditions. Lets avoid these wall of forum-y posts. For this article, we need to stick to summarizing the various scholarly sources and sides. Is Patrick Olivelle moksha cite the one that is bothering you? But why? Clearly Patrick Olivelle is WP:RS, and in that Encyclopedia Britannica tertiary source is comprehensively reviewing Buddhist/Hindu/Jaina view together. Will you be okay if Joshua Jonathan, I or someone add a second source? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:21, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
- The lead first said "escape from worldly existence"; I've changed this into "repeated rebirth and "redeath" in the world" (Lopez: "mundane world").
- The full title of "Basic Buddhism" is "Basic Buddhism: A Beginner's Guide." I think that says enough. That she presents the four truths in such a way in this beginner's guide does not change her conclusions in Pain and its ending, nor does it devaluate Lopez and Olivelle as WP:RS.
- Regarding the quote above, from Anderson: the lead is referenced with Lopez and Olivelle, not Anderson. And Anderson is talking about the authority of the tradition versus the factual history. With other words: she repeats that the four truths did not develop as the (Theravada) tradition remembers them, but that this does not alter the authority granted to these truths in the (Theravada) Buddhis tradition.
- Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:42, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
- As Joshua has just said, originally it said "escape from worldly existence". Now it says "repeated rebirth and "redeath" in the world is fundamentally unsatisfactory, but there is a path to end this cycle"' - but this is hardly any better - it is not how it is usually presented and I think this fundamentally changes the meaning of what is said.
- Whatever or not you agree that this changes the meaning, the main thing is that this way of stating the 4NT has not ever been published as a statement of the 4NT, nor has it been subject to scholarly criticism or peer review. Same also for the restatements of each of the four noble truths, and equally original restatement of the noble eightfold path.
- Just to give one more example, in the "translation" of the first truth, where it says "existence in the realm of rebirth" - in what sense is there a "realm of rebirth"? What other realms are there other than Samsara? It's the same all the way through, nearly every sentence contains highly original rewritings of the material.
- I am not writing this to correct what JJ said - no way would I want to help another wikipedia editor to create a new novel treatment of the 4NT here!
- The point rather is - why change from the usual presentation of the four truths as a path to cessation of dukkha? And just explain dukkha as suffering, unsatisfactoriness, etc etc as in the usual treatment and the old lede?
- Sometimes there's a place for using novel ways of presenting material even in an encyclopedia, to help the reader. But I would suggest for something as fundamental and hard to explain as the four noble truths, and something that has been subject to so many books and teachings and translations, that we don't need a novel way of presenting it here.
- Just compare the lede and the statement of the four noble truths with the way it is presented in Anderson's book and in any tertiary source - I gave several examples above. Can you not see that compared to them, this article's lede is highly original in its presentation? Whatever its merits or otherwise, can you not see that it is OR and a synthesis? Robert Walker (talk) 15:49, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
- And scholarly rewritings can go later in the page, but even then I think it's important to present the views of the individual scholars as is, and not to mix and match statements from different scholars to make a new treatment that hasn't been published. And I think balance is also needed. Anderson's views are one of a spectrum. For instance there are many scholars that think the four noble truths were taught by the Buddha. Including the famous Buddhist scholar Richard Gombrich as an example. And at the opposite end of the spectrum, Prayudh Payutto thinks that much of the Pali Canon consists of the words of the Buddha himself, and interprets the earliest textual layers as teachings that predate the Buddha. See Pāli_Canon#Attribution_according_to_scholars and Talk:Pāli_Canon#Other_views_on_the_origins_of_the_Pali_Canon. Robert Walker (talk) 16:06, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
@Robert Walker: your issue isn't that @Joshua Jonathan's and other's edits/improvements since 2014 are wrong or noncompliant with wikipedia's content policies, your issue is with the style and the method of the lead presentation, particularly when one compares it to BBC etc version; do I understand you right? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:45, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Ms Sarah Welch: Not quite. I think it is a mistatement of the 4NT that fundamentally changes the meaning. I tried to explain, but I am not skilled at explaining such things and haven't managed to present the issues clearly. But it's much easier to just see that it is stated differently here from the way it is stated in the sutras and other sites like the BBC one.
- It introduces new concepts just not mentioned in the usual treatments such as a "realm of rebirth" and "redeath" which he says is used in some little known scholarly work, but is certainly not used in the usual treatments of the 4NT, and it explains dukkha as escape from the cycle of rebirth when it is usually explained as just suffering and unstatisfactoriness with birth, old age, sickness and death as examples of suffering. The other tertiary sources find no need to introduce all these novel concepts to explain the idea which I think complicates it, confuses the reader, and actually changes the meaning as well.
- He hasn't even got a cite for this new version, just for individual elements that he has brought together in this synthesis.
- Example, first truth as "Dukkha: existence in the realm of rebirth (samsara)[note 2] is characterised by dukkha, "suffering," and unsatisfactory;[note 3][web 1]"
- BBC site:
- "1. The truth of suffering (Dukkha)"
- Buddhanet:
- "The Truth of Suffering"
- Anderson
- "A. Dukkha / Dukha: All life is marked by suffering."
- Quote from the Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta using the translation in this article itself:
- "Now this, bhikkhus, is the noble truth of suffering: birth is suffering, aging is suffering, illness is suffering, death is suffering; union with what is displeasing is suffering; separation from what is pleasing is suffering; not to get what one wants is suffering; in brief, the five aggregates subject to clinging are suffering."
- No mention anywhere of a "realm of rebirth". It's a new element that's been added in. Which makes it OR.
- And none of those sites call it a path to end the cycle of rebirth.Also, logically, it doesn't follow at all that it's impossible for an enlightened being to take rebirth from this statement that one enlightened being entered paranirvana. Indeed in many traditions of Buddhism then you have stories of other enlightened beings who don't enter paranirvana when they die. They all agree that Buddha entered paranirvana. Whatever you make of that, to collapse this statement about paranirvana back into the four noble truths and call it the end of the path is also highly original - that's not how the 4NT are usually presented. Hope this helps a bit - is it a bit clearer what I'm saying? It's not just a matter of style and presentation, it's an issue with OR, I would suggest. Robert Walker (talk) 17:07, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Robert Walker:
- Quote: "The first truth, suffering (Pali: dukkha; Sanskrit: duhkha), is characteristic of existence in the realm of rebirth, called samsara (literally “wandering”)." – Donald Lopez's Four Noble Truths article in Encyclopedia Britannica.
- So, I don't understand your allegation, "No mention anywhere of a "realm of rebirth". It's a new element that's been added in. Which makes it OR." Indeed, "existence in the realm of rebirth" is related to the "first truth", so I am struggling to understand your objections to @JJ/whoever added that. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:29, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
- More sources for "realm of rebirth" and the first truth of noble ones.[1][2] Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:42, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
References
- ^ Donald S. Lopez Jr. (2009). Buddhism and Science: A Guide for the Perplexed. University of Chicago Press. pp. 147–148. ISBN 978-0-226-49324-4.
- ^ Melford E. Spiro (1982). Buddhism and Society: A Great Tradition and Its Burmese Vicissitudes. University of California Press. p. 42. ISBN 978-0-520-04672-6.
- There's nothing unusual about this presentation, unless you're completely unfamiliair with it. If you only read websites and popular publications, you won't come across better treatments than these short, formualistic presentations. "Realm of rebirth," "samsara," is basic Buddhism, as is the end of rebirth as the goal of the Buddhist path. It's surprising that these basic facts are surprising to someone who wants to discuss this topic. The fact that someone doesn't know these basic facts is not a good reason to omit them. On the contrary. Nor is the fact that someone is not familair with relevant scholarship on a topic a good reason not to use WP:RS, or to restrict ourselves to one, limited POV. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:58, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Ms Sarah Welch Oh, I hadn't noticed that. But it reads differently in the Britannica article, to me, the overall impression. The Britannica article is fine. It's written by a Buddhist scholar and he has the expertise needed to write it like this. I'd see no problem with that as the lede. But of course his version can't be copied verbatim because that would be plagiarism, and an attempt at paraphrasing it runs the risk of changing the meaning.
- Yes you don't have to stick to the format of a short simple statement of each of the truths, followed by a longer exposition of each one. It's just that it needs a lot more care to run the explanation together with the statement of each truth like this.
- I think the thing that changes it here is the bit before the statement of the first truth where the lede says "but there is a path to end this cycle". The Britannica article doesn't say that it is a path to end the cycle of rebirth, it says that "The fourth and final truth is the path (Pali: magga; Sanskrit: marga) to the cessation of suffering, which was described by the Buddha in his first sermon.".
