Talk:Four Noble Truths/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

it

Three things wrong with this article

I hope that this comment will be of interest and value to other editors, whether you agree with what I say here or not. I will only say what I see as wrong with this article, and not present a way forward to solve it, nor will I attempt an RfC at this stage. I think that was one of the things I got wrong before in the long collapsed discussions above. The starting point is to decide if they are issues first.

The ideas in the article are presented in some detail and to explain what I see as wrong with them requires a similarly detailed reply. These points are not easy to follow if split over a thread consisting of many comments, and I see that as one of the other main things that I got wrong in the previous discussions. So, to avoid breaking up and confusing this exposition, please add any comments in the #4. Discussion section below. Your co-operation in this is much appreciated. Thanks! Robert Walker (talk) 02:15, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

What's wrong - short summary - Four Truths incorrectly stated, Redeath technical, and POV statements on authenticity

The Four Noble Truths of the old lede have been replaced by four statements which describe a non Buddhist aim to end rebirth back into the "mundane world" of Samsara.

1. According to the Pali Canon Buddha, although Buddha went on to grow old, get sick, and die like everyone else, he had already realized cessation of all dukkha as a young man aged 35 - the new statements imply that this can only happen after death. The collapsed sections below go into this in detail as explained by Walpola Rahula, whose book "What the Buddha Taught" is widely regarded as one of the best expositions of the central teachings in the Pali canon by both Eastern and Western scholars alike.
2. The idea that the aim is to end rebirth and escape from this "mundane world" is an attempted reconstruction of the original teachings by some academics. It's not based directly on the sutras but rather on what these academics think the teachings were before the sutras were recorded. For modern practitioners who base their understanding on the sutras themselves, it is a path to happiness, which also can be realized in this very lifetime. As Walpola Rahula put it in his exposition of the first truth [1]: "It tells you exactly and objectively what you are and what the world around you is, and shows you the way to perfect freedom, peace, tranquility and happiness.”.
3. The article has ten uses of the highly WP:TECHNICAL term "redeath". All of these could be replaced without loss of meaning by "death".
   
   The footnotes also make an inaccurate parallel with a non Buddhist idea of preventing Punarmrtyu, or "redeath" from a heavenly state back into Samsara. Therevadhans don't have the concept of an intermediate state between death and rebirth of any sort, heavenly or otherwise. Instead, they say that the next thought moment after your death is the first thought moment of the process of your next rebirth.
4. The article presents a single WP:POV on authenticity according to which only a few very early teachings in the Pali Canon are by the historical Buddha. This is just one of many attributions according to scholars. The opposite end of the spectrum is the WP:POV according to which the earliest sutras were passed down through memorization, word for word, in a similar way to the Vedas and record the teachings as memorized shortly after Buddha died. There are many intermediate views too.

(If you wish to comment, please use the section #4. Discussion below). Robert Walker (talk) 12:57, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

In detail:

Details

Background - How the Four Noble Truths came to be stated incorrectly in this article The previous lede stated the truths correctly as the truths of suffering (or more generally unsatisfactoriness), origin, cessation and path.. This is how most books, articles and online WP:RS sources introduce them, followed by a detailed exposition of each truth in turn (For many more cites to WP:RS see the old lede's footnote b). Sometimes they are introduced one at a time as section or chapter headings, however it is still the same approach: short form first then exposition. It is hard to find a source that does it in any other way. This is, after all, how Buddha himself taught them according to the Pali canon. One of the most distinctive features of Buddhism is that Buddha taught that cessation is something you can realize in this very lifetime. This can be challenging for readers who come to it with the background of another religion. Indeed, though we can all directly realize what suffering and dissatisfaction is from our own experience, according to the Pali Canon, only one of Buddha's first disciples, venerable Kondañña, directly realized the truth of what he was saying about cessation right away when he first taught them. Several readers posted to the talk page complaining that they didn't understand the four truths, not surprisingly, and that is why the lede got rewritten. Unfortunately, this rewrite turned them into statements describing a way of escape from "this mundane world" at death. This may indeed make them more familiar to you, and so easier to understand, if you are used to other religions. However, that doesn't make them more correct. (If you wish to comment, please use the section #4. Discussion below). Robert Walker (talk) 02:15, 12 December 2016 (UTC) 1. According to the Pali Canon Buddha realized cessation as a young man of 35 Walpola Rahula Thero File:Walpolarahula.jpg Personal life Born 1907 Walpola, Sri Lanka Died 1997 Nationality Sri Lankan Religious life Religion Buddhism School Theravada As it is described in the Pali Canon, Buddha spoke to his companions after he realized enlightenment and he told them that he had already realized cessation of dukkha, or suffering and unsatisfactoriness. This was as a young man, aged 35. By this he meant cessation of dukkha in all its forms, not just the cessation of the dukkha of birth. Although he went on to grow old, get sick, and die, like anyone else, he had already reached cessation of the dukkha of old age, sickness and death as a young man. Professor Walpola Rahula's book "What the Buddha Taught" is widely regarded as one of the best expositions of the central teachings in the Pali canon by both Eastern and Western scholars alike. By way of example, Richard Gombrich in the preface to his new book "What the Buddha Thought" says "The title of this book is a gesture of homage to the late Ven. Dr Walpola Rahula, who taught me much of what I understand of early Buddhism"[2]. It has 67 citations in google scholar in the last year alone [3]. He was a Pali expert thoroughly familiar with the canon of the Therevadhan sutras. He put it like this in his exposition of the Third Noble Truth[4]: "It is incorrect to think that Nirvana is the natural result of the extinction of craving. Nirvana is not the result of anything. If it would be a result, then it would be an effect produced by a cause. It would be sankhata ‘produced’ and ‘conditioned’. Nirvana is neither cause nor effect. It is beyond cause and effect. Truth is not a result nor an effect. It is not produced like a mystic, spiritual, mental state, such as dhyana or samadhi. TRUTH IS. NIRVANA IS. The only thing you can do is to see it, to realize it. There is a path leading to the realization of Nirvana. But Nirvana is not the result of this path.You may get to the mountain along a path, but the mountain is not the result, not an effect of the path. You may see a light, but the light is not the result of your eyesight. ... In almost all religions the summum bonum can be attained only after death. But Nirvana can be realized in this very life; it is not necessary to wait till you die to ‘attain’ it." The four truths are understood in this way in all the main sutra traditions, Zen [5], Tibetan [6], Therevadhan [7], etc. (If you wish to comment, please use the section #4. Discussion below). Robert Walker (talk) 02:15, 12 December 2016 (UTC) Buddha did not have to die to reach enlightenment Far from the Buddha having to die to reach enlightenment, the Pali Canon also states in the Mahaparinibbana Sutta that Buddha didn't have to enter paranirvana either when he did. Ananda could have asked him to remain to the end of this world period, but he didn't get the hint. [8] "Whosoever, Ananda, has developed, practiced, employed, strengthened, maintained, scrutinized, and brought to perfection the four constituents of psychic power could, if he so desired, remain throughout a world-period or until the end of it. The Tathagata, Ananda, has done so. Therefore the Tathagata could, if he so desired, remain throughout a world-period or until the end of it." Although the historical Buddha entered paranirvana when he died, in the Tibetan traditions at least they also have the idea that other Buddhas can "emanate" after they die and take birth as young babies again over and over [9] (If you wish to comment, please use the section #4. Discussion below). Robert Walker (talk) 02:15, 12 December 2016 (UTC) No use of the word "rebirth" in the Wheel Turning Sutra which presents the Four Noble Truths It's also worth noting that the wheel turning sutra[10] does not include the word "rebirth" in any form. Instead the teachings are based around dukkha. This is makes them far more accessible, as all that is required of the practitioner is to recognize the truth of suffering or unsatisfactoriness, which is a truth easy of access to anyone. After that, all that is needed to follow the path is an open mind, and a dedication to seeing the truth and to recognize clearly what you know and what you don't know. That open mind also applies to what happens when you die. If the truths were based around an aim to end rebirth, then you would need to affirm a belief first, such as "I believe in rebirth", before you could start on the path. This would close your mind to other possibilities. It would be a way of declaring that you are have decided in advance that any other ideas about what happens when you die are wrong. But Buddhists don't have any such creed, even in the Tibetan traditions, which have the strongest emphasis of any on the process of rebirth, including recognition of reborn Tulkus. Instead, you commit to an open mind when you become a Buddhist. See for instance Trungpa Rinpoche's exposition of requirements for taking refuge[11], in the ceremony during which one affirms that one has chosen to follow the Buddhist path. I know that there is a movement amongst some Westerners to try to identify what they take to be the original authentic teachings and to reinterpret the sutras. In the previous discussion then the other editors provided cites which they claimed presented the view that when Buddha became enlightened, all that happened is that he got an intimation that after death he would never be reborn again. But they were cites to densely argued complex technical discussions in the academic literature, and I was not convinced that these discussions were interpreted correctly. Whether or not any WP:RS present such views, this is certainly not how the four truths are presented by most Buddhist scholars or teachers, nor is it how Buddhist practitioners understand them, and nor is it how they are presented in the original wheel turning sutra in the Pali canon. (If you wish to comment, please use the section #4. Discussion below). Robert Walker (talk) 02:15, 12 December 2016 (UTC) 2. Punarmrtyu translated as "redeath" doesn't seem to be a Buddhist term None of the editors in the previous discussion found a Buddhist sutra cite for this word (mentioned in note 1 in the current version). It is used in Hindu and pre Buddhist texts but these texts are not recognized as sutras by Buddhists. (If you wish to comment, please use the section #4. Discussion below). Robert Walker (talk) 02:15, 12 December 2016 (UTC) Agatigati is a Buddhist term - but can be translated in a less WP:TECHNICAL way as "rebirth and death" Instead they gave cites to the Pali phrase agatigati, where agati means coming and gati means going. This is translated as "coming-and-going" on page 171 of The Fundamental Teachings of Early Buddhism[12], "coming-and-going (rebirth-and-redeath?)" in the commentary on the translation there. "re-birth and re-death" in a Pali dictionary pages 94-95 of Rhys Davids & William Stede[13], "rebirth and death" in another Pali dictionary [14] Most Buddhist readers will not be familiar with the term "redeath". If I can take myself as an example reader, I have listened to teachers from many traditions including Therevadhan, Korean Zen and three branches of Tibetan Buddhism (Nyingmapa, Gelugpa and Kagyupa), over a period of 30 years. I have never heard any of them use it. Nor have I ever heard any fellow Buddhists use the word. The word "rebirth" is familiar to most but not the word "redeath". Another Buddhist who responded to the RfC was also not familiar with the term. Perhaps it is only familiar to those who have read many Western scholarly papers on the topic. If one needs a translation of agatigati, what is wrong with "rebirth and death" which avoids need for this technical term at all? The article currently has ten uses of the word "redeath". All of those could be replaced by "death" with no loss of meaning. As evidence that "redeath" is a rare word in English, and therefore WP:TECHNICAL, it's not found in these online dictionaries: Oxford Dictionaries dictionary.com (If you wish to comment, please use the section #4. Discussion below). Robert Walker (talk) 02:15, 12 December 2016 (UTC) Punarmrtyu is cited as a pre-Buddhist concept - Buddha made a clean break with the past in the Kalama sutta In the Pali Canon, in the Kalama sutta, Buddha made a clean break with the past, saying that scriptures and other sources such as the Vedas must not be followed just because they are scriptures but must be tested by "the results it yields when put into practice; and — to guard against the possibility of any bias or limitations in one's understanding of those results — they must further be checked against the experience of people who are wise." (quoting the translator's note). This makes it different from the situation of Christianity or Islam which both treat the Old Testament as sacred. For Buddhists, the Vedas are not sacred in this sense. So, should the article use the the word Punarmrtyu in note 1? That note gives it as an internal link to Saṃsāra#Punarmrityu:_redeath which is pre-Buddhist. Wikipedia describes it as "Redeath, in the Vedic theosophical speculations, reflected the end of "blissful years spent in svarga or heaven", and it was followed by rebirth back in the phenomenal world" In more detail it is described here "Buddhist rituals of Death and Rebirth": "Alternating between this and the other world constitutes the older stratum of the concept of rebirth. Only now the return to this world is not desired any more, but endured as an intermediate state between heavenly existences... When the alternating between the here and there came to be regarded as unsatisfactory, a new goal finds its expression in the Upanishads: the final escape from the suffering of redeath." This is a historical section called "Some historical roots : time of death". It is not describing Buddhist ideas at this point. The four statements in the new lede seem to be based on this idea. Buddhists don't have this idea of heaven as a state between death and rebirth. The sutras do describe states of bliss that one can enter, in this life or future lives, or rather many such, each more refined than the last. Some are described with "luminous bodies"[15], and some as just pure mind. But all this is a part of the cycle of rebirth. These blissful realms, are treated as another rebirth of the many possible in the cycle of Samsara. They are not thought of as separate from Samsara. The four statements in the new lede seem closely modeled on this idea of Punarmrtyu The new lede describes a way of escaping Samsara through somehow "stopping karma" so that you no longer have to take rebirth back into this "mundane world". This would seem to have close parallels with this non Buddhist idea of Punarmrtyu or stopping "redeath from heaven": Dukkha, "incapable of satisfying," painful. Life in this "mundane world," with its craving and clinging to impermanent states and things,is dukkha, unsatisfactory and painful; Samudaya, the origination or arising of dukkha. Dukkha, and repeated life in this world, arises with ta?ha, "thirst," craving for and clinging to these impermanent states and things. This craving and clinging produces karma which leads to renewed becoming, keeping us trapped in rebirth and renewed dissatisfaction; Nirodha, the cessation of dukkha. By stopping this craving and clinging nirvana is attained, no more karma is produced, and rebirth and dissatisfaction will no longer arise again; Magga, the path to the cessation of, or liberation from dukkha. By following the Noble Eightfold Path, restraining oneself, cultivating discipline, and practicing mindfulness and meditation, craving and clinging will be stopped, and rebirth and dissatisfaction are ended These four statements do not occur in this form in any Buddhist source. Though that section is heavily cited to the Buddhist literature, it is a WP:SYNTHESIS made up of ideas from many Buddhist sources combined together to make a whole that is no longer Buddhist. Compare the four truths as they were stated in the previous lede: "The truth of dukkha (suffering, anxiety, unsatisfactoriness) 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" (If you wish to comment, please use the section #4. Discussion below). Robert Walker (talk) 02:15, 12 December 2016 (UTC) In Therevadhan teachings death is followed in the next thought-moment by the start of the next rebirth Therevadhans don't have the idea of an intermediate state between death and the next rebirth at all. Instead, they say that the next thought-moment after your death is the first thought-moment of your new rebirth. Here is professor Walpola Rahula describing this Therevadhan view on death and rebirth in "THE SECOND NOBLE TRUTH: SAMUDAYA: THE ARISING OF DUKKHA". "The difference between death and birth is only a thought-moment: the last thought-moment in this life conditions the first thought-moment in the so-called next life, which, in fact, is the continuity of the same series. During this life itself, too, one thought-moment conditions the next thought-moment. So from the Buddhist point of view, the question of life after death is not a great mystery, and a Buddhist is never worried about this problem." (If you wish to comment, please use the section #4. Discussion below). Robert Walker (talk) 02:15, 12 December 2016 (UTC) The Tibetan intermediate state between death and rebirth is not heaven Some Buddhists do think in terms of an intermediate state between death and the next rebirth, for instance in the Tibetan teachings. However, it is not described as a heavenly state. Rather, it is described for most beings as like being overwhelmed by exceedingly bright lights and loud noises like the loudest thunder, which most beings run away from, terrified, at that point and so take rebirth again. In the Tibetan Book of the Dead (translation by Chogyam Trungpa with Francesca Fremantle) "Oh child of noble family, when your body and mind separate, the dharata will appear, pure and clear, yet hard to discern, luminuous and brilliant with terrifying brightness, shimmering like a mirage on a plain in spring. Do not be afraid of it, do not be bewildered. This is the natural radiance of your own dharmata, therefore recognize it. "A great roar of thunder will come from the light, the natural sound of dharmata, like a thousand thunderclaps simultaneously. This is the natural sound of your own dharmata, so do not be afraid or bewildered... "Oh child of noble family, if you do not recognize them in this way as your own projections, whatever meditation practice you have done during your life, if you have not met with this teaching, the coloured lights will frighten you, the sounds will bewilder you and the rays of light will terrify you. If you do not understand this essential point of the teaching you will not recognize the sounds, lights and rays, and so you will wander in samsara" This could hardly be further from the pre-Buddhist Vedic idea of alternating between this life and a heavenly state with the aim of avoiding redeath in order to remain in the heavenly state. (If you wish to comment, please use the section #4. Discussion below). Robert Walker (talk) 02:15, 12 December 2016 (UTC) In summary - not a Buddhist idea Tibetans do have the idea of a Bardo state between death and rebirth, but the aim is not at all to remain within Bardo which is seen as terrifying and bewildering for most beings, and not a heavenly state at all. Rather the idea in the Tibetan Book of the Dead is to find a way to awaken from the Bardo, to awaken to those bright lights and loud sounds, or failing that, to find your way to a fortunate rebirth where you may be able to awaken as Buddha did during that lifetime. Therevadhans don't have the idea of an intermediate state between death and rebirth. For them your last moment of death is followed immediately by the first moment of the process of rebirth in another lifetime. So, the idea behind Punamrtyu of avoiding "redeath" from an intermediate state between death and rebirth can't even be stated in a Therevadhan context. The note doesn't make it clear that this is a non Buddhist idea. I think this is another reason to avoid the use of the technical word "redeath" in the article in translations of Agatigati. Scholars can be expected to understand "rebirth and redeath" in a Buddhist context as meaning repeated ordinary deaths, with each "redeath" leading to the start of the next rebirth in the next moment of thought (in the Pali canon at least). However, a non scholar reader could easily confuse this with the non Buddhist idea of death leading to heaven and "redeath" leading from heaven back to Samsara. This confusion seems especially likely to happen since the footnote links to a passage in wikipedia describing "redeath" in the non Buddhist sense. (If you wish to comment, please use the section #4. Discussion below). Robert Walker (talk) 02:15, 12 December 2016 (UTC) 3. Authenticity of the Buddhist teachings This article presents the view according to which the Four Noble Truths are a later development and were not taught by the historical Buddha. This is a view at one end of a continuum. At the other end of the continuum is the view of Prayudh Payutto and several other scholars according to which the teachings of the Pali canon for the most part consist of the words recorded at the time of the Great Council after Buddha died. The only exceptions are some obviously later texts. This is not a view based on faith but rather on scholarship. In the Pali Canon it's said that after the death of Vardhamana, or as Buddhists refer to him, Nirgrantha, leader of the Jains, Buddha's followers noticed that his followers fell into discussion and dispute about what his teachings were. They didn't want that to happen to Buddha's teachings. At the time Northern India didn't have writing. However, as scholars generally agree, the Brahmins were able to preserve the Vedas word for word through memorization, and many of Buddha's disciples were Brahmins trained to do this. So, the sutras say, they committed his teachings to memory while he was still alive. After he died, then they held a great council during which they agreed on the material in the Pali Canon and recited each sutra in unison. With this internal evidence from within the sutras themselves, it is at least possible that what we have preserved are the teachings as memorized in the first great council, pretty much word for word. After all, it is generally agreed that the Brahmins achieved that with the Vedas. In support of this view they present these main reasons: Geographically separated versions are near identical The Pali Canon was finally written down, in many places widely geographically separated. When they did this, the versions were nearly word for word identical apart from some obviously later additions Politics described is authentic for his period The earlier sutras in the very extensive canon describe Northern India as it was at the time of the Buddha, including the various kingdoms and their geographical extent. This political geography changed soon after he died. There is a lot of material in support of this, as the canon is vast (similar in size to an encyclopedia) Technology described is authentic for his period The earlier sutras in the canon also describe the technology in some detail, and this developed rapidly too. They describe technology authentic to the time of the Buddha which and don't mention technology that followed soon after. They also makes no mention of writing, which was introduced to Northern India already by the time of King Ashoka. Only mentions regions known to inhabitants of Northern India at the time They also don't mention Southern India, Sri Lanka, or King Ashoka. This would seem to date it to before this Buddhist King who unified much of India and ruled it from 304 to 232 BC. The later Mahayana sutras include back-written prophecies of the rise of King Ashoka, but the Pali Sutras don't mention him at all, which again suggests that they predate King Ashoka. The theory of authenticity can explain the textual layering These scholars agree that there is a progression of textual layers within these early sutras but attribute this to variation in teaching style during a long lifetime, for 45 years from age 35 to age 80, along with the inclusion in the canon of some teachings that predate the Buddha. For the details of this view, see Prayudh Payutto's The Pali Canon - What a Buddhist must know "The Authenticity of the Early Buddhist Texts" by Bhikkhu Sujato and Bhikkhu Brahmali, a supplement to Volume 5 of the Journal of the Oxford Centre for Buddhist Studies. The Oral Transmission of Early Buddhist Literature - Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies (Volume 27. No. 1 2004) by Alex Wynne Many scholars hold intermediate views. For example: Peter Harvey, "Introduction to Buddhism: teachings, history and practices", says "While parts of the Pali Canon clearly originated after the time of the Buddha, much must derive from his teaching." Richard Gombrich says in an interview [16] "There are certain scholars who do go down that road and say that we can't really know what the Buddha meant. That is quite fashionable in some circles. I am just the opposite of that. I am saying that there was a person called the Buddha, that the preachings probably go back to him individually - very few scholars actually say that - that we can learn more about what he meant, and that he was saying some very precise things. I regard deconstructionists as my enemies." By presenting only one view, and such an extreme view in the debate, the current article is very WP:POV. The wikipedia article on the Pali Canon under: Attribution according to scholars presents the full range of views on this matter, in a WP:NPOV way. Surely the approach used in the Pali Canon article is more in accord with wikipedia guidelines. (If you wish to comment, please use the section #4. Discussion below). Robert Walker (talk) 02:15, 12 December 2016 (UTC) Update - Gombrich's Views in "What the Buddha Thought" Once again, if anyone reading this objects to this post, please just let me know. I have no wish to post here if my posts are unwelcome, thanks. It's six days since my last post so hopefully this is not seen as excessive. And probably this is all that I have to say at this stage but I felt I should post a bit more after reading Gombrich's book which gave me some more insight into what I think the issue may be here. Robert Walker (talk) 11:38, 18 December 2016 (UTC) I've just been reading Gombrich's "What the Buddha Thought"[17] and was surprised to find that he presents an "escape from this mundane world" interpretation. He is a top scholar in the field of Western academic Buddhism, though he admits that he doesn't have Walpola Rahula's depth of understanding of the vast encyclopedia sized Pali Canon - few Westerners do. Richard Gombrich's main thesis (if I understand it right) is that: The central teachings of the Pali Canon are all due to the historical Buddha; however some of them have been restated since then. As a result the sutras need careful reinterpetation to get back to the views of the historical Buddha. In particular he thinks the present form of the four noble truths dates back only to the second great council not the first, though the teaching must have been present in some form earlier. The historical Buddha required his followers to believe in rebirth (modern Buddhists do not have this requirement) Buddha's enlightenment was some kind of a temporary insightful mystical experience - such as is present in many religions. Richard Gombrich works hard to reconcile this with the passage from Walpola Rahula's book quoted above with the phrase: "It is not produced like a mystic, spiritual, mental state, such as dhyana or samadhi." - I can't say that I understand his points in this section of the book as he seems to be interpreting that passage as describing a mystic state. How can he when Walpola Rahula so clearly says it is not a mystic state? The aim of the historical Buddha's teaching was to lead his followers to find a way to end the cycle of rebirth when they died and to lead their lives in a calm and peaceful way until their death. In this way he also taught them how not to be upset by the prospect of their impending death. He used metaphor and analogy extensively and we need to distinguish between what he taught and what he thought. He also presents this thesis in short form on his Oxford home page[18]. The basic message according to him is "Now what is the purpose of the Buddhist religion? It is, in the end, escape from rebirth. Everybody in India believed – and more or less still believes – in rebirth. And of course a basic premise of that is that, if you weigh it up in all, life is pretty rotten. There’s more suffering than pleasure in life."..." As I said above, at least for someone approaching this as a Buddhist in the sutra traditions, what he says seems to be inconsistent in almost all respects with the way that Walpola Rahula and other modern Buddhist scholars and teachers in these traditions present it. He seems to be of the view that these interpretations don't quite make sense as is, but that with his humanist reinterpretation they can be transformed into something that does make sense. Please correct me if I have made any mistakes in this summary of his views. His approach can be especialy hard to understand if you are used to the way the four truths are traditionally understood and explained in the main sutra traditions, perhaps just as hard to understand as the traditional approach clearly is for those who approach this in the other direction.. (If you wish to comment, please use the section #4. Discussion below). Robert Walker (talk) 11:38, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Conclusions

