Talk:Four Noble Truths/Archive 1

Simplicity, Legibility versus Accuracy

I just added some discussion about the reverting of an edit I'd made a few weeks back. I'd added some of my own words as a preliminary easy-for-beginners description of the FNTs.

But now I see that this has been an issue under discussion for years (since at least 2007). Several people have raised the problem, several have offered fixes, but here in 2011 the problem still exists. The problem is this. And bear in mind when I say this that while I am not an expert in Buddhism, I am an expert in not being an expert in Buddhism!

This article is not serving a newcomer who seeks a newcomer's answer to the question "What are the Four Noble Truths?"

Answering the question with answers such as "The First Noble is 'The First Noble Truth of ...'" is a Category error (to a Western novice).

Can I respectfully remind the various Buddhism-schooled reverters that this is Wikipedia, and not a piece of Buddhist scripture and as such it needs to cater for people who are coming to the topic afresh, not just to advanced folks who want to discuss nuance and deeper issues.

(I was going to do a fairly chunky refactoring of this very talk page, to draw together the various items expressing this very concern. But I wasn't sure if that's permitted.)

Thomask0 (talk) 12:52, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I've added back the simple definitions but now with sources. I can't see how that is not helpful. I've also merged the first two sections, with only minor editing to allow the now-three lists and their commentaries to flow smoothly. The aim is to let the page do well what is probably the thing it is most often going to be used for -- namely, give a newcomer a basic answer to the question "what are the four noble truths" but then lead them immediately on to understand that the basic answer is only a tiny part of the subject.

Hope this works.

Thomask0 (talk) 05:24, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Is Buddhism Pessimistic?

Because of its focus on suffering Buddhism is often called pessimistic

I thought people say its pessimistic because of the idea of nirvana = nothingness. that the happy cure is to cease to exist.

Plasticlax

I find the idea of suffering never reaching cessation much more pessimistic than the idea of reaching the end of suffering (even if conciousness has to cease with it). The Buddha said that he does not only talk of happiness with reference to happy feeling - but any kind of happiness whatsoever. Elsewhere he concisely states: Not to suffer is happiness Bhikkhusilaveda 02:04, 24 June 2006

This is pure Schopenhauer, who arrived at these conclusions independently.173.61.94.184 (talk) 05:31, 3 January 2013 (UTC)AdlaiStephens

Simplicity

Though I am sure that this was a great article, I had some trouble understanding some of it. Maybe if someone who understands it could make a Simple English version?

I have tried to make the intro more accessable, but I have not attempted to put the FNTs into more simple english because I don't wan't to just type out my opinion - rather I prefer to qoute scripture. Even quoting an authoritative scholar's opinion is troublesome because I would then have to quote the counter-interpretation. I hope the article is a bit better, but I aggree that it needs more clarifying.... hard to do without putting some opinion in there :o\ Bhikkhusilaveda 08:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Strange...

In one of the paragraphs, someone has placed BUDDHA BUDDHA BUDDHA...etc. I have tried to remove it, yet I cannot find the text (or indeed some of the paragraphs...) in the editor...so I appeal to someone else to remove it.

EDIT: And now the paragraphs are gone! This may explain why I couldn't find them, but is it really correct to remove them entirely?

cicero225 05:04, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Statement of the Noble Truths

I like the article. A very abbreviated version of the noble truths is :

 All life is suffering. 
 Suffering is caused by desire. 
 To eliminate suffering, eliminate desire. 
 To eliminate desire follow the Eightfold Path.

I think this has a simplicity that is memorable and appealing, and is worth including in the article

I agree something along these lines needs to be included. I came to this page looking for what the Four Noble Truths are, but all I found was a dogmatic and exclusive interpretation. --FearedInLasVegas 11:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

The Four Noble Truths all have the number 1 on this page. I do not know how to change that. A minor chage would be useful. I am new and do not understand how to set this up as a new topic yet. --Jso456 18:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

The useful comments above are a nice way of saying that the first body paragraph is as clear as a brick. Like Feared, I was looking for the Truths simply stated with much clarification, but what we have here is a gloss describing what each Truth is about, with a technical term, some commentary in a quote block and then some more commentary in italics below. Part of the problem is that the secondary commentary (I'll reiterate that someone unfamiliar with the topic of the article will not have found an actual statement of the 4 Noble Truths yet) is spliced with the numbered list, so each is listed as the First Noble Truth!
Callowschoolboy 19:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, I took the plain English statements above and incorporated them into the list in italics, pulled all the commentary for each Truth together (unitalicized), changed the list back to a numbered list, and cut a few phrases. The commentary is hit or miss: some of it is very helpful for non-experts to understand by, but other parts are total fluff. There is still some left if anyone wants to cut it out or modify it into useful statements. We might also consider just using the technical term as the first word, since the simple statement and especially the commentary make it clear that, for instance, the first Truth is about "The existence of suffering." - Callowschoolboy 15:55, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Misinformation

The Buddha was enlightened near the Neranjana River, not the Ganges. Bhikkhusilaveda 03:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Clarity

It is the remainder less fading away and cessation of that same craving Is this the best wording? What exactly does "remainder less fading away" mean? Xyut 09:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the Pali compound term is asesavirāganirodhā and translating this as "remainderless fading (away) and cessation" seems to be common -- for instance, Bodhi is quoted as using this translation in this current article for SN 56.11; Thanissaro does it, e.g., in his translation SN 12.2; and Harvey does it, e.g., in his translation of SN 56.11.

Nonetheless, you might find helpful the Pali Text Society's Pali-English Dictionary's translation of the word asesa: "not leaving a remnant, without a remainder, all, entire, complete ... entirely, fully, completely ...." In other words, it appears that asesavirāga could also be translated more simply as "complete(ly) fading away."

I hope this might help some. Best wishes, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 06:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The Four Ennobling Actions

Stephen Batchelor, 'the heretic', in his book Buddhism without Beliefs, made an excellent point -- often lost -- that the Four Noble Truths are to be experienced rather than be believed as simple statements. Therefore we are directed to exercise them by:

1. Understanding anguish 2. Letting go of its origins 3. Realizing its cessation 4. Cultivating the path

Removing non-canonical commentary from the traditional exposition of the Four Noble Truths

Up until June 26, 2007, this article's identification of the Four Noble Truths appears to have been based on a translation from the Dhammacakka Sutta. Then, on this aforementioned date, someone inserted the following seemingly idiosyncratic four-part commentary:

• This first Noble Truth reflects on the nature of suffering. The word "Dukkha" is usually translated as "suffering" in English. It comments on types of suffering.
• The second Noble Truth reflects on the sources of suffering (Dukkha.) Put very simply, it states that suffering results from expectations linked to our desires, and our attachment to those desires themselves.
• The third Noble Truth reflects on the belief that suffering can be eliminated. It asserts that it can be done, and that it has been done.
• The fourth Noble Truth lays the groundwork for the cessation of suffering (Dukkha) through the Noble Eightfold Path.

Some time afterwards, these personal observations were then re-formatted to appear to be part of the original canonical words and, in fact, additional personal exposition was added to it (e.g., "A more accurate simplification of this truth is 'Life is full of suffering'").

From a scholastic and general WP viewpoint, the main problem with this, especially in its current format, is that it misrepresents what is taken from the cited source (the Samyutta Nikaya, presumably SN 56.11?). Of course, from a Buddhist viewpoint, it's wordsmithing the Buddha's reputed own words. These issues aside, why reiterate what is already said?

So, shortly, I'm going to delete the above-identified commentary. If someone would like to add it back in a manner consistent with basic scholasticism (e.g., perhaps in a separate subsection), I'd welcome that. Any further discussion here -- whether rejecting my action or thoughts here or otherwise -- I, of course, further welcome as well. Best wishes, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 21:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Nearly illegible article

I realise the importance of including buddhist dogma and accurate terms into this article, but the current writing style makes it necessary to have about 5 different buddhist-oriented articles open to get even a loose idea what this one is about. Is this an encyclopedia for people to gain an understanding of buddhism from a relatively low-level start, or a buddhist text for those who are already familiar with the Four Noble Truths?

A large and relatively simple change I would suggest is changing a number of the Indian-origin terms to their English equivalents, and pipelinking them to their indian term articles. For example, instead of the line "The Buddha was a Śramaṇa, a wandering ascetic", why not "The Buddha was a wandering ascetic"?

Simply trying to read the article to get a quick idea of what the four noble truths are does not yield much, since all the truths are listed using the term "dukkha" rather than the English term "suffering". I realise there are differences, but should that not be mentioned as a note, rather than writing the main point of the article using predominately non-English vocabulary? Erk|Talk _{-- I like traffic lights --} 04:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Erk -

Thanks for the sanity check :-)

FWIW, I just got around to checking the cited reference for this article's statement of the Four Noble Truths (Bodhi, 2000, p. 1844) and I see that the referenced text actually uses the word "suffering," not "dukkha." So, given that this is a cited blockquote, I'll change it to correctly reflect what is in the source text.

Tangentially, this article has one of the more convoluted "References" section I've seen. For instance, to figure out what the current footnote 6 is, I have to go to the top of the Reference section to see that "SN" is "Samyutta Nikaya" (no surprise there) and then figure out that this refers to yet another footnote (in this case, 13) which identifies the SN edition used is the Bodhi (2000) text. Given that the well-intentioned and undoubtably smart editor who instituted this version of the "References" has not logged in since January 27, 2007, I hope no one minds if I simply go ahead and modify the current "References" to resemble the frequently used "Notes"+"References" style of many WP articles (especially since many notes will reference the same text but different pages). If so, please free to revert and discuss here, of course.

As for the choice of Indian words in this article's intro, I'll leave that for someone else to address (since I've not had anything to do with that portion of this article). Erk, I can appreciate what you are saying though.

With metta, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 04:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Your right I haven't logged in for a while. Actually I recently disrobed and will no longer be logging in as Bhikkhu Silaveda (not my real ordination name anyway). I appreciate the tidying of the references and all the wise contributions of Mr. Rosenfeld. Sunfirejake 14:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The appreciation is reciprocated — welcome back to the WP! I very much appreciate your sensitivity to and wisdom about the Dhamma and look forward to your future contributions. Best regards, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 18:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

To whom it may concern: I'm posting here as anonymous. While I appreciate all the information contained within this 'Four Noble Truths' entry, it is not easy to read. For the 'Theravada approach', present a section on the 'Theravada approach'. For the 'Mahayana approach', present a section on the 'Mahayana approach'. The general overall layout of this page temporarily increased my 'dukkha'. Rather have something at the front saying 'dukkha' is equal to suffering, with a link, rather than reading 'dukkha' repeatedly. Buddha didn't speak English, I do, and would like to understand what the man was trying to teach. Thanks, signed anonymously ignorant but interested, 06-23-13 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.164.174.116 (talk) 15:47, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Simplicity

Can I just add that I would seriously encourage future editors not to try to represent these Four Noble Truths in a casual paraphrased way, this is such a contraversial topic and any effort, however well-intentioned, to interpret these teachings to the newbie, would always incorporate some bias. Perhaps one day there will be another article which comprehensively covers the interpretations; but out of respect for each other lets keep it out of this head article. Sunfirejake 15:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Mahayana understanding

The whole section is source to a book by Tony Page published by Nirvana Publications. Tony Page has a PhD in literature and no qualifications regarding Buddhism, can we have information about Nirvana Publications? Another Tony Page book is published by UKAVIS which Tony Page appears to have founded, i.e. this book is self-published.