- And note that for the third truth it just says "The third truth is the cessation of suffering (Pali and Sanskrit: nirodha), commonly called nibbana (Sanskrit: nirvana)"
- Just "cessation of suffering". It doesn't say that "rebirth, dissatisfaction and redeath can no longer occur" and indeed the example of Buddhas who don't pass into paranirvana when they die would seem to give the lie to this idea that birth and death can no longer occur when you realize nirvana. It's rather that they are no longer dukkha, not that they can't happen. There's no cite given for this idea that rebirth is impossible after you realize nirvana. And Buddha did die, so obviously death is possible - and old age too - he got old, he got sick too just before he died. So those are simple examples to show that becoming enlightened and realizing nirvana doesn't mean that these things can't happen to you.
- Does this help? The main point is that writing about the four noble truths in your own words is a tricky thing to do. A good scholar who has spent all his life working on such things can do it. But there is an enormous risk of changing the meaning when you do this, and it requires a great deal of skill, more than should be expected of ordinary wikipedia editors. Robert Walker (talk) 18:18, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
- After all Buddha didn't say that he would realize cessation and become enlightened when he died. He said he had already realized this as a young man. So the four noble truths have to be understood in this context, that the third truth, cessation, was something Buddha had already realized. Robert Walker (talk) 18:23, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
@Robert Walker: Understood. But this article is not on Buddha, it is on Four Noble Truths. We must indeed write this article in our own words to respect WP:Copyvio and WP:Plag. Any faithful good summary of WP:RS should also include the context (as you say, "not change the meaning", and meaning is the product of the context, not words). @Joshua Jonathan and others, frankly, have done a good job here, something we should appreciate and thank them for. I am a bit disappointed with the harshness with which @JJ has been inadvertently criticized above, when the sources clearly state "realm of rebirth" etc. The current lead and main article provides a summary of diverse sources, the necessary samsara-context to understand the summary, as well as scholarly sources for the more curious. That is along the lines of what an encyclopedic article and reference, to an important article, such as this, ought to do. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:48, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
- Well we don't have to do it like that, to write an original lede such as can be written by a Buddhist scholar. We can quote a translation of the four noble truths for instance. Or just state the four noble truths as usually stated, as in the previous lede.
- I see nothing wrong with the previous lede.
"The Four Noble Truths (Sanskrit: catvāri āryasatyāni; Pali: cattāri ariyasaccāni) are regarded as the central doctrine of the Buddhist tradition, and are said to provide a conceptual framework for all of Buddhist thought. These four truths explain the nature of dukkha (Pali; commonly translated as "suffering", "anxiety", "unsatisfactoriness"[a]), its causes, its cessation, and the path leading to its cessation.
- "The four noble truths are:[b]
- The truth of dukkha (suffering, anxiety, unsatisfactoriness[a])
- The truth of the origin of dukkha
- The truth of the cessation of dukkha
- The truth of the path leading to the cessation of dukkha"
- What is there about that which needed to be fixed?
- It's the simplest and easiest way to do it, to just present the truths as it is normally done. In the lede at least, surely the traditional presentation is what the reader expects?
- There's a bit of history behind the discussion here. JJ rewrote that previous lede without first asking other editors and readers of the article if they agreed it needed to be rewritten. See Dorje's comment here: Please discuss proposed changes on talk page before making major edits, attempting a revert, which JJ immediately reverted back to his version. Before then, Dorje was one of the main editors of this article, as you can see in the history - prior to 14th October 2014, most of the edits were by Dorje with assistance of other editors. After that date, then nearly all the edits are by JJ. And the reason for that change is that JJ was not prepared to revert and discuss his edits. So do you see the reason for the harshness? It seems to be the only thing he can understand, though it doesn't work either. Robert Walker (talk) 19:31, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
- It should have required at the very least a discussion, a request for comments, with votes and so on, to do such an extensive rewrite. And in my view he hasn't improved it at all. Yes he has undoubtedly worked very hard on it. And he has brought some interesting new material to the article, mainly Anderson's work. But I don't see that he has improved the lede at all.
- The other material that he has introduced into the lede, to the extent it is accurate, surely belongs later in the page? Robert Walker (talk) 19:31, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
References
- ^ Dhamma 1997, p. 55.
- ^ Buswell 2003, Volume One, p. 296.
- ^ Geshe Tashi Tsering 2005, Kindle Locations 246-250.
- ^ Goldstein 2002, p. 24.
- ^ Epstein 2004, p. 42.
@Robert Walker: The old 2014 version's lead lacks the samsara-context, which misleads, and therefore is weak. The old version may be "usually stated", but this article should not try to reinforce opinions, blogs, or "what the reader expects". This article should summarize the diversity of scholarly views from WP:RS. Please check scholarly secondary and tertiary sources. The Encyclopedia Britannica article on this topic starts with samsara, "realm of rebirth" etc, after it clarifies that "noble" does not refer to truths, but refers to "four truths for the nobles". Here are a few more secondary and tertiary WP:RS,[1][2][3][4] all of which pretty much reflect what @Joshua Jonathan and recent editors have revised this article's lead to. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:23, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
References
- ^ Richard F. Gombrich (2006). How Buddhism Began: The Conditioned Genesis of the Early Teachings. Routledge. pp. 29–34. ISBN 978-1-134-19639-5.
- ^ Melford E. Spiro (1982). Buddhism and Society: A Great Tradition and Its Burmese Vicissitudes. University of California Press. pp. 36–42. ISBN 978-0-520-04672-6.
- ^ Robert E. Buswell Jr.; Donald S. Lopez Jr. (2013). The Princeton Dictionary of Buddhism. Princeton University Press. pp. 304–305. ISBN 978-1-4008-4805-8.
- ^ Damien Keown (2013). Buddhism: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press. pp. 43–53. ISBN 978-0-19-164050-6.
- @Ms Sarah Welch Okay, well first, I'd like to make clear, I'm coming to this as a reader. I have never been involved in writing these articles and don't wish to do that.
- As a reader, I'm interested to know first, what the sutras say about the four noble truths, especially, what are the core ideas that are accepted by all the sutra traditions.
- Then after that, I'm interested to know what Gombrich, or Anderson, or Walpola Rahula, or the Dalai Lama or other notable Buddhist teachers and scholars say about the four noble truths, especially about different ways it is presented in various scholarly traditions, and whether it is understood differently in Therevadhan or Mahayana traditions or in Zen Buddhism etc. I am certainly interested to hear about modern scholarly debates and ideas, both in Western scholarship, and also within and between the various Eastern traditions. And of course also interested in debates about whether they were taught differently originally - so long as the full spectrum of the debate is presented and not just one view on it.
- However, I'm not interested at all in reading what some wikipedia editor says about the four noble truths in their own words. I'm not interested at all in any OR or synthesis by the editors themselves.
- I do agree that it is useful to give extra context in the lede. What you say about the etymology and how the word Noble is understood is exactly the sort of thing I would find helpful in the lede of an article. So that bit of the lede is fine :). And it could help also to put it into the historical context of the [Śramaṇa] traditions. Again that would be relevant in the lede perhaps. But I think there is also risk of overloading the lede with too much content. One advantage of the old version of the lede is that it focused clearly on the truths themselves. The lede is supposed to summarize the entire article and stand alone as a new article in its own right, so it does make sense to say a bit more than that in the lede, I agree. Anyway that's probably about as much as I can say right now, hope it helps! Robert Walker (talk) 21:03, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Main point - lede should alert the reader if it departs from the usual statement of the four noble truths
@Ms Sarah Welch: Just to summarize the main point here, as I think it's become clearer as a result of our discussion - and thanks for discussing it with me. I think you agree that the way the four noble truths are presented in the lede differs from the way it is usually presented, e.g. in the BBC, buddhanet encyclopedia Britannica, in Anderson's book "Basic Buddhism", in Walpola Rahula's What the Buddha Taught", in teachings on the four noble truths by the the Dalai Lama, in the teachings of Zen Buddhism, in the Dhammacakkappavattana_Sutta, etc etc, it is easy to find numerous sources for the standard presentation.
It is clearly the standard way of presenting the four noble truths in all the main Buddhist sutra based traditions, in tertiary sources, in most works by Buddhist scholars also, as well as the way it is presented in the sutras themselves. They all present it as a path to cessation of suffering.
So - then the main point is that I think you'd expect an article like this which presents them in a different way to alert the reader and explain the reason for this different treatment. You'd expect it to say something in the lede like
"Normally the four noble truths are presented as a path to cessation of suffering and unsatisfactoriness. But scholars x y z say that actually it should be presented as a path to end the cycle of repeated rebirth and "redeath" "
- with a list of citations to the scholars who favour this way of presenting it. Then you'd expect a bit more also, perhaps a sentence or two explaining the reason for the decision to use this different treatment in an encyclopedia article. And later in the page, you'd expect a long detailed explanation of why it is presented in such a different way here, with a discussion of both ways of presenting it, which if it was a balanced discussion, you'd expect to also give the reasons why most authors present it as a path to cessation of suffering.