In summary:

• The four statements in the lede correspond roughly to some views of Western academic Buddhist scholars of what they think the historical Buddha taught
• They are not consistent with the views of typical modern practicing Buddhists including many Buddhist scholars such as Walpola Rahula and leading teachers in all the main traditions of Buddhism.
• The WP:POV that the historical Buddha taught the views summarized in these four statements is academically respected, but only one view of many in a wide ranging debate about what Buddha taught. Other scholars like Alex Wynne, Prayudh Sujato etc have an equally carefully reasoned WP:POV that Buddha taught the four truths and other central teachings just as recorded in the Pali Canon.

So first, is this an accurate summary of the present day situation, of what is said in the WP:RS that I summarized?

(If you wish to comment, please use the section #4. Discussion below). Robert Walker (talk) 11:38, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

If the conclusions are correct

What should we do if those conclusions about what is said in the WP:RS on this subject are correct? I think we can learn a lot by looking at the articles on Christianity. Most Buddhists don't speak English (over half are Chinese, and the next most common by population are the Thai and Japanese [19]), and there are only 535 million Buddhists world wide compared with 2.2. billion Christians. Also, the majority of English speaking editors of Wikipedia are much more familiar with Christianity than Buddhism. The wikipedia articles on theology are of a high standard.

So, let's take a similarly central article in Christianity: Resurrection of Jesus. In the section on Historicity and origin you learn that there is a wide range of scholarly views about whether this event happened and what the event was. However, the lede relies on the biblical account, and there is no suggestion that the lede be rewritten to mention these views.

In a similar way, the old lede presented the four truths as they are presented in the canon. As with the lede for Resurrection of Jesus, this is not taking a WP:POV on the scholarly debate about what Buddha originally taught, it just gives the teachings as they are presented in the sutras, just as the lede for Resurrection of Jesus gives the teachings as presented in the Bible. Of course Richard Gombrich's views are notable, and interesting, and need to be mentioned. It's a matter of where and how this is done.

Whatever the decision is, as a modern Buddhist reader myself, I feel that it is especially important that the lede does not give the false view that most modern Buddhists aim to escape from this "mundane world" and to prevent rebirth when they die. That is so different from the views and practice of most Buddhist practitioners including many of the most respected Buddhist scholars and teachers like Walpola Rahula as described in many WP:RS. It is as if the lede of Resurrection of Jesus falsely promulgated the idea that most Christians don't believe in the resurrection.

The way it is done at present in the lede for Four Noble Truths is a bit like someone rewriting the lede of Resurrection of Jesus to attempt a coherent "best account" of what "really happened" according to the views of theologians that the wikipedia author of the lede thinks "got it right". That surely can't be the right way to do it, and the way that it is handled in theological articles on wikipedia may show the way to an alternative approach to this issue.

(If you wish to comment, please use the section #4. Discussion below). Robert Walker (talk) 11:38, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

4. Discussion

(back to start of comment)

Please discuss here to avoid breaking up and confusing the exposition above. Robert Walker (talk) 02:15, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

@JimRenge: - I can understand that you want to collapse part of what I wrote since nobody has commented on it yet. But I think at least the discussion section needs to be left in case anyone wants to comment, and the material in the conclusion is important and not mentioned in the summary as I added it later. Plus I hope you agree that if anyone decides they want to take up the discussion then it would then be appropriate to uncollapse it. I'm going to do some more editing of the uncollapsed sections as they were written on the assumption that the whole lot is visible to the reader. Thanks! Robert Walker (talk) 13:40, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: I can also understand collapsing the references section as the collapsed section does have rather a large number of cites. Just a remark to anyone reading this - if you want to be able to jump to the citations then please uncollapse the References section as well as the collapsed section above. Robert Walker (talk) 15:45, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

As the only remaining uncollapsed area of this page available for me to say anything, I'd like to say briefly: the neutrality of this article is disputed. I think it needs a POV tag. See WP:NPOVD. Please see collapsed sections of this talk page for details. Robert Walker (talk) 11:12, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

References

References
References

Short summary of the issues with this article

I thought I'd just briefly state the main points again, perhaps I went into too much detail. Check the collapsed sections above for the sources, quotes and details for what I say below and if you have any questions do say.

I think it can't be denied that Walpola Rahula said that Buddha reached cessation in the sense of the four truths, already in his own lifetime. Also it can't be denied that Walpola Rahula is highly respected by Western and Eastern academics alike as an expert on Therevadha Buddhism and the Pali Canon. And Richard Gombrich also agreed that this is the view of modern Buddhists. I gave cites and quotes that support this without question, in the collapsed section above.

Then, it's true that Richard Gombrich says that in his view this is the result of later authors rewriting some of the Pali Canon and is inauthentic, not the view of the Buddha himself. He doesn't deny that it is the view of modern sutra tradition Buddhists. He just finds it puzzling and thinks that Buddha's original teachings must have been misunderstood and rewritten.

On rebirth and redeath, then it's true that the sutras use a phrase "coming and going" that can be translated this way. But it is just ordinary death and rebirth within samsara. No evidence at all has been given that Buddhists have the idea of redeath from a heavenly state from Hinduism. Cites to the Vedas can't establish this as the Vedas are not sacred texts for Buddhists. Also the word is not used in the wheel turning sutras.

On the view of inauthenticity of the Pāli Canon, Anderson's view is at an extreme range of a spectrum. And even she, as a Buddhist herself, agrees that the sutras are the basis for the practices of modern Buddhists, whatever it is that Buddha himself orignally said.

The Pāli Canon article here presents the full range of views. That includes the view of authenticity, held by many scholars, that most of the Pali Canon, apart from some obviously later texts, was memorized by the same process used to memorize the Vedas and records nearly word for word what the monks recited together in the first great council after Buddha died, and that they started to memorize his teachings before he died, as recorded in the Pāli Canon. All are agreed that Mahayana texts are a later composition, and that some Pāli Canon texts are too. But for many internal reasons, also supported by archaeology, many scholars are of the view that much of the Pāli Canon dates back to shortly after the death of the Buddha and records events that happened during his lifetime, the technology of his lifetime, and surely also, the speeches of the Buddha as they were memorized by monks during his lifetime.

So, given that, then the earlier version of this article was much more mainstream. It presented the four truths as they are undestoood by modern Buddhists in the sutra traditions, as Gombrich himself agrees. It is true that it did not present Richard Gombrich's views or Anderson's views and the views of a few other Western Buddhist scholars. But surely the solution is not to rewrite the article so that it only presents the views of Gombrich and Anderson. The previous article did not discuss the authenticity of the sutras. Again surely the solution, if such a section is needed, is to include the entire range of views on this matter rather than just the views of Gombrich and Anderson. I am sure that Gombrich and Anderson themselves, as good scholars, would not want an article on the Four Noble Truths to present only their views.

Robert Walker (talk) 11:16, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Just to say, that I now think that perhaps this has a lot to do with a difference of WP:SUBPOV which naturally influences what one thinks are WP:RS. See my Essay on Reliable Sources in Buddhism and a Proposal which I put on the Buddhism project talk page as I see it as a pervasive issue that affects many articles in this topic area. It may possibly give us a way forward and it has concrete proposals. Robert Walker (talk) 23:35, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Reply by JJ

Robert, we've been going over this over and over again already, and frankly, I find it quite disruptive that you bring up your points again, despite the concencus on the present state of the article. Nevertheless, I'll answer your concerns again.

• 1 & 2: "cessation of all dukkha [in this lifetime]" & "The idea that the aim is to end rebirth and escape from this "mundane world" is an attempted reconstruction of the original teachings by some academics."

• What you seem to mean here, together with "the four truths as they are undestoood by modern Buddhists," is the idea that the four truths are "a path to happiness," a worldly happiness which ends all concrete suffering, here and now, in this lifetime. It surely may be so that some modern teachers present Buddhism in this way, as a means to well-being; and, granted (yes, here I concede!) happiness is part of the way, but it's not the final aim of classical Buddhism. It's ending rebirth. See the references in the article. See also this verse from the Maha-Parinibbana Sutra, which is quoted in the article:

"Through not seeing the Four Noble Truths,

Long was the weary path from birth to birth.

When these are known, removed is rebirth's cause,

The root of sorrow plucked; then ends rebirth."

• Regarding "a path to happiness," you state, citing Walpola Rahula:

"For modern practitioners who base their understanding on the sutras themselves, it is a path to happiness, which also can be realized in this very lifetime. As Walpola Rahula put it in his exposition of the first truth [20]: "It tells you exactly and objectively what you are and what the world around you is, and shows you the way to perfect freedom, peace, tranquility and happiness.”."

• This is your personal reading of two words of Walpola Rahula, taken out of the context of a much longer exposé. Rahula is not talking about "happiness" in the ordinary sense, which is dukkha; he is talking about a "perfect happiness," a happiness which is not based on transitory pleasures. Even dhyana is regarded as dukkha!
• See Jeremy Carrette and Richard King (2005), Selling Spirituality, on the "commodisation" of spirituality, and the reduction of eastern spirituality to personal well-being:

• "A basic misunderstanding is that many people have come to see Buddhist training as no longer about bringing compassion to the whole world, and have, instead, started to see it as a means to a private and personal salvation." (p.102)
• "The purpose of these contemplative techniques is to unravel or deconstruct the fixed boundaries of the individual self so that one might see things as they really are and live one's life for the sake of the flourishing of all beings, not just oneself." (p.102)

• See also Gombrich (1996), Theravada Buddhism, "Using Buddhism for this world" (p.207-208):

• "... to use one's states of altered consciousness for the good of others is the recognized role performance of the religious virtuoso, or the professional. But the urban and suburban middle-class Sinhalese is coming to use meditation as something usefull in everyday life." (p.207)
• "To use meditation for secular purposes is to try to adapt Buddhist soteriology to life in the world." (p.208)

• See also Bodhisattva, Guanyin, and Tara. For a personification of this ideal of compassion, see Etty Hillesum (not Buddhist, but Jewish) and her An interrupted Life: The Diaries of Etty Hillesum 1941 -1943. She declined the possibility to hide from the Germans, and went to the camps, with her fellow Jewish citizens, knowing she would be killed, yet choosing to stay with the ones whose fate she shared. That's what spirituality is about!!! Not about "happines" and never being in pain again, but about compassion and 'doing the right thing,' even when this means to be in pain.

• You also cite Walpola Rahula as stating;

"Buddha reached cessation in the sense of the four truths, already in his own lifetime."

That's not what the quote says; it says:

"In almost all religions the summum bonum can be attained only after death. But Nirvana can be realized in this very life; it is not necessary to wait till you die to ‘attain’ it."

• The cessation you're referring to is stated by Rahula as

"the Cessation of dukkha (Dukkhanirodha-ariyasacca), which is Nibbāna."

Indeed, in this life, and implying that it comes with the "perfect happiness" Rahula refers to. Yet, this does not change the basic fact that the ending of samsara is the ultimate goal of Buddhism (a fact which Rahula hardly mentions in What the Buddha Taught, which is a strange omission, given the myriad debates in Buddhism about what exactly it is that transmigrates. Really curious).

• Rahula's comment about "the summum bonum" is questionable, at closer consideration:

• Nirvana means "extinction," of craving, which fuels the process of rebirth. Craving can be extinquished in this life, which gives peace of mind, in this life. So, what happens when the body dies? Is there a residue which still enjoys this "perfect happiness" after death? Is Nirvana some kind of Heaven, akin to Christianity, which continues after death, as Rahula seems to imply here?
• Note that Christian mysticism states that the "Vision of God" can be attained in this life, in line with its Neo-Platonic origins, which strives toward the realisation of the One in this life. Just like, in Hinduism, moksha can be attained in tbis life. Rahula's comment about this "summum bonum" seems to be quite inaccurate!