A book written by an unqualified person and self-published is clearly not a reliable source. Someone please justify this material. Mitsube (talk) 05:41, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

This article does not actually state what the truths are

It just waffles on about their interpretations and other stuff. 82.28.92.99 (talk) 16:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

---

I agree with this anonymous commenter. I propose that a very common aim of the interested-but-as-yet uninformed visitor to the page (e.g. me) is to get an answer to questions of the form "What is the Nth Noble Truth?". However, the current wording in the "Basic teaching" section -- which is where most beginners will look for a quick summary -- gives answers to questions of (roughly) the form "What is the title of the Nth Noble Truth?"

I tried to help this when I added the following:

"In the simplest terms, the Four Noble Truths may be stated as follows:

  1. Suffering exists (i.e. it is not simply our imagination)
  2. Suffering is caused by attachment to desires
  3. Suffering can be ended by ending that attachment
  4. A way to achieve that ending of attachment is to follow what is known as the Noble Eightfold Path"

But it was undone. Now I'm new to Wikipedia editing (and completely unschooled in Buddhism) so I'm willing to accept that it was not appropriate. However, I think that what I was trying to do really needs to be done. I'm sure that there are volumes to be written as to why my "simplest terms" is not a fully accurate version of the Four Noble Truths. But I didn't make them up on the spot. I based them on numerous interpretations I could find, and then made them as succinct as possible without losing the intended effect of providing simplicity-for-a-beginner.

Does this make sense? Is it reasonable? If so, could someone more experienced/knowledgeable offer some words to achieve what I was trying, only in a Wikipedia-acceptable way? Thanks Thomask0 (talk) 12:30, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Mahayana Buddhism and the 4NT

Mahayana Buddhism regards them as a preliminary teaching for people not ready for its own teachings. (ref:Harvey (1990), p. 92.)

This is just way too reductive, and not even true. In the MMK, Nagarjuna uses the 4NT to demonstrate the teaching of Buddha. The 4NT are just as central and important to the Mahayana in general as they are to any other group of Buddhists. I agree that there are some Mahayana schools who may wish to downplay the 4NT, but they would be a distinct minority. 20040302 (talk) 13:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing Mahayana about the MMK, actually. Some scholars have written that, since it is the only text that can be conclusively attributed to Nagarjuna, he may not have been a Mahayanist himself. Mitsube (talk) 03:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

See also the heart sutra. 20040302 (talk)

How come the article did not include an exact translation?

Though "Four Noble Truths" is the popularly accepted translation, it actually translates to "Four Aryan Truths". This is significant to scholars of early India and the Vedas, so I've added the literal translation to the article.Flygongengar (talk) 00:48, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Misunderstandings

This section is unreferenced and reads like original research, so I marked it. Kaelfischer (talk) 23:00, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Limitation of applicability

The teaching of the Four Noble Truths is limited to attachment to desires which cause sufferings. There is however, a different category of desires, which do not cause sufferings, but rather constitute good causes for enlightenment. The basic human desire to learn, desire for helping others, compassionate desires, desires to protect others, desire to benefit society, desire to teach the Dharma and ultimately the desire to attain Buddhahood - these are desires for which the teaching of the Four Noble Truths simply does not apply, because they cause joy, not sufferings, and it is not possible to eradicate them. SafwanZabalawi (talk) 04:37, 1 November 2010 (UTC)SafwanZabalawiSafwanZabalawi (talk) 04:37, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Duality in the concept of the Four Noble Truths

The strict focus of the Four Noble Truths on the sole element of “suffering in daily life” is basically inconsistent with the principle of non-separation (and non-duality) of all phenomena. As a fact, sufferings express only one side of human experience. According to Nichiren, neither sufferings nor joy really constitute the essence of one’s life. The Ultimate Truth of life is the Middle way. It is the truth of Temporary Existence (of both sufferings and joy) and the Interconnectedness of all Phenomena, being the Dharma or the Wonderful Law: “Regard both suffering and joy as facts of life, and continue chanting Nam-myoho-renge-kyo. no matter what happens. How could this be anything other than the boundless joy of the Law?” WND 1 p 681

Nichiren’s explanation in the above passage (that both sufferings and joy are facts of life), constitutes a Mahayana view on life, based on the Lotus Sutra. Furthermore, with the power of the Dharma, sufferings in daily life can be transformed into enlightenment. SafwanZabalawi (talk) 04:43, 1 November 2010 (UTC)SafwanZabalawiSafwanZabalawi (talk) 04:43, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

The problem with these statements, and the content you have added, is that information in an encyclopedia must be verifiable. Otherwise it is just POV and your own interpretation. If you say "The Lotus Sutra views the Four Nobles Truths as...", then that is problematic. Readers often have various interpretations, so statements regarding views on doctrine should be qualified, especially if they may be controversial. Tengu800 (talk) 02:00, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. There is a difference between an "interpretation of a statement" and the original "statement itself". I did not write the Lotus Sutra. The quoted statements of the Lotus Sutra are in their original form as delivered to us through generations. The Sutra is clear about the superiority of the Dharma (Wonderful Law of Lotus) to all other teachings of the past, mentioning in particular the Four Noble Truths by name. The Sutra introduces the concept of Joy of the Dharma, as opposed to "all is Suffering". Similarly : the quoted statement of Nichiren, who is followed by millions of believers, are not my own comments. In his teachings, he clarifies that the Four Noble Truths was a doctrine expounded for a certain group of the Buddha's followers. The other statement of Nichiren that : "regard BOTH Sufferings & Joy as facts of life" - this is not my own comment - it is an original statement from a historical document written by his hand. What you kindly mentioned that :"statements regarding views on doctrine should be qualified" - raises the question: qualified by what authority? I am qualified to comprehend as I acknowledge also your views with respect. Buddhist dialogue is an exchange of insight and search for enlightenment within, and I wish to learn from you and from others on this and on other subjects. 27.33.207.182 (talk) 12:52, 2 November 2010 (UTC)SafwanZabalawi27.33.207.182 (talk) 12:52, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Specifically, qualified and spoken by a reliable source on the matter. For example, the views of a Buddhist scholar, or a historical figure. If they are the views of a historical or sectarian figure, then the views can be associated with that figure. Otherwise Wikipedia just devolves into the interpretations of contributors, which cannot be verified by a third party. Buddhism by its nature is highly interpretive, and an example of this is the interpretation you have given of the Four Noble Truths being different from that of the view widely held in some other forms of Buddhism such as Theravada. Even in India there was quite a bit of disagreement about these things. This is why it is doubly important that statements about doctrinal interpretations are verifiable. It makes the quality of the encyclopedia better and strengthens the material. Views by others who also use the Lotus Sutra may be quite different, as well. For example, the Tiantai school just views the Four Noble Truths, and the Agamas in general, as skillful means and not representative of the ultimate truth. A provisional teaching, if you will. I'm not aware of their acceptance of any transcendent quality to the truths themselves. This school is also based on the Lotus Sutra, and the Nichiren school may even be viewed as a derivative of this school. From this example as well, we can see that views cannot be ascribed to a text itself. That would qualify it as original research, which is discouraged, and can be flagged or removed by others. Tengu800 (talk) 23:23, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

What you kindly mentioned, Tengu, strongly supports enriching this Wikipedia article about the Four Noble Truths with a variety of sources, and not only the one and only Theravada interpretations.

You rightly brought "Other Teachings on the Doctrine" (which are in fact still missing in the Article) - such as Tendai school of Buddhism teachings about the subject (actually the article still ignores all Lotus Sutra schools of Buddhism teachings on the subject).

To research and include the whole spectrum of sources is important not only because it is an essential Wikipedia requirement for articles to be impartial - but because Buddhist doctrines are shared among all schools and are not a private property of one school only. It would be lacking neutrality to disregard the statement found in the Lotus Sutra and attributed to Shakyamuni Buddha – as all other sutras you quote. You cannot ask for more reliable statements as the ones attributed to the Buddha. As for your requirement of a "qulaified scholar": it would be a bias to refuse to include statements on the subject by such remarkable scholar of Buddhism such as Nichiren (whose huge volume of published works and valid-today teachings are recognised world wide by millions of practitioners).

Tengu, may I kindly stress this point and repeat that Wiki rules about research require including diverse sources on the subject. This was missing in the Article, which focused only on the Theravada sources and interpretations, and hence its research was limited and incomplete. Please consider what other participants in this Discussion mentioned earlier about missing the Mahayana teachings about this doctrine. You kindly brought an important point, that Tendai Buddhism teaches that the Four Noble Truths are preparatory in nature and not ultimate. This an essential matter but which is still missing from the text of the Article, and as you have brought it to this Discussion, please also include it in the Article.

Apparently you are not convinced that the Lotus Sutra's part should be removed, but you have implied that the Lotus Sutra's teachings about the subject may be "removed by others". I am decided to follow this eventuality up within Wikipedia on whether monopoly on information is accepted. I can also start eventualy a separate Article on "The Four Noble Truths in the Lotus Sutra". Respectfully:202.0.106.130 (talk) 01:29, 3 November 2010 (UTC)SafwanZabalawi202.0.106.130 (talk) 01:29, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

The matter has nothing to do with rejecting the Lotus Sutra, but rather about Wikipedia contributors interpreting doctrines. Your additions also include terms such as "Wonderful Law" which reflect a writing style inappropriate for an encyclopedia article, which must be written in a careful and neutral style.

Wikipedia:No original research

Wikipedia:Verifiability

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view

Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources

Tengu800 (talk) 02:22, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Tengu, I think you misunderstand Wikipedia rules; /1/ The "No Original Research" does not mean you cannot quote from an original source, such as the text of the Bible, Old Testament, Lotus Sutra or Dharmacakra Pravartana Sutra. /2/ The text you encouraged to be deleted is completely verifiable in 2 forms: one as an official website of a Buddhist school (Nichiren Shu) and the other form is a published book by a world known translator of the Sutra. /3/ You are not adhering to the rule of being neutral by deleting or encouraging to delete an impartial text attributed to the Buddha. All Sutras, whether Theravada and Mahayana are just attributed to the Buddha. One cannot quote from one Sutra and refuse quotes from another Buddhist Sutra.The article WITHOUT the Lotus Sutra teaching on the subject is NOT NEUTRAL but biased, deliberately avoiding its recorded teachings on the subject /5/ Wikipedia requires the Article to include "Other Teachings and Other Sources about the same subject" supported by identifiable and reliable sources and my sources were: The words of the Buddha in the Lotus Sutra and the statments of Nichiren in his documented letters.