If it was presented like that you'd say "oh interesting, I had no idea that there was this alternative presentation" and even if like me you think it is wrong, as surely most Buddhists would if familiar with the more usual way of presenting it - still, you'd read on and find out about this other treatment. You'd at the least be intrigued by it.
But it's not done like that. It is just presented "as is" and the reader is not even alerted to this change in treatment. And no citation is given, not to the suggestion that the 4NT should be presented like this. If I wanted to email a Buddhist friend and tell them about this and they asked who says this, I'd just have to say "Wikipedia says so".
If you see something like that in wikipedia, when every other source you've read presents it as a path to cessation of suffering. you won't think "Oh this is interesting". You'll just think "here is wikipedia getting things wrong again, as it so often does".
The old lede just presents the four noble truths in the standard way similarly to other treatments, and had none of these issues.
Robert Walker (talk) 08:39, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
- The info in the lead, and the article, is factual correct, and supported by multiple WP:RS. Your suggestion "Normally [...] redeath" is your personal understanding and WP:OR. It comes down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. And it's not even accurate; your links don't support your statement. [Encyclopedia Britannica supports the presentation in the lead; izauk.org completely departs from your "normal" presentation. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:15, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
- The Zen article says
- "The First Truth is the truth of ‘dukhka’ – Life is duhkha."
- "The Second Truth is: where does this suffering come from?"
- "The Third Noble Truth of the Buddha is that there is a way beyond this suffering."
- "The Fourth Noble Truth is the Way, which leads us to that experience."
- It is still presented as a path to cessation of suffering. And it doesn't even mention rebirth. It's strange that you want to use a Zen Buddhist site to support your interpretation, as of all the traditions, the Zen tradition is perhaps the one with least emphasis on rebirth. Robert Walker (talk) 09:20, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
- Well, the lead follows the same sequence, so there's no problem then. And the fact that this Zen-article does not mention rebirth, does not mean that rebirth is not essential to Buddhism, including the four truths. We can't rely on your WP:OR for writing Wiki-articles. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:36, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
- NB: the BBC-site also says "After death an enlightened person is liberated from the cycle of rebirth," Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:41, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
- And this is a quote from the Dalai Lama link (emphasis mine): "If you really want to get rid of all your suffering, all the difficulties you experience in your life, you have to get rid of the fundamental cause that gives rise to the aggregates that are the basis of all suffering." This too is about rebirth. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:48, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
@Robert Walker: No, you misunderstood me and the WP:RS I mentioned. It is the blogs-like and other non-RS you keep mentioning, that ignore the mention of samsara. All WP:RS I listed above, plus the Encyclopedia Britannica article and Carol Anderson's book parallel the current article's lead format, thanks to @Joshua Jonathan and other editors. Your point about citing more WP:RS is noted. If there is a particular sentence in lead that seems unsourced or insufficiently sourced, and it is not supported by the main article, please identify. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:36, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
- I hink I get his point (and this matches with your comment above, MSW). All the sources Robert is referring too give a psychological interpretation of the four truths, regarding them to be a recipe for happiness in this life. That's a modern (re)interpretation. But of course, if this is all you know about Buddhism, then reliable info on Buddhism may come as a shock. I'll add a sentence on this. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:55, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Joshua Jonathan using the Dalai Lama as a cite to support this idea that the aim of the four noble truths is to end rebirth is a bit strange as in Tibetan Buddhism you have clear statements that Buddhas can manifest as "emanation bodies" after enlightenment. See Reincarnation.
- @Ms Sarah Welch - Articles by Walpola Rahula, Dalai Lama, by the BBC, by Encyclopedia Britannica surely all satisfy WP:RS. I find it astonishing that anyone doubts that the usual way of presenting the four noble truths is as a path to cessation of suffering and unsatisfactoriness. There are many other cites in the old lede - see the footnote a. And it would be easy to find many more.
- While as far as I know, Joshua Jonathan hasn't presented any examples of a scholar who has presented the four noble truths as a path to end rebirth and "redeath". Instead he gives cites on Moksha, on Paranirvana etc which he says supports his treatment of the 4NT, but they just say that Buddha himself said he would enter paranirvana, and that enlightened beings are no longer caught up in the cycle of rebirth, which everyone agrees on.
- That surely makes it a synthesis.
- The "cessation of suffering (dukkha)" approach is how it is presented in the Pali canon, which makes it two thousand years old at least, and many scholars think that it goes right back to Buddha himself.
- If this seems to you to be a radical and extraordinary thing for me to say, I don't know what else to do. Perhaps someone else may clarify the situation at some point. Robert Walker (talk) 13:34, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
- (Have just trimmed this comment as a courtesy to any future readers of this discussion. Robert Walker (talk) 15:06, 30 April 2016 (UTC) )
@Robert Walker: Please take a break. Give @JJ, others and me a few weeks. Along with adding WP:RS to the lead of this article, in parallel, we need to fix the Samsara article, which this article is related to. @JJ is already working. I have some family things to take care of in early May, so my progress may be slower. But in 3-4 weeks, we should be able to improve this, Samsara, and related articles. Your point on WP:RS in this article is getting repetitive, I suggest you give it a rest, end your WP:WALLS, it is getting unconstructive. We will get this article right, by June, sooner if possible, with everyone's and your help. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:04, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Ms Sarah Welch: Okay for sure. Is there any chance of adding a tag to the article, to the lede particularly, to show that this particular presentation of the 4NT has been questioned and is work in progress? That way also we may get more knowledgeable editors who come to this discussion, realising that this is an article that needs more work. The more eyes on it the better I'd have thought. Robert Walker (talk) 14:13, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Robert Walker: I will add it. We should remove the tag as soon as all sentences in the lead are sourced to recent secondary/tertiary scholarly sources. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:38, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
- The lead says: "Dukkha niroda, the cessation of dukkha". Donald Lopez, Paul William and Carol Anderson all state that the four truths, c.q. the Buddhist path, aim at liberation from rebirth. What more do you want? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:42, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
@Joshua Jonathan - your cites don't support this.
"According to Donald Lopez, "The Buddha stated in his first sermon that when he gained absolute and intuitive knowledge of the four truths, he achieved complete enlightenment and freedom from future rebirth."[web 1] See also the Maha-parinibbana Sutta,[web 2] and Carol Anderson, Pain and its Ending, pp.162 with note 38, for context see pages 1-3 ;[1] and Patrick Olivelle, a professor of Sanskrit and Indian Religions, on "moksha" in the Encyclopedia Britannica"
All this says is that the Buddha achieved freedom from future rebirth. Everyone agrees on that. It doesn't say that the 4NT should be presented as a path to end rebirth. And the various Buddhist schools have differing views on whether an enlightened being has to enter paranirvana on death. In some Mahayana schools Buddhas can "emanate" whatever that means, and those emanations can pass through the ordinary processes of birth just like everyone else. And cessation is described as something that Buddha realized already when he became enlightened - if the end of the path was paranirvana, then that would mean cessation can only be reached when you die.
So it's not enough to add cites that say that Buddha achieved freedom from rebirth. You need cites to say that the 4NT should be presented as a path to freedom from rebirth rather than a path to cessation of dukkha. I know this seems a bit repetitive, I've said this before, but we seem to have a lack of communication here and I'm not sure what else to do except repeat myself. Robert Walker (talk) 16:10, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
- Cessation of dukkha = cessation of rebirth = nirvana = moksha. Please find us sources that say that ending dukkha and ending rebirth are two different things; or sources that say that the four truths are not a path to end rebirth.
- You seem to think that "cessation of dukkha" literally means 'no more pain in this life'. That's not what it means. The Buddhist tradition even has got explanations for suffering arahats and other liberated beings; it's being ascribed to the wokings of past karma. Dogen suffered from depression in his last years, yet he was regarded to be a great enlightened being. Soen Nakagawa idem. The Buddhist path does not end all suffering in this life (though meditation and self-restraint will be helpfull in this respect, of course); it leads to the end of rebirth, and thereby by embodied existence and the roots of dukkha. That's what it is all about. All presentations which skip samsara and rebirth are misleading. You are mislead. Take your chance, and learn something substantial about Buddhism.