• Rahula's metaphysics are problematic:

• Rahula seems to turn "Nirvana" into some kind of metaphysical entity; the proof of it's existence is the fact that "it" can be experienced. Gombrich, a student of Rahula, was astonished by this kind of epistemological naivity (What the Buddha Thought, p. 155-157. NB: Gombrich also notes: "Over the years I have come to think that that book [Ehat the Buddha Taught] might be more appropriately entitled What Buddhaghosa Taught (p.155-156)).
• Such reifications, turning elements of the Buddhist teachings into a metaphysical highest priniple, are not restricted to Rahula; see Buddha-nature and Shentong. But it is also deeply disputed; see Rangtong and David J. Kalupahana, A History of Buddhist Philosophy.

• This 'cessation of dukkha' does not mean that there is no concrete suffering anymore; the Buddha died in pains, Dogen suffered from depression. It means that they didn't cling any longer to fleeting pleasures. See also Jack Kornfield, After the party, the laundry, and Ton Lathouwers, More Than Anyone Can Do.

• The article does refer to reaching happiness in this life, but balances it, with WP:RS:

"The four truths describe dukkha and its ending as a means to reach peace of mind in this life, but also as a means to end rebirth. Some contemporary teachers tend to explain the four truths psychologically, by taking dukkha to mean mental anquish in addition to the physical pain of life,[61] and interpreting the four truths as a means to attain happiness in this life.[62] Yet, though happiness is part of the way, it is not the goal.[web 18][note 15] Spiro notes that "the Buddhist message is not simply a psychological message," but an eschatological message.[14]" (The section is longer than just this quote)

• A previous version of the article contained a large collection of quotes from modern teachers; this was deleted because of WP:OVERQUOTE and WP:OR; there was a strong concencus to do so.

• 3. "Redeath": this is a referenced term; see the previous discussions.
• 4. "Authenticity of the sutras": the article says, with extensive notes:

"three positions held by scholars of Buddhism can be distinguished:[83]

1. "Stress on the fundamental homogeneity and substantial authenticity of at least a considerable part of the Nikayic materials;"[note 21]

2. "Scepticism with regard to the possibility of retrieving the doctrine of earliest Buddhism;"[note 22]

3. "Cautious optimism in this respect."[note 23]"

So, this topic is covered. Additional info on the Theravada-view can be added at "Emphasis within different traditions," which does have a section on Theravada.

• Regarding your statement "the earlier version of this article was much more mainstream. It presented the four truths as they are undestoood by modern Buddhists in the sutra traditions":

• If this "mainstream" understanding is the idea that Buddhism offers a path to happiness in this life; that this is based on the sutra's; that the sutras preserve the original teachings of the Buddha himself verbatim; that the Buddha himself therefore offered a path to happines in this life: that's a very limited understanding and presentation of what Buddhism is, based on a personal interpretation of what the sutras entail. At best, this "happiness" is part of the Buddhist path to liberation, and a means to present this path to a lerger audience. It may be how some "modern Buddhists in the sutra traditions" present Buddhism in a nutshell. But it is far from an comprehensive understanding or presentation of Buddhism, not even of what you call "the sutra traditions;" nor an accurate scholarly presentation of Buddhism. Basically, it is your personal understanding of Buddhism and a few selected sources. And, note: the "earlier version of this article" was not even accurate in it's presentation of the "sutra traditions." See the thread below on "Maha-Parinibbana Sutra."

And no, I do not only see the views here of Gombrich and Anderson; I see the views of Norman, Cousins, Paul Williams, Spiro, Geoffrey Samuels, Patrick Olivelle, Peter Harvey, Anderson, Stephen Batchelor, Schmitthausen, Ui, Vetter, and Bronkhorst. And those are only the scholars who are mentioned explicitly; the list with sources is much longer.

So, to summarize:

• The present article is based on WP:RS, and gives a reliable overview of scholarly views on the four truths;
• The ultimate goal of Buddhism is the ending of rebirth, as referenced by 14 sources in the article;
• Happiness, and the interpretations of some popular modern teachers, are presented with the lines "there is a way to reach real happiness" (prominent in the lead!), "Some contemporary teachers tend to explain the four truths psychologically, by taking dukkha to mean mental anquish in addition to the physical pain of life", and the comment happiness is part of the way; that suffices;
• Eventually missing Theravada-views can be expanded in the Theravada-section.

I hope we you can now finally put this matter to rest, and accept the concensus on this article. Improvements are welcome, of course, by editing the article. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:02, 14 April 2017 (UTC) / last update Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:28, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Further discussion

I will reply later. I am currently taking a wikibreak from the Buddhism topic area. It was quite stressful for me when you deleted my post here and another editor collapsed it, and then you took me to WP:ANI to get me topic banned without first warning me that you planned to do so, indeed immediately after I announced in the Buddhism project talk page that I was about to take a wikibreak for a few days. Hope you can understand. I need a few more days break. Thanks!

When I come back, I plan to do a post to the project talk page on reliable sources in Buddhism - your reply here is based on your idea that while Richard Gombrich is a reliable secondary source in Buddhism, Walpola Rahula is not and so you believe that all of Walpola Rahula's comments need to be filtered through the interpretative lens of Western commentators who come to them often with a background of Christian theological ideas such as Heaven - as I commented a while back, Therevadhan Buddhists don't even have the idea of an afterlife, the first moment of the next life is the next moment after the last moment of this life. Tibetan Buddhists have the idea of an intermediate state but it is between two lives and does not in any way resemble ideas of an afterlife, it is rather a time of instability and loud sounds, bright lights, etc. Anyway - more later, what you say does seem to summarize some of the ideas of some Western scholars so the most fundamental question here surely is whether articles in this topic area should reflect their views, and the views of others only as filtered through their eyes, or should they, like the previous version of this article, use the books and articles written by highly regarded Buddhists like the Dalai Lama, Bhikkhu Bodhi, Walpola Rahula etc. I find the way you treat Walpola Rahula particularly puzzling as even by your own standards according to which the authors need Western scholarship, he had a doctorate from a Western university and was a highly regarded professor from 1964, the first bhikkhu to become a professor at a Western university. I hope the essay I'm preparing on reliable sources in Buddhism based on a close examination of the wikipedia guidelines and other articles on religion here will help. More later. Robert Walker (talk) 01:01, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

I've added some statements by Walpola Rahula (and moved quote from Ajahn Sumedho from a note into the main body), and supplemented them with info on two Theravada views on nirvana, Gombrich comment on Rahula's view on nirvana, and added an extensive note to explain Rahula's view and Gombrich's note. I've also added the views of B.R. Ambedkar, the Dalit Buddhist leader. And I have added info on Atisha, who regards meditation on the four truths as a means for an intermediate level of liberation, namely personal happiness by the liberation from samsara, which is deemed inferior to the Bodhisattva-ideal.

Note that Walpola Rahula and Thanissaro Bhikkhu give different translations for the Dhatu-vibhanga Sutta. Even if the sutras are the verbatim transcripts of the Buddha's words, which is contested by a significant number of scholars, then we're still tied to the problem of the translation of those texts, and the interpretation of those texts. This one example, on the nature of nirvana, already illustrates that these problems lead to very different views, even within the Theravada tradition. Which shows the problems with using "reliable sources in Buddhism," and the usefullness of the Wiki-policies on WP:RS and using secondary, scholarly sources. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:01, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Joshua Jonathan: first glad to hear you have agreed on the need to make some changes so that the article briefly mentions some views of Walpola Rahula on modern Therevadhan Buddhism, in one short sentence in the historical section and in a footnote. But the article is still entirely from the WP:POV of Western academic Buddhism, and even those statements about the views of Walpola Rahula are presented as "incorrect", filtered through the lens of Gombrich.

In your concluding statement in that footnote, you say: (emphasis mine).

"In response to Rahula, Gombrich notes:"

"Since truth can only be a property of propositions, which have subjects and predicates, and nirvana is not a proposition, it makes no sense in English to say that nirvana is truth.".

This contrast between "According to Rahula" and "Gombrich notes that" implies editorial approval of Gombrich's statement as a truth. But it is just Gombrich's view that "Nirvana IS TRUTH" makes no sense. After all Keats in his Ode on a Grecian Urn wrote

"Beauty is truth, truth beauty," – that is all
Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know. (lines 49–50)

Is he implying that Keats didn't understand how to use the English language? "Beauty" is not a proposition. So even the small changes you have made, as read by a modern Buddhist, are still highly WP:POV because of the way you give the Western viewpoint the last word and present it as correct.

It's the same all the way through that footnote:

"According to Rahula,...

"Gombrich notes ..."

"Rahula gives ..."

"Rahula refers to ..."

"Thanissaro Bhikkhu gives ..."

"In response to Rahula, Gombrich notes: ..."

Whenever you approve of an author's views you say that they note whatever their view is.

I hope you can appreciate that it will take a fair number of words to respond to your many points in the post you made a few days ago. My next post will be about secondary sources however as I think that is the most important thing to address first. Should the articles be based on authors like Gombrich and Anderson etc primarily or should they be based on authors like Walpola Rahula and the Dalia Lama mainly? Also, I'll add a POV tag. I'll also do a very short bullet list summary of my later replies which I can add later. Robert Walker (talk) 14:27, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

@Robertinventor: Presenting Rahula's views and other scholars (Gombrich) disagreements with Rahula is important for NPOV. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:35, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

@Robertinventor:

• Good observation on "notes." I had to search, though; in the main text I'd used "states"; you were referring to the note. I've corrected it, and moved the Gombrich-comment fully into the note. The rest is a fair representation of Rahula and Gombrich on nirvana as "absolute truth." The remaining "Gombrich notes" is about the apaphatic approach of "truth"/"highest reality"/etc.; Gombrich makes an interesting observation on the use of "negative" terminology, which is in line (I think) with Rahula's reasoning here. Especially because Rahula postulates an "absolute," through "negative" terminology, just like Neo-Platonism and the apophatic Christian mystics. This is interesting, because, in a Buddhist context, postulating an "absolute" is disputable, yet far from uncommon, despite the Buddhist history on denying an "absolute." Yet, in the context of comparative religion (or whatever it is being called), ir definitely makes sense. So, that's intersting I think.
• I understand your comment "it is just Gombrich's view that "Nirvana IS TRUTH" makes no sense", but I have a few objections here. First, the phrase "just" is a belittleling of Gombrich's views, as if it is "just" an opinion, withour any base or serious consideration. In this way, any comment or objection can be declined, but it makes a meaningfull discussion impossible. Second, Gombrich does not say "Nirvana IS TRUTH" makes no sense", he says "it makes no sense in English to say that nirvana is truth." He does not say it makes no sense at all; but he does say "In proclaiming (in block capitals) that 'Truth is', Rahula has for a moment fallen into Upanisadic mode." And that's ac orrect observation, I think. But... in the context of human understanding and meaning-making, and the capacity of mysticism, I think it's interesting that Rahula takes this stance. The 'standard Buddhist "rhetorics"' on this point may be an attempt to reconcile a fundamental tension in the Buddhist teachings in this respect. Your quote of Keats is a beautifull addition, or note, in this regard. Indeed, as "propositional logic" it doesn't make sense (British philosophers would surely have objections to Keats lines. But in the context of Neo-Platonism, and its enduring influence in western thought and religiosity. Consider the additional question: what is higher? Good, or the One?, and you have all of mystical philosophy, including Buddhism, gathered in a few lines.
• Regarding the kind of sources we should rely on primarily: we've discussed this through and through before. Wikipedia has clear guidelines on WP:RS: primary sources can be used, with caution; secondary sources are to be preferred.

• WP:SCHOLARSHIP (a guideline) is very clear on this: "Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible."
• WP:WPNOTRS (from Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, a content guideline): "Although specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred."
• Wikipedia:Reliable source examples#Religious sources (an essay) says; "the proceedings of official religious bodies and the journals or publications of recognized and well-regarded religious academies and experts can be considered reliable sources for religious doctrine and views where such views represent significant viewpoints on an article subject." This does not mean that we can cherrypick our favorable quotes, nor that we can bypass reliable scholarship when available.

Given the inherent problems with primary sources, as illustrated by the various Theravada views on nirvana, and the diffences in translation and interpretation of basic texts, it's clear why secondary sources are to be preferred. If we use primary sources, we have to be carefull to use them correctly, and to provide a context for these sources. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:10, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

PS: note that the Dalai Lama is only one of fourteen Dalai Lama's, and that he represents Mahayana Buddhism, a form of Buddhism which regards the four truths to be part of the lesser Hinayana path. Any book by him on the four truths is a publication for a large audience, and not necessary a comprehensive overview of the Gulag-views, let alone "Buddhism" in general. An occasional reading of a book by the Dalai Lama might suggest that the four truths are an important aspect of Tibetan Buddhism; a more substantial reading on Tibetan Buddhism makes clear that this suggestion is misleading. That's also why secondary sources are important. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:25, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

It's not really that different, Gombrich "states" but it is "According to Walpola Rahula". Why not "According to Gombrich". Would you say "Walopla Rahula states"? If not, then why say that "Gombrich states"? What's the difference, why use this language only for particular authors and not for others? It once more biases the reader somewhat towards the idea that it is true as though one can state opinions it is more usual to state facts. While "According to" is always an opinion rather than an objectively established fact, and draws attention to it as a WP:POV, and something introduced with that phrase could never be an objectively established fact. I meant no belittling of Gombrich who is a highly respected scholar. It the "just" meant that it was just his WP:POV in contrast to the implied suggestion that it was an objective certainty. And I referred there particularly to his statement that "it makes no sense in English to say that nirvana is truth.". That is a WP:POV and not an objective fact as I demonstrated by using the Keats example - unless you think that it is also an objective fact that the second last line in Keats very famous poem, Ode on a Grecian Urn also makes no sense in English. It is surely one of the most famous poems in the English language.

On secondary and primary sources, I will reply tomorrow. I have prepared an essay on it as I said which you might find interesting. But if I reply today I still feel you may take me instantly back to WP:ANI as I had no warning last time. Also it's good to give others who are watching this talk page a chance to catch up on our conversation. Thanks! Robert Walker (talk) 17:53, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm looking forward to the essay; it sounds promising. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:02, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Concrete proposals

Well, I read part of that draft on reliable sources in Buddhism; I suggest you come with concrete proposals for additions and/or changes, like RegentsPark suggested:

• "Robertinventor, a better tack for you to take is to propose very short changes to the article, suitably backed up by references, and do this one change at a time. For example, you say the solution is not to rewrite the article so that it only presents the views of Gombrich and Anderson. I know next to nothing about this topic but, as an independent observer, I'd like to see a couple of things: the exact text that incorporates these other views and a clear sense of how much weight they carry in the scholarly literature. Suitability referenced, of course. It is then possible to discuss whether those views are relevant and whether or not the text accurately reflects the scholarly weight of those views." diff
• "My suggestion is that Robertinventor is advised to make more specific suggestions" diff

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 03:23, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

It is mid edit. In the old version I asked readers in the lede to please not link to it, but now you have, well no point in that any more, but it's not ready for discussion. I will post it when ready, then we can discuss it. I will have concrete proposals when it is ready but probably not what you expect. I don't think the issue can be fixed by small changes to the existing articles.

I realized that after my attempt at an RfC on "redeath". You took me to WP:ANI mid discussion, and got me topic banned for verboseness, in a discussion where you were as verboese as me doing many replies in a short period of time. And this was as small a matter as one could attempt to discuss. Use of a single word. All this made that clear, as I said in my reply to @RegentsPark:. RfCs of that nature are clearly not going to work, though it seemed a good idea at the time. But I think there is a way forward. As you will see, it helps explain why it was almost impossible for us to get consensus on this article, to the extent that all the previous editors have left leaving only you and editors who do minor edits. It is also an additional reason why RfCs on minor points can't work either, and helps explain why both sides in the debate were passionate about their views and why when you did your rewrite of the article, in all the discussions asking you to revert, we were unable to find a neutral common ground. Please be patient. Thanks! Also I will recommend discussing it on the Buddhism project talk page rather than here as it affects multiple articles in the project. Robert Walker (talk) 08:41, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Essay on Reliable Sources in Buddhism and a Proposal

The essay is ready now. As it is relevant to many articles in the project, please discuss here: Essay on Reliable Sources in Buddhism and a Proposal. Thanks! Robert Walker (talk) 20:23, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

POV tag

I have added a POV tag to the article. The edit summary is:

"POV tag - Bias towards western academics - Gombrich etc - to detriment of recognized and well-regarded Buddhist authors Walpola Rahula, Dalai Lama, etc. No details on view of authenticity of sutras. Rewrite of four truths in lede is WP:SYNTHESIS"

For the issues in detail, please see #Short summary of the issues with this article above.

(preceding line added as a result of the POV tag redirection[21]) Robert Walker (talk) 21:54, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

As a reminder, you may remove this template whenever any of the following is true:

1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved.
2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given.
3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

(see Template:POV#When_to_remove).

We don't have a consensus to remove it at present, as I think will be clear to almost anyone reading this talk page. Your recent edits have not solved these problems in my view @Joshua Jonathan:. Thanks! Robert Walker (talk) 20:54, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Reply by JJ (see also Talk:Four Noble Truths#Reply by JJ, which summarizes the problems with Robert's pov):

• Regarding "Bias towards western academics such as Gombrich et al, to detriment of recognized and well-regarded Buddhist authors Walpola Rahula, Dalai Lama, etc.": WP:SCHOLARSHIP: "Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible." & "Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses."
• Regarding "Doesn't discuss view of authenticity of sutras.": the article says (and this has been mentioned before at Talk:Four Noble Truths#Reply by JJ, so I'll copu it from there):

"* 4. "Authenticity of the sutras": the article says, with extensive notes:

"three positions held by scholars of Buddhism can be distinguished:[83]

1. "Stress on the fundamental homogeneity and substantial authenticity of at least a considerable part of the Nikayic materials;"[note 21]

2. "Scepticism with regard to the possibility of retrieving the doctrine of earliest Buddhism;"[note 22]

3. "Cautious optimism in this respect."[note 23]"

So, this topic is covered."