As for the word " wonderful Law " well,Tengu, it is not my invention. The word "wonderful Law" was not introduced by myself but by the text attributed to the Buddha. The word "wonderful" was an exact quote from the world-wide acknowledged translation of the Lotus Sutra, not my personal opinion or view. It is like the Bible- for example -saying "the Great" god or "splendid heaven'. These are poetic words from the original text and thus they cannot be judged as anti Wikipedia. (I will pursue this further with a question to Wikipedia).

For your knowledge: The original word (character) of the"Law of Lotus" :is "MYO" which has 2 meanings: "Mystic" and also "Wonderful". The translator used the word "Wonderful".

I am respectfully trying to resolve these issues with consensus, and asking you to kindly consider that deleting the Lotus Sutra's teaching about the subject is exactly like deleting quotes from Theravada Sutra or the Bible etc...and is considered as an act of vandalism and disrespect to a historical document revered by millions of people. For this reason I will return the deleted part. SafwanZabalawi (talk) 06:13, 3 November 2010 (UTC)SafwanZabalawiSafwanZabalawi (talk) 06:13, 3 November 2010 (UTC) .....................................

About the section entitled "The Four Noble Truths and the Lotus Sutra", I believe it would be more informative if we would add something like: "In Mahayana Buddhism the Four Noble Truths do not have the same importance as in the Theravada school". But I am not knowledgeable enough to do this, with an appropriate reference. --Robert Daoust (talk) 13:36, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

.............................. Thank you Robert for the suggestion. I think the generalisation of all Mahayana as having the same view on the Four Noble Truths as the Lotus based schools is not consistent with the reality of the situation. Zen, for example is a Mahayana school, but they advocate rather exactly the same teaching as the Theravada here about this subject. The same with the Tibetan Buddhism, a Mahayana branch - but has similar acceptance of the Four Noble Truths as the essential teaching of Buddhism. The Amida school does not seem to focus at all on the subject. In reality it seems that only the Lotus Sutra stated its view that the Four Noble Truths as mere preparatory doctrine, being the first but not the final teaching of the Buddha, and that the "Law of the Lotus" (of transformation into Buddhahood in one's present form) - is the ultimate truth. So it seems appropriate to keep the view of each school or branch stated by internet participants-followers of the Buddha within that branch of Mahayana, rather than generalising. Respectfully. 27.33.207.113 (talk) 11:02, 6 November 2010 (UTC)SafwanZabalawi27.33.207.113 (talk) 11:02, 6 November 2010 (UTC) ...................................

Then, it would be nice to have some sentences describing how various Buddhist schools consider the Four Noble Truths. --Robert Daoust (talk) 03:33, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

................................. Agree, Robert. But quotes and references are needed. I know for example that generally speaking Zen lectures on the 4 N Truths but Amida Buddhism does not see that the 4 N Truths is central to their practice. The best thing is to have a practitioner who would supply reliable references and documented statements. Maybe in time this will happen. Freedom of expression is welcome - of course within the acknowledged rules of the Wikipedia.

What is confusing for many people about the whole subject is the distinction between the Four Basic Sufferings (of Birth, Sickness, Old Age and Death) and the sufferings originating from Attachment to Desires and Craving. The 4 basic sufferings every single one experiences are not caused by his/her craving or attachment to anything, These basic sufferings are just part of life (as it is). Who craves or desires for Sickness? Old Age? or Death? No one. So these 4 basic Sufferings are not what the Noble truths are speaking about, being Attachment (to Desires and false beliefs or Illusions).

In the Definition of the 4 N Truths of this Article there is no clarity to distinguish between the concepts of Sufferings arising from natural existence (4 basic) and those caused by one's responsibility of being enslaved to Desires and Illusions- (and those should be of course cut out). But I did not want to edit that as I don't want to go into details, which may create disharmony, however, I think that the proper forum for exchnage of opinion on this subject is here in this Discussion. 27.33.205.168 (talk) 12:06, 9 November 2010 (UTC)SafwanZabalawi27.33.205.168 (talk) 12:06, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Nichiren’s Buddhism and the teaching of the Eightfold Path

The fourth of the Four Noble Truths teaches that the path to emancipation is found in the Eightfold Path to Nirvana. (Briefly: The Eightfold Path is a “code of conduct” of the following aspects: maintaining right views, right thinking, speech, action, tendency, mindfulness and meditation).

Aparently, these particular aspects of practitioner's conduct - which are mentioned in the Eightfold Path - are manifestations of one’s Buddha nature, and expressions of one's enlightened behaviour in reality. The totality of the Eightfold Path comprises the “Effect” of revealing one’s Buddha nature in reality. Through revealing one’s Buddha nature in what Nichiren describes as the "Direct Path to Enlightenment” would ensure manifestation of all valuable characteristics of the Eightfold Path.

http://www.sgilibrary.org/view.php?page=3&m=3&q=direct%20path%20to%20enlightenment

SafwanZabalawi (talk) 06:38, 3 November 2010 (UTC)SafwanZabalawiSafwanZabalawi (talk) 06:38, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Correction to the Article needed

I am not a Theravada Buddhist but I have respect to all and here : to the person(s) who wrote the Article on the Four Noble Truths. But the mentioned definition of the doctrine is based on one sutra which translator(s) deliberately avoided mentioning the CAUSE of suffering (which is : Attachment to Desires, or Craving):http://www.thebigview.com/buddhism/fourtruths.html.

This weakens the Buddha's teaching and makes him unable to explain why sufferings arise. What the Article mentions is that the cause of suffering is the accumulation of sufferings - which does not give any meaningful information, because it implies that the cause of suffering is suffering!!!

Why not record all views where the Cause of Suffering is mentioned as Attachment to Desires? Mentioning all various views on the subject is a healthy sign and is a cause for broadmindedness and acknowledgement of knowledge into deeper sources.

I did not want to correct the Article by myself. Of course, I can bring other Theravada explanations which include the word "desire' or "attachment to desires", but I respectfully leave this to the person who included only one (and ambiguous definition of the Four Noble Truths), to mention that the Cause of Suffering is Attachment to Desires (rather than only one view that sufferings are caused by accumulation of sufferings!). 27.33.207.113 (talk) 02:34, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Elimination or Transformation?

The Buddha's aim was to help people aspire to and attain enlightenment. For the sake of ordinary people - who were immersed in daily life of desires and lack of hope for changing their destiny - he taught them first to aspire to a pure land after this suffering-filled life, giving them hope. Unlike ordinary people who could not leave their dailylife activities, but who were ready to denounce the secular life, monks and nuns who followed and listened to the Buddha (Voice-Heares, Saravaka disciples), he taught them the Four Noble Truths: that first they must be free from being controlled by their desires, and cut their attachment. Attachment to desires is the cause of sufferings, because it means that one is controlled by inner illusions and by the environment. "Elimination of Desires" is not possible, bcause the Buddha followers must had the desire to listen and follow the Buddha, and the desire for emancipation.

Negative desires, such as Greed, Jealousy, Arrogance, Foolishness....which control one's mind become like metallic chains imprisoning the true nature of the person and creating sufferings for self and others. The Buddha taught that the Elimination of this foolish Attachment to this chains of desires - this is possible. And He prepared his followers to lift their aspirations in a noble way of conduct (The Eightfold Path) to be free from being controlled by inner or external negative influences.

When they became ready to receive the final Dharma which can make them Buddhas, in the Lotus Sutra, the Buddha taught (not the elimination of desires themselves but) the Transformation of desires: Like the Lotus in the pond, which Transforms dirt and mud (fundamental darkness, illusions & sufferings) into beauty, meaning and benefit to people (Enlightenment). The Law of the Lotus is that of Transformation rather than Elimination.

SafwanZabalawi27.33.207.113 (talk) 02:34, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Breaking the Cycle of Birth and Death

The "definition" given in the Article for the Four Noble Truths clearly inicates (in the third N. Truth) the need to have motivation or to use one's desire or urge for eliminating craving for "renewed existence". All people accept that there is no meaning to get reborn again and again in the same circumstances of suffering and sufferings and sufferings all over since birth till death.

The expression "renewed existence" here means "renewed existence in the realm of sufferings" - because to exclusivelly define "existence" as "sufferings" is a biased thinking and a focus on the negative side of life. This biased interpretation (of Life=Sufferings) runs against Buddhist doctrine of non-duality. Non-duality demands recognition of the "negation of Sufferings" as well, and not mentioning just one side of the coin.

In Mahayana Buddhism, the aspiration of a Buddha's follower is to reach Enlightenment (and not to esacpe rebirth, as the Article's definition of the 4 N.Truths implies ).

First, it is lack of compassion to escape rebirth or exterminate one's life (or stop the possibility to get reborn - IF that is at all possible) leaving the world but having full knowledge that other people are suffering there, and in great need of help.

The "Save yourself" principle is understood in Mahayana as "Save yourself through saving others". This introduces the Bodhisattva spirit of aspiration to Buddhahood and to helping others transform their sufferings and lead a meaningful life.

Mahayana Buddhism introduces the concept of the "Ten Worlds of existence", or "the whole spectrum of life" of individual. As we observe in reality: there are states of sufferings, there are states of life which are neither sufferings nor joy (such as tranquility, neutrality...) and their are states of life full of joy in helping others and aspiring to Enlightenment. The Four Noble Truths of Theravada relate to one part only - which is the field of attachement to sufferings. Mahayana accepts this as one part of existence in which people are imprisoned in their sufferings - but opens the way for the higher states of Life being: Learning the Dharma, Reaching Insight, Bodhisattva compassion and becoming a Buddha.

Once one reached these higher levels of existence (in which sufferings can be transformed and stop being an obstacle) then one creates the Karma of meeting the Buddha's teachings (Dharma) in every rebirth. Every rebirth will be associated with good circumstances, where he/she would dedicate one's life to helping others experiencing satsifaction in carrying out the Buddha's wish to save people. To interpret the Buddha's teaching as escapism from exitence and from helping people who are desparte for the Buddha's teachings life time after life time, this is an interpretation which contradict the Buddha's compassionate desire to save people (not to exterminate people).

Mahyana leades to breaking the Cycle of continual rebirth in the realms of sufferings. Accumulating good karmic causes in this life, one becomes free from being controlled by "only sufferings" states. Mahayana schools differ in how to achieve this goal and how long it takes. In case of The Lotus Sutra - this is achieved in this lifetime in one's present form. The Lotus is taken here as a symbol for the Power of Transformation of life's hardships (and for the pure renewal of one's life) in an eternal journey of enlightenment and helping others.