- @VictoriaGrayson: could you please comment here? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:52, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
- I agree with JJ on the broader points. But Tibetan Buddhists don't consider these Japanese masters as Buddhas. Not even first bhumi. But again I agree with JJ on the broader issues.VictoriaGraysonTalk 17:00, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
@Joshua Jonathan - if the four noble truths are a path to ending rebirth, why don't the sutras say so? It would have been very easy to restate the four truths in that format if that is what Buddha intended by them. And why can't you find any other sources that restate them in this form? If an editor of a wikipedia article produces a novel synthesis, I don't think it is up to other editors to prove them wrong and find flaws in their treatment. This isn't peer review. It's up to you to find a cite in a recognized source that presents the four noble truths exactly as you did. Robert Walker (talk) 17:41, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
On your point about the meaning of cessation, I put this comment above but perhaps you missed it as I inserted it before another comment. Here it is again:
@Joshua Jonathan - just in case this helps - I totally agree that the modern psychological approach of achieving happiness in this life - the "hippy" approach to these things is obviously not what Buddha meant - he was already very happy in the worldly sense when he set off to find enlightenment, and he also achieved meditations that enabled him to enter states of unstained pure bliss, which he also said was not enlightenment either. So that idea is obviously way off the mark. But if you read the cites I gave and the ones from the old lede etc, even the Zen one, none of them present bliss and freedom from pain in this life as the meaning of cessation in the 4NT. Because, if that is what was meant, it would be dependent on conditions which will eventually change. Robert Walker (talk) 17:44, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
@Joshua Jonathan - just another thought, in case it helps. Buddha set out to find the cause of suffering and a path to freedom from suffering, according to the story of his life in the sutras. And the 4NT invite us to do the same. And though he gives advice about how to do this, he also presents it as a journey of discovery where you have to see things for yourself. If he presented the truths as "you must stop rebirth" then that would present a solution and a dogma that Buddhists would have to adhere to to follow the path.
So, whatever the situation might be, whether you think paranirvana is an eventual inevitable consequence of enlightenment or not, it needs to be presented as it is, as an open ended search for the causes of suffering, where the practitioner eventually sees the truth for themselves. I think also that's one of the things that makes the 4NT difficult for some people as they want to be presented with an explanation of what they have to believe to be a Buddhist, but the core truth is one that you have to see through open ended discovery, and any cut and dried solution would detract from that. Robert Walker (talk) 17:56, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
- Peter Harvey's 2013 second edition of "An Introduction to Buddhism", page 73 and on talks about rebirth in relation to the 4NT.VictoriaGraysonTalk 18:43, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
- Yes - but the question isn't whether cessation leads inevitably to paranirvana. That's the Therevadhan view I believe, while other traditions consider it differently. The thing here is, should the four noble truths be presented as a path to end rebirth, as the only way to reach cessation - or just simply as a path to cessation with the question of whether this inevitably means no future rebirths left for later discussion. Peter Harvey there is talking about early Buddhist teachings and the Therevadhan approach so it is no surprise that he presents cessation as inevitably meaning no future rebirth. The Mahayana schools have different views there. But he doesn't say that a practitioner has to have ending of rebirth as their aim when they contemplate the four truths.
- He also starts with a standard presentation of the four noble truths on page 52 and highlights the need for personal experience of the third truth:
"The four True Realities for the Spiritually Ennobled form the structural framework for all higher teachings of early Buddhism. They are: (i) dukkha, ‘the painful’, encompassing the various forms of ‘pain’, gross or subtle, physical or mental, that we are all subject to, along with painful things that engender these; (ii) the origination (samudaya, i.e. cause) of dukkha, namely craving (tanhā, Skt trsnā); (iii) the cessation (nirodha) of dukkha by the cessation of craving (this cessation being equivalent to Nirvāna); and (iv) the path (magga, Skt mārga) that leads to this cessation. The first sermon says that the first of the four is ‘to be fully understood’; the second is ‘to be abandoned’; the third is ‘to be personally experienced’; the fourth is ‘to be developed/cultivated’. To ‘believe in’ the ariya-saccas may play a part, but not the most important one."
- There would be no issue at all with discussion of this Therevadhan view on the nature of cessation later in the page, once the four noble truths are stated clearly first. Along of course with the Mahayana views as well. Robert Walker (talk) 19:25, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
- I don't think the emanation bodies of Buddhas in Mahayana are considered as birth. VictoriaGraysonTalk 19:40, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
- Perhaps it depends on the tradition? The article on reincarnation on the Dalai Lama's website says:
- I don't think the emanation bodies of Buddhas in Mahayana are considered as birth. VictoriaGraysonTalk 19:40, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
- There would be no issue at all with discussion of this Therevadhan view on the nature of cessation later in the page, once the four noble truths are stated clearly first. Along of course with the Mahayana views as well. Robert Walker (talk) 19:25, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
"The Emanation Body is three-fold: a) the Supreme Emanation Body like Shakyamuni Buddha, the historical Buddha, who manifested the twelve deeds of a Buddha such as being born in the place he chose and so forth; b) the Artistic Emanation Body which serves others by appearing as craftsmen, artists and so on; and c) the Incarnate Emanation Body, according to which Buddhas appear in various forms such as human beings, deities, rivers, bridges, medicinal plants, and trees to help sentient beings. Of these three types of Emanation Body, the reincarnations of spiritual masters recognized and known as ‘Tulkus’ in Tibet come under the third category. Among these Tulkus there may be many who are truly qualified Incarnate Emanation Bodies of the Buddhas, but this does not necessarily apply to all of them. Amongst the Tulkus of Tibet there may be those who are reincarnations of superior Bodhisattvas, Bodhisattvas on the paths of accumulation and preparation, as well as masters who are evidently yet to enter these Bodhisattva paths. Therefore, the title of Tulku is given to reincarnate Lamas either on the grounds of their resembling enlightened beings or through their connection to certain qualities of enlightened beings. "
- Relevant sentence emphasized. As to what that means, is a matter that I think they talk about in more detail elsewhere, but whatever it means in detail, I think it's clear that this is about Buddhas who take the form of beings who take birth in Samsara for the benefit of suffering beings after their enlightenment. It also says they can manifest in multiple such emanations at once, and can manifest as newly born humans even when still alive in another body.
- So yes, it's not like ordinary rebirth, there are differences surely. I've had it explained that they manifest due to connections with others which developed during their past as ordinary beings, and as a result of that, are then able to take birth in forms that benefit others who were connected with them before. So the manifestation arises out of their own past connections with us, and out of their compassion and wish to help others, and our past connections with them, and they are able to help us as a result of these connections. Something like that. But they aren't visions - those are the samboghakaya bodies, a kind of direct experience of qualities of Buddhahood said to be even more real than anything we experience normally. But these aren't like that. It's clear that they are ordinary beings like ourselves, take birth like us, get old, get sick and die like us, but in these traditions are thought of as emanation bodies of Buddhas. Robert Walker (talk) 20:00, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
- Nirmanakayas of Buddhas are merely puppet bodies.VictoriaGraysonTalk 20:24, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
- So yes, it's not like ordinary rebirth, there are differences surely. I've had it explained that they manifest due to connections with others which developed during their past as ordinary beings, and as a result of that, are then able to take birth in forms that benefit others who were connected with them before. So the manifestation arises out of their own past connections with us, and out of their compassion and wish to help others, and our past connections with them, and they are able to help us as a result of these connections. Something like that. But they aren't visions - those are the samboghakaya bodies, a kind of direct experience of qualities of Buddhahood said to be even more real than anything we experience normally. But these aren't like that. It's clear that they are ordinary beings like ourselves, take birth like us, get old, get sick and die like us, but in these traditions are thought of as emanation bodies of Buddhas. Robert Walker (talk) 20:00, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
I just don't know about that and this article doesn't explain, maybe others do, maybe there is a diversity of views also, would be no surprise if there was. But whatever it means to be a Tulku who is an emanation body of a Buddha, it's clear from the quote that they are born, grow old and die just like everyone else. So, surely it counts as birth? What else can you call it? The Tibetans call them reincarnations.
That shows that in at least one Mahayana traditions there's a distinction between Buddhas like Shakyamuni who enter paranirvana and other Buddhas that continue to manifest in new human forms after they reach enlightenment. As described here, they are people you could meet and talk to, they have mothers and fathers who look after them as babies, they would have interests and hobbies like anyone else, yet in some sense or other they are emanations of a Buddha, whatever that means. While in the Therevadhan traditions it's much simpler, anyone who reaches enlightenment enters paranirvana when they die (if I understand it right).
Either way - the four noble truths leave all this open. These are all additional ideas on top of the four noble truths, as to what the nature of cessation is and what the implications are. But the truths themselves just present it as a path to practice, and cessation as something you come to realize for yourself.
And since they are always presented in this open way, as a path to cessation of suffering, why then should wikipedia follow its own unique direction and present them as a path to end rebirth as the aim? Not unless you can find a cite that says they should be presented in that way, and then I think you'd also need jolly good reasons for adopting this novel approach to them as the first thing the reader sees in the article.