• Regarding "Rewrite of four truths in the lede is WP:SYNTHESIS"": it's not a rewrite, it's a summary and explanation of the four truths, based on multiple WP:RS.

In return, let me remind our that you have been pushing your pov for two-and-a-half-tears now, withour providing any reliable academic source, without gaining any concencus for your preferred version, and with ignoring the solid concencus for the article as it is now. See also:

• WP:TALK#USE: "Be positive: Article talk pages should be used to discuss ways to improve an article; not to criticize, pick apart, or vent about the current status of an article or its subject."
• WP:TALK#OBJECTIVE: "Stay objective: Talk pages are not a place for editors to argue their personal point of view about a controversial issue. They are a place to discuss how the points of view of reliable sources should be included in the article, so that the end result is neutral. The best way to present a case is to find properly referenced material."
• WP:TALK#USE: "Make proposals: New proposals for the article can be put forward for discussion by other editors. Proposals might include changes to specific details, page moves, merges or making a section of a long article into a separate article."
• WP:EXHAUST: "Keep discussions focused"
• WP:TPG#YES: "Avoid repeating your own lengthy posts"
• WP:DISRUPTSIGNS:

• "Does not engage in consensus building"
• "Rejects or ignores community input"

• WP:LISTEN: "In some cases, editors have perpetuated disputes by sticking to an allegation or viewpoint long after the consensus of the community has decided that moving on to other topics would be more productive. Such behavior is disruptive to Wikipedia. Believing that you have a valid point does not confer upon you the right to act as though your point must be accepted by the community when you have been told that it is not accepted."

Let me remind you once again of the advice of RegentsPark: come with specific proposals, based on WP:RS diff diff. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:00, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I do not agree that this adequately covers the view of authenticity. To explain properly needs a longer reply. I will post that later. With regard to the bias towards western academics, do read my Essay on Reliable Sources in Buddhism and a Proposal. I think that is best discussed on the Buddhism project talk page, so let's continue the discussion there, thanks!

I call the rewrite of the four truths a WP:SYNTHESIS. We can discuss this again but have already discussed it many times. We do not have consensus on your view that it is just a summary of WP:RS. That of course depends on what you mean by WP:RS. If you mean a summary of the views of Richard Gombrich et al on what they think "Buddha thought" in these new humanistic and Vedic religion based reintepretations of Buddha's teachings, and what they think the sutras originally said based on theory of inauthenticity, I don't know, you know far more on that than I do. But it is certainly not a summary of the four truths as understood in WP:RS such as Walpola Rahula, the Dalia Lama etc. I won't write any more at this time. I have probably written enough for today already. But I thought a brief reply was needed. Thanks! Robert Walker (talk) 21:14, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

WP:SYNTHESIS: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." Multiple references have been provided, with extensive quotes in the notes, which do explicitly state what the Wiki-article says. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:19, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

The Buddhist sutras hav ebeen extensively quoted. The Theravada-view on the four truths, and their central importance in the Theravada-tradition, has been mentioned, and extensively explained, using WP:RS. Walpola Rahula and Bikkhu Bodhi have also been quoted. What more do you want? Come with a concrete, explicit proposal. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:32, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for mentioning my edit summary of the main issues in the tag - but you just redirected the tag from #Short summary of the issues with this article to this post. I've therefore edited my post above to link back to the short summary of the issues which is what I intended the tag to link to originally. It does make sense to redirect it here, but of course the reader has to get to the list of issues with the article. So this seems one of those situations where you have to edit your comment after it has been repleid to.

I have made plenty of comments today so will leave replies to your further posts above to later. I already have a backlog of many other things to reply to as well from your previous post, below and will do so when I get the time, thanks! Robert Walker (talk) 21:54, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Just to say - I do have concrete proposals, not just for this article but for several affected articles. I've mentioned them several times on this page - here is the link again: Essay on Reliable Sources in Buddhism and a Proposal Robert Walker (talk) 23:37, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Okay. I've added a link to my reply to your "short summary of the issues." Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 03:11, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

PS: it's also how 'traditional Buddhists' understand the four truths. The lead alone refers, among other references, to the Maha-parinibbana Sutta , Khantipalo, Ajahn Sumedho, Nyanatiloka, accesstoinsight, Thanissaro Bhikkhu, and Walpola Rahula. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:14, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Remove POV tag

@Robertinventor: We have been through this last year. Your explanation for the tag does not make sense, and I will remove it shortly if you do not address, "It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given". For example, you write in "Three things wrong with this article" section, a wall of text which includes allegations that are simply wrong because what you claim does not verify. You wrote in "Details" section, as an illustration:

Quote (Robertinventor): "No use of the word "rebirth" in the Wheel Turning Sutra which presents the Four Noble Truths; It's also worth noting that the wheel turning sutra[10] does not include the word "rebirth" in any form."

[10] = This translation by Peter Harvey.

If you read Harvey's explanation of the primary text carefully, he uses the word "rebirth" five times!

Peter Harvey's publications such as An Introduction to Buddhism, published in 2013 by Cambridge University Press clearly link and extensively discuss 4NT with rebirth (pages 32-43, 50-87), citing numerous Suttas. Please explain your alleged claims against Peter Harvey? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:50, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. From that translation of the sutra itself:

• "Now this, bhikkhus, for the spiritually ennobled ones, is the pain-originating true reality. It is this craving which leads to renewed existence,"
• "Indeed, knowledge and seeing arose in me: 'Unshakeable is the liberation of my mind; this is my last birth: now there is no more renewed existence.'""

From the "Glossary and Commentary":

• "Renewed existence: punabbhava, again-becoming or rebirth."

From the Mahaparinibbana Sutra, also quoted in the Wiki-article several times (note 1, Maha-parinibbana Sutta), and referred to before in this discussion (Talk:Four Noble Truths#Reply by JJ):

• ""Bhikkhus, it is through not realizing, through not penetrating the Four Noble Truths that this long course of birth and death has been passed through and undergone by me as well as by you [...] But now, bhikkhus, that these have been realized and penetrated, 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."

Also, read again the section on "Appearance within the discourses#Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta":

• "According to Anderson, following Norman, the four truths originally were not part of this sutta, and were later added in some versions.[133]"

So, various versions of the Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta; probably no four truths at all in the earliest versions of the Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta; and a clear mentioning of "rebirth" in this sutra and the Mahaparinibbana Sutra. Good reasons to be carefull with referring to primary texts, especially if they don't support what you're arguing. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 02:59, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch: Okay I will reply to this soon. Robert Walker (talk) 08:27, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I think answering you on this particular point in which you are referring to an old discussion from long ago may not be the most productive way ahead. I do have replies to all that but I have already made those replies long ago, and you replied to them and we would just replay an old discussion here. And it is also a minute detail and doesn't address the main issues mentioned in the tag. Also it is better to talk about such things at a higher level, about the conclusions of Walpola Rahula etc rather than to try to argue the point ourselves from scratch which risks verging into WP:OR. Will make a longer reply later. Robert Walker (talk) 11:17, 21 April 2017 (UTC)Robert Walker (talk) 11:15, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

@Robert Walker, Thanks for acknowledging that this is an old discussion, and there is no need to "replay the old discussion here". Therefore, and other reasons that question your December-April walls of text on this talk page, I have removed the tag. Please feel free to take this issue to appropriate noticeboard or ANI, if you wish. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:24, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch: first - you did not ping me in this message. Adding an @ before my name does not lead to an automatic ping. So I've only just got it. There is no way you can say that I have acknowledged consensus on the article. I also have the article itself on my watch list but Joshua Jonathan is doing numerous edits so I couldn't notice that the tag was removed except by visiting the page itself which I just did right now, which is how I found out that it was removed.

What happened is that you brought up an old discussion, and did not address any of the main points that were the reason for the tag. I refused to get caught up in the discussion. You then used this as a reason to remove the tag. This is not a valid reason to remove a POV tag! The discussion was never resolved anyway, it just ended with neither of us able to agree. The discussion has now continued on my talk page for anyone interested and you can see it is not resolved and there is nothing resembling consensus here. See User_talk:Robertinventor#Four_Noble_Truths. I am certain that an uninvolved third party would not say, on reading this discussion, that we have managed to talk things through and achieved consensus amongst ourselves that the article is WP:NPOV.

I plan to do a new POV tag anyway with a new section on this page. What I wrote in the summary above was obviously not clear enough as a result of reading @RegentsPark:'s comments on it. So I drafted out a new POV tag explanation which is clearer, and I plan to tag both this article and the Anatta article accordingly. I will also recommend that it is kept in place for several months to give an opportunity to get comments from uninvolved readers of the page, for what is an article with a relatively low footfall for wikipedia. I'll do this later this week, I'm busy right now. Thanks!

Robert Walker (talk) 07:30, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

@Robertinventor, Ms Sarah Welch, and RegentsPark: here we go again: the only one who keeps recycling old discussions is you, repeating the same objections over and over again. See WP:CON:

"Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which, although an ideal result, is not always achievable)"

See WP:DONTGETIT. See Talk:Four Noble Truths#POV tag. Sorry Robert, but you really have to stop it and move on. Start reading those sources I've provided you to get a more balanced grip on the topic, read the dozens of references which say that the four truths are about ending rebirth, and move on. Read this line from the Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta, and move on:

"Knowledge & vision arose in me: 'Unprovoked is my release. This is the last birth. There is now no further becoming."

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:58, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

And please please please, if you want to change this article, without editing, come with concrete suggestions, as adviced before by RegentsPark, as repeated at Talk:Four Noble Truths#Concrete proposals. Nobody supports your proposal to revert this article to your preferred version. Please understand that. But we're more than willing to help you with any concrete suggestion you make for additions and changes. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:02, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

PS: maybe I can help you taking this to WP:DRN; see your talkpage. That would be a better solution then continuing this forever (Ah! Nirvana! Where?!?) Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:09, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Done. See [22]. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:23, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I do not think we need a POV tag because this article already presents multiple points of view and follows WP:NPOV and WP:RNPOV: "In the case of beliefs and practices, Wikipedia content should not only encompass what motivates individuals who hold these beliefs and practices, but also account for how such beliefs and practices developed. Wikipedia articles on history and religion draw from a religion's sacred texts as well as from modern archaeological, historical, and scientific sources." WP:Scholarship is also relevant. I do not see such serious POV problems that could justify a POV tag. JimRenge (talk) 16:26, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Some of your main points - reply to reply from JJ

(I think many of these points are tangential to the main point under discussion)

I will answer the other points you raised above gradually over the next few days in order to avoid any possibility of being taken back to WP:ANI for verboseness, and also to make it easier for anyone watching this page to follow our conversation. I hope you can understand that in the circumstances, which we all know so no need to repeat them.

I will focus my replies on these four main points, because they seem to be important to you.

• How adding a fifty odd word statement to the start of the historical section hasn't made it WP:NPOV - to explain why I need to give a brief summary of what you left out
• That for Buddhists there is no problem about what it is that takes rebirth - for the very reason that we think in terms of Anatta or non self. This needs more than a one sentence answer obviously, and I'll quote from Walpola Rahula who makes this very point in a very clear passage. This is a pre-occupation of Western Buddhists only AFAIK
• That for Buddhists, then the only problem with worldly happiness is that it is not lasting - that's what makes it dukkha which is inaccurately sometimes translated as "suffering" but has many other meanings, has no single word translation into English.
• If Nirvana was a mystic state it would be produced and so not lasting and that would make it dukkha. It's only because mystic states don't last that they are dukkha in sutra tradition Buddhism. Adding a single sentence with a cite to Walpola Rahula in the historical section does not fix this. Again a reply to you on this in detail will need me to write a fair bit, with quotes from Walpola Rahula.

Your edits and replies above do not address these points. But to explain so, I will need to go into detail on each of those points. I have already replied to them in the collapsed section above. But it seems I need to say the same again in more detail.

Also, the points I gave in the summary above remain, and you haven't yet answered them. Indeed I think there probably is no way to answer them. See #Short summary of the issues with this article. You raised so many points in your very long reply #Reply by JJ that it was hard to know where to start. I chose the list of four above as a starting pint, because they seemed to be key points for you.

I think myself that the issue here is a difference of WP:POV and that many of these problems would be solved if we had separate articles for the WP:SUBPOV of western academics and the very different WP:SUBPOV of sutra tradition Buddhist. Otherwise we could easily go on endlessly trying to answer each other, rather like Christians and Muslims trying to work out the best way to write an article on the Resurrection of Jesus. Perhaps the reason we get so much fruitless discussion here is because what we are attempting is impossible?

The issues you raised are issues for western academics who are attempting a humanistic reintepretation of the Buddhist teachings, also informed by ideas from Indian Vedic religions (which sutra based Buddhism is not of course). When I answer these issues, I of course talk about how WP:RS in the sutra traditions of Buddhism think about such ideas. They simply don't have these issues. Because they think about the teachings differently. But my answers may well not be satisfactory to you, because they won't answer them in ways that western academics find helpful in this topic area because they won't be answers based on a humanistic and Vedic interpretation of the Buddhist ideas based around ideas of an afterlife, of "getting out of Samsara", and other ideas that are quite foreign to how Buddhists think about it all.

I think it is possible that my Essay on Reliable Sources in Buddhism and a Proposal has a chance to resolve many of these issues, by just recognizing these as valid distinct WP:SUBPOV, and so making two versions of each article according to the distinct WP:SUBPOVs. If that happens, then perhaps it may simplify many things and I wont need to do all these replies to your points :). Robert Walker (talk) 21:04, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

On quotes

I will also add a post about quotes. This was your original stated reason for doing a major rewrite of this article. But there was no consensus. We had a discussion during which you said the quotes needed to be removed, @Dorje108: wanted to retain them but as a compromise suggested doing paraphrases. He asked for time to do this as the quotes were succint statements by experts in the sutra traditions and not easy to summarize because they already used carefully chosen words to express their points. So we had three options here under discussion - to remove the quotes, to paraphrase them, and to keep them. All these options were actively under discussion when you chose to remove them all, and when asked to revert and discuss first, ignored what he said. This is not what editing by consensus means! We didn't even have an RfC on the matter.

Meanwhile we discovered later, a few weeks later, that you had written other articles that consisted almost entirely of quotes, when another editor took you to ARE on a charge of Copyvio. The admins gave you only a mild rebuke, "Joshua Jonathan is advised to use quotation marks or to paraphrase content from external source[23], and you weren't sanctioned by the admins. But the action was rather striking to those of us who had just recently watched you remove all of @Dorje108:'s quote from this article.

Since you and other editors continue to remove quotes from Buddhism articles here whenever they are added I think that it may be useful to do a similar study of use of quotes in articles on religion, similarly to my essay on reliable secondary sources. I'll look at the guidelines, and I'll also look at actual practice in articles in the topic area of religion here in Wikipedia. These essays take a fair bit of my time, though I think well worth doing. I'll do that maybe a week or two from now. It may help. Thanks! Robert Walker (talk) 20:47, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

My plan is to post about these issues, one at a time, on separate days, to minimize the risk of being taken back to WP:ANI. It will also help readers here to follow the discussions. To post so much in one go and then to have comments on them would surely be rather overwheliming. I'll probably start on it some time next week. Robert Walker (talk) 20:47, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the overusage of quotes: see WP:QUOTEFARM. That's a policy, and htere was a strong concencus to follow this policy. Regarding the ARBCOM-case: I strongly advice you to be aware of WP:TENDENTIOUS, and to follow the advice which was give there: leave it to rest. Your comment "you had written other articles that consisted almost entirely of quotes" is wrong, very wrong. RegentsPark: please do have a look here. And again: stop your pov-pushing, accept the concencus, and start contributing in a constructive way to Wikipedia, instead of hounding me. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:08, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I will reply later on quotes, I think there are important distinctions to be made here. Please link to the RfC or other evidence that there was a strong consensus to remove the quotes. Robert Walker (talk) 21:57, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

See the quotefarm-tags that JimRenge added to various articles. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:59, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I choose not to reply any more on whether you did articles consisting almost entirely of quotes. You know whether you did or not as much as I do :). It wasn't a huge misdemeanour and I don't want to link to those articles to highlight what you did. I've already said enough. Thanks! Robert Walker (talk) 22:05, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Let's focus on the positive. I hope to write an essay on use of quotes in articles on religion as applied to Buddhism. Perhaps we can return to this topic when I write that essay. It won't be for a week or two probably. Robert Walker (talk) 22:16, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Just realized - you seem to be saying that @JimRenge: adding a quotefarm tag to articles is evidence of a strong consensus. It is not. It just shows a consensus between you and @JimRenge:. There were other editors who had the view that the quotes were fine, and then there was also the third option being discussed to paraphrase them. There was no consensus to remove them. (When I first read that remark I thought you meant he tagged your own articles and was confused about why you would mention that if that was the case). Robert Walker (talk) 11:09, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Mnemonic set

Ms Sarah Welsh: when we take the mnemonic set, samudaya has a double meaning, referring to '_bound together with_ this fleeting world and its unsatisfactoriness [is] longing for this fleeting world (which is utterly foolish, un-arya)', and to the continuation of samsara by this craving (pratitya-samutpada), right? And nirodha refers to the cessation of craving, but also, similar to the previous second meaning, to the reversal of pratitya-samutpada. With other words, the basic set is confusing: dukkha-samutpada is to easily interpreted as "craving causes suffering," while it also means "craving co es with dukkha." Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:06, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

@JJ, Yes. Pratītyasamutpāda is not "causality theory" if by "causality" we mean Newtonian mechanics like cause-effect relationship. It is best understood as dependent origination, or dependent arising. This Buddhist idea does have a double meaning, and states that "if this exists, that exists" and "if this ceases to exist, that also ceases to exist." So, dukkha-samutpada would be best interpreted as "if X exists, dukkha exists" and "if X ceases to exist, dukkha also ceases to exist". The wheel is more complicated though, bit differently explained in Theravada / Mahayana / Tibetan / extinct early schools/ etc. The samutpada links go generally as phassa <-> vedana <-> tanha (craving) <-> upadana etc. This is off my recollection, and you would find more in Harvey's Introduction to Buddhism book (he refers to it as Conditioned Arising), and in Jay Garfield's paper on this in Philosophy East and West. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:34, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks; I'll have to read Norman again, on this basic set. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:12, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Who is Anderson?