SafwanZabalawi (talk) 02:21, 9 November 2010 (UTC)SafwanzabalawiSafwanZabalawi (talk) 02:21, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Changed the article

I've changed the article, mostly the order of the (sub)sections. Various bits of information are grouped in appropriate sections, to give more coherence to the article. Three version sof the For Noble Truths are listed: the Pali, which is the classic one; an abreviated (western) one, which is probably the best known version in the west; and a text-critocal interpretation, which makes sense of 'desire leads to suffering'. Also, I changed the notes and references, to get neat appendices. I hope the article has improved this way. Friendly regards, Joshua Jonathan (talk) 08:00, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Joshua, Kudos for all of your effort, and for your cleanup of the notes and references. This article definitely needs some TLC. I've just added an overview section to help put the teaching on the FNT in context. Regarding the current state of the article, this "abbreviated Western" version of the FNT (which was already in the article before your editing work) is actually very poorly sourced. It's from a website with no name, and there is no indication who the translator is. It is, in my opinion, a misleading oversimplification of the Four Noble Truths. There are plenty of good, reliable translations by well-respected translators, so there is no need to include an over-simplified, anonymous translation. So I will plan on removing that translation and replacing it with a more traditional translation in the next few days. (This is no reflection on your editing, since as I mentioned, that translation was already there.) Generally speaking, finding sources for Buddhist topics on the web is a hit or miss proposition. There is some very good material, but also a lot of dubious material--a lot of misunderstanding and inaccuracies. Best regards, Dorje108 (talk) 02:21, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Dorje108. I totally agree it's an oversimplification. But it's also a widespread translation & simplification, so it might be useful if it is mentioned, to show what a difference various translations can make. PS: you gave two different publication-years for Walpola Rahula (1974/2007)Joshua Jonathan (talk) 08:25, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I've added two sections: "Brief description", intended for a general audience, and "Summaries", presenting different summaries used for the four truths. p.s. I found using the citation "group" tag to be cumbersome, so I left using that tag. - Dorje108 (talk) 20:08, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Dorje108. I put the Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta back to the beginning of the article. I admire the amount of quotes, but I also find them somewhat confusing. The Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta is the best-known statement of the Four Noble Truths; it seems to me that this should be in the beginning, not the opninions of commentators on the Four Noble Truths. The Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta provides a summary introduction; after that, elaborations may follow (but I do feel a little bit unconfortable changing the order of your changes, after all the work you undoubtedly put into it...) Joshua Jonathan (talk) 17:16, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Joshua, Thanks for clarifying your edits. I am sure that your edits are made in good faith. Here are some points for you to consider, which I also offer in good faith:

• Firstly, the Wikipedia (WP) guidelines recommend using secondary sources. See Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Primary.2C_secondary.2C_and_tertiary_sources; I am copying this section here as well:

Main page: Wikipedia:No original research § Primary, secondary and tertiary sources

Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources.

Tertiary sources such as compendia, encyclopedias, textbooks, obituaries, and other summarizing sources may be used to give overviews or summaries, but should not be used in place of secondary sources for detailed discussion. Although Wikipedia articles are tertiary sources, Wikipedia employs no systematic mechanism for fact checking or accuracy. Because Wikipedia forbids original research, there is nothing reliable in it that isn't citable with something else. Thus Wikipedia articles (or Wikipedia mirrors) are not reliable sources for any purpose.

Primary sources are often difficult to use appropriately. While they can be both reliable and useful in certain situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research. Material based purely on primary sources should be avoided. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.

• I think the commentaries that I have quoted from are very good sources. They are from published authors, scholars and translators who are experts in their field.
• I think there are a lot of misunderstandings about the Four Noble Truths and Buddhism in general. That's why it's important to rely on these secondary sources, as per Wikipedia guidelines.
• As noted in my citations, the Four Noble Truths (FNT) are a topic that was taught repeatedly by the Buddha; he gave many clarifications on this topic. That's why it's preferable to rely on these secondary sources (as per WP guidelines)--because many of these sources (especially the Pali translators) will have studied all of these teachings on this topic, as well as having the studied the topic in detail with their teachers.
• When you say "he Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta is the best-known statement of the Four Noble Truths", isn't that just your opinion? "Best-known" to who? :)
• When you say, "not the opninions of commentators on the Four Noble Truths", I think your contradicting the WP guidelines. I actually was careful to only choose sources that are well-respected in their field, and I made sure to choose sources from the two main traditions of Buddhism: Theravada and Mahayana. I think the article could benefit from a broader range of sources (particularly from a scholar like Robert Gethin), but I've used what I have available at the moment.
• I understand the urge to want to go to the primary source (i.e. the sutras), but the problem is that it is easy to misunderstand or misinterpret the primary sources without the proper context. Ten different people might have ten different opinions on the same primary source, and this just makes it difficult to reach a consensus on anything. Hence, the WP guidelines to rely on secondary source.
• Specifically regarding this topic on the Four Noble Truths, it seems to be a common misconception that the first teaching of the Buddha is the only significant teaching on this topic. That was actually my concept before I did the research for this article. But the Buddha actually taught the topic many times, as the sources indicate. Hence the importance of the commentaries, which take into account all of the clarifications that the Buddha gave on this topic over many years.

Please consider these points and let me know if they change your point of view. My understanding of the WP guidelines was part of my rational for presenting the material in the order that I did. (I'm not saying my presentation was perfect, but I think the precedence given to the secondary sources is consistent with WP guidelines.) I appreciate your explanation of your edits and I hope my points are helpful. Best regards, Dorje108 (talk) 18:25, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

p.s. Having said all of the above, on reflection, I think it is OK to put the quote from the first teaching at the beginning of the article, but it needs to be put in context. All for now. Best regards, Dorje108 (talk) 19:31, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

p.p.s. Apologies for sounding overly critical. I think the collaboration will improve the article in the long run. Unfortunately, I'll only have a limited amount of time to put into this in the coming days. Best, Dorje108 (talk) 20:35, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

p.p.p.s. Just another note: Upon further reflection, I think the section you titled "Four Noble Truths" actually flows nicely, and the placement is fine. I would suggest moving the section "Explanation..." just under this. But I need to take a break for a while, so I'll leave this to your discretion. I think we are on the right track overall. Best regards, Dorje108 (talk) 02:23, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Wow! I love it when someone takes the Discussion Page seriously! You're not overly critical. I like it when there's room for discussion and exchange of information. And indeed, my alterations are also made in good faith. I was hesitating to make changes, and I have considered to first just propose those changes, but then I thought that just showing them would be clearer.

• I see your point on the "secundary sources", though I also think it's not just my opinion on the 'primacy' of the Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta. It's the source that I've seen most used when the Four Noble Truths are explained. It's also older than the Mahaparinibbana Sutta or the secondary sources, of course. But you're right that there are many statements of the FNB.
• My problem with quoting so many secondary sources, is that it is just so much. Of course it's also the way I read a text, looking for a quick overview, but to me it's like "Okay, where's the essence? What are those FNB?" Imagine a moderate 17 year old High School student, who finds out there's more to Buddhism than just this saintly Buddha and meditation. What does he or she read when finding this page? It seems to me that a short list should be the start, for this reason.
• My second point (and now I'm going to contradict he first point, as you'll probably notice), is that translation and interpretation is so important when the FNB are presented. The difference between "cessation of suffering" or "containment of unease" is huge. The first translation/interpretation is quite common, but also misleading - if the second one is 'right' or 'better'. I prefer the second one, but that's my preference. But for this reason, I think it's very important to show right away that it's possible to read various meanings and interpretations into the Pali words, so readers can make up their own minds. Where-after those various interpretations are offered indeed.
• Mixing these two points: what is primary, and what is secondary, regarding the FNB? They are given in the (Pali) canon; all translations, explanations and commentaries are dependent on this source. Do the FNB truths exist as a "thing" separate from the text? It seems to me that we can't avoid first mentioning the original, which are the four Pali-terms, and then the translations & interpretations. In this regard, best would be to give the Pali-text (but this would definately not attract our 17-year old High School student, would it?) Even the translation of the Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta isn't "the real stuff", but a translation and therefore an interpretation.
• I'll give it a try, putting "Explanation" right under the pali terms + meanings.
• I'll also try to find the Pali Text, see if it says "nirodha" or "dukkha nirodha" etc.
• I've got one other suggestion: instead of "X says", how about a very short introduction for each quote, for example "Bikkhu Bodhi explains this 'medical model' as follows:". It gives the reader a quick overview of what's following in the quote.

Friendly regards, Joshua Jonathan (talk) 06:28, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I've changed the order again, but also put "Centrality" after the FNB-terms, so that those form the 'kick-start' of the article. I removed the last sub-section, "FNB in Buddhism". This subsection seemed like some kind of appendix now, out of line with the rest. The Lotus I moved to the other two sutras. And some minor changes, as you'll notice. But i'm not sure yet; to my opinion the textual accounts should follow after the the intriduction of the FNB. But now it's your turn again. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 06:55, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta

Okay, it's kind of trying out what works best. See this version where only the pali terms + possible translations are being mentioned first, and the texts later. There is a 'traditional argument' to mention the Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta first: it's regarded as the Buddha's first sermon. Now it's really your turn again! Joshua Jonathan (talk) 07:37, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Pali terms

Can't help rereading and thinking it over again, so I moved the Pali terms to the Explanation, since this is an explanantion too. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 08:47, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Looking better and better, IMO. Sunray (talk) 09:22, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks :) Joshua Jonathan (talk) 09:37, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Joshua, I agree--it's looking good! I encourage you to keep editing as you see fit while you are focused on this. Don't feel the need to explain your edits on my behalf. I see where you are going with this and it looks good to me. I will be able to focus on this on the weekend, and I'll either try to build on your edits or offer constructive feedback. A couple of more points:

• I particularly agree with your point of keeping in mind a "17 year old high school student". I think that is the best approach.
• I think your idea of a short explanation for each quote is exactly the way to go. I think what I have provided is something like a skeleton, and there is a lot of fleshing out to do.
• Thanks Sunray for your input. :)

Best regards, Dorje108 (talk) 01:57, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I almost forgot--the Mahayana sutras actually present the first teaching slightly differently. But this point can be presented in the section now called "Textual accounts". There is a very nice translation by Thich Naht Hahn of the Mahayana version. I'll try and get this in over the weekend, it just needs to be presented clearly. The meaning is the same (as the Pali text), but the presentation is slightly different. Dorje108 (talk) 02:05, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

p.s. Regarding this point: "Do the FNB truths exist as a "thing" separate from the text? It seems to me that we can't avoid first mentioning the original, which are the four Pali-terms, and then the translations & interpretations." - I think the key is to consider the audience. For a WP audience, I think it's better not to introduce too much Pali in the beginning. All for now. - Best regards, Dorje108 (talk) 04:31, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Recent tags

Tengu800, can you kindly provide some specific reasons for the following two tags so that we can address them:

• Fans point of view
• Previously unpublished synthesis of published material.