Does that make sense to you? Robert Walker (talk) 21:41, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
- Both Shakyamuni and Garab Dorje are emanations of Vajradhara. Their births are merely a display.VictoriaGraysonTalk 21:51, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
- I've come across that view yes, but I think it's a minority view. And - you can also take that much further, and relate to everyone as enlightened already, not only Shakyamuni Buddha. Which might seem absurd given the horrific things some people do in this life - but - everyone has potential to be Buddha in the future, and when you reach enlightenment, then our rigid linear time from past to present to future is also one of the things that you see to be more fluid than realized - I'm talking about the Mahayana traditions here of course.
- At any rate for someone who held that view, the lede of this article would be even more problematical, as how could an emanation of Buddha teach cessation as a path with the objective to end any possibility of rebirth? It sounds like a contradiction in terms. And at any rate, the sutras (e.g. the Dhammacakkappavattana_Sutta) don't teach cessation in this way. Robert Walker (talk) 22:06, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
More sources
One more try: read Thanissaro Bhikkhu, The Truth of Rebirth And Why it Matters for Buddhist Practice on the fundamental connection between the four truths and rebirth. Two quotes:
- "He also made rebirth an integral part of his explanation of the four noble truths and the understanding of causality — dependent co-arising — on which those truths are based."
- "The Buddha found it more appropriate and fruitful to focus instead on the process of how birth is repeatedly generated by factors immediately present to awareness throughout life, and directly experienced by factors in the present moment. This is because these factors lie enough under your control to turn them toward the ending of repeated rebirth.
An understanding of the process as process — and in particular, as an example of the process of dependent co-arising — can actually contribute to the end of suffering. It gives guidance in how to apply the tasks appropriate for the four noble truths to the process of birth: i.e., comprehending suffering, abandoning its cause, realizing its cessation, and developing the path to its cessation. When these duties have been completely mastered, they can bring birth to an end by abandoning its causes, thus opening the way to the ultimate happiness that comes when the mind is no longer entangled in the process of birth."
It's all connected: the four truths, rebirth, dependent co-origination, etc. One lement links to other elements; together, the form an interlocked whole. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:52, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Ms Sarah Welch: I've just checked Spiro, Buddhism and Society: A Great Tradition and Its Burmese Vicissitudes, p.42. He does indeed explicitly state that the four truths are connected to rebirth, and the ending of rebirth:
- "...it is only within the framework of rebirth that the Four Noble Truths of Buddhism assume their full soteriologocal significance."
- He further states:
- "The Buddhis message then, as I have said, is not simply a psychological message, i.e. that desire is the cause of suffering because unsatisfied desire produces frustration. It does contain such a message to be sure; but more importantly it is an eschatological message. Desire is the cause of suffering because desire is the cause of rebirth; and the extinction of desire leads to deliverance from suffering because it signals release from the Wheel of Rebirth."
- Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:34, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
- More sources:
- Geoffrey Samuel (2008), [[The Origins of Yoga and Tantra, p.136: "
- Graham Harvey (2016), Religions in focus: "The Third Noble Truth is nirvana. The Buddha tells us that an end to suffering is possible, and it is nirvana. Nirvana is a "blowing out," just as a candle flame is wxtinguished in the wind, from our lives in samsara. It connotes an end to rebirth".
- How many sources have we got now for this? Spiro, Lopez (2009), Lopez (Enc. Br.), Buswell & Lopez, Anderson, Samuel, Gombrich, Keown, Harvey, Williams & Tribe & Wynne (2012). Apart from the Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta and the Maha-parinibbana Sutta, and the BBC which also mentions the end of rebirth. Enough, isn't it? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:35, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
- More sources:
- @Joshua Jonathan: More than enough. Indeed. Perhaps, we should add a source for the last paragraph. @Richard Walker: which significant viewpoint is not included in the lead or the main article? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 09:40, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
@Ms Sarah Welch: First, thanks for adding the tag to the article. I've added a link to the discussion of the latest version to the start of the first section for readers who want to jump ahead.
I agree that Joshua Jonathan has now found an academic source that presents the idea that the aim of the Buddhist path is to end the cycle of rebirth. For the full account in context, see Page 42. That's interesting to know and I agree that his cite is clear on the matter.
However, this cite does not say that the four noble truths should be restated.
In my view, to make such a radical restatement of the truths themselves, he needs a cite that actually says clearly that they need to be rephrased to say that the aim is to end the cycle of rebirth. And in my view again, he would need to alert the reader, and explain that this is not how they are usually expressed, and give the reason for rewriting them.
Repeating my links from above to the usual way of expressing them: e.g. in the BBC, buddhanet encyclopedia Britannica, in Anderson's book "Basic Buddhism", in Walpola Rahula's What the Buddha Taught", in teachings on the four noble truths by the the Dalai Lama, in the teachings of Zen Buddhism, in the Dhammacakkappavattana_Sutta, etc etc, it is easy to find numerous sources for the standard presentation, many more cites in old lede - see the footnote a
It is one thing, in a meta discussion, to say that this is the implicit aim in the four noble truths. That is something that would be interesting for later in the page now that he has a cite for this view. Along of course with any other views on the matter. As an academic book, it's common for different books to present different views on such matters.
And it's another thing altogether though, to use this meta discussion to rewrite the four truths themselves, and present the aim as to end the cycle of rebirth.
Because that's just not how they are stated in the sutras, or how they are understood by Buddhists generally, or how they are presented in other secondary and tertiary sources. Joshua Jonathan is yet to provide a cite for anyone who has rephrased the four noble truths in any form resembling his statement of the 4NT in the lede.
This means that this statement of the 4NT in the lede has not been subject to any peer review. A discussion on the talk page of an article by wikipedia editors does not constitute peer review.
Repeating one of my comments from above, which I think is the essential point here:
Buddha set out to find the cause of suffering and a path to freedom from suffering, according to the story of his life in the sutras. And the 4NT invite us to do the same. And though he gives advice about how to do this, he also presents it as a journey of discovery where you have to see things for yourself. If he presented the truths as "you must stop rebirth" then that would present a solution and a dogma that Buddhists would have to adhere to to follow the path.
: So, whatever the situation might be, whether you think paranirvana is an eventual inevitable consequence of enlightenment or not, it needs to be presented as it is, as an open ended search for the causes of suffering, where the practitioner eventually sees the truth for themselves. I think also that's one of the things that makes the 4NT difficult for some people as they want to be presented with an explanation of what they have to believe to be a Buddhist, but the core truth is one that you have to see through open ended discovery, and any cut and dried solution would detract from that.
I think in the lede especially it needs to be presented in this open way. Robert Walker (talk) 10:08, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Robert Walker: Are you saying Encyclopedia Britannica, BBC website, and Anderson's book do not mention "cycle of rebirth"? We must ignore buddhanet and other non-WP:RS. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 10:21, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Ms Sarah Welch: - of course they do. I don't quite get your point here.
- Yes, nearly all Buddhists do believe in this concept of a cycle of rebirths (though there are some modern Buddhists who are trying to follow the teachings with an agnostic position towards death, see Stephen Batchelor's account here). I'm just saying the sources don't present the four noble truths as a path to end the cycle of rebirth. Whether following this path does inevitably end rebirth or not is another matter, on which one can have various views including just saying you don't know. It's how they are presented that's important. Do you see the distinction?
- Though most Buddhists believe in rebirth, it's not a creed and you don't have to say that you believe in rebirth to become a Buddhist. Similarly you don't have to say that you think the way to end suffering is to end rebirth to follow the path of the four noble truths. Whether the outcome will be an end to any possibility of future rebirths is a separate matter on which there are various views, including the idea in some Mahayana schools that it is possible for some Buddhas not to enter paranirvana but instead to emanate as new nirmanakaya human beings who are born as babies, grow up and get old like everyone else. Whatever that means, it's clearly a different view from the Therevadhan ideas. All that is for later discussion on the page I would say, and that there is no justification for rewriting the four noble truths themselves. Does that make more sense? I'm sorry if this is repetitive, but I am not very skilled at presenting this, obviously, as I've tried many times and still can't seem to get the basic idea across. Maybe if some other reader comes to this discussion who agrees with me, they may find a better way to express this? Robert Walker (talk)
- @Ms Sarah Welch: Just trying a silly analogy which may perhaps help. Suppose you see someone driving around in a bright red modern sports car. You could deduce from that that this was their aim in life, to have a car like that, that it is their pride and joy etc etc. But later you may find that they just borrowed it from their wife or husband or a friend and have no interest in cars at all, except as a way to get from a to b. So in the same way, that Buddha entered paranirvana doesn't mean that his aim when he followed the path to cessation of dukkha was to enter paranirvana. It could just be that this is something that happened as a result, and that his original aim was to find a path to the cessation of dukkha for himself and all beings, rather than to enter paranirvana. You can't say, just from the knowledge that he entered paranirvana, that his original aim was to enter paranirvana, or that this should be the aim of anyone on the path. And he doesn't present this as the aim in his statement of the four noble truths. And indeed the sutras present entering paranirvana as a choice, that he could have remained here until the end of the world period, and continued to teach, if Ananda had asked him in time. Whatever that means, it rather suggests that paranirvana is not the end goal of the path. Robert Walker (talk) 11:06, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
@Robert Walker: Thanks. Let us keep our focus to improving this article. We now agree that not only numerous scholarly secondary texts mention rebirth while discussing 4NT, even tertiary sources such as Encyclopedia Britannica and BBC do too. Is there something significant that Encyclopedia Britannica, BBC or Anderson's book mention that this article does not include? Please check. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 11:11, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Ms Sarah Welch: Sorry I just don't know what to say next.