We use her a lot in this article. According to [24] it´s Carol S. Anderson. Carol Anderson doesn´t seem to fit. If she can´t wikilinked, we should at least cite "professor of whatever at wherever" or somesuch. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:25, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Ah, that's your point. She's a scholar of religion, and published an extensive study of the four truths. I'll add some info tomorrow. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:35, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! I´m reading the article now, but that´s your fault ;-) BTW, what is "six sense spheres" (Alternative formulations section)? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:55, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Six sense spheres is a vipassana-thingy, probably linked to sadayatanam/salayatanam in Satipatthana-sutta etc. Is it JJ? In the version of this article a year ago, we had "who is Anderson", and the information about a few other scholars named in the article. Someone removed it. Comes and goes!, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:46, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: I've added a few words + references on Anderson.

"Six sense spheres" is indeed ayatana, the five ordinary senses plus the sense for perceiving thoughts. I've added a link. The terms in Four Noble Truths#Alternative formulations all point to the same basic idea of Buddhism, as described in Skandha and Twelve Nidānas: sense-contact with objects leads to sensation, perception, Saṅkhāra ('inclinations', c.q. craving etc.), and consciousness. The Twelve Nidānas describe how this also leads to rebirth: from sensation comes craving, from craving comes karma, from karma comes rebirth. No (response to) sensation, no craving, no karma, no rebirth. That's classical Buddhism in a nutshell!

The term "samudaya" in the four truths also refers to process of sensation > craving > rebirth, I think, and not to a causal chain which literally causes dukkha to come into existence. Dukkha is a quality of (temporary) states and things, not a quality of the craving mind! When the mind has come to peace, dukkha still exists; temporay states and things do not all of a sudden become satisfiable. It is the craving to those temporary states and things which is confined; this gives peace of mind, and breaks the causal (sic) chain. Unfortunately, most explanations of the four truths take "dukkha samudaya" too literal. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:26, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, that was actually quite helpfull, that you pointed to those alternative formulations. Especially asavas makes clear what the four truths point too. It's a nice illustration of why the teachings have to be taken together, and not in isolation, as mere "doctrines." When you know the various meanings and references, you see them all together, also when only one specific set or meaning is presented.

Funny things is, just like the terms "Buddha," "Buddhism" and "enlightenment" quite explicitly state that insight is the main means to liberation, but in practice meditation is important for self-restraint and liberation; so also dukkha takes center-stage in many introductory explanations, but the liberation from rebirth is the real aim. Buddhism is not as clear and univocal as we westerners want to believe; when you take the teachings and stories too literal, you'll be led astray. That's also, I suppose, why teachers are important: theu teach by example, and use the texts as stories, not as dogma. That is, that's what good teachers do, I guess! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:41, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Looks good! Kalamazoo College, eh? So, where in Australia... Huh. Not Australia. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:48, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

The statement of the four truths

I've added the following comment: "[This full set,] which is most commonly used in modern expositions,". Together with that comment, I re-inserted part of an old note b by Dorje108, in response to a comment by Robert at Talk:Four Noble Truths#What's wrong - short summary - Four Truths incorrectly stated, Redeath technical, and POV statements on authenticity, subsection "Background - How the Four Noble Truths came to be stated incorrectly in this article":

"The previous lede stated the truths correctly as the truths of suffering (or more generally unsatisfactoriness), origin, cessation and path.[1]. This is how most books, articles and online WP:RS sources introduce them, followed by a detailed exposition of each truth in turn [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] (For many more cites to WP:RS see the old lede's footnote b). Sometimes they are introduced one at a time as section or chapter headings, however it is still the same approach: short form first then exposition. It is hard to find a source that does it in any other way. This is, after all, how Buddha himself taught them according to the Pali canon."

Robert was at least partly correct here: most books etc. do present the four truths in this way. It is how they are presented in the Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta, which figures prominently at the opening of the article: Four Noble Truths#Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta. But saying that this is how the Buddha presented them needs a qualification; and there are Sutras which present them in another way. As Norman and Anderson, and others, make clear, the four truths probably were not part of the oldest versions of this sutra; there are several versions of the four truths, mnemonic and more expanded; and the four truths may refer to various subjects, not only dukkha. Ironically, Dorje108 stated in that note:

"Contemporary translators have used a number of variations in presenting the essential list (i.e. the names or titles) of the Four Noble Truths."

Actually, they have all presented a quite similar translation of just one list, what Norman called the "full list," with just one subject, namely dukkha. The idea that this is "the essential list" may be a personal conclusion.

So, it's not a matter of stating "the" truths "correctly," as if thre is only one set and one fixed meaning. It's matter of selection from a range of sets, subjects and meanings; only one set with only one subject is usually being presented; and only one translation c.q. interpretation is usually being given. It shows the consequences of relying one-sidedly at one's own understanding of popular sources, and ignoring the scholarly literature, which can give a much broader background. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:19, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

PS: see also Talk:Four Noble Truths/Archive 1#The Fundamental Challenge of this Page. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:47, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it is the interpretation/meaning where the colors and hues emerge, not the "correct statement". The above was clear in this article version last month, and this further clarification is welcome. Let us keep the article size, and the subject focus in perspective, as JimRenge rightly reminds in various Buddhism space articles. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:30, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Maybe we can split-off the notes to a separate page? ;) Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:44, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

The Vipassana movement and the "pursuit of happiness"

@Ms Sarah Welch: I think that a few lines have to be added about the Viapssana movement; that's probably from where comes this emphasis om happiness. See:

• Gil Fronsdal (1998), Insight Meditation in the United States: Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness,
• David Chapman (2011), Theravada reinvents meditation
• Eric Braun (2014), How colonialism sparked the global Vipassana movement, Tricycle 23, no. 4 (Spring 2014)

What do you think? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:08, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

done. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:20, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, Braun: traditional Theravada deems the attainment of nirvana impossible in our times; the Burmese Vipassana-teachers fundamentally changed this notion, in response to the British colonialism, and the effort to preserve Buddhist society. Blessed are the efforts of scholarship to providd a broader view... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:30, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

JJ: Your intent is good, but the article may be better and more stable if we avoid SPS and blogs such as vividness.live, and instead summarize some peer reviewed RS on this. There was a chapter by Fronsdal in a book edited by Charles Prebish about Vipassana for happiness, with complete silence on rebirth/wheel/hungry ghosts/realms of existence etc. I will locate it, check if he mentioned 4NT, and then update the source/etc later today. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 11:14, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Okay. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:25, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Found the book. FWIW, there has been a vipassana movement in Jainism too! They call their insight meditation as preksa dhyana, and offer a course on "happiness with non-violence" (aka, science of living) as jnana vijnana (it is a sub-tradition within Terapanthis). Not aimed at western audience, but for Jains and non-Jains on the Indian subcontinent. Like the Burmese/Sri Lankan/Indian Buddhists, the rationale of these Jains is the same. Reinterpret. Something very common in all religions and innovators within each. But at least the Jains don't try to rewrite history, and allege that Jinas never taught / discussed rebirth. Not yet that I am aware of! We need to avoid over-weighting the "happiness, no rebirth" parts in this article, though a mention is indeed due. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:08, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

JJ: Why do we have Fake Buddha Quotes? Wouldn't something from some RS be better as refn notes? I left that in for now, but am wondering, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:44, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Just remove it; that's fine. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:42, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Vipassana means mind your body and mind. There are many ways to do Vipassana. The easiest way is Knowing Inhale and Knowing Exhale. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.52.14.179 (talk) 00:12, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

This is hard to understand

As a lay-person, who doesn´t know a lot about buddhism, I find the lead of this article very hard to read and enjoy (I haven´t read beyond the lead, it was sort of discouraging). It seems to be written for an audience of people with in-depth knowledge, but that is not the usual WP-way.

Take the first section:

The Four Noble Truths (Sanskrit: catvāri āryasatyāni; Pali: cattāri ariyasaccāni) are "the truths of the Noble Ones,"[1] the truths or realities which are understood by the "worthy ones"[web 1] who have attained Nirvana.[2][web 1] The truths are dukkha, the arising of dukkha, the cessation of dukkha, and the path leading to the cessation of dukkha.

Apart from "Nirvana", these are all unfamiliar concepts to me, and reading it gives me very little. It doesn´t mention buddhism, or what dukkha is, that comes later, the "painful incapableness of satisfying". So this lead seems to state that the four truths (buddhistic concept) are: painful incapableness of satisfying exists, where it comes from, that it can cease, and how to make it cease.

I could go into more detail, but, editors who know the subject, please read the lead from the POV of a reader who´ve heard of buddhism, but not the sutras (or think it´s spelled "suras"), the Pali canon, the entire dhamma matrix, prajna, dhyana, Theravada tradition, Mahayana tradition, or the Bodhisattva-path. I guess what I´m asking is much less "insider-language" in the lead, leave this (with explananations) more for the body of the article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:52, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: we've had endless discussions on this; the lead as it is now is a compromise. Although the four truths are quite popular to introduce Buddhist teachings, they are not a matter of mere statement or simple definition; they refer to the full scope of the Buddhist teachings, which have to be comprehended in their totality, not as a short list of mere definitions. I'm afraid there is no simple way to state the four truths without doing unjustice to this scope and subltety of the Buddhist teachings. See also Talk:Four Noble Truths/Archive 1#The Fundamental Challenge of this Page:

"...it may simply be impossible to handle this topic in the way the typical Wikipedia reader -- "western" trained, appreciative of scholastic methods rather than mystical ones, yada yada -- expects a topic to be handled [...] To be honest, I don't know how we handle this. Simply offering a summary of the kind I did seemed to help at the time, but in fact it could even make things worse, because it gives a false sense of security that the FNTs are things one "knows". Someone can read the summary, and think that simply by understanding *that* the origins of suffering are greed and aversion arising from delusion, then they get what the Buddha was on about."

That was in 2012... I've moved the third paragraph upwards; I hope that this helps. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:06, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I´d say it helped A LOT. Now it makes much more sense. WP at it´s finest. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:24, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: thanks!!! That's really a great compliment right now! I've been thinking about the past hour; you know, the four truths are like a snapshot, a picture from a childhood holiday. You look at it, and you see all those memories at once: your parents, maybe your grandparnets, the thrill (or horror) of moving to a holiday destination, the warmth, the smell of the ait, the sound of the sea, the sun-burn, everything. You see it all at once - if you've been there. That's what the four truths do; call into mind all those teachings, their interconnectedness. It all comes alive, like a big clokwork, or a database. Or like a hologram. Or Indra's net. Or the Periodic table, once you see the repetition of structures, the symmetry. All the best, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:04, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Joshua Jonathan, Thanks for taking the time to write that, understanding is dawning. Is there a better word than formulaic [25] in "the basic orientation of Buddhism in a formulaic expression", perhaps doctrinal, metaphorical, philosophical, theological, simple, short, etc? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:21, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Propositional [26] in "the four truths have both a symbolic and a propositional function", same question, maybe. One meaning of "proposition" is "A statement of religious doctrine; an article of faith; creed." so it kinda fits, but it´s an unfamiliar word with unclear meaning (to me). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:34, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: I've changed "formulaic" into "simple"; I'd rather leave "propositional" os it is, since this is the term that Anderson uses, and keeps coming back in the article.

Regarding the interpretation of the four truths: it's worthwhile to reflect on the multiple meanings of the terms. Especially samudaya, and dukkha-samudaya. Samudaya may mean "cause, origin," but also "coming up together with," or "joined to," or "existing together" (see also Pratītyasamutpāda): together with dukkha there is the craving towards "things" that are dukkha, incapable of giving us satisfaction. And that's really unworthy, says he: longing for things which won't last. That's for fools, not for noble persons. let go of it! Unfortunately, the terms being used in the Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta apparently uses the term dukkha-samudaya, and is almost commonly translated as "the origin of suffering": craving causes suffering. Right; so when you've got cancer, this is caused by craving. Sounds like Ronda Byrne's The Secret, doesn't it? So, it's worthwhile to ponder on this. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:35, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: Just thought I'd comment on the 'cancer' remark. Suffering must be distinguished from the object of suffering (in this case, 'cancer'). Cancer may cause physical pain, however craving is what causes a person with cancer to suffer or experience mental agony. I once heard a saying 'pain is mandatory, suffering is optional'. When understood this way, craving causes suffering. Why? Because we crave not to feel physical pain. Or if we are not in pain, we may crave not have cancer. Or if we don't want cancer, we may crave to have or not have other things. However, a lack of craving does not imply complete passivity. It merely means that the mental dissonance associated with a thirst for a certain state of being is absent. Trutheyeness (talk) 12:46, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Nanavina Thera and Bronkhorst

Why has this section been removed?

However, Nanavina Thera explains this recursion as an interplay of avijja, which he defines as ignorance of the four noble truths, and sammadiththi, which he defines as knowledge of the four noble truths .

References

Trutheyeness (talk) 21:03, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

As explained in my edit-summary: because Nanavira Thera did not refer to Vetter or Brinkhorst. He died in 1965, while Vetter (1988) and Brinkhorst (1993) wrote decades after his demish. Nanvira is not responding to them; it's your own WP:SYNTHESIS.

Vetter, Bronkhorst &Wynne

Regarding this addition,

Vetter bases his assertion that the liberation being sought was the calm that arises from Dhayana on Bareau's work, that states that the account of the Buddha learning the Dhaynas under Alara Kalama and Uddaka Ramaputta has no basis in historical fact . However according to Wynn, the claim that the Buddha was taught by these two teachers is authentic. Wynn, instead, notes that it is easy to see how the the Buddha's liberating knowledge could have been a non conceptual, existential grasp of the fact that ‘delight is the root of suffering’. He further notes that while Schmithausen asserts that the four truths in their present form seem to be an intellectual form of insight that is psychologically implausible, they nonetheless sum up Buddhism in a most coherent and simple way . Thanissaro Bikkhu states that at a certain point in the practice, each of the four truths becomes synonymous with the others, and Dhayana and discernment coalesce to become one and the same thing. .

References

• The preceding alinea refers to Vetter, Bronkhorst, and Anderson; not just Vetter;
• Vetter (1988) p.XXII refers to Bronkhorst and Bareau; before (p.XXI), Vetter starts with Frauwallner, then refers to Bareau and Schmitthausen;

• Regarding Frauwalner, Vetter refers to Frauwallner, who made

...a serious attempt [...] to consider one, long recognized, inconsistency found within the most ancient doctrines of Buddhism and to explain it as a development of the Buddha's thought (p. 196-197,213-214). The gist ofthe problem is that in the doctrine ofthe four noble truths, rebirth and suffering are derived from craving ("thirst", S. trisna, P .tanha). However, according to the

twelvefold chain ofdependent origination, ignorance (S. avidya, P. avijja is the root cause of rebirth and suffering; craving is only a secondary cause.

• Regarding Bareau and Schmitthausen: "In the last few years a whole series of inconsistencies in the transmission ofthe Buddha's word have been uncovered. Especially Andre Bareau and, to a greater degree, Lambert Schmithausen have pointed to serious incompatibilities."

• Vetter then summarizes Schmitthausen's analysis, who discerned three roads ro salvation in the sutra's (p.XXI-XXII; bullet-list mine):

* Firstly, one is freed from all cankers-and later released from·rebirth and suffering-when one has progressed through four stages ofdhyana-meditation and, at the fourth stage, realized three kinds of knowledge, or at least one kind, namely the knowledge of the four noble truths.
* Secondly, one is freed from all cankers-and later released from rebirth and suffering-when one has progressed through four stages of dhyana-meditation and subsequently gone to four' stages of formless meditation and when one finally achieves the cessation of apperceptions and feelings (P.. saiiiiii-vedayita-nirodha).
* Thirdly, one is freed from all desire-and thereby later from rebirth and suffering when, with discriminating insight (P. panna; one segments oneselfin five constituents and recognizes each as being transient and therefore suffering, i.e. unsatisfactory, and, consequently, as not worthy ofbeing called self or mine.

• Vetter then asks:

...which one is the oldest of the three above-mentioned paths to salvation and are these paths originally preached by the Buddha himself?

Vetter first takes aim at the second path: dhyana, formless meditation, cessation, rejecting it as inauthentic.

• He first refers to Bronkhorst, who argues that the formless meditations do not appear in the older Abbhidhamma lists;
• Then he refers to Bareau, who argues that

{{talkquote|...the wellknown story in which the Buddha is said to have experienced stages of formless meditation under the guidance of Arada Kalama and Udraka Ramaputra before becoming enlightened has no basis in historical fact."

• So, what Vetter rejects is a path in which prajna plays no role at all...
• Wynne himself is a credible source, but he takes up exactly this scholarly discussion about dhyana versus prajna; if you want to refer to Wynne to make your point, you'll have to explain the whole context. Note that "Prof. Lambert Schmithausen and Prof. Joanna Jurewicz" were Wynne's DPhil examiners, and that p.102 ff. refers to this discussion.

That being said, this part could be worthwhile:

Wynn, instead, notes that it is easy to see how the the Buddha's liberating knowledge could have been a non conceptual, existential grasp of the fact that ‘delight is the root of suffering’. He further notes that while Schmithausen asserts that the four truths in their present form seem to be an intellectual form of insight that is psychologically implausible, they nonetheless sum up Buddhism in a most coherent and simple way .

References

Yet... The insight that ‘delight is the root of suffering’ is not the same as postulating that the Buddha's awakening happened when gained insight into the four noble truths. Wynne does seem to implicate this point, when he states that the four noble truths 'sum up Buddhism in a most coherent and simple way'. Unfortunately, I can't verify his statement; "pg 3 107" is meaningless. You mean p.102-107? Note, by the way, that the section "An early Buddhist controversy: meditation or intellectualism?" starts with

La Vallée Poussin claimed that two different versions of the path are outlined in Indian Buddhist texts: one in which liberation was considered to be achieved by intellectual means, and the other in which liberation was achieved by concentration alone, the gradual suppression of all mental activity.

So, the way you added this info is incoherent, out of context, and not accpetable. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:23, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Ah, this is what Wynne writes:

It is easy to see why some early Buddhists conceived liberating insight to be a correct knowledge of the Four Noble Truths, for this list sums up Buddhism in a most coherent and simple way.