Regarding the number of quotes, I think we should first work on fleshing out the article, and then see what it looks like. In any case, I'll try and address that issue separately. Best regards, Dorje108 (talk) 02:19, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree! I'm curious too; what didn't we notice? Groet, Joshua Jonathan (talk) 20:03, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

"Fan's point of view" refers to statements such as "Buddha said this", that the Buddha was enlightened (and this event was "recorded" in the suttas), or that the Mahaparinibbana Sutta existed around his lifetime. These do not really reflect a historical view of the matter, nor the views of modern scholarship. For example, there is no proof from the Buddha's own era that the Buddha even existed, much less that he said certain words in a particular sutta. Much of the article is in the form "_____ states" and then a long quote, which goes against the Wikipedia MOS for quotes (for multiple reasons). There is also improper use of references, with various views strung together without any context, such as the following: 'It has been pictured as the "king of sutras"[31] that "included the essence of all the other teachings"[31], and "downgraded the early discourses as mere fodder for the unintelligent disciples who surrounded the Buddha".[32]' Tengu800 01:56, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Tengu800, thanks for the clarification. I'll try and address these points. A few notes:

• The intention was to say that the first teaching was "recorded", not so much the Buddha's enlightenment. But I see your point and I will clarify.
• Regarding the section on the Lotus Sutra, I think that information is misplaced in this article, anyway; I think it should be moved to the article on the Lotus Sutra.

Best regards, Dorje108 (talk) 02:28, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

p.s. I've made some minor changes. I'll make more changes over the weekend.Dorje108 (talk) 03:06, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Tengu800, thanks for your clarifications. Here are two notes/questions from me:

• I see, on the Lotus Sutra (I put in the "fodder"-quote). But let's not take the whole section out too soon. There is a tendency in Mahayana-Buddhism to downgrade the oldest teachings, while at the same time Mahayana is indebted to it, as far as I can tell from what I know about Zen. Is it relevant to mention this change in opinions/beliefs? Or should the article be confined to the FNB as stated in the oldest sutra's? For the comprehensibility of the article, this might be better.
• And, Tengu800, how about the summing up of different possible translations of the Pali-terms? Is this useful, to your opinion? Or is this getting close to Original Research? I think it is (but I'm the one who expanded this part), but I also think it's useful to show that different translations are possible. And it was Brazier who gave me this insight, so it is backed up.

Groet, Joshua Jonathan (talk) 06:47, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

The basic issue here is Wikipedia:Quotations#Overusing_quotations. If this were solved, then the rest of the article could be organized and cleaned up more easily. Basically, if a quotation is being used, then it should be supported by article prose establishing context, and why the quote is being used in the first place. If possible, quotations should be paraphrased and incorporated in the basic prose of the article, to maintain an encyclopedic style and keep the article clear and succinct. Otherwise an article could just turn into a series of commentaries by various authors, and such an article would never be found in a professionally written encyclopedia.

Regarding the translations of the Pali terms, more information could be added, but the key is that encyclopedia information should be verifiable. As you are writing each sentence of the article, consider: is this a fact? If so, where is the reference? And if this is not a fact but rather some scholar's view, then where is the reference for that, and is this view being attributed to the person in the article?

As a reference, consider the featured article StarCraft. The entire article is clearly and logically organized, is succinct and compact, contains no quotes, and is written in an encyclopedic style with correct use of references. It also includes a lot of factual and verifiable information, rather than the views of individuals. Tengu800 12:48, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Tengu, Thanks for the clarification. Working on this. Best regards, Dorje108 (talk) 15:51, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Quotes

I tried to shorten some quotes; see revision. For matter of politeness, I undid this revision right away. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 07:27, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Centrality of the FNB

I'm wondering: are the FNB "central" to Buddhism? Or is the observation that we are driven by sankhara's central to Buddhism, and are the FNB one formulation of this observation?

FNT are the framework; the point about sanskhara's fits within the second noble truth (IMHO). Dorje108 (talk) 05:11, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

If we say that they are central, and give quotes to substantiate this statement, who's statement is it? 'Buddhisms'? Or the various teachers' who are being quoted?

We really, really need to rely on the commentaries. It's easy to misunderstand the sutras without proper context. The Heart of the Buddha's Teaching, by Thich Nhat Hanh is very good. Dorje108 (talk) 05:11, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I've noticed that the oldest sutra's contain a lot of lists. Often a term in one list refers to another list. And this other list may contain a term which refers back to the first list. Which gives me the impression that those texts and lists are not exactly what we westerners know as 'objective science', but teaching devices, heuristical tools. Therefore, maybe, just maybe, presenting the FNB as they are plainly presented in the sutra's is also interpretation. But, that's my impression; I haven't got any source to substantiate this impression. Actually, this is still about the FNB as a "thing", or as a 'specific construction'. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 07:07, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

See the different explanations/definitions for kleshas. Those lists are flexible. I'll respond to some of your other comments tomorrow. Best regards, Dorje108 (talk) 05:11, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Nice that you respond to these remarks. I've already considered to remove them, being more like a 'stream of thought' than clear remarks. I recognize your remark "We really, really need to rely on the commentaries". But I think it's good to be aware that the commentaries too are primary sources, and the use of them in Wikipedia is influenced by personal preferences. I dare say that, because I've got my own preferences too, in the Zen-branch. It's tricky; see for example Japanese Zen#Zen Narratives. This section reflects sholarly research on Zen-history, but is also reflects my own preferences. Which do attract opposition! So where's the border between "fact", "scholarly opinion", and "personal preference"? I think it might be good to mention those commentaries as being commentaries or "specific teacher's teachings", no matter how valued and trustworthy they are (see also the section below, on secondary and primary sources). In that case, they are being mentioned, readers can pick them up and study them further, but it also keeps in line then with Wiki-standards. The first Rahula-quote ("The heart") is excellent in this respect: it underscores the afore-mentioned information, it gives further information on the Buddha's first discourse, and it gives a strong recommendation for further study. Great! Fact, opinion and personal preference together, in a relevant and clearly referenced quote. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 06:35, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I also really like the Rahula quote! Glad to hear a second opinion on that. :) Dorje108 (talk) 16:45, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Secondary or primary sources?

I've been thinking over and over the "secondary sources". Actually, I think that teachers are primary sources. They represent a certain interpretation of the Buddhist teachings, with the aim of aiding people in their effort to better their lifes. It's not the same as gathering data and giving an overview of them. See John McRae (2005), Introduction to Dumoulin, Heinrich (2005), Zen Buddhism: A History. Volume 1: India and China. World Wisdom Books. John McRae regards Dumoulin's scholarly works on Zen-Buddhism as a primary source, since it reflects a specific and selective interpretation of Zen. Very interesting and thought-provoking stuff - see, here surface my preferences. Hey, succes! Keep up the good works! And thanks for the exchange of views and ideas Joshua Jonathan (talk) 06:35, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

These are all good points. Just a couple of quick points in response:

• Part of my meaning was in emphasizing the commentaries over the sutra--I think that was clear.
• Any secondary source, whether we call it a commentary or otherwise, is necessarily going to represent one writer's perspective. Hence the importance of establishing whether or not the writer/commentator is respected in their field.
• If you are able read a number of commentaries by the most established writers, you get a very clear sense of where the all agree, and I think that should be the basis of this article. I think it can be interesting to note differences, but that can be done after explaining the basic concepts.
• Not all commentaries are equal:
  • Some writers, like Thich Nhat Hanh for example, have been incredibly successful in conveying these basic concepts in Buddhism to millions of people. Some weight has to be given to that.
  • Some writers, like Bikkhu Bodhi, are extraordinary translators, having translated a huge number of Pali sutras.
  • Rupert Gethin's book, The Foundations of Buddhism, is used as a textbook for classes on Buddhism in a number of universities, indicating that he is highly respected in his field.
• So for the purposes of this article, it makes sense to be guided by the commentaries that have already been written and shown to be successful in presenting these concepts to a large audience in a way that can be understood. In other words, we don't need to re-invent the wheel, and it would be foolish to try. :)

Anyway, I am going to focus on the quotes today--paraphrasing or putting into perspective. Best, Dorje108 (talk) 16:45, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Nibbana

By the way: I like the rice-quote on Nibbana. It was helpfull and insightfull for me. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 07:55, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Very glad to here this! :) Best, Dorje108 (talk) 16:45, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

p.s. Since this is all part of one discussion, I have been changing the "level" of the topics headings for this thread.

Sure, fine with me. I'm already using the history-button to see what's been added to the discussion... We're using a lot of space, aren't we? Joshua Jonathan (talk) 08:59, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Related articles: dukkha, etc.

It would make sense to have an article on each noble truth, e.g. dukkha, samudaya, etc., where the etymology and other issues can be explained. The article on dukkha could really use an overhaul. I've done some light editing on this article, but it currently contains a lot of original research.

The articles for samudaya and nirodha currently redirect back to the article on the FNT. It could be useful to have separate articles for these topics. Maybe? Dorje108 (talk) 16:55, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Recent updates

Hi Joshua, I tried re-ordering the sections again. I really think the "Introduction" needs to go at the top to set up what follows. I'll work on the intro to try and improve it a little.

The section "Brief explanations" should hopefully be "brief." The idea is to have a brief section for each truth (providing a concise explanation), with a link to a main article or more information, as appropriate. I'll work on these sections as well.

This new ordering is fine with me too. Though I won't promise that I'm not going to try out another ordering again, if some idea pops up in my mind :) Joshua Jonathan (talk) 08:59, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I have serious doubts about emphasizing the term "dukkha" rather than suffering right from the beginning, but I'm not certain on this. I realize it is more technically accurate, but I wonder if it might be confusing to many readers in a general audience. I'm not sure though. Best regards, Dorje108 (talk) 16:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I think you've got a point there, though "suffering" also adds to misunderstanding, in my opinion. Painful circumstances and experiences may be lumped together with the subjective experience of these circumstances. In that case the FNB might suggest that, by following the Buddhist path, one reaches some kind of heaven on earth and will never endure pain anymore. Which definately won't be the case. What's the opinion of other Wikipedians on this? Joshua Jonathan (talk) 08:59, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

p.s. I created the section on "Summaries" because I wanted to put a summary of the FNT near the top of the article, and I anticipated that whatever summary I choose, someone would say "hey, wait, there's a better summary." So it was just to show that there are a multitude of ways to summarize these truths. Dorje108 (talk) 17:01, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Even worse: we're just two persons, and we're already discussing on this article. How many people read this, and have still other opinions? It seems to me that this article will stay 'fluid'. But it's good to exchange opinions; it adds to understanding and open-minded thinking. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 08:59, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Translations for dukkha

Someone using an IP address edited the intro to use "pain" as one of the translations for dukkha. I am not aware of any respected sources that use "pain" as a translation for dukkha, and even if one source does use that translation, it would be an atypical or uncommon translation at best. Please correct me if I am wrong here. -- Dorje108 (talk) 02:01, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

There are, though I was wondering too if "pain" is a useful translation: [1][2]. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 05:17, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. Though I don't think either of the sources that you cited meet the WP criteria for reliable sources. The Buddhanet site seems like it is aggregating material for different sources--at least it is very difficult to tell who wrote what. And I can't tell if the other source has published any books or papers, etc. In addition:

• Both sources are providing interpretations of the First NT. Neither mentions the word dukkha, nor do they directly imply that they are translating that word.
• Both sources use the word "painful" rather than "pain", in any event.

