User talk:Robertinventor/Buddhism Articles DRN Notice Details

To restructure the articles based on an idea that Buddha's original teachings were far simpler than generally thought

Note from Dorje: The text by Carol Anderson is titled Pain and Its Ending: The Four Noble Truths in the Theravada Buddhist Canon. This text is a very strange choice on which to base re-writes of articles on basic Buddhist concepts. I have no reason to doubt that Carol Anderson is a fine scholar and that the text in question is of a high academic standard. However, it is illogical to place undue emphasize on this text for the articles in question for the following reasons:

• As indicated in the title, the text is an analysis of the Four Noble Truths within the Theravada Buddhist Canon. Thus the text focuses on textual analysis of early Buddhist texts. It is written by an academic scholar and the presumed audience is other scholars. Therefore, we can assume that the text presumes that the audience already has an understanding of basic Buddhist concepts. The aim of the text is clearly not to explain basic concepts but to present original scholarly research into early Buddhist texts. So why would an editor choose to emphasize this text over the many texts by eminent scholars that are written specifically to explain these concepts to a Western audience? For example, in my edits I have relied heavily on scholars such as Peter Harvey, Rupert Gethin, Paul Williams, Smith & Novack, Damien Keown, etc. All of these writers have written well-regarded introductory-level texts on Buddhism.
• In Jonathan's presentation of the material in this text, he conflates the meaning of the concepts (e.g. Karma) as it is understood in the Buddhist tradition, with one scholar's research into origins of the terms within early Buddhist texts. This research in to the origin of the terms could certainly be included in the article, but it should be distinguished from the common understanding of the term.
• As indicated in the title, the text by Carol Anderson is concerned solely with the Theravada Buddhist canon. There are two main branches of Buddhism: Theravada and Mahayana. So by giving undue weight to this one source, Jonathan is disregarding the other main tradition in Buddhism.

Regards, Dorje108 (talk) 20:36, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Note from Robert, Also, it's worth noting that Carol Anderson herself makes it clear that she does not intend her book to be used in a revisionary way to change which teachings Buddhists accept or how they interprest them:

"But if I suggest that the four noble truths are not the legacy of a particular religious experience which may have actually occurred in history, is that to undercut their authority as a symbol of the Buddha's enlightenment? No, for the simple reason that the authority of the four noble truths, as an evocative symbol of a specific experience, does not rely upon the truth or falsehood of the four noble truths and other encyclopedic statements within history. The authority of the four noble truths does not rely upon the historical claim that they were in fact the first teaching of teh Buddha. The authority of the four noble truths as a symbol relies, in the end, upon the memory of hte Therevada Buddhist tradition as recorded in the Therevada canon".

(page 230 of Pain and its ending)

She is talking about the four noble truths here, but surely would have similar views on the taachings of Karma - regards, Robert Walker (talk) 20:39, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Dorje108, I've now put our notes here back into the article as footnotes and made your other two comments into footnotes Robert Walker (talk) 10:03, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

To restructure the articles based on an idea that Buddha's original teachings were far simpler than generally thought

Added a para about Carol Anderson's book "Basic Buddhism" which is a normal Therevadhan introduction to Buddhism complete with life of the Buddha, first sermon complete with four noble truths, noble eightfold path etc. Robert Walker (talk) 06:53, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

To remove sections he identifies as unnecessary

Added more details and a cite to a book about the Dhammakaya movement. Also made it clear, that the old section needed improvement. But of course, not removal. Robert Walker (talk) 06:55, 14 February 2015 (UTC)