That's not the same as how you referred to Wynne (p.107). Worse, Wynne actually agrees with Schmithausen that the notion of what constituted the Buddha's liberating insight changed over time in the Budhist tradition:

...the scheme of jhana's became a support for different versions of intellectual insight; meditation became the means for an increasingly elaborate set of mental gymnastics. And in the end some Buddhists dispensed with meditation altogether.

Not good, my friend; you've misunderstoof]d, and misrepresented, these sources. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:38, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

And Wynne further writes:

Elsewhere, according to the MnjlapariyƗya Sutta the content of a Tathagata’s liberating knowledge is the understanding ‘Delight is the root of suffering’ (nandi dukkhassa mulanti). It is easy to imagine that in the very beginning, liberating insight was imagined to be a nonconceptual, existential grasp of this fact.

Note the difference between "see" and imagine"? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:14, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

With regard to Wynn, it was not my intention to misrepresent Wynn with regard to Schmithausen. I was just trying to say that the fact that Schmithausen says that the four noble truths is a psychologically implausible does not detract from its ability to sum up the Buddha's teachings.

The reason that I didn't include Anderson and Bronkhorst in the paragraph is because I wasn't quite sure of the connection until you pointed it out. Also, Vetter, Bronkhorst and Anderson may say the same thing, but there are two points to consider. One line of reasoning leads them to the conclusion that the four truths became central later on and didn't initially represent liberating insight. However, the line of reasoning that gets them to say that Dhyana represents the liberation being searched for depends on the history of Alara Kalama and Uddaka Ramaputta being false. If it were not false, the Buddha would have learned the Dhyanas from them and would not have devised them himself. So my intent was to say that while Vetter etc. conclude that the Dhyanas were the liberation the Buddha was seeking, Wynn inclines towards the insight into 'delight causes suffering' (his assertion that Alara Kalama and Uddaka Ramaputta were historical figures prevents him from coming to the same conclusion as Vetter etc.).

Having gone through this exercise, I've realised that the issue I have with this section has less to do with an attachment to the four truths as 'four truths', and more to do with the assertion that the liberation being sought were the Dhyanas in and of themselves, which precludes any insight into craving as the cause suffering. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the analysis of ignorance being the primary cause with craving being a secondary cause is fairly academic and involves discursive thought. Wynn, on the other hand, points to a non conceptual, existential grasp of the fact that ‘delight is the root of suffering’, which is much a more intuitive realisation.

So, is it not just a simple matter of saying that some scholars say that liberation is Dhyana while Wynn points to an intuitive understanding that craving is suffering? His perspective bridges a gap between the logic of someone like Thanissaro Bikkhu and the logic of scholars such as Vetter, Bronkhorst etc. Trutheyeness (talk) 20:58, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

A note on 'see' vs 'imagine'. Is this not just semantics? Unless Wynn comes to a different conclusion later on, that seems to be his primary conclusion. Trutheyeness (talk) 21:05, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

It's not dhyana in itself that is liberating; it's the calm that comes with it. And that's not because dhyana is the same as samatha, but because it heightens the awareness, the mindfulness, of 'disturbing' emotions and thoughts, and helps one to 'counter' them consciously. Bronkhorst (or was it Gombrich?) noticed that the last two dhyanas differ from the first two, in that consciousness is not narrowed, but expanded, as in being more aware of what's going on. Wynne also mentions this in his conclusions.

This mindfulness is related to the five skandhas, pratityasamutpada, et cetera. They basically narrate the same process: due to sensory impressions and latent tendencies, disturbing emotions and thoughts are aroused, which guide our behavior. When one is aware of these processes, there is a choice in behavior: being led by these disturbing thoughts and emotions, or being led by 'higher' 'thoughts' and emotions, that is, selflessness and loving kindness. The analysis (vipassana) which unrafels humans into constituent components and processes, leaving anatta and sunyata at the center, helps in letting go of these disturbing thoughts and emotions.

And yes, of course, an intuitive grasp of the notion that ‘delight is the root of suffering’ makes sense. Except for two thing: it's not typical Buddhist, it's standard Indian thinking, if not human; Greek and Christian philosophy will say the same... So, what makes Buddhism, at that time, different? One answer: no austerities, no single focus on samatha and a pure, unitive consciousness.

And the second 'thing': insight alone, and on it's own, won't really stop the influence of those disturbing thoughts and emotions. Sila and dhyana are also needed. In Zen, for example, which places a high value on insight, it is nevertheless said that one has to practice 20 more years after that before being able to teach.

You know, matter of fact is, nobody knows what exactly the Buddha taught himself. All we have are those ancient texts, which can, and are, interpreted, in various ways. But it's good that this is also an exercise in self-study and self-understanding. Reading those scholarly texts helps me a lot to understand Buddhism. See the basics pointed out above. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:15, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Growing importance

This

Despite this, the earliest portions of Milinda Panha, a conversation with the Greek king Menandar and Buddhist sage Nàgasena dated to the 1st century BC, mentions that wisdom is the result of insight into the four noble truths . In addition, Thanissaro Bikkhu notes that the very name of the Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta (lit. Setting the Wheel of the Dhamma in Motion) which is not part of the Vinaya, is a reference to its arrangement of the four noble truths and three levels of knowledge appropriate to each, as such an arrangement in Indian legal and philosophical traditions is called a 'wheel' .

References

is WP:OR. "Despite" reflects a conclusion or statement; not the conclusion or statement of the (primary) source, but of the editor. And a faulty one; more accurate would be: "Indeed, the earliest [etc.]", given the dating of the Milipanda at the first century BCE; it reflects the development that took place during the precding centuries.
Thanissaro's statement is unclear. The proper reference here is

...the wheel used as a symbol of the Dhamma has twelve spokes, uniting at the hub, symbolizing the twelve permutations that merge into a singularity — knowledge and vision of things as they have come to be — at the still point of non-fashioning in the midst of the cycle of kamma.

The same is stated in the previous paragraph, where he states that "jhāna and discernment become one and the same thing." Yeah, well, standard Theravada orthodoxy, as refelected in the lead:

The four truths became of central importance in the Theravada tradition of Buddhism, which holds to the idea that insight into the four truths is liberating in itself.

References

This is exactly what a host of scholars have analyzed, concluding that there is a tension between jhana and insight in the sutras; jhana was first, then came insight. This is also refelcted in the lead:

The function of the four truths, and their importance, developed over time, when prajna, or "liberating insight," came to be regarded as liberating in itself, instead of or in addition to the practice of dhyana, meditation. This "liberating insight" gained a prominent place in the sutras, and the four truths came to represent this liberating insight, as part of the enlightenment story of the Buddha.

References

I think the lead, and the article, are quite clear on this. Please remember: this is an encyclopedia, reflecting scholarly sources, not a manual of faith. And definitely not a venture for your own research and conclusions. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:00, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

If the use of 'despite' is seen as WP:OR, I'll have to see how else it can be done. Milinda Panha aside, why is Thanissaro Bikkhu's comment unclear? He's unambiguously stated that the name of the sutta reflects the arrangement of the truths. Trutheyeness (talk) 08:04, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Okay, so I've found a different source that offers their opinion on the Pali cannon. This is the passage I intend to add. I trust that this is not WP:OR?

Wynn observes that the Pali Cannon arrived in Sri Lanka in the 3rd century BC, but that there is no trace of the Sinhalese dialect within it. He offers that if the language of the Cannon was not changed subsequent to its arrival, it is reasonable to assume its content has not changed either.

References

Trutheyeness (talk) 08:24, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

"...it is reasonable to assume its content has not changed either" - ergo? Prjana must have been central since the start of Buddhism, because it was central in 3rd century texts? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:10, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm not implying anything... i.e. there is no 'ergo'. The statement is there as a contrast to the preceding statement on the 5th century AD. The reader can decide whether:

a) Anderson is still right

b) The noble truths were central since the 3rd century BC but not before (i.e. Anderson is partially right) OR

c) Anderson is wrong Trutheyeness (talk) 19:53, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Read the introduction of Anderson; she is not merely referring to Buddhaghosa, but to the oldest sutras, in which the four truths do not occupy the central place in the Theravada tradition. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:23, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

The four noble truths as the original teaching of the Buddha

Part 1

This Wikipedia article asserts that the noble truths are a later development in Buddhism and uses a few arguments to do so. Below, I outline how these arguments are flawed:

1) The argument that Vetter etc. makes that the Buddha could not possibly have gained an insight into the noble truths at the stage he did, because he would have already had to know and follow the eight fold path in order to reach said stage (as presented in the following sentence of this article "Oddly, the four truths refer here to the eightfold path as the means to gain liberation, while the attainment of insight into the four truths is portrayed as liberating in itself.") This argument is based on a seemingly irrefutable logic. I show [| here]that this logic does not hold. However, note that I am not arguing that my line of logic be incorporated as WP:OR. Rather, I wish to show that sources which use such a line of logic should not be given elevated precedence, as it is nowhere near incontrovertible. Note that the interdependence of the eight fold path that I pointed out in this conversation was also observed by Anderson

2) Inconsistencies in the presentations of the Buddha's enlightenment, and the Buddhist path to liberation, pointed out by Bronkhorst - This is directly addressed in Anderson's 'The four noble truths in the Therevada Buddhist Cannon'. Anderson's line of logic is as follows:

2a) There is no reason to doubt that the Pali cannon was written down in the first century BCE

2b) The four noble truths were widely recognised as a central teaching of the Buddha by the first millenium.

2c) The original form of the four noble truths was a basic set in short form.

2d) Schmithausen and Bronkhorst do not conclude that the four noble truths were a later addition into the cannon. Rather, that they were not as central in early Buddhism's history (a very different assertion to saying that it was later added due to the influence of other Indian thought).

2e) Having established that the four noble truths as they currently appear in the Dhammacakkappavattana-sutta may not have been in its earliest strata, Anderson articulates that the four noble truths are significant "for more reasons than their appearance in the... sutta". In addition, he states that the rest of his book is dedicated to providing this point.

2f) Anderson makes an argument to the effect that the noble eight fold path is not out of place within the context of 'right view', despite being seemingly anomalous elsewhere.

2g) In the introduction, Anderson states that one of the reasons that it is believed by Scholars that the noble truths are a later addition to the Dhammacakkappavattana-sutta, is that almost all versions found are identical and the homogeneity of different sutta versions point to a deliberate effort to align them by early Buddhists. Later on, Anderson shows that the four noble truths are scattered throughout the cannon in varying formats, indicating that they are an integral part of the cannon

2h) One such example of the above is the Bhayabherava-sutta, of which the four noble truths are an integral part.

2i) Anderson reiterates that although the extended forms of the four noble truths seem to be later additions, the four noble truths themselves are integral to the cannon (some arguments around whether the noble truths are an addition to the Dhammacakkappavattana-sutta center around the idea that the extended forms of the noble truths are grammatically incorrect and therefore later additions - yet it seems Anderson is inclined to believe that the short form of this was originally part of the sutta - see 2c). He provides further supporting evidence in the form of the Dhammacakkappavattana-sutta, Bhayabherava-sutta and Ariyapariyesana-sutta, each of which overlaps with the others in at least one aspect with regard to the Buddha's enlightenment narrative. He shows the interlocking nature of the narratives as non self contradictory, and as different angles of the Buddha's enlightenment experience.

2j) Despite Bronkhorst etc. asserting that the four noble truths may not have been central to the pali cannon (see 2d), Anderson has a different view. In Anderson's view, the notion of a 'path' is central to the cannon, and the noble truths have a large part to play in this.

3) On liberating insight. Arguments by Bronkhorst with respect to the noble truths were not originally synonymous with liberating insight seem to only be accepted by Anderson the basis of the illogic cited in (1) above . However, I have shown in (1) how that line of reasoning does not hold and is not, in fact, in line with the teachings of the cannon. Given this, and other statements made by Anderson above, it seems that he had to settle for proving that just that the noble truths were integral to the cannon - rather than proving the the four truths were synonymous with liberating insight. So what are we to do in this situation? Most other scholars such as Piadassi Thera do not question the authenticity of the noble truths. In addition, when all literary scholarly work on Buddhism is taken in aggregate (including the commentaries), almost all accept the four noble truths as being synonymous with liberating insight. Given this, it seems, that Bronkhorst and Vetter's view are a minor view, as defined in WP:RS and should not be given undue weight, or should simply omitted - if only because their logic is flawed and the opinion of other scholars in the history of Buddhism is contrary to theirs.

As you can see from the points above, the logical arguments of Vetter etc. do not hold, and such cannot be given precedence with respect to other scholarly work. In addition, Anderson's work is more complex and varied than the current article would suggest. As such, I believe that these pages are in need of correction. @Joshua Jonathan: Trutheyeness (talk) 11:33, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

References

The Wiki-article does not say:

This Wikipedia article asserts that the noble truths are a later development in Buddhism and uses a few arguments to do so.

What the article says is:

The function of the four truths, and their importance, developed over time, when prajna, or "liberating insight," came to be regarded as liberating in itself, instead of or in addition to the practice of dhyana, meditation. This "liberating insight" gained a prominent place in the sutras, and the four truths came to represent this liberating insight, as part of the enlightenment story of the Buddha.

According to Bronkhorst, the four truths may already have been formulated in earliest Buddhism, but did not have the central place they acquired in later buddhism. According to Anderson, only by the time of the commentaries, in the fifth century CE, did the four truths come to be identified in the Theravada tradition as the central teaching of the Buddha.

According to the Japanese scholar Ui, the four truths are not the earliest representation of the Buddha's enlightenment. Instead, they are a rather late theory on the content of the Buddha's enlightenment. According to Vetter and Bronkhorst, the earliest Buddhist path consisted of a set of practices which culminate in the practice of dhyana, leading to a calm of mind which according to Vetter is the liberation which is being sought. Later on, "liberating insight" came to be regarded as equally liberating. This "liberating insight" came to be exemplified by prajna, or the insight in the "four truths," but also by other elements of the Buddhist teachings. According to Vetter and Bronkhorst, this growing importance of "liberating insight" was a response to other religious groups in India, which held that a liberating insight was indispensable for moksha, liberation from rebirth.

References

ad 1: the argument is made by Bronkhorst, not by Vetter. Brinkhorst does not state:

...the Buddha could not possibly have gained an insight into the noble truths at the stage he did, because he would have already had to know and follow the eight fold path in order to reach said stage

Instead, according to the Wiki-article he states:

Oddly, the four truths refer here to the eightfold path as the means to gain liberation, while the attainment of insight into the four truths is portrayed as liberating in itself.

Those authors argue that "insight into the noble truths" was not the original means to liberation; insight only acquired a central position over time, and the four truths became the element into which insight was said to be gained.

Further, Bronkhorst argues that it's not logical to present the eightfold path as the means to liberation, while similarly presenting insight into this path as the means to liberation. Compare it to baking cookies: you've got a recipe; understanding how the recipe works, does not instantly give you a plate of cookies. You still have to bake them.

Note also that Four Noble Truths#Acquiring the dhamma-eye and destroying the āsavāssays:

In contrast, here this insight serves as the starting point to path-entry for his audience.

References

What you are arguing, is that the Buddha followed a couple of practices, and then realized, 'Hey, this works!' Well, he may have realized this - but we don't know if that's what happened; and if it happend, we don't know how. What those authors argue, is that the whole enlightenment story, and it's emphasis on insight into the four truths, developed later. It's a story, an educational en religious narrative, not a factual account. They also explain why: because insight only later came to be deemed as important as it is now, in response to other Indian traditions. Just like the four truths only over time acquired the central position they've got now. That's it. We simply don't know what happened. But hey, if it works for you, just go ahead. Don't be fixated on scholastics, just practice, and be a good human being. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:38, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Part 2

@Joshua Jonathan:, the first part of your explanation is fair. Having read your statements on my talk page, and having read the Four Noble Truths article immediately after, it gave me the impression that I stated above. But you're right - the article only states that the four noble truths gained centrality later on. However, it would be helpful to add a few lines there to indicate that the authenticity of the four noble truths in and of themselves is not under contention (as if I made the mistake, others may as well). Thanks also for correcting my attributions to Vetter/Bronkhorst etc.

I'll have to read Ui, to get an idea of what he said, so I'll limit my discussion below to the texts mentioned above.

You're right in that I can practice Buddhism without getting caught up with scholarly opinion. However, the reason for my persistence with regard to the Four Noble Truths has less to do with personal practice and more to do with how Buddhism is introduced to others. Wikipedia has become the website of choice for most people wanting to look up a certain topic, so I'd like to contribute towards ensuring that its content on Buddhism is correct. Granted, I have made errors in the past and will likely make more in the future, however I believe discussions and debates such as these are useful; especially because, despite the myriad rules Wikipedia enforces in order to preserve a true and fair representation of a topic, a topic can nonetheless be skewed towards a particular outcome simply through a certain selection of scholarly works. The assertions make by Bonkhorst and other scholars, especially with regard to liberating insight, upends more than 2000 years of scholarship on Buddhism to date. Therefore, despite such work being decades old, it is in the greater scheme of things relatively new and should be tested from as many angles as possible.

Thus far, we seem to be in agreement that the four noble truths in and of themselves are not a later addition to the cannon. In addition, we know that some scholars are of the opinion that they may not have been as central to early Buddhism (in other words, there was less emphasis placed on them then than now).

In addition to this, we know that the line of reasoning I presented on my talk page is a valid alternative; even if it can't be proven that this represents the actual experience the Buddha had.

Now I would like to address the following statement from above:

Further, Bronkhorst argues that it's not logical to present the eightfold path as the means to liberation, while similarly presenting insight into this path as the means to liberation. Compare it to baking cookies: you've got a recipe; understanding how the recipe works, does not instantly give you a plate of cookies. You still have to bake them.

The lack of logic noted by Bronkhorst holds because the ideas discussed are from a perspective of self-view and/or fixed-views. For example, your comment on baking cookies makes complete sense because it contains an actor (i.e. the 'you' or 'self' that knows the recipe and then proceeds to bake). However, we can see what happens when we remove the perspectives self-view and fixed-views by considering a different example.