I am going to edit this again and remove "pain" as a translation. It would be useful to develop of list of the terms used to translate dukkha and the corresponding "reliable" sources. - Dorje108 (talk) 01:33, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Just found this explanation from Rupert Gethin:

Rich in meaning and nuance, the word duḥkha is one of the basic terms of Buddhist and other Indian religious discourse. Literally ‘pain’ or ‘anguish’, in its religious and philosophical contexts duḥkha is, however, suggestive of an underlying sense of ‘unsatisfactoriness’ or ‘unease’ that must ultimately mar even our experience of happiness. -- Gethin, Rupert (1998-07-16). The Foundations of Buddhism (p. 61). Oxford University Press. Kindle Edition.

So this literal meaning is appropriate in the article on Dukkha. But for the introduction to an article on the FNT, it is misleading. - Dorje108 (talk) 02:00, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I've added the above quote from Gethin to the article on Dukkha, in the etymology section.

List of terms used to translated Dukkha

Translations used for dukkha in the context of the FNT:

• Suffering: Thich Nhat Hanh, Ajahn Succito, Chogyam Trungpa, Rupert Gethin, many, many others
• Stress: Thanissaro Bhikkhu
• Uneasiness: Chogyam Trungpa
• Unease: Gethin
• Unsatisfactoriness: Gethin - Dorje108 (talk) 02:00, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
• A basic unsatisfactoriness pervading all existence. - Bhikkhu Bodhi - Dorje108 (talk) 02:21, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
• Anxiety - Trungpa (The Truth of Suffering, pp. 8-10) Dorje108 (talk) 10:11, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Shortening of quotes & moving info to footnotes

As all of you noticed, I shortened some quotes, and moved info to footnotes, to shorten the article. With apologies to Dorje108, but I think that a lot of commenatry was on the lenght the article had begotten. Useful additional information is still given, but in the footnotes. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 10:49, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Just a quick note, I don't think the length of the article was an issue, just the over-reliance on quotes. I think as long as the article is clear and well-sourced, the length can be flexible. Dorje108 (talk) 14:55, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Agree and disagree. A shorter text is easier to read, to my opinion. Shortening some quotes makes the article shorter anyway. Moving summaries of the FNB to the footnotes has the same effect. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 17:55, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the more I look at it, the more I think your surgery was very effective. :) Separating out the footnotes from the other references makes it much easier to read the footnotes. So, for example, I think putting the summaries in the footnotes was a good move, though it took me a while to see it. No doubt the quotes needed to be shortened, and I think you did a good job one this. - Dorje108 (talk) 01:24, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Explanation of Pali terms

I'm stil not satisfied with the position of the section on the Pali terms in the article. My opinion (in the beginning of the article) and Dorje108's opinion (after the explanation of the FNB) have already been given; what's the opinion of other Wikipedians? Joshua Jonathan (talk) 10:49, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Boorstein's interpretation

I's like to move Boorstein's wording to the footnotes too. Brazier and Epstien really give new tarnslations & interpretations, making conections also to psychology. Boorstein's seems more of a rewording, so another summary. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 10:49, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

"Life is challenging" seems more like an interpretation of the first NT than a rewording. She is obviously not trying to translate the term "dukkha". I would leave it for now so we can think about it some more, but I really don't feel strongly about it. (talk) 15:16, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Oaky. By the way, I split your response, to keep a clear track of all the issues. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 17:55, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

On reflection, I think either placement is fine. So I suggest to go with your instinct. Dorje108 (talk) 01:36, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Epstein's interpretation

But in your summary of Epstein's interpretation, I think you are putting some of his words together in ways that Epstein never did. Saying "...inevitability of humiliation in our lives of our narcissistic self-esteem," is a lot different than saying, "inevitability of humiliation in our lives." Epstein provides a simple, clear summary on p. 42 of his text without any mention of Wincott or his theory. I suggest we stick very closely to what he actually wrote. With a topic like this, I think it's very easy to unintentionally add layers of meaning when you try to paraphrase or summarize some of this material. Best, Dorje108 (talk) 15:16, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

p.s. I realize Epstein talks about Winnicott later on in the text, the point is Epstein is presenting his summary w/o mentioning Winnicott. Dorje108 (talk) 15:21, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I thought he mentioned Kohut, but when I checked the index it appeared that he relies on Winnicott. I mentioned this connection explicitly, because it's illuminating (what's in a name). See [3] and [4] (academic, so unfortunately you have to pay to read it, but to get an impression). I'll see if I can find some accessible material. It's really interesting! Joshua Jonathan (talk) 17:55, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Proven again: discussion is good, I kept on thinking about Winnicott, Kohut and narcissism. Why are they important?

Winnicott introduced the notions of "True self" and "false self" into psycho-analysis. "True self" is commonly understood as a nucleus, covered over with social conditioning. The popular idea is that getting to know yourself is to liberate yourself. Kind of a modern gnosis, including recovering repressed memories. What Winnicott states, is that this true self is not a "thing", but the flow of living, less (but not totally uninfluenced) hindered by fear and social adaptation. The connection with the discussion on Buddha-nature as either a "thing" or as indeterminable "emptiness" is clear, I guess (any-one from the Buddha-nature discussion reading along? :))

Kohut states that we humans are no islands on our own, but are always interconnected. Self-esteem is not a matter of shutting ourselves off from others and totally focusing on controlling on restraining our impulses and feelings. On the contrary, self-esteem has got everything to do with satisfying relations with others. Being hurt, you don't get over it by withdrawing, but by opening up to others empathically, even though you feel vulnerable or insecure. In my experience (this is for Peter too!, emphasizing experience), this opening up is akin to vipassana: staying with what is, what hurts. Tolerating the anxiety and inability to change situations, by example when you're with someone who's really very ill. The space you give yourself this way, is the space you give to others. Karuna.

What both make clear is that the fixation of modern spiritaulity on the (gnosis of) the self and 'helping yourself, before you help others', is a dead-end. "Saving all the sentient beings" is opening up to yourself and others, daring to be dependent and vunerable, recognizing that your own pain and hurt is also the pain and hurt of others. Not everything can be fixed - but we can recognize that we are hurt, and powerless, and learn to stay with it, instead of running away. The second truth: samudaya, with pain comes the urge to run away and make it better.

So, that's a long story, full with personal POV. But I dearly wanted to explain why Epstein, and with him Kohut and Winnicott, are important - to my opinion. Best regards to all of you, Joshua Jonathan (talk) 06:52, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

And, as promised, some real links:

Kohut

• Lorne Ladner, Positive Psychology & the Buddhist Path of Compassion
• Paul C. Cooper, Attention & Inattention in Zen and Psychoanalysis
• Ann Gleig, The Culture of Narcissism Revisited: Transformations of Narcissism in Contemporary Psychospirituality
• Jakob Håkansson, Exploring the phenomenon of empathy

Winnicott

• Linda A. Nockler, The Spiritual and the Psychological Meet: Lessons from for Students of Awareness Practices
• Daniel G. Radter, A Buddhist reinterpretation of Winnicott
• FREDRIK FALKENSTRÖM, A Buddhist contribution to the psychoanalytic psychology of self
• Janice Priddy, Psychotherapy and Buddhism: An Unfolding Dialogue. The Four Noble Truths in Buddhism

Just in case you might get bored and really have nothing else to do... Joshua Jonathan (talk) 07:12, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

The Buddha as doctor

I'd prefer to change this subsection into a footnote too. It's interesting, but not indespensable. It also 'breaks' the flow of the article a little bit. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 10:58, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I'v etaken the liberty to make this change already, after changing the exact wording of the Pali terms into a footnote too. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 11:06, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I think this analogy is a key to providing a simple explanation of the FNT. It's a common metaphor used in many commentaries. Another analogy is see a problem, analyzing the problem, finding a solution (Ringu Tulk, p. 22 approx). Give it some thought. Maybe we'll get a third opinion. :) Dorje108 (talk) 14:23, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay, let's see what more opinions there are. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 17:55, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm OK with this move on reflection. I see what you mean about the flow. Overall the article flows nicely, and all the information is there, so I think it's OK. Dorje108 (talk) 02:01, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Removing tag

So, we move on to the Twelvefold Link of Dependent Origination? ;) Joshua Jonathan (talk) 18:56, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I admire your enthusiasm! :) I'll need to take a break for a little while, but I'm up for working on the twelve links. The article on dukkha could also use some TLC. - Best, Dorje108 (talk) 02:42, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Necessity for including other views

It is within Wiki rules that impartiality is maintained in articles. An article is rich and correct only by presenting others views and not just one sided view or one sided interpretation (about the Four Noble Truths). Nichiren Buddhism acknowledges the Four Noble Truths as a valuable teaching of the Buddha but NOT as the final teaching of the Buddha: http://www.sokahumanism.com/nichiren-buddhism/Four_Noble_Truth_in_SGI_Buddhism.html - and this view should be also considered and not constantly erased or suppressed into a corner and ignored from the article. There ishould be no reluctance from contributors from facing the diversity of Buddhist teachings with openmindedness and impartiality. If Nichiren Buddhism's view about the subject is wrong, then fine, let it be shown and let it speak of itself - but please do not erase it, delete, change titles etc...just to hide that view. SafwanZabalawi (talk) 04:35, 14 January 2012 (UTC)SafwanZabalawiSafwanZabalawi (talk) 04:35, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me that the issue at stake here is not the FNB, but the development of Mahayana. Mahayana emphasized it's own doctrinal developments, but had a problem with the authority of the oldest sutra's, being the words of the Buddha himself. What to do with this authority? Downgrading, stating that there also was a 'hidden teaching' which became revealed later. But this is a topic on itself, which belongs to the articles on Mahayana Buddhism, or Nichiren. It does not add to the understanding of the FNB; it adds to the understanding of Mahayana-Buddhism. That's what I think. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 06:40, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I completely agree with Jonathan. Most of the material in the new section "Other views..." belongs in another article. We could use a section that addresses the how the different traditions regard the FNT, but this section should only contain a sentence or two for each tradition (and then a link to the corresponding article for that tradition). For example:

• In the Theravada tradition, the FNT are regarded as the main teaching for study and practice.
• Within the various Mahayana traditions, the FNT are regarded a foundational or preparatory teachings, but some of the Mahayana sutras are considered equally important.
• Within Nichiren school of Mahayana Buddhism... etc.