- I've tried very hard. I don't know what the problem is and why I can't explain it properly. I can't think of anything to say now except to repeat things I've said already - and this question is one I already answered previously too.
- The only other thought I have is a Request for Comments.
- Some time back @Dorje108: (the previous most frequent editor of this article before Joshua Jonathan took over) and I floated the idea of a request for comments. It never happened, because of other events at the time.
- Our original idea was an RfC about whether to revert to the way the four noble truths are presented in the old lede, and then merge in improvements such as the material on the etymology of the word Noble.
- An alternative, based on this recent discussion, might be an RfC about whether the 4NT in the lede should be stated as a path with the aim to end the cycle of rebirth, or as a path to cessation of suffering and unsatisfactoriness.
- But I found that writing an RfC is a matter of much skill, from a previous RfC that we had on what counts as WP:RS in Buddhism. I'm not sure I'm up to it. So, this is just a thought which other editors might be interested to consider.
- At any rate, I think that one way or another, probably this discussion needs new eyes to take us any further. Robert Walker (talk) 11:20, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Robert Walker: I asked, "Is there something significant that Encyclopedia Britannica, BBC or Anderson's book mention that this article does not include?" You didn't identify anything. So I am removing the tag I added yesterday, per WP:DETAG. RfC for other matters, is your choice and privilege. I feel this is an important wikipedia article, one which needs care, both in what we say and how we say it, while relying on WP:RS. The article does this, reasonably well. @Joshua Jonathan: There is the discussion by Richard Gombrich, and others, on 4NT history, on what is common and what is different from the Jaina Sutras / Upanishads, that could improve this article. I mentioned Gombrich above; another RS on 4NT history is Robert Bellah, Religion in Human Evolution, Harvard University Press, pages 530-534. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 11:43, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Ms Sarah Welch: Sorry to hear you've removed the tag as this discussion could really do with new eyes on it I think. The problem is what it includes more than what it leaves out! It doesn't give any source at all for its statement of the four noble truths as a path where the aim of the practitioner is to end rebirth as the only way to stop suffering. That is the main point at issue. I can understand that for some reason you don't see this distinction here.
- Its summary of the noble eightfold path is also eccentric, well so it seems to me. I don't understand how " behaving decently, cultivating discipline, and practicing mindfulness and meditation" is supposed to relate to " Right view, Right intention, Right speech, Right action, Right livelihood, Right effort, Right meditation, and Right contemplation". It is at the least an original way of stating the noble eightfold path that has not been subject to peer review either.
- So the problem is WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS in my view. And it is not our place to act as peer reviewers for Joshua Jonathan's ideas on how to restate the four noble truths. Robert Walker (talk) 13:28, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Robert Walker: You write, "the four noble truths as a path where the aim of the practitioner is to end rebirth as the only way to stop suffering." I don't see the word "only" in the lead anywhere. Or that claim in the main article either. Consider taking a break, @RW, from this talk page. Let us meditate on what wikipedia is, should be, what scholars are saying on 4NT, and revisit this article in a few weeks. Shall we? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:40, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Ms Sarah Welch:. Okay, good point, I should say "the four noble truths as a path where the aim of the practitioner is to end rebirth as the way to stop suffering." It does say that. Just leave out the word Only. That's a fair criticism of what I said, thanks.
- Another attempt at this: the old lede gives numerous cites that present the four noble truths in exactly the same way, almost word for word, and it is easy to find many more examples of that way of presenting it, as I did above.
- The new lede doesn't give cites to any source which presents the four noble truths in the same way. Not necessarily word for word the same, but similar enough so that the statement in the lede could be considered a close paraphrase. Does that not make it WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS? Robert Walker (talk) 13:53, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Robert Walker: No, that does not make it OR or OR-synthesis. The new lede includes everything the old lede did, and then "more". Your frustration is with the "more". Your frustration is with "rebirth, samsara, redeath, etc". Yet, that is what 4NT's foundation is, that is what all RS scholarship states, that is why this article must include it. Consider taking a break, @RW, from this talk page, as I suggested above, and let us all meditate on all this for a few weeks. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:02, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Ms Sarah Welch: The thing is that this "more" is meta discussion of what the nature of cessation is. The WP:SYNTHESIS bit about it is not the inclusion of this More, it would be fine in a separate discussion. What's novel (in my view) is the use of this material to rewrite the four noble truths themselves with no citation to anyone else who has stated them in this form. If that is how they should be presented, why didn't Buddha present it in the same way that Joshua Jonathan did? Why doesn't Buddha himself say that the aim is to end rebirth, if that is what he meant? And why don't any of the scholarly sources restate them in this way? We don't yet have even one cite to a similar restatement anywhere else except in wikipedia. Does this not mean anything to you at all, what I just said? Not even a tiny possibility that I may be saying something meaningful here? Robert Walker (talk) 14:23, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
@Robert Walker: Did Buddha teach rebirth? Better read Francis Story's Rebirth as Doctrine and Experience: Essays and Case Studies, pages 80-81. See the cites above by Gombrich, Williams, Harvey, Anderson or any other scholar on 4NT. Scholarly sources explain 4NT in the way @Joshua Jonathan has summarized in his own words. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:34, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Ms Sarah Welch: Sorry, you've lost me completely here. What is the relevance of those pages? I just said that Buddha presents the four noble truths as a path to cessation of suffering. If he meant to present them as a path to end rebirth it would have been easy to say so, and he didn't. Of course he mentions rebirth frequently, e.g. when he says that he will not take rebirth again after entering paranirvana, and when talking about previous incarnations, and in many other cases (at least if you take the sutras as canaon) and like the author of that paper I don't understand how that can be a question.
- I feel there must be some fundamental thing that we are missing here, something that either I'm omitting to say or that you are, or something that one or other of us is not understanding, or something - there must be something that could lead to shared understanding, because I just don't understand what is going on in this discussion. Robert Walker (talk) 15:43, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
- You said that these cites support JJ's interpretation. If so - can you find a cite that states the four noble truths in the same way he presents it in the lede? Not in meta discussion, but as the actual statement of the four noble truths which they are discussing? Robert Walker (talk) 16:03, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
- We write articles by paraphrasing sources, not by quoting sources verbatim, unless for short pieces, as per WP:QUOTEFARM. The lead summarizes the article; the article clearly mentions that ending rebirth is the basic orientation of the fourt truths; this is referenced by at least five sources, and ten or more at this talkpage, most from notable scholars published by Cambridge University Press, Oxford University Press, et cetera. To state that no references or sources are provided betrays an enormous ignorance, c.q. lack of WP:COMPETENCE. This whole discussion is an extended example of WP:GREENCHEESE, and an example of WP:DONTGETIT and WP:DISRUPTIVE. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:27, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
RfC suggestion
This is not actually an RfC. It is just me presenting a suggestion for an RfC which might help to clarify the main question at hand.
Something like this:
What do you think of these two options?
- The four noble truths in the lede should be stated as a path with the aim to end the cycle of rebirth as the way to end suffering and unsatisfactoriness (as in the current lede).
- The four noble truths in the lede should just be stated as a path to cessation of suffering and unsatisfactoriness, and discussion of how cessation is understood in the various Buddhist traditions left to later discussion in the page. (As in the old version of the lede).
From the discussion above, others here don't seem to see think there is anything to discuss.