There is a bowling ball suspended in the air, with a plank stopping its descent to the ground. At some point, the plank cracks, and gives way and the bowling ball (formerly at rest) moves down due to gravity. Now in this example, it would be easy to assume the chain of causation as follows:

1) The cracking of the plank caused it to give way (i.e. deform);

2) The giving way of the plank caused the bowling ball to move down

Yet, despite this sequence of causation seeming to make sense, a reversal of the sequence seems equally valid. Consider the following:

1) The bowling ball moved down, causing the plank to give way (i.e. deform)

2) The giving way of the plank caused it to crack

We can consider other permutations of the three events that also seem equally valid, but I'll limit my analysis to the two above. Despite us enforcing a certain order of causality, what actually happens is that all three events happen simultaneously. However, despite them happening simultaneously, they cannot occur in isolation, and occur in concert. The apparent causality described in the scenarios above is only perceived when we try to understand what 'caused' one of the three events. When we look for what 'caused' the ball to move down, we conclude that the plank gave way first. When we look for what 'caused' the plank to give way, we conclude that the ball moved down first. The fixation on a particular event / point of view (in other words, a type of fixed-view) is what leads us to prefer a certain sequence of events with respect to causation.

This example is not unique, but is one case of a ubiquitous principle that comes into play whenever potentials (in this case gravity), energy transfer and movement are considered in naturally coupled components of systems. The relationship between the four noble truths and liberating insight can be viewed in the same way. The 'potential', in this case is kammic potential (i.e. the strong intention to achieve the end of suffering). The components are the four noble truths and the eight fold path. From this perspective, the traversal of the 'complete' eight fold path, as well as insight into the four noble truths occurs simultaneously because a kammic potential couples them (in other words, the strong intention to overcome suffering results in one simultaneously following the 'complete' noble eight fold path and trying to achieve liberating insight). Note that the intention to eliminate suffering is neither a part of the path nor a component of the truths, but simply a potential that leads to 'movement' (in the same way that gravity causes the plank to experience a force and deform while causing the ball to experience a force and move down). This brings me back to self-view. If the eight fold path and four noble truths are viewed from the perspective of 'someone having to achieve something', there will always seem to be a paradox. However, when self-view is removed and the path and truths are considered as components of a system devoid of self, the paradox is resolved.

In addition to this, the traversal of the path and progression towards liberating insight can be viewed as gradual. Thus, incremental traversals on the path lead and incrementally gaining partial liberating insights can be seen to occur simultaneously such that they culminate in the traversal of the complete Path and the gaining of final Liberating Insight. This is in line with the view that things are aggregates of other things and that progress towards liberation is gradual.

As before, my intention is not to have the above explanation incorporated into this article. Rather, it is to point out that Bronkhorst's logic, as presented in the block above is still not incontrovertible. As such, the burden of proof is still on Bronkhorst and similar scholars to prove that insight into four noble truths cannot be synonymous with awakening (this is because the suttas, commentaries and scholarly works spanning 2 millennia all agree that they are synonymous with each other).

I believe that the reason for that Bronkhorst etc. did not consider alternative explanations, such as the above, is that they were not sufficiently skilled practitioners and did not have access to such practitioners. Here is a brief example from Bronkhorst's 'Two traditions of meditation in Ancient India' that, while slightly off topic, illustrates this point. In it, he states that it is difficult to understand how not breathing could lead the bodhisattva to experience extreme heat, and offers an alternative explanation to the effect of not breathing might cause one to become more prone to sickness, and therefore fever . However, we now know that mountaineers in the Himalayas experience just this effect when they suffer from oxygen deprivation, with known cases of mountaineers stripping off all their clothes due to the heat experienced, despite the bone chilling temperatures at altitude . This example shows the value in the type of cross examination of scholarship that we are doing here. The fact that a scholar is well known, reputed and published is no guarantee that what they say is true or probable. This is especially so in cases where the scholar may lack practical experience.

References

Given the above, are there any other compelling reasons to believe that the majority of scholars who contributed to Buddhism are wrong in this regard? If so, I shall read up on any sources you recommend to understand them. If not, I believe that the majority viewpoint on the matter of liberating insight with respect to the four noble truths should prevail (i.e. the majority of Buddhist scholarship done over the last 2 millennia). Trutheyeness (talk) 22:21, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Your '2000 years of scholarship' is called WP:PRIMARY at Wikipedia; our task is to summarize secondary and tertiary sources. Though the discussion on the status of primary religious sources is an old discussion at Wikipedia.

Regarding

the burden of proof is still on Bronkhorst and similar scholars to prove that insight into four noble truths cannot be synonymous with awakening (this is because the suttas, commentaries and scholarly works spanning 2 millennia all agree that they are synonymous with each other)

Bronkhorst c.s. do not state that "insight into four noble truths cannot be synonymous with awakening"; they state that this is a later development. Please read Four Noble Truths#Substituting "liberating insight" again:

The ideas on what exactly constituted this "liberating insight" was not fixed but developed over time. According to Bronkhorst, in earliest Buddhism the four truths did not serve as a description of "liberating insight". Initially the term prajna served to denote this "liberating insight." Later on, prajna was replaced in the suttas by the "four truths." [...] The four truths were superseded by pratityasamutpada, and still later, in the Hinayana schools, by the doctrine of the non-existence of a substantial self or person. Schmithausen states that still other descriptions of this "liberating insight" exist in the Buddhist canon: "that the five Skandhas are impermanent, disagreeable, and neither the Self nor belonging to oneself"; "the contemplation of the arising and disappearance (udayabbaya) of the five Skandhas"; "the realisation of the Skandhas as empty (rittaka), vain (tucchaka) and without any pith or substance (asaraka).

References

So, your statement

commentaries and scholarly works spanning 2 millennia all agree that they [the four truths and awakening] are synonymous with each other)

is far from correct, even if only regarding the Pali canon, let alone other Buddhist traditions. In Zen, it is insight into Buddha-nature which defines awakening, while in Dzogchen it is rigpa which is synonymous with awakening. "Awakening," "enlightenment," itself has multiple meanings; and it cannot equalled one-to-one with mukti, liberation.

Hotei (Putai, Budai) - smash the Buddha in the backyard, tear down the fence!

What's more, is there really such a thing ("thing," "event," etc.) as "final Liberating Insight"? Or do (some) Buddhist traditions claim that there is "final Liberating Insight"? The "burden of proof," in this respect, is not on scholars like Vetter and bronkhorst; the burden of proof is on the people who make this claim. And take note, the Buddhist traditions are far from unanimous on this. See for example Kenshō#Training after kenshō, where it is explained that insight is just the start of the path of practice to real liberation.

I'll even tell you: claiming that there is "final Liberating Insight" is dangerous. It elevates some special people, namely those who got it, who are "enlightened," to a special status. I do hope you have some knowledge of all the scandals in which Buddhist teachers have been involved, because they were deemed special. There is no "final Liberating Insight"; there is insight into the BUddhist teachings, into sunyata, Buddha-nature, whatever; but it's not the end of the road, it's the start of a humble way of living, in which one is (increasingly?) aware of one's limitations and impulses, and (increasingly?) lives out of compassion, not out of selfishness. Don't be fooled or misled, and stay awake: final liberation is a cookie for immature people who long for a perfect life.

Your statement

I believe that the reason for that Bronkhorst etc. did not consider alternative explanations, such as the above, is that they were not sufficiently skilled practitioners and did not have access to such practitioners.

is exactly that, a believe, a personal opinion. Many believers believe that academic scholars don't understand their religion, becasue they deviate from (cherished) traditions. Well, many scholars of Buddhism are also Buddhist practioners (though Bronkhorst is not, as far as I know); but thay're also 'outsiders' with a rigorous academic training, who are able to take into account a lot of "alternative explanations" which are untenable for religious practitioners who operate 'within a religious system, and cannot afford to deviate from that system.

Your suggestion that "the majority of scholars who contributed to Buddhism are wrong in this regard" is annoying rhetorics. As said above, Wikipedia summarizes relevant scholarly views on religious topics, not primary sources. Those sources are leading when summarizing 'two millennia of Buddhist scholarship', not what particular editors deem to be "the majority viewpoint [...] of Buddhist scholarship done over the last 2 millennia." Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a religious faith manual. And religious faith is more than obeyance to dogma's; it's about openness to suffering and imperfection, and compassion with all of mankind. Dare to face yourself, dare to be imperfect, and dare to be compassionate with your fellow human beings. Everyone is suffering, and insight alone is not enough to "solve" this! (See also the pictures at User:Joshua Jonathan.)Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 03:47, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Part 3

I agree that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. I didn't suggest otherwise, or suggest that the suttas be taken at face value. What I did say is that the opinions of even scholars need to be cross examined before including their conclusions in articles. Granted, the suttas are primary sources, however their commentaries can be regarded as secondary sources, if only because they are commentaries on the main text. The commentaries would only become primary sources if it were the commentaries themselves that were under scrutiny by other scholars. It is not my imagination that the viewpoint of the commentators is sometimes contrary to the viewpoint of the scholars under discussion. This is because, if they were in agreement, the [modern] scholars would likely point it out (in the same way that they reference other scholars' work for support). Commentators seem to sometimes take for granted ideas that modern scholars question. One could argue that it was because the question did not occur to them. However, one could equally argue that the answer was so obvious that they didn't feel the need to articulate an answer. Nonetheless, even supposing that modern scholars are breaking new ground by analysing things never before discussed, it is worth cross examining.

With respect to diversity, I agree with you. More diversity is a good thing. However again, if a scholar uses a certain set of logical constructs to put forward an argument, these should be reviewed to ascertain whether they make sense. Sometimes it may not be possible; but in certain cases, where the soundness of a scholar's arguments depend on one or two key pieces of logical reasoning, this reasoning can be analysed. The benefit of this approach is that if the reasoning is found wanting, all arguments built on top of it automatically become void (unless of course there is a parallel argument that leads to the same conclusion).

I have already shown with my examples above that at least one line of logical reasoning used by Bronkhorst can be successfully challenged (e.g. with the bowling ball example). Regardless of my beliefs about modern scholars in general, I have further shown that although Bronkhorst tries to make reasonable assumptions when coming to conclusions, his lack of knowledge in certain areas leads him to base certain arguments on assumptions that can be proven to be incorrect (e.g. effects of hypoxia). Given this, I think it is reasonable to review other arguments made by scholars used in this article, that lead to unusual conclusions (i.e. deviate by conclusion or implication from the suttas and/or commentaries).

On final liberation: I may have misspoken but this is a probably a debate for another time. My own view is that the the Buddha taught a path that leads to complete freedom from suffering and it is this that denotes final liberation. But it likely needs qualification (also for another time). Nonetheless, what I'd like to debate is the assertion that in earliest Buddhism the four truths did not serve as a description of liberating insight.

Since I seem to to have mis-constructed a couple of sentences with respect to the four noble truths and liberating insight by using the word awakening, I'll try to use a quote from the article itself: "The ideas on what exactly constituted this "liberating insight" was not fixed but developed over time...in earliest Buddhism the four truths did not serve as a description of "liberating insight". Vetter and Bronkhorst have been used as sources for this statement.

Vetter does not seem to use grammatical anomalies, linguistics or historic aberrations as a reason for coming to this conclusion. His primary method of analysis is almost purely logical reasoning which we can analyse with reasonable accuracy.

A key point used by Vetter, that seems to underpin his entire argument is that discursive thinking ceases in the fourth jhana and that it is difficult to understand how the Buddha could have followed a prescribed scheme of suffering, origin, cessation and end in this state, even making an allowance for intuition This shows that Vetter himself did not have first hand knowledge of the fourth jhana and is just hypothesising. However, as I have shown in the case of Bronkhorst, such hypotheses, while seemingly reasonable, can be incorrect. To understand how this could be in Vetter's case we can think of a situation where we are walking to some place and suddenly remember that we forgot something at home. Or perhaps we are enjoying a nice shower and get a brilliant idea, even though we were thinking something else entirely. It is difficult to know how this happens, but because we know that it does, we come up with theories on how this could be. Similarly, in Vetter's case, it is difficult to know how a prescribed scheme of the four noble truths can be followed in the fourth Jhana. However the key difference is that without firsthand experience of the fourth jhana, he just assumes that it is not possible. This does not mean that Vetter is incorrect in his assumption. However it does mean that the basis for much of his argument lies on an assumption that we can neither confirm nor deny is correct, even on the balance of probabilities. As such, his basis for deciding that the formulation of the suttas was "probably due to the influence of an environment that demanded some truth or knowledge as the real means of release" is quite weak. Note that in these passages, he relies almost solely on his own reasoning and assumptions, with few references to other scholarly works.

Now let's take Bronkhorst's reasoning that the four noble truths doesn't fit within the narrative of Buddha's enlightenment. He makes two points.

The first is that the link between the recognition of the four noble truths and the destruction of the intoxicants is unclear . This seems to be another version of your example of 'having the recipe does not mean you automatically have a cake'. If this is indeed the case, then the link can be understood in terms of a kammic potential created by a strong intention to overcome suffering acting to destroy the intoxicants as soon as the four noble truths are recognised (this is similar to the ball moving down as soon as there's a crack in the plank). Because of this, there is at least one explanation that makes sense in this context.

The second is that insight into the four noble truths results in the discovery of the path, creating a paradox because knowledge of the path is a prerequisite to reaching a stage at which insight can be gained . However, I've shown in my talk page how this paradox can be resolved, by not taking the path to be a monolithic, indivisible structure. To Bronkhorst's point about the first jhana (from the quote mentioned): While the first jhana can be considered the start of the path, the complete eightfold path can be considered as encompassing all of it. This is in line with the suttas, as the Buddha needed to surpass the first jhana to become enlightened, meaning that the first jhana does not encompass the entire path. Now, it is interesting that despite there existing at least one alternative explanation, Bronkhorst is utterly convinced that his two arguments are bullet proof and goes so far as to say that "There can be no doubt that this passage does not represent the original account of enlightenment".

Bronkhorst's assertion that the four noble truths did not serve as a description of liberating insight rests primarily on the aforementioned two arguments. The strength of these two arguments is based on there existing no resolution to the paradoxes that Bronkhorst has put forward. Since there is at least one resolution to each of the paradoxes, his two arguments are weakened to the point of being unable to support his conclusion.

To your point about the following:

many scholars of Buddhism [are]...'outsiders' with a rigorous academic training, who are able to take into account a lot of "alternative explanations" which are untenable for religious practitioners who operate 'within a religious system, and cannot afford to deviate from that system.

Yes, you are correct. However these alternative explanations must be backed by sound reasoning. If the reasoning can be faulted, then these alternative explanations fail to become valid.

The issue I have is that the conclusions of Vetter and Bronkhorst are used in this article, with little reference to the logic used by them to justify their conclusion. I guess, in some ways this can't be helped as the content needs to be summarised. However, we still have an issue where the central arguments that support their conclusions don't seem to hold and this needs to be accounted for within the article using a suitable means.

One final note. I tried to find the sources used for the rest of the Wikipedia passage on liberating insight, however pages 99-102 of Bronkhorst don't seem to contain any relevant information while pages 103 onwards is an appendix with abbreviations and lists of sources. Maybe I'm using a different version of 'The two traditions...' book? If you could point me to the relevant chapters of the book - I'd like to see if there are any other points to support the conclusion currently presented in the passage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trutheyeness (talk • contribs)

References

Trutheyeness: I will let JJ continue his discussions with you. About your last para on Bronkhorst (pp 99-102 etc), please note that I struggled with the same issue long ago when I was reviewing / verifying / assisting JJ in matters related this article (see the talk page archives). There are several versions of Bronkhorst publication, where the page numbers vary significantly. It is chapter 8 and in part chapter 7, regardless of the version. There you find the context and relevant discussion on 4NT (for example, I see one patch of Bronkhorst discussions about 4NT on pp. 80-85 of the hard copy in my library). Those chapters do rely on the context set by the earlier chapters. Before signing off, I note my agreement with JJ in general above and about what we can include in this article per the wikipedia content guidelines, and my disagreement with you that "the opinions of even scholars need to be cross-examined before including their conclusions in articles" because that is a slippery slope, leads to cherrypicking and edit wars, more importantly it violates our NPOV, OR etc guidelines. Wikipedia can at best follow and "not lead" the scholarship curve, inform the diversity of views in peer-reviewed sources, both majority and significant minority, but that does not mean readers should not reflect, question the sides, decide for themselves, and continue the journey of knowledge and compassion. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:14, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks MSW. Trutheyeness, it comes down to WP:OR, WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and WP:CENSOR from your part: you take your personal opinions as the measure for what's to be included, and develop an argument based on those opinions. That's not how Wikipedia works, nor how scholarship works.

Regarding insight versus jhana: I've already provided you with a list of sources on this topic. You want cross-examination; well, it's there. Read Gombrich, and the appendix with Du Vallee; almost a cntury ago Du Vallee already noted that there are to 'roads to liberation' in the oldest sutras, namely insight and jhana. This has been noted by many scholars, explaining the centraility of insight as a later development. Buddhism has changed over time; the centrality of the four truths was not there in the beginning. Maybe your teachers do not know that much about Buddhism as you think they do...

If you think that's impossible: read some texts by Buddhadasa, an eminent modern Thai monk, respected and criticized in his country, who rejected some of the most basic notions of Buddhism as un-Buddhistic, including reincarnation. Bright man; someone who dared to investigate, instead of uncritically accepting age-old beliefs and interpretations. Buddhism may not be what you think it is... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 03:30, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

PS: see also WP:FORUM. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 03:42, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Another note... while Trutheyeness in part presents their arguments as "Vetter only", this is not true. Bronkhorst, Schmithausen, Anderson, Arbel and others reason the same or a similar view as Vetter. We cannot censor such scholarship. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:21, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

So, apologies for the break in conversation, I was down and out with the flu for a while. Thanks for the guidance Ms Welch - I'll follow up chapter 7 and 8 and see where I get.

JJ - It's not that I want to censor opinions because I don't like them. It's just that there is an issue that needs resolving with respect to the balance of voices heard. I'm assuming that you haven't attacked my arguments from a logical stand point because they make sense (the debate around WP:OR not withstanding). The fact that they make sense means that the basis on which these authors make their arguments is generally invalid. This is not my opinion, but a logical result of their own arguments being undermined by shaky premises.