Something like this is really all that is appropriate for this article. But to properly research this section will take time and it is not at the top of my priority list. -- Dorje108 (talk) 01:55, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

In every intelligent presentation you'll hear the words "ON THE OTHER HAND". When you want to define the FNT you must use one of the avaiable definitions and implications of a certain school of Buddhism, is not that right? But you'd agree that no one has a "patent" on the FNT! The FNT is not a private property of any school or branch of Buddhism. No one can claim authority. I find it astonishing that the FND is now shifted to question whether Mahyana has validity or authority! Let's kindly remember that ALL the sutras were recorded AFTER the Buddha's passing, and - based on that truth - they are all equal. While there are many common threads in sutras - you'll also find diversity of teachings. What's wrong with presenting a short definition of the FNT and then how the doctrine is taught in other sutras. Why to have FNT defined only by Theravada if it was also mentioned in the Lotus Sutra, with a differing perspective! We are not questioning who is right or wrong, but what is available in reality of teachings. This is not a different topic, it is the very same. In any case thank you for the discussion. BTW, I would like to offer my appology because my signature appears somehow doublled in previous inputs and this may be distracting. SafwanZabalawi — Preceding unsigned comment added by SafwanZabalawi (talk • contribs) 03:36, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi SafwanZabalawi. Your contribution on Nichiren is indeed a complement to the information already available in the article. It's just that the issue at stake seems to be more Nichiren Buddhism than the FNB, and the change in attitude toward the oldest sutras that Mahayana represents. Which is also an interesting topic. Maybe "Textual accounts" and "Other views" should be merged (and shortened), under the header "Mahayana views", with an introductory sentence which mentions that the attitude toward the oldest sutras changed in Mahayana. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 05:26, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

We should also remember that the development of the agamas / nikayas happened over several hundred years, with the Samyutta Nikaya / Samyukta Agama being the first collection with some of the earliest material, and the Anguttara Nikaya / Ekottara Agama being the last collection, with some of the latest. None of this stuff sprang right from the Buddha's golden mouth, and the oldest material from the agamas / nikayas is just a subsection of the Samyukta Agama, which probably did not contain the Dharmacakra Sutra. In fact, this oldest collection presumes the Twelve Links of Dependent Origination as the main teaching of Buddhism. Tengu800 13:09, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Interesting. Hans Wolfgang Schumann (Buddhism: An Outline of its Teachings and Schools) thinks that the Twelve Links are a later reworking of an explanation of the five skandhas, over three cycles of life;

Twelvefold chain	5 khandhas
First existence
	1. Body
	2. Perception
	3. Cognition
1. Ignorance
2. Skankara's	4. Skankara's
3. Consciousness	5. Consciousness
Second existence
4. Name and form	1. Body
5. Six senses
6. Sensation
7. Cognition	2. Cognition
	3. Perception
	4. Skankara's
	5. Consciousness
8. Desire
9. Attachment
Third existence
10. Becoming
	1. Body
11. Birth
	2. Perception
	3. Cognition
	4. Skankara's
	5. Consciousness
12. Old age and death

So, what's 'original teaching' in Buddhism? Joshua Jonathan (talk) 20:11, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

SafwanZabalawi's response:

• I have edited to a minimum Nichiren Buddhsim teaching on the FNT and on the doctrine of the Fourteen Slanders (which encompass within the FNT), both mentioned in the text of the Lotus Sutra.

• The article is a big mess. It is not an article, it is a lengthy temple lecture repeating itself on and on and on in almost each paragraph. The text is based on one sided understanding of the subject and it is begging for acceptance of similar- only similar - views such as "Sylvia Boorstein: life is challenging", and others - This is just an example of stuffing the article to a maximum length with the same sentences, almost copy and paste sentences. But when one view is different - suddenly a debate starts and on the who possesses "Authority" in Buddhism.

• Thank you Joshua Jonathan for your question: "What's 'Original Teaching' in Buddhism. I don't know whether this is the proper forum for an answer. But to give a concise answer: you do not go to buy a medicine because it was manufactured by a certain country or made by a certain factory, you buy a medicine because it is effective and actually working. I think you'd agree that this is wise to do.

There are countless sutras attributed to the Buddha, some are TRANSIENT teachings such as those denying women's ability for Buddhahood, other denying evil doers (Devadattas) or the intellect-only Shomon Engaku (sravaka)from attaining Buddhahood. The Lotus Sutra allows all people to attain Buddhahood, and it is effective for all. A summary of it's revolutionary aspects is here: http://www.sokahumanism.com/nichiren-buddhism/Lotus_Buddhism_Unique_Concepts.html

Thousands of debates - THOUSANDS - over hundreds of years took place in many temples about what is the most effective and highest capacity sutra. We're not going to add anything new. The split in Buddhism about the Buddha's teachings started just after he passed away. Shakyamuni did not write or sign any sutra, did he? We can only monitor the debate about relative merits of sutras and judge for ourselves. I think the criteria for a doctrine to be genuinely Buddhist: is to accord with the Three Seals of Buddhism and also to work for the individual and for world peace. In Nichiren Buddhism, the word Buddha is not reserved only to one person but is a state of life, Buddhahood, which we all can express. We hold utmost respect for the historical Buddha who wanted all people to be like him. Thank you for the opportunity to present my views. SafwanZabalawi

Further study & references

Does anybody care to count how many references & web-links we've thrown in now? The interested reader should have enough to study further now - or to be totally discouraged... Joshua Jonathan (talk) 11:20, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Khmer language

I am going to remove the following from the translation info box:

   Exµr Khmer
 1çTuk¡sc©; 	esckþITuk¡
 2çsmuTysc©; 	ehtunaMoekItesckþITuk¡
 3çnieraZsc©; 	karlt´Tuk¡
 4çmK<sc©; 	pøÚvRbtibtþi:t´esckþITuk¡

Can the person who provided this information please provide instead the Khmer translation for just the term "Four noble truths"? We just need the translation for "four noble truths" rather than the translation for each of the four truths. Please write this information here on this page rather than in the article itself. Just add your translation on this page below my comments, and then I will add the term to the translation box on the page. - Dorje108 (talk) 01:28, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Dukkha is Suffering

Can we please change Dukkha to Suffering. This is an English Wikipedia, the words meaning is just as accurate when written as "Suffering" and a simple link from the word to the article on Dukkha would suffice. Currently the summary and introduction are confusing and do not actually explain the Four Noble Truths, as Dukkha does not present any explanation as to the meaning of the word in the verses.

Why not have the entire verses and their explanations using the original script where appropriate for their translation of states of being and descriptions? Because it's an English Wikipedia. And to do so would just further clutter and confuse an already well known series of verses to use the word "suffering" in place of Dukkha. Dukkha's translation fits it perfectly as "suffering", to say otherwise based on slightly different comparisons is to open up every descriptive word in this article referring to original text as "inaccurate". Pain doesn't fit. Suffering does. It encompasses everything Dukkha stands for in relation to philosophy, physical pain and trauma, emotional regrets or desires, etc. etc.

Unless someone can present a reasonable excuse for keeping Dukkha and not replacing it with "Suffering", I will edit it out. 203.59.164.12 (talk) 09:29, 30 April 2012 (UTC) Sutter Cane

Precisely because it's the English Wikipedia, and not the Sanskrit or Pali, any translation of "dukkha" is also interpretation. The translation "suffering" is the most common translation. It has connotations which are different from the the Sanskrit and Pali meanings. "Suffering" is not entirely accurate, because it distracts the attention from the fact that we have an inherent urge to get away from pain. This urge to get away from pain is what is meant with "dukkha. "Suffering" shifts the focus to the painful matters themselves, instead our reactions to it. Note "a" provides several different translations/interpretations. Brazier (2001) gives a translation/interpretation which makes clear that "suffering" is not the best translation, for reasons given above. To use only the word "suffering" is to give a narrow, western interpretation.

If you nevertheless think that "suffering" is an adequate translation, please provide secundary sources which defend that "suffering" is an adequate translation. See [5] [6] [7] for arguments on the narrowness of this translation. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 10:15, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I think that, yes, dukkha is suffering, but it is suffering as seen from the Buddhist doctrine, and as such, suffering ought to be referred to, in many places within Wikipedia, by the word 'dukkha'. In what places? Well, it seems that Wikipedia articles about Buddhism regularly use Buddhist terms more often than their approximate translation, and when they do use an English term they often do so in such a specialized sense that the English term acquires the status of a Buddhist concept marker. For instance, look at Sentient beings (Buddhism), and compare to sentience. It is clear that article on Buddhism must use terms like karma, samsara, anatta, skanda, etc. They do use also in many places terms like sentience and suffering, but their wikilinks are necessarily pointing to sentient beings (Buddhism) and dukkha rather than to sentience and suffering. As a result, one can find, so to speak, a Buddhist encyclopedia within Wikipedia! The problem, possibly, is that we might have a lack of integration between various perspectives, doctrines or specialties. However, I think that the integration problem is under control as long as editors know when, for instance, they must link to the articles Dukkha or Suffering, and as long as the article Dukkha does link explicitly and clearly to Suffering (and Suffering to Dukkha). This being said, it remains that the present Four Noble Truths article uses too much 'dukkha' and not enough 'suffering'. The latter should be used in my opinion at least 50% of the time, be it only because most popular English sources about Buddhism most often speak of suffering rather than dukkha. The opinion that dukkha should not be equated to a non technical meaning of suffering is well stated in the article, but considering the unproblematic use of the word in English sources, it should still be the term that is normally used. --Robert Daoust (talk) 14:06, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Dukkha is sometimes left untranslated in Theravada works, but is never left untranslated in the works of other traditions. For example, in Tibetan Buddhist works and Chinese Buddhist works translated into English, as well as in Sanskrit works translated into English, the original word was just translated and was not treated in any special way. Also, Wikipedia Buddhism articles should not be using Pali terms for pan-Buddhist concepts (!), as Pali is only the liturgical language of one sect of Buddhism – Theravada. All other sects of Buddhism typically look to Sanskrit as their classical language, despite the fact that many early Chinese translations were made from Indian prakrit languages (vernaculars related to Sanskrit but not the same as Sanskrit). Tengu800 23:08, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Comment: I am repeating this quote from Rupert Gethin, which I mentioned previously on this talk page:

Rich in meaning and nuance, the word duḥkha is one of the basic terms of Buddhist and other Indian religious discourse. Literally ‘pain’ or ‘anguish’, in its religious and philosophical contexts duḥkha is, however, suggestive of an underlying sense of ‘unsatisfactoriness’ or ‘unease’ that must ultimately mar even our experience of happiness. -- Gethin, Rupert (1998-07-16). The Foundations of Buddhism (p. 61). Oxford University Press. Kindle Edition.