Does anyone else reading this think that this is a question of substance that can be discussed? Robert Walker (talk) 11:45, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Richard Walker: Would it be more clear if you restated (1)+(2), for RfC, as "The lead should not mention rebirth, samsara and redeath, only the main article should"? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 11:49, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Ms Sarah Welch: No, there's no problem at all with mentioning rebirth and samsara in the lede. For instance a sentence or two of historical context about the Śramaṇa traditions would surely be appropriate if that was the consensus. The problem is only with the presentation of the 4NT rewritten to say that the aim of the practitioner who follows the path of the four noble truths is to end rebirth. Robert Walker (talk) 11:51, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
- Whether it does end any possibility of future rebirth is a separate question, and depends on whether you think that all enlightened beings inevitably enter paranirvana. But to state that as the aim in the statement of the truths themselves is to rewrite the four noble truths, in my view. So such material belongs in meta discussion later in the page. Robert Walker (talk) 12:00, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
@Richard Walker: The old version of the lead that you like, never mentioned rebirth, samsara and redeath in the lead. In fact, it did not even discuss it in the main article, just mentioned rebirth and samsara in two places in the passing. Rebirth and samsara have been central, basic to Buddhism, according to all RS scholarship. The old 2014 version was not Buddhism's Four Noble Truths, it was something new and exciting, a reconstruction and reinterpretation. It was not a summary of 4NT from the scholarly literature. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:04, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Ms Sarah Welch: I don't understand why you say the old version was new and exciting. It is just the standard presentation and it cites many sources that present the four noble truths in this way - see the footnote a. It's the lede in the new version which is original - it has no citation to anyone else who has expressed the four noble truths in the same way. It is a non peer reviewed restatement that can only be attributed to wikipedia editors.
- But there is no problem at all adding something about rebirth in the lede. Example, you could say something like this (Please don't use these words, it is just for illustration purposes):
"Buddhism arose in the context of the Sramana traditions, and shares many common ideas with other Indian religions of the time, such as Samsara, and the possibility of liberation from the cycle of existence. The core teachings in Buddhism are based on the four noble truths. These truths identify suffering, the source of suffering, present a possibility of cessation of suffering and a path to cessation....."
- That would be absolutely fine. The problem comes when you say that the aim is to end rebirth. Indeed liberation from the cycle of existence doesn't logically mean you can't manifest in Samsara. For instance a prisoner who is liberated from a prison is still free to go back to the prison, e.g. to talk to previous inmates that they may have become friends with, or perhaps to visit as a health visitor or chaplain or some such. The difference between the former prisoner and the current prisoners is that the former prisoner is now free to come and go. Similarly, if you are liberated from samsara, it doesn't follow logically that it is impossible to continue to manifest in samsara. So to say that the aim is to end rebirth materially changes the meaning of the 4NT in my view, and is not how they are expressed in the sutras either, for instance in the Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta.
- Yes rebirth and samsara are central to all the sutra traditions of Buddhism, as usually understood. But the four noble truths can be stated without mentioning those concepts. They are more like background context. For instance the Zen Buddhist article on the four noble truths which I cited earlier doesn't mention rebirth at all.
- It would of course be appropriate to talk about rebirth in meta discussion of the truths. And for that matter to talk about them in the truths themselves. It's just that one particular point - rewriting the truths to say that the aim is to end rebirth that's the issue :).
- And I'm not saying the old version of the article was perfect. Indeed Dorje was working away at it when Joshua rewrote it and stopped him in his tracks, and he was collaborating with the other editors as well.
- Anyway this is the sort of thing I'd put in my own section if we had an RfC. The main thing here though is, is there a question to be asked here? If nobody else thinks there is even anything to discuss, well how is any progress possible? I think we need fresh eyes on this to have any chance of moving anywhere new. Robert Walker (talk) 12:33, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
- I find the wording repeated rebirth and "redeath" awkward but the Four Noble truths have been taught as ultimately leading to liberation/nirvana. For instance, Thanissaro Bhikkhu's study guide for The Four Noble Truths quotes many sutras which state this (see the section on the third truth as well as the fourth) and when discussing the eightfold path, Thanissaro quotes SN 56.11 to say
Precisely this Noble Eightfold Path: right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration. This is the middle way realized by the Tathagata that — producing vision, producing knowledge — leads to calm, to direct knowledge, to self-awakening, to Unbinding. ("Unbinding" is Thanissaro's chosen translation of "nibbāna")
- Buddhanet's study guide on the Four Noble Truths states the same. The Third Truth page says "The second fruit of the end of suffering is what Buddhists call supreme Enlightenment." Barbara O'Brien, who comes from a Zen background, notes the same as well saying "The Buddha said that "the extinction of thirst [craving] is Nirvana." (Or, in Pali, Nibbana.)"
- I don't disagree that the Four Noble Truths can be stated without noting that they properly ultimately lead to liberation but what would be the purpose of leaving out the larger view of the teachings? The First Turning of the Wheel was to teach 4NT in Deer Park and if these four didn't encompass the entire path then it wouldn't be considered a turning of the wheel. Dharmalion76 (talk) 16:54, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Dharmalion76: - the purpose would be because that's how they are stated originally by the Buddha. They are a starting point and encapsulate in brief also Buddha's own search. And when you just present cessation as cessation of suffering and unsastisfactoriness - that's then again something a practitioner can relate to right at the start, and doesn't require theories of the process of rebirth, or discussion of whether or not Buddhas after they are liberated from samsara can manifest again as future newborn humans as it is said in the Mahayana schools. There is no need to get into all those comoplexities - and Buddha didn't when he taught the four noble truths. I think there is a reason that Buddha presented them as a path to cessation of dukkha rather than a path to stop rebirth. And that we should follow that example when presenting them ourselves. Though of course can then discuss them with as elaborate ideas as one likes after one has first presented the original simple statement of the truths for the reader to undertand. Does that make sense? If this was a proper RfC then I'd do a section presenting this in more detail as everyone would in their comments on it. Robert Walker (talk) 18:13, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
- And thanks very much for your contribution to the discussion :). Robert Walker (talk) 18:19, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
- But Buddha did teach it this way. In the Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta, Buddha states:
And what is the middle way realized by the Tathagata that — producing vision, producing knowledge — leads to calm, to direct knowledge, to self-awakening, to Unbinding? Precisely this Noble Eightfold Path: right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration. This is the middle way realized by the Tathagata that — producing vision, producing knowledge — leads to calm, to direct knowledge, to self-awakening, to Unbinding. (translation by Thannissaro and as noted earlier, "unbinding" is Thanissaro's uniquely chosen translation of "nibbāna")
- Buddha states that due to realizing the 4NT he was awakened. Near the end of that sutta, he says "Knowledge & vision arose in me: 'Unprovoked is my release. This is the last birth. There is now no further becoming.'" which makes clear that the cycle of rebirth has ended due to his understanding of the 4NT. Dharmalion76 (talk) 18:28, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Dharmalion. Robert writes: "The core teachings in Buddhism are based on the four noble truths." They're not. The four truths were formulated later. Scholars like Gombrich and Bronkhorst hesitate to formulate or reconstruct "core teachings," with good reasons. Vetter argues that the "core teaching" of early Buddhism was the practice of dhyana, leading to calm of mind. No four truths; as the Wiki-article clearly states, and this is also from multiple reliable sources, those four truths are a later formulation. Even the Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta is a largely expanded text which developed later. As mentioned in the previous section, "ending rebirth" is mentioned in a separate section in the Wiki-article, with multiple references. It's the essence (if we are to speak of an essence; I'm contradicting myself here, of course) of Buddhism. If practitioners, or Wiki-editors, can't relate to that, too bad for them; let them find another religion they can relate to. But don't expect to drop the essence of Buddhism when we describe Buddhism, because someone is upset when realizing what Buddhism is about. This is an encyclopedia, based on WP:RS, not a faith manual based on one person's (mis)understanding of Buddhism. The best way to "progress" here is to stop this discussion, and to WP:MOVEON. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:42, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Dharmalion76: Yes I agree that Buddha did say that this would be his last rebirth. That's foreseeing his own paranirvana. But I don't think it is right to fold his prediction of his own paranirvana back into the four noble truths and rewrite them to say that the aim of the path in the 4NT is to end rebirth. That he entered paranirvana as a result doesn't mean that paranirvana was his aim, or that he taught this as the aim of the practitioner.
- As a Buddhist myself, I don't practice with the aim to enter paranirvana, but with the aim to find a path to cessation of suffering for myself and for all other beings. And with the aim to find that solution irrespective of how that happiness is achieved. To say that it must be achieved via ending the cycle of rebirth also tends to distance you from other religions who also have a similar aim to find happiness for all beings too, through love and compassion. Because it's saying "I know that the only way you can achieve this is by ending rebirth". But I don't know that. I don't know for sure that I will be reborn. This is something I believe to be true, and I have arguments which I think are good for it, but I can't prove it. But I do know that I and others suffer, and I have faith that there is a truth which I and others can come to see which leads to cessation of suffering. So the original teaching of the four noble truths speaks directly to my situation. While if you rephrase it as a search to end the cycle of rebirths, that's much more indirect, and a matter that would depend on affirming an unshakeable belief in rebirth first before you could practice.
- It also goes against the Buddha's teachings in the Kalama Sutta by requiring the practitioner to affirm a particular belief which they can't verify (in rebirth and that ceasing rebirth stops suffering) before they can follow the path.