If you look to the last part of my preceding comment, I've simply asked for a suitable means to show the logic employed by the scholars mentioned is faulty; and I've not asked that they be censored. It is, however, hard to know how this can be done within the current rules of Wikipedia. Buddhism in general is a path of practice, and many of the brightest minds in Buddhism have used the teachings to further their own practice, rather than question the authenticity of the teachings (e.g. Thai Ajahns of the Forest Traditions or forest monks in Sri Lanka). This means that the opinions of scholars such Vetter, Bronkhorst etc. are included in an article such as this without any other scholarly opinion to the contrary DESPITE their logic being weak or un-supportable (as I have demonstrated). A natural consequence of this is that the article presents a one sided view because the 'other side' is busy practicing and not arguing.

So the question is this. How can we ensure that the inconsistencies within the reasoning of these scholars is brought to light? It is your view that this can only be done if/when a scholar publishes a work specifically aimed at showing the logical weaknesses in the work of scholars to date?

I'd like to propose an alternative. I've noticed that Wikipedia pages with mathematical proofs don't seem to have many references, because the proof itself is incontrovertible. As logic is a branch of mathematics, can we not follow a similar line here? There is no need to introduce any new assumptions or information... just point out the weakness in the authors' premises and let the author's own logic show that it doesn't hold. Trutheyeness (talk) 09:14, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Trutheyeness, per WP:OR we are not allowed to include our personal experiences, analysis and opinions in an article. Editors should summarize what independent, high quality, peer reviewed sources write about the topic (see also WP:NPOV). You argue that "the opinions of scholars such Vetter, Bronkhorst etc. are included in an article such as this without any other scholarly opinion to the contrary". Please cite high quality sources which discuss and criticize the publications by Vetter, Bronkhorst etc. Thanks JimRenge (talk) 10:51, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't currently have a source that directly contradicts Vetter, Bronkhorst etc. However, I do have a source that presents a counterpoint to one of Bronkhorst's arguments against the four noble truths. Bronkhorst maintains that the eightfold path cannot be rightly included as part of the four noble truths because the path itself leads to insight into the four noble truths. However, Nanavina Thera presents logic to show that this not the logical paradox it seems (see page 38 and notes on pages 198-200 http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/ctp_screen-view_v1.pdf).

With regard to peer reviewed 'high quality' articles. The measure by which we can judge the quality of an article depends entirely on its contents. If it presents empirical research or new/novel facts, then a high quality article must necessarily be peer reviewed to ensure accuracy/validity. However, an article that uses logic to show the implication of existing facts need not be peer reviewed to such an extent, if at all, as the accuracy or validity of the logic is self evident. In addition, one could argue that if the logic presented in an article is faulty, it doesn't need to be criticised by anyone in order to be deemed low quality, as this is readily apparent (although in this case, I'll concede to Ms Welch's point that an attempt to treat a source as low quality on this basis may result in WP:OR).

A final point I'd like to raise is the way that existing sources are used in the present narrative:

e.g. 1) Vetter is used as a source to show "inconsistencies in the oldest texts" with respect to the four noble truths. However the basis by which Vetter came to his conclusion (i.e. the assumption that fourth jhana does not allow discursive thinking) is not mentioned. This is a key piece of information because it reveals to the reader that Vetter had to make such an assumption in order to reach his conclusion. If the assumption is included, the reader can make up their own mind about whether such an assumption should hold.

e.g. 2) Anderson maintains that although we can only trace the written records of the suttas to 500 AD, it is reasonable to assume that the suttas existed in that form at least since 100 BC or AD (I forget exactly which). This second point has been omitted from the article even though it helps to show that the four noble truths were central to Buddhism at least 400-600 years prior to what the article mentions.

-> Supporting evidence: The first three divisions of the Milinda Panha (a recorded conversation between the Greek king Menander and a Buddhist sage), dated at or before 100 AD, equates the arising of wisdom with knowledge of the four noble truths. The last few divisions, who's age is under debate by scholars, mention that a person who has not attained the perception of the noble truths has died in vain. (see pages 25, 42, 83, 101 http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/milinda.pdf)

e.g. 3) A restatement of the point made above. If Bronkhorst's logic were made plain in the article and Nanavina Thera's logic is presented as a counterpoint, the reader can decide which should hold. [EDIT: I just realised that while other authors' logic has not been presented in the article, Bronkhorst's logic has... so putting Nanavina Thera's logic beside it will suffice Trutheyeness (talk) 00:10, 8 October 2018 (UTC)]

In general, the current narrative states that there are inconsistencies in the four noble truths and, rather than elaborating on what these are, just references a long list of sources that say so. Since the article and its sub sections are about the four noble truths and not specifically about Vetter, Bronkorst etc., their logic should be made plain so that contrasting logic and points of view can be placed side by side for the reader to compare (even if the source that provide these contrasting perspectives do not direct their comments specifically at Vetter, Bronkhorst or the rest). Trutheyeness (talk) 20:45, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

A few other points I haven't addressed:

Ms Welch: Your point that other authors have come to the same conclusion as Vetter may be valid however, as mentioned, their train of thought and assumptions should be made plain so that the reader can decide for themselves whether their conclusions are valid. Is it not presumptuous to assume that just because a number of scholars agree on a point that their reasoning is valid and doesn't need to be articulated?

JJ's point about Buddhadasa. He may have dared to investigate, however you'll find that the logic behind criticisms directed at him are quite sound. In addition, if you look at Professor Ian Stevenson's work (esp. Reincarnation and Biology, which provides physical evidence for rebirth), you'll find that about 40 years of empirical evidence on rebirth is against Buddhadasa. Also, unlike the scholars presented in this article who postulate what is probable or improbable based on what they have not experienced, Stevenson uses statistical techniques to show that his evidence for reincarnation is solid. This is yet one more example where your scholars' theoretical speculations are eclipsed by empirical evidence (much the same as the hypoxia example I mentioned earlier on)

JJ's point on Gobrich and Du Vallee on insight and jhana. If you could provide me with the names of these books that would help greatly. However, if these arguments are similar to those made by Vetter (something along the lines of the Buddha couldn't have been teaching his five first diciples the four noble truths because it does not justify the amount of time that he spent with them... and that it is more likely that he was teaching them the jhanas), they likely don't hold. Anyone who's been on a meditation retreat (advanced or beginner) will tell you that they hardly ever interacted with the teacher and spent most of their time meditating (thus the Buddha would have spent much of his time doing nothing if he was teaching the jhanas). In addition, the book 'Right concentration: a practical guide to the Jhanas' by Leigh Brasington shows how his students spontaneously drop into the 7th Jhana (sphere of nothingness) without traversing the first 6, while others traverse the first six to get to the 7th - resolving the questions by scholars on how the Buddha could have learned about the 7th and 8th jhana from Alara Kalama and Uddaka Ramaputta when other portions of the sutta state that you ascend to the 7th jhana after going through the preceding six. This undermines scholarly speculation that the 7th and 8th Jhanas were not learned by the Buddha from his teachers, but were the pinnacle of his own achievement. Some scholars state that that the 8th jhana is absurd, on the grounds that you can't be both percipient and non percipient. However, Brasington shows in his book that the 8th jhana is a practical possibility. Since at each step Brasington compares his and his students' experience to the descriptions in the Suttas, his work provides a valuable insight into the role of jhana in Buddhism.

JJ's point on WP:FORUM. I'm not discussing the points on hand for the sake of it, but to show just how many cracks there are in the current narrative, regardless of how many of your modern scholars support it. I have to contend, not only with the sources currently used (by providing contrasting sources), but also the narrative that has been taken up by the Wikipedia article in its current state - which naturally reflects the opinion of those who wrote it. Having provided alternative perspectives, and now alternative sources I hope you'll see that the argument is not as clear cut as it appears. Trutheyeness (talk) 01:24, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Part 4

See note 21 for sources. That the primacy of insight is a later development is a given fact, for scholars. A really interesting point is: did the Buddha believe in rebirth, or did he teach release from dukkha here and now? The four truths seem to center on ending rebirth; that too may be a sign that their primacy is a later development. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:13, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Regarding Nanavira Thera: did he reject the concept of rebirth? His Wiki-page is not clear on this. NB: avijja does not only refer to the four truths; that's typical Theravada scholasticism. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:18, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

JJ - you've addressed none of the points I've raised:

* Nanavina Thera's work contributes a valuable alternate perspective to Bronkhorst's paradox about he four noble truths and eightfold path and thus deserves a place in the article. On your note about avijja - you may be right. However, the example sheds light on the fact that Bronkhorst's paradox is not a paradox. In addition, the notes in page 198-200 further support this point.

* The Milinda Panha alludes to the centrality of the four noble truths as far back as the first century AD, and it equates the arising of wisdom with knowledge of the four noble truths. This provides a contrasting perspective to Bronkhorst's, who suggests that the four noble truths later supplanted panna (using logic that has an alternative in Nanavina Thera)

* Anderson states that there is no reason to question whether the Suttas were in the same form in 100 AD as they were in 500 AD, further showing that at least one of your sources believes the centrality of the noble truths extended as far back as that.

* Vetter's assumptions about the jhanas (as well as assumptions made by other scholars) should be articulated so that the reader can decide for themselves whether their logic holds.

* As for Nanavina Thera's belief on rebirth - I'm not sure on which way he leans, however that is immaterial. I don't need him to believe everything I believe and Stevenson's work is a more than adequate rebuttal for those who question rebirth.

I've now provided not only logical arguments of my own devising, but facts and arguments from relevant sources that provide a contrasting view to those expressed in this article. The arguments I've devised aside, on what grounds do you ignore these new sources and selectively cherry pick from your existing sources (e.g. The omission of Anderson's comment on 100 AD and the omission of the logic used by your sources to come to their conclusions)? Trutheyeness (talk) 06:56, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

About whether the Buddha originally taught about rebirth: I suspect that the question is only raised because rebirth is not what most people in the world believe (this includes scholars). As such rebirth is, to them, just an interesting way to explain what happens after death without any real substance. However, if the dominant belief today was rebirth and people were familiar with Stevenson's work would scholars question whether the Buddha originally taught about rebirth? I suspect not, in the same way that Vetter would not have jumped to conclusions about meditation without breath, had he known about how hypoxia works. Trutheyeness (talk) 09:14, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but your own logic does not hold, and is WP:OR; and the way you synthesize sources is exactly that, WP:SYNTHESIS. Nanavira Thera is not writing about, ior responding to, Vetter; he's writing about his own thouhgts. Thouh I'll bet he would have loved Schmithausen, Vteer, Broinkhorst, Gombrich, Anderson and Wynne. Wynne, by the way, p.108:

Thus I think we can discount the notion that the earliest conception of liberating insight was the insight into the Four Noble Truths. The content of liberating insight in the earliest teaching is unclear.

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:28, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

PS: regarding Stevenson, "about 40 years of empirical evidence on rebirth is against Buddhadasa," and "Stevenson's work is a more than adequate rebuttal for those who question rebirth": see Ian Stevenson#Reception. Stevenson is WP:FRINGE. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:50, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

External Links

http://dharmafarer.org/wordpress/ should point to http://www.themindingcentre.org/dharmafarer. This might be needed else where also hence it might be good to get a bot to do the URL change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sirinath (talk • contribs) 15:03, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Revising the Intro

I want to open up a discussion about the introduction, which I think has gotten much more comprehensive but is now straying into territory where it is too complicated for the average non-specialist reader and is not really recognizable as what is presented as the Four Noble Truths in most secondary and tertiary literature (as well as the primary sources). Proposed re-work of the opening couple paragraphs is below- I'm not at all opposed to restoring some of the references or footnotes where relevant, but I do think that the more detailed discussion needs to be kept in the body of the article to comply with WP:LEDE. Please comment, edit or propose alternatives as needed- I have a copy of my version on my sandbox.

1. Suffering(dukkha): Existence is characterized by dukkha, suffering or 'unsatisfactoriness'. Birth, aging, death, sickness, separation from what is desired, association with the unwanted and the Five Aggregates are all aspects of dukkha.

2. Arising(samudaya): Suffering arises due to attachment or craving (tanha). This includes both attachment to what is desired and seeking to avoid what is undesired, all of which is rooted in attachment to the self and the desire for further existence.
3. Cessation(nirodha): It is possible to make an end of dukkha through the fading and cessation and craving and desire. This is the attainment of nirvana, whereafter birth and the accompanying dukkha will no longer arise again.
4. The Path(marga): This can be accomplished by following the eightfold path,, specifically by restraining oneself, cultivating discipline and wholesome states, and practicing mindfulness and dhyana.

As the "Four Noble Truths" (Sanskrit: catvāri āryasatyāni; Pali: cattāri ariyasaccāni), they are "the truths of the Noble Ones," the truths or realities which are understood by the "worthy ones" who have attained nirvana.

References

--Spasemunki (talk) 06:46, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm open to discussion; the current lead was also the product of prolonged "discussions" with a banned editor. But it's also the prodcut of thoughtfull, and prolonged, considerations, and I do see problems with this opening:

• "Existence is characterized by dukkha" - no, existence an sich is not characterised by dukkha; existence which is absorbed in craving is dukkha. Liberated mind (luminous mind, Buddha-nature) is also inherent in existence.
• "Birth, aging, death, sickness, separation from what is desired, association with the unwanted and the Five Aggregates are all aspects of dukkha" - this is the sutta-text, which needs explanation. It does not summarize the article, which does ecplain, and nuance, these statements.
• "Suffering arises due to attachment or craving (tanha)" - idem.

I'll think about it, but the lead has been thoroughly discussed before, several times, with one editor concluding that the four truths cannot be meaningfully summraized for people who are not acquainted with Buddhism... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:42, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

I've made some adjustments to the lead, moving the mnemonic set upwards to the start of the lead. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:16, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

I think maybe the issue is separating definition from trying to summarize interpretation. The source text in Sanskrit and Pali is unequivocal and all three canons preserve it that way with little variation- in other words, every tradition agrees on what the 4NT are, but not all of them interpret what they mean in the same way.

My concern is that right now there is more interpretation and re-framing than either the primary or neutral 2ry/3ry sources do, and in that sense we aren't really supplying the consensus definitions- for example, neither the primary sources nor academic summaries of them include 'unguarded sensory contact', 'clinging', etc. with the First Noble Truth- what is being given as the First actually sounds quite a bit like the ordinary contents of the Second, while the Second is more like a summary of Samsara, which doesn't occur in the original context.

There is nothing wrong with quoting a primary source where it is definitional- in an article about the Ten Commandments, it would be misleading to describe the distinction between killing and murder in the first description of the Fourth Commandment, because that is a widely shared interpretation rather than the definition according to the source. As an example, McMillan includes the translated source text in their article because it's definitional- they describe what is meant by the key terms in each of the Truths and give suggestions at various interpretations, but that is as a supplement to the clear definition provided in the Sutta/Agama text. To your specific example on #1, luminous mind and Buddha-nature being inherent in existence reflects other aspects of existence according to some Buddhist traditions, but while those traditions may regard those facts as co-equal with the 4NT, it isn't what anyone calls the First Noble Truth- the First Noble Truth is something quite specific that the Buddha said, whose contents are recorded in the Agamas and Nikayas and which all three textual traditions basically agree on. I also note that Nyantiloka's Buddhist Dictionary is being used as a source for the current summary of 1NT, but the definition he gives under sacca does not include any of the qualifiers currently included- I'm not sure if I'm finding the specific reference though because the online version isn't paginated.--Spasemunki (talk) 22:55, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

I've moved the explanation downwards; I hope that helps too.

Regarding "definition": there are several sets of the four truths; the full set seems to be an aggregate of various texts, including grammatical errors, and may have been a later addition the several suttas. There is no "clear definition"; worse, the additions given in full set rather aid in misundestanding the intention of the four truths. As Buddhadasa explained, "dukkha" dos not refer to birth etc. in themself, but to experiencing birth etc. as being of a painfull quality. it's not without reason that the truths are 'the truths or realities which are understood by the "worthy ones" who have attained nirvana'. I can't recall who wrote it (see Talk:Four Noble Truths/Archive 2#Lead), but one editor commented, after long contemplation, that the four truths may actually only make sense when one has comprehended the Buddhist teachings - meaning that we will simply fail to explain them here. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:06, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

WP:UGC

Copied from User talk:Dharmalion76#WP:UGC

Hi Dharmalion76. Blogs by single persons are not WP:UGC. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:27, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: The author is not a recognized expert and the bulk of them were extraneous references on things already referenced. Dharmalion76 (talk) 12:33, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, we better avoid links to blogs, personal websites and self-published content. JimRenge (talk) 12:45, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

End of copied part

@Dharmalion76: rgerading the vents so far:

• you removed David Chapman, stating Blog is WP:UGC and not a recognized expert
• I reverted you, stating blog by single person, not UCG; and a see also link, not a reference
• you reverted me, stating Reverted good faith edits by Joshua Jonathan (talk): WP:RSSELF not an expert

WP:RSSELF, just like WP:UGC, is about sources; this is not a source or reference, but a note, giving a link to additional info; David Chapman is quite usefull in this regard. David Chapman is a noted blogger on Buddhism; his series on the origins of western Buddhism caused quite a stir in Dutch (Zen) Buddhism. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:04, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

David Chapman is a noted blogger on Buddhism? Noted by whom? He writes Buddhism for Vampires so his views are hardly non-controversial. The note was in the form of referencing the statement made in the body so it was a reference whatever you choose to call it. Dharmalion76 (talk) 13:32, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood. The link was provided in a note with additional info, and clearly introduced with "See also." That's not a reference. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:51, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

The blogs are in a {{refn}} format. They are being used to further reference the statements which precede them. Putting "see also" at the end of a string of references shows they are related and further reference the subject at hand. David Chapman is not a recognized authority and I don't understand why you are fighting so hard for his inclusion where it isn't needed. None of the places where I removed his blog required the reference. Dharmalion76 (talk) 14:44, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Well, in this place I didn't intend Chapman to be used as a reference. And I'm 'fighting so hard for inclusion' because Chapman's series of blogs back then were very insightfull for me, back then. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:14, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

I can respect that they were insightful for you but that isn't inclusion criteria. They are blogs from someone who is not a recognized expert. Dharmalion76 (talk) 15:55, 28 August 2019 (UTC)