A key point Gethin is making is that even if I am feeling happy at this moment, that is still dukkha, because it is impermanent. In researching this article, I found that many translators, not just Theravada ones, emphasized that suffering is an inadequate translation for the term dukkha (or duḥkha). The words really have distinctly different meanings. Therefore, I think it is more accurate to use the term dukkha. (We are providing a wikilink for the term dukkha, so readers can click the link to read an explanation of the term.) This is a subjective point, but I definitely prefer dukkha. I actually originally preferred to use the term "suffering", but after doing the research and considering the options, I think dukkha is a better choice.

• As to whether it should be dukkha or duhkha, there seems to be some disagreement among WP editors on this, but this seems to be a minor issue to me. - Dorje108 (talk) 02:33, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

For people who are familiar with Buddhism, the word dukkha may seem natural, but for most readers of Wikipedia it may seem exotic, jargon-like, and perhaps off-putting. As to Gethin's point, I am not a Buddhist myself but I do find that the mere existence of suffering mar my experience of happiness. The word suffering is used with many meanings, isn't it?, and it has connotations of 'unsatisfactoriness' or 'urge to get away from pain', etc., hasn't it? --Robert Daoust (talk) 16:15, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

• I see your point, Robert with the concept of dukkha (whether sufferings or dissatisfaction) - marring the greatness of life and its vigorous happy nature. In fact neither sufferings nor happiness can describe the true nature of life. I am a Nichiren Buddhist for about 30 years and based on the Lotus Sutra which denies is based on joy in living, and the Four Noble Truths was mentioned in the Sutra as an elementary and incomplete (not final) teaching: http://www.sokahumanism.com/nichiren-buddhism/Four_Noble_Truth_in_SGI_Buddhism.html

. Putting the FNT as central in Early Buddhist schools, and most Mahayana as well, contradicts the Buddhist principle of non-duality, because it focuses on one only aspect of life ignoring other aspects three aspects of life: that of joy, and that of neutrality and calm (neither-nor). SafwanZabalawi (talk) 00:33, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

The Fundamental Challenge of this Page

At the beginning of 2011 I offered a simple "summary" of the FNT's as I understood them. So for example, as a summary of the second truth:

"The truth of the origin of dukkha"

I offered:

"Suffering arises from attachment to desires"

The point was not the use of "suffering" instead of "dukkha". There are certainly debates to be had about that, but it's not relevant to my point here. The point was that I reckoned that if most readers would come to the page with the following question in their mind, "What are the Four Noble Truths of Buddhism?" then simply presenting the truths "as is" isn't going to be seen as a valid answer. The classic presentation of the second truth could be seen not as an answer to the question, "What is the second of the FNTs?" but rather, "What is the name of the second of the FNTs?" I (as one such reader) saw it as analogous to someone asking "What are the Four Laws of Thermodynamics" and being given, as an answer (the numbers should be 0 through 3, not 1 through 4):

1. The law of Equilibrium
2. The law of Transfer
3. The law of Entropy
4. The law of Absolute Zero

Like the classical FNTs, that fails as a description for the uninitiated reader, because those aren't really an answer to the question, "What are the Four Laws of Thermodynamics?" They are an answer to the question, "What are the names of the Four Laws of Thermodynamics?"

Now I see that my attempted summary is long gone, although it survived for a while, and was even reverted back in after one person deleted it. But eventually it drifted away. I'm not complaining though, because since writing that summary I have been practicing Buddhist meditation and I now understand that my summary, while it seemed right to me then, isn't actually "correct" at all. But I think the fact that I (at the time a typical newbie who would come to this page) felt that the classical presentation of the FNTs, and the fact that there has been a lot of intensive work on this page over time, trying to get this right, is exposing a fundamental problem we need to figue out. And it's simply this: 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.

If I can offer another analogy. The whole thing seems loosely similar to describing the "Four Kinds of Pain" (assuming there were four). In that analogy, the classical version of the "truths" would look something like this:

1. The burning kind of pain
2. The jagged kind of pain
3. The dull kind of pain
4. The diffuse kind of pain

That's all very well until you present it to someone who has never *experienced* pain of any sort. They can certainly take from the list that the the four adjectives can somehow be associated with the pain, whatever it is. But unless they've experience pain, that list doesn't work as an answer to the question "What are the Four Kinds of Pain?" As with the thermodynamics example, it will be seen instead as an answer to the question, "What are the names of the Four Kinds of Pain?"

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.

One possible option would be to simply present the truths in their classical form, but try to get across the whole concept of how some kinds of "truths" are ineffable and need to be experienced. I know there is already some mention of that in the "Interpretation" section, but I don't think that has sufficient impact to do the job. Also, if I'd have read that two years ago, first I wouldn't have understood it, and second I'd have dismissed it as some kind of New Age fluff! So, shrug. Not sure how this could be resolved, but I think we need bear it in mind (which clearly we have been, as evidenced by our ongoing attempts to get it right. Which is cool.)

Thomask0 (talk) 16:48, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Response: Hi Thomask0, You've made some good points, and I think you are thinking this through in a positive way. In brief, I think the answer to your questions (or musings) is to find the best 10 or 20 sources you can find, and study them and analyze them, and see how they present this material. This is what I have tried to do for my contributions to this article. There is definitely room for improvement, and I hope to make additional contributions myself, but I think the way forward is to study many highly-respected, reliable sources, and see how they are presenting this material. And this way you learn a lot as well. :) Best regards, Dorje108 (talk) 17:17, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Different Interpretations

I know different interpretations of the 4NT exist, such as David Brazier's as presented in his book The Feeling Buddha. I think these different understandings should be mentioned in this article. --98.218.46.137 (talk) 16:58, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

---

The 4 Noble Truths of the Mahasatipatthana

1. Life is not running smoothly. I believe Buddha started questioning because of suffering but his answer was about life in general. Dukkha originally referred to the axle and hub of the spoked wheel. It was Sukkha when it was running smoothly and Dukkha if not (1). (The spoked wheel had been invented around 2,500 years before Buddha, in his time the hub was still being developed).

Part of the the text says: "In short, the five aggregates ... are dukkha ... the aggregate of corporeality .. feeling .. perception .. mental formations .. consciousness"(2).

So, I find this means: the process between corporeality and consciousness is not running smoothly.

2. The origin of dukkha. The 2nd (and 3rd) Truth do not discuss any of the extreme forms of suffering in the first truth. The 2nd (and 3rd) Truth discuss exclusively one subject: the process between corporeality and consciousness. They describe this process in ten steps for each of the six sense bases. The modern full translations tell us 60 times that each step "... has the characteristic of being delightful and pleasurable. When this craving arises, it arises there;"(2) It would be easy to get lost in the details of this process, the important point is the text emphasises how at any point in the process between corporeality and consciousness, craving arises as the result of delight and pleasure. This craving in relation to delight and pleasure is central to the 2nd (and 3rd) Truth of the Mahasatipatthana.

However I feel something is missing. I can feel pleasure for baked beans but I dont crave them. I find pleasure and delight lead first to preferences and then intentions. For craving to arise I need a collection of preferences, intentions and sensations. Craving is only the most extreme form of wanting. I would like to consider preferences and intentions and what happens in these very elementary forms of wanting.

The text says: "It is that craving which gives rise to fresh rebirth"(2). So, this extreme form of wanting leads to a big repetition; and, I feel sure that every small preference is and leads to small repetitions. Preferences are there because of previous references (pre-references). Every intention is a preference for the future. The past and future : The point is that it is a repetition. I am thinking particularly of the endless repetition of thoughts and how these pre-set our experience and response to what is happening now.

I believe Buddha is saying that the delightful and pleasurable, wanting and craving, all give rise to endless repetition, all give rise to not being now. Essentially this is no change from the usual understanding, only that it is reduced to the smallest factor. The process between corporeality and consciousness is not running smoothly because of preferences and intentions, because they pre-set us.

3. The Third Truth is about Sukkha : the way to get life running smoothly (1). I always imagined the 3rd Truth was to do with renunciation of those same delights and pleasures which are mentioned in the 2nd. Truth, but now another interpretation occurs to me.

The text repeats 60 times for each step of the process between corporeality and consciousness that it "... has the characteristic of being delightful and pleasurable. When this craving is abandoned it is abandoned there; when it ceases, it ceases there."(2) Here I believe Buddha was originally talking about : delight in the Dharma, the pleasure of mindfulness, the pleasure of not wanting and being now.

The best argument for this in the context of the Mahasatipatthana is that in the section on Mindfulness of Feelings we are instructed to be mindful of "pleasant feeling associated with sense pleasures, ... pleasant feeling not associated with sense pleasures."(2) (Nyanaponika Thera's translation gives "worldy" and "unworldly").

It seems Buddha saw the process between corporeality and consciousness as unavoidable, even vital.

Without the vitality of pleasure, the eightfold path becomes a matter of discipline and understanding etc., which only a few people possess. I think Buddha believed he had a simple message and method which everyone could follow ... infact the idea probably only worked instantly with people who have meditated and lived in a disciplined way for years (eg. Buddha himself and the 5 ascetics in the deer park).

Now, I never even thought of recognising pleasure during meditation probably because I always thought pleasure had the consequence of suffering. I need time to experiment with this new idea and maybe I simply do not have the discipline and am thinking too much, but at present it all seems to fit.

I find also that so far there is nothing in any of the interpretations or source texts, (especially suffering, desire and renunciation), which fanatical Hindu priests would have wanted to kill him for; but finding pleasure in anything, least of all in meditation, was taboo, unthinkable, it would have been a new, revolutionary, much misunderstood idea.

There must be other depths to this interpretation. I would like others to experiment because it seems to me : the experience of pleasure in being now and having no wants works differently to the pleasure we run after in the everlasting repetitions.

4. The 4th. Truth seems generally understood, however I would like to suggest this means simply and essentially to be guided by what is noble and true. (Find pleasure in the noble and true?)

Sources

• 1. Wikipedia, Dukkha, Etymology, Sargeant [[8]]
• 2. Mahasatipatthana Sutta translated by U Jotika & U Dhamminda http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/mahasati.htm or http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/mahasati.pdf
• Mahasatipatthana (in French, the only full translation without any paraphrasing which i have found) http://www.buddha-vacana.org/fr/sutta/digha/dn22.html
  
• references to other original source translations are on http://www.ToBeorTaboo.de/axis/dukkha/references.html

---

I only know the Mahasatipatthana and Sermon at Bernares. I know the Sermon at Bernares contradicts the above idea for the 3rd truth (it strengthens the ideas for the 2nd truth). I would be very interested in anyone who knows the background ideas in the other source texts (Lotus Tittha etc.), and if they find the above ideas reflected there. Also I dont know the original texts on the middle way, could "finding pleasure in the noble and true" be anything to do with the middle way between indulgence and abstinence?

I would like to know to what extent I can discuss things on wikipedia talk pages or if anyone can direct me to an "out of the box" clear thinking www community.

Robin Taming the hedgehog (talk) 12:37, 25 June 2014 (UTC)