- As the sutta says:
- "Do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing (anussava),
- nor upon tradition (paramparā),
- nor upon rumor (itikirā),
- nor upon what is in a scripture (piṭaka-sampadāna)
- nor upon surmise (takka-hetu),
- nor upon an axiom (naya-hetu),
- nor upon specious reasoning (ākāra-parivitakka),
- nor upon a bias towards a notion that has been pondered over (diṭṭhi-nijjhān-akkh-antiyā),
- nor upon another's seeming ability (bhabba-rūpatāya),
- nor upon the consideration, The monk is our teacher (samaṇo no garū)
- Kalamas, when you yourselves know: "These things are good; these things are not blamable; these things are praised by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to benefit and happiness," enter on and abide in them.'
- As a Buddhist following the path, who has taken refuge and practiced for many years, I have never been required to affirm beliefs I can't verify to follow the path.
- Faith plays a role, but it's a faith that you are following a path based on truth, which is not a revealed wisdom, but a truth you can come to see for yourself. It's more a framework for future open discovery than a belief system. The current version of the lede, in my view, turns the 4NT into a belief system you'd have to affirm.
- And in the Mahayana traditions then Buddhas don't all enter paranirvana. The wheel turning Buddhas do. But other Buddhas continue to teach in Samsara and to help others here in direct ways as actual human beings, as well as in other forms, after they are enlightened.
- Do you see what I'm saying here? I'm not asking you to agree. But the others here are saying that there isn't even any question to discuss, and @Ms Sarah Welch: has removed the too few opinions tag from the article on the basis that this discussion is already settled and there is no need for fresh eyes to help take it further. If you think it is something that deserves discussion and new eyes on it, I'd appreciate your support on the matter, even if you agree with her and Joshua Jonathan that it was right to rephrase the four noble truths in this article as a path to end rebirth. Robert Walker (talk) 22:29, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
@Joshua Jonathan: That is just one view amongst Buddhist scholars, that the four noble truths were not in the original teachings of the Buddha. Other scholars agree on the existence of multiple text layers in the sutras, but think that the textually earlier teachings in the sutras before the four noble truths predated the Buddha. And Anderson herself in her book makes it clear that she does not intend it to be used in a revisionist way to change the teachings of Buddhism and in her "Basic Buddhism" book she reinforces that by simply presenting the four noble truths in Therevadhan Buddhism in the usual way, so I'm sure she would not support the idea that her "Pain and its Ending" should be used to revise the Buddhist teachings on the centrality of the four noble truths.
For the range of views on this matter, see Pāli_Canon#Attribution_according_to_scholars and for some more sources with yet more views on the matter see Talk:Pāli_Canon#Other_views_on_the_origins_of_the_Pali_Canon. It's one of the issues with your rewrites of articles on Buddhism that you frequently mention Anderson's book, which is not a particularly major work, with only three cites in Google scholar, and never mention any of these other views on the matter.
Rebirth, Redeath
@Dharmalion76: Actually, both Buddhist and Hindu traditions were more concerned about suffering (dukkha) associated with redeaths and the journey towards another death. Rebirth, in both traditions (and Jainism), has sometimes been presented as an exceptional opportunity for a human being to live spiritually, thus pursue moksha or nirvana. Life is beautiful, make the most of it, they say. @Joshua Jonathan has used the right words, when he used rebirths and redeaths. Please see Paul Williams's Buddhist Thought Chapter 1, Hermann Oldenberg's The doctrine of the Upanishads, etc. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:01, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
- This article isn't about Hinduism and "redeath" is very much not a common phrase in Buddhism. Nor is Buddhism concerned with "redeaths and the journey towards another death" but instead rebirths. One source does not make it a common phrase and it is one of the sticking points in the long discussion happening on this page. It isn't a Buddhist term so it is WP:UNDUE to use it. Dharmalion76 (talk) 19:04, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Dharmalion76: Williams is not the only one mentioning and discussing "rebirth, redeath". Gombrich, Lopez, Anderson, and Harvey publications on Buddhism do too (these are cited above or in the article already, all in the context of 4NT). For more, see Naomi Appleton's Narrating Karma and Rebirth: Buddhist and Jain Multi-Life Stories, page 3; John Makransky's Buddhahood Embodied, page 27, etc. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:30, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
- And Rita Langer notes that "redeath" is a Brahman concept that isn't Buddhist (Buddhist Rituals of Death and Rebirth: Contemporary Sri Lankan Practice and Its Origins). You are using scholar terms in the context of drawing parallels to other belief systems. "Redeath" is not a Buddhist term and is not a part of 4NT. Besides, as I have noted, it is redundant because one can't have "redeath" without rebirth having happened first and vice versa so let's use that actual Buddhist concept of rebirth and not this other Vedic term with no Buddhist application. Dharmalion76 (talk) 20:34, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
- It's being used by Buddhists. 758 hits at Google Books for buddhism "redeath". See especially Buswell & Lopez (2013), The Princeton Dictionary of Buddhism, p.708, "Rebirth":
- "An English term that does not have an exact correlate in Buddhist languages, rendeered instead by arange of technical terms, such as the Sanskrit PUNARJANMAN (lit. "birth again") and PUNABHAVAN (lit. "re-becoming"), and, less commonly, the related PUNARMRTYU (lit. "redeath")."
- So, less common, but not non-Buddhist. Regarding WP:UNDUE: this is not about a minority view, it's about using Buddhist terminology, mentioned in multiple reliable sources. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:00, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
- It's being used by Buddhists. 758 hits at Google Books for buddhism "redeath". See especially Buswell & Lopez (2013), The Princeton Dictionary of Buddhism, p.708, "Rebirth":
- It isn't a Buddhist term and it most assuredly is a minority view. Please find three sources for general readers (not a scholarly work looking at the influences on Buddhist etc.) that uses the term "redeath". You will not find that term in anything by Kornfield, Goldstein, Henepola Gunaratana, Thich Nhat Hanh, Thanissaro Bhikkhu, Walpola Rahula, etc. It is exceptionally WP:UNDUE to use a term not found in any Buddhist introduction texts, nor was it used in suttas to explain 4NT. Dharmalion76 (talk) 23:19, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
- (ec) @Dharmalion76: Punarbhava (re-becoming) is too. As are punarjanama, purvajanama, punabhava, punarmrityu (oldest layer texts), janam*, jan* or ja* etc. The historical links shouldn't be an issue in an encyclopedic article. Further, only birth implies death in the ancient texts of Indian religions, but death does not necessarily imply rebirth, nor rebirth implies redeath (in some dualistic subtraditions), nor redeath implies rebirth. That is what moksha, jivanmukti, videhamukti, nirvana, kaivalya etc are aiming for – stop the samsara cycle, reach eternal bliss now and forever. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:20, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
- @JJ: Indeed. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:22, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
- Then let's do a WP:RFC and see if you can find a majority of Buddhist editors on here agree that "redeath" is a common term. Dharmalion76 (talk) 23:19, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
@Dharmalion76:Just to say, I totally agree. The repeated use of Hindu sources and Hindu ideas, without alerting the reader to the fact that they are Hindu ideas is one of the main issues in the current treatment. It would be fine to compare and contrast Buddhist ideas with Hindu ideas. But to merge them together into a single treatment as if there was no distinction between the two approaches is not fine, in my view. It's been a recurring theme in this discussion that the Buddhist concept of Nirvana and the Hindu concept of Moksha are for all practical purposes identical, just taught differently. I don't think they are. I think the distinction is a valuable one giving practitioners the opportunity to follow different paths, Hindu or Buddhist, depending on their inclinations and understanding and connections. Robert Walker (talk) 22:06, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
- In my opinion, even if Moksha and Nibbana were the same (which for the record, I am in agreement with you) that would be interesting information for an article about the similarities. This is not that article. Dharmalion76 (talk) 23:19, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
@Dharmalion76: Also, to agree with you again - until I read the latest lede here, I had never heard the word "redeath", in any Buddhist context, until I saw this article. Indeed I wasn't sure even what it meant, and am still not very clear on why they use the word "redeath" here rather than just "death". Nor had I come across the word Moksha either until I encountered Hinduism. I hadn't come across it in any Buddhist writings. Now that I know to search for it, yes, it's used, especially in discussions that draw parallels between Buddhism and Hindusim, but it seems to be rare indeed in the Buddhist literature. While the word Nirvana is used frequently. So I agree with you, these don't seem to be common terms in Buddhist teaching. Robert Walker (talk) 22:58, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha>
tags or {{efn}}
templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}}
template or {{notelist}}
template (see the help page).
Cite error: There are <ref group=web>
tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=web}}
template (see the